ENGN Builder Street RV Head
01-17-2011, 09:04 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
ENGN Builder Street RV Head
I'm looking at getting the ENGN Builder Street RV Head
"This is our STREETRV head, a PERFORMANCE PRO-Topline casting. Bigger ports, thicker casting in critical areas. It features our performance chilled iron valve guides, NEW RV springs, NEW C/M retainers, NEW machined hard locks, NEW shim pack and Steel Clad OEM Viton oil seals. A nice 6-10% added potential dropon fit for your engine, sweet early torque curve when combined with our 261C (Crawler) camshaft or our 268C/Torkr profile. (Cam sold separately)
"This is our STREETRV head, a PERFORMANCE PRO-Topline casting. Bigger ports, thicker casting in critical areas. It features our performance chilled iron valve guides, NEW RV springs, NEW C/M retainers, NEW machined hard locks, NEW shim pack and Steel Clad OEM Viton oil seals. A nice 6-10% added potential dropon fit for your engine, sweet early torque curve when combined with our 261C (Crawler) camshaft or our 268C/Torkr profile. (Cam sold separately)
This is the BEST replacement head available from any source....*EB"
I like the idea of added performance, and stronger valve springs for better reliability. Has anyone used this head with any results? Does it kill fuel economy? I mean I understand if you're using it for its potential it's going to kill fuel economy but if I continue driving like a grandma will it stay the same?
I generally do alot of city driving, but about 10 times a year go on some pretty good road trips up some hills where you're like 4k for 10 minutes doing 60 and you're definitely pushing it and this is where I feel this head would come in best for me.
Also anybody had problems with emissions?
Just curious on your opinions of this head and what kind of results people have had.
I like the idea of added performance, and stronger valve springs for better reliability. Has anyone used this head with any results? Does it kill fuel economy? I mean I understand if you're using it for its potential it's going to kill fuel economy but if I continue driving like a grandma will it stay the same?
I generally do alot of city driving, but about 10 times a year go on some pretty good road trips up some hills where you're like 4k for 10 minutes doing 60 and you're definitely pushing it and this is where I feel this head would come in best for me.
Also anybody had problems with emissions?
Just curious on your opinions of this head and what kind of results people have had.
01-19-2011, 02:35 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kingsland, GA
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have one on the way, right now. The virgin aluminum seduced me, especially since I am going to be replacing the head gasket the second time in under 1000 miles.
Trending Topics
01-24-2011, 07:26 AM
#11
Registered User
Thread Starter
I was reading a thread on here, where somebody had this head, a shortened intake on the left side with a K&N Filter and an exhaust and they said they were getting way more power and 20mpg still.
01-24-2011, 08:20 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watching this with interest. I'm fairly happy with the power that I'm making with my 22re right now, but more is always...more. 
I'm running a Thorley 555Y header with an Engnbldr 261C cam, 2.25" cat-back with a somewhat restrictive muffler (changing that next). I'm getting 24-26 MPG highway, and have a much easier time pulling hills than before.
It'd be pretty sweet to pick up a couple more ponies without losing MPG...that last is key for me, I really like my mileage and don't want to ruin it. Heh, if power was all I wanted I'd be running a 3.4 S/C.
I'm running a Thorley 555Y header with an Engnbldr 261C cam, 2.25" cat-back with a somewhat restrictive muffler (changing that next). I'm getting 24-26 MPG highway, and have a much easier time pulling hills than before.
It'd be pretty sweet to pick up a couple more ponies without losing MPG...that last is key for me, I really like my mileage and don't want to ruin it. Heh, if power was all I wanted I'd be running a 3.4 S/C.
02-05-2011, 02:07 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kingsland, GA
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just tested the truck out in a drainage ditch behind some neighborhoods. A steep hill that required 4low before can be climbed with 4high. Fuel consumption seems roughly the same.
02-06-2011, 07:44 PM
#14
>>>*Hi, troops! Just thought I would stick my 2 cents in.
Way back we were running some tests on different cams, actually I was trying to solve the common clicking problem with higher lift profiles using the stock lobe shape. I had cleverly designed (insert "swiped")...(LOL**... the lobe shape idea from another company that is famous for their "Tight lash" profiles on GM/Ford/Dodge racing engines.
