CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Iron Vs. Aluminum Heads

twiget

1/2 ton status
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Posts
325
Reaction score
1
Location
Down South
What is the difference between the 2? I know aluminum is lighter, so there is a weight savings. Aluminum also conducts heat better than iron, but I am not sure how that would affect things. A cool head could equal denser air/fuel mixture, resulting in more power I guess. So lets hear form the experts!
 
There's internet brawls all about aluminum versus iron heads...

There is the obvious weight savings you spoke of with aluminum (and it is significant). Al does also conduct heat better. This latter fact means that hot spots on the head are less likely to build up and cause detonation, so you can run higher compression ratios.

Now, that being said, you want to keep combustion chamber temps up to get the most power, so all other things being equal you may have to run higher compression just to get the same power as an equivalent iron head.
 
Aluminum allows higher compression all else being equal. That is because it transfers heat faster than iron.

Heat=power. Upping the compression simply allows one to gain back the heat, making performance nearly equal.

However, there is at least one dyno test out there, if not multiple, showing that iron heads will make MORE power than an aluminum head.

Of course, as with everything, if variables are introduced, it throws everything off. You can't compare an AFR AL head to a 1969 camel hump and say that because one performs better than the other one material is better than the other. :)

IMO AL heads are better simply for the weight savings, and they PROBABLY cool a bit better. But I wouldn't pay twice as much simply to save 40lbs on a 5000lb truck.
 
AMEN! Great advice above! Great facts too!

And to add to that, aluminum is not as tolerant to overheating, etc. They will warp quicker, and have other excessive heat related issues quicker. Iron heads are very durable. Another benefit to aluminum is that they are easier to repair. But with the current price of a really good set of iron heads, you could buy a new set with about what a good welder would weld on your aluminums for. The last reason that people use aluminum in the race world is that they are so much easier to port, cut, weld on, etc. But that just isn't an issue in our world.
IMO The money difference could be spent elsewhere and make more power than going with aluminum over iron.
And for the denser air/fuel misture; your mixture is a given and flowing at a rate that cannot really absorb the heat from the head to make any real difference until it is already locked in the combustion chamber.
 
Great info, thanks guys. If the periodic table of elements is to be believed, aluminum is about 50% ligther than iron, which is a considerable weight savings, as mentioned above.

I want to maximize the MPG from my suburban, and one way to do that is to reduce the weight of the truck. Between aluminum heads & intake, and a fiberglass hood (and fenders?) that should easily be a hundered pounds or more off the front of the truck.

I know a higher compression ratio might = higher octane gas. Would a higher CR yeild better MPG also?
 
Many of the additives used to increase octane rating in gas many times reduces mpg in favor of the knock reduction. So you might get worse mileage by using higher octane fuel especially if ethanol is the additive.

Unless your engine computer is reducing your timing in response to excessive knocking, you probably won't see an advantage.

In my limited experience, trying to wring out mpg from a 2 ton brick moving through the air by removing 100 lbs isn't going to work. I added a couple hundred pounds to mine and there's no measurable mileage difference.
 
Unfortunately, Oregon mandates E10. So I dont fill up in Oregon unless I have to. Washington gas stations are hit and miss. Some are E10, some are not.

I realize shaving some weight will not make a drastic increase, but every little bit helps.
 
On most production vehicles, the single biggest load on the engine at any speed over about 5 mph or so is going to be air resistance.
There is a lot of load to overcome the inertia when starting up, but then once up to speed, on level ground, the main three loads that use up gas are gong to be:

Internal friction ( No, not the wife nagging you, gears rubbing, mains rubbing, pistons scrubbing, etc. ) This can be eased to a certain extent by the use of better lubricants, such as synthetic oils. How much would that help? Ah, theres the rub<G>.
I'm not going down that road this trip.

I think that just about everyone will agree that they are slipperier and will reduce friction, but do they make sense economically? No comment at this time.

The next user of gas is rolling friction. The amount of work it takes to roll the tires down the road. The harder the tire compound and the higher the pressure ( less flex) the less gas used. But there is always a trade off.
Tires made out of the stuff they make rubber worms out of would have great traction and make for a nice ride, but would not last long and would really eat up the gas.