Part of the testing process involved what is known as "GPM" or Grams Per Mile economy tests. Those are done at sustained throttle since no way can anyone duplicate driving styles or real world conditions on a dyno, not very well anyway.
What we found matched math, there was zero difference in fuel usage with the 261C or 268C, and we had cams from three other suppliers that were exactly the same, zero difference except for one that had far larger specs than we suggest.
We get that question a lot, since mileage is a big deal now what with the price of fuels. Of course you folks with size 14 right feet might notice a change....*EB
Way back we were running some tests on different cams, actually I was trying to solve the common clicking problem with higher lift profiles using the stock lobe shape. I had cleverly designed (insert "swiped")...(LOL**... the lobe shape idea from another company that is famous for their "Tight lash" profiles on GM/Ford/Dodge racing engines.
Part of the testing process involved what is known as "GPM" or Grams Per Mile economy tests. Those are done at sustained throttle since no way can anyone duplicate driving styles or real world conditions on a dyno, not very well anyway.
What we found matched math, there was zero difference in fuel usage with the 261C or 268C, and we had cams from three other suppliers that were exactly the same, zero difference except for one that had far larger specs than we suggest.
We get that question a lot, since mileage is a big deal now what with the price of fuels. Of course you folks with size 14 right feet might notice a change....*EB
04-12-2011, 09:05 PM
#15
I am going to order this head this week. I'm not sure whether I should go with the 261C or the 268C camshaft though. Hopefully the folks at engnbldr will shed some light when I call them tomorrow. After reading this post, I'm happy to hear I can expect some nice performance gains. 
04-12-2011, 09:18 PM
#16
Registered User
I am going to order this head this week. I'm not sure whether I should go with the 261C or the 268C camshaft though. Hopefully the folks at engnbldr will shed some light when I call them tomorrow. After reading this post, I'm happy to hear I can expect some nice performance gains.
04-13-2011, 08:09 AM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did a full rebuild recently with Eb head and 268 cam. Although I can't compare it to my old 220k head with bad ex valve, it seems to be working well. The new casting was definitely beefier then my stock casting. I wasn't sure which cam so I asked Eb and they recommended the 268 for a more daily driver setup. I'd also recommend new head bolts and only use a Toyota oem head gasket.
04-13-2011, 08:19 AM
#18
running this head on my 87 runner, with 261 crawler cam from eb. Lc header and full exhaust. I have a heavy foot, so I do notice some fuel consumption but I also have a few more add on's as well.
To me, there is a world of differance between the stock head and the EB head. The lower rpm torque is amazing, and it seems to do pretty darn good at the higher rpm range as well, although not as noticable IMO. And last as Ted stated, the valve tick is so quiet with this head set up it amazes me, I can part next to my buddies pick-up and with both running, you can't hear my motor over his valve tick(my buddy has a new motor with oem head on it)
I think anyone running this head will be amazed at the differance, assuming your going with the appropriate cam for your needs.
Major thumbs up to Ted at EB for developing a very nice piece of equipment.
To me, there is a world of differance between the stock head and the EB head. The lower rpm torque is amazing, and it seems to do pretty darn good at the higher rpm range as well, although not as noticable IMO. And last as Ted stated, the valve tick is so quiet with this head set up it amazes me, I can part next to my buddies pick-up and with both running, you can't hear my motor over his valve tick(my buddy has a new motor with oem head on it)
I think anyone running this head will be amazed at the differance, assuming your going with the appropriate cam for your needs.
Major thumbs up to Ted at EB for developing a very nice piece of equipment.
04-13-2011, 09:47 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed! I have the 261 cam and RV head on mine with the pacesetter header and it is awesome! I have a 4 mile commute in the city and I have a locked up fan clutch and I still get around 18 mpgs just driving average and keeping up with traffic. It looks great, sounds great and feels great!
04-13-2011, 10:30 AM
#20
You guys are making me giddy! I just got off the phone with EB. They're building me a Street RV head with a 268C cam, per their recommendations. He also recommended that I replace the valve adjusting screws with Genuine Toyota parts, as well as the head gasket. He said I should expect the powerband to kick in early and I should have more power between 4-5k RPM's than with my stock head. I've also got a polished intake, Supra AFM, and a Downey header with full 2.25" exhaust.