At the other extreme, tires made of hardened high carbon steel would give great gas mileage, but would have other disadvantages.

Your best bet is to keep your tires inflated to the maximum recommended amount, and look into higher pressure tires when you buy the next set. Also radials roll easier than bias belted ones.

But, the last one is the biggest. Air resistance. It increases approximately at the cube of the speed. In other words, if you double the speed, 2X, you get 2X2X2 or 8 times the resistance.

Its easy to see how much force it takes to push your truck through the air. Just stick your arm out the window at abut 70.
Turn your hand flat to the direction of travel and then sideways.
Then stop and get out and look at all the flat surfaces on your truck facing forward.
Anything you can do to make the air flow easier over your truck will help your gas mileage. As will slowing down.

J.
 
Unfortunately, Oregon mandates E10. So I dont fill up in Oregon unless I have to. Washington gas stations are hit and miss. Some are E10, some are not.

I realize shaving some weight will not make a drastic increase, but every little bit helps.

Why do you avoid the e10? Is it detonation or just poor performance?
 
I got 14.5 last weekend filling up in Oregon, 15MPG filling up in Washington. I don't think gas matters when talking 87 octane, and our trucks economy.

15MPG was about 25% trailering with around 1000lbs/75% unloaded 500lb trailer, 14.5MPG loaded 75% trailering with 1000lbs/25% unloaded 500lb trailer.

I used cruise the entire time (about 550 miles), and 95%+ of the driving was freeway, always 60MPH.

IMO narrow tires and as little height as possible will increase mileage much more than dropping 100 pounds.

As a "decent" average, in a gas K/V truck, you are talking 15MPG. A 10% MPG increase is 1.5MPG. Rough estimate, assuming 10% MPG increase (wildly optimistic), $2.50/gal, 30 gallon tank, it would take 200 fillups to break even based on $1500 investment (AFR heads, new intake, misc parts).

Twice a week fillups it would take 2 years to break even. Halving the parts cost would halve the break even time of course. Conversely, once a week fillups would double the time required to break even.
 
On most production vehicles, the single biggest load on the engine at any speed over about 5 mph or so is going to be air resistance.
There is a lot of load to overcome the inertia when starting up, but then once up to speed, on level ground, the main three loads that use up gas are gong to be:

Internal friction ( No, not the wife nagging you, gears rubbing, mains rubbing, pistons scrubbing, etc. ) This can be eased to a certain extent by the use of better lubricants, such as synthetic oils. How much would that help? Ah, theres the rub<G>.
I'm not going down that road this trip.

I think that just about everyone will agree that they are slipperier and will reduce friction, but do they make sense economically? No comment at this time.

The next user of gas is rolling friction. The amount of work it takes to roll the tires down the road. The harder the tire compound and the higher the pressure ( less flex) the less gas used. But there is always a trade off.
Tires made out of the stuff they make rubber worms out of would have great traction and make for a nice ride, but would not last long and would really eat up the gas.

At the other extreme, tires made of hardened high carbon steel would give great gas mileage, but would have other disadvantages.

Your best bet is to keep your tires inflated to the maximum recommended amount, and look into higher pressure tires when you buy the next set. Also radials roll easier than bias belted ones.

But, the last one is the biggest. Air resistance. It increases approximately at the cube of the speed. In other words, if you double the speed, 2X, you get 2X2X2 or 8 times the resistance.

Its easy to see how much force it takes to push your truck through the air. Just stick your arm out the window at abut 70.
Turn your hand flat to the direction of travel and then sideways.
Then stop and get out and look at all the flat surfaces on your truck facing forward.
Anything you can do to make the air flow easier over your truck will help your gas mileage. As will slowing down.

J.

I've already knocked the pressure in my tires up to the max. I have not switched to synthetic yet. I'm burning oil somewhere. Need to track that down before I spend the extra $$$ on synthetic.

As for the aerodynamics, there is not much I can do with it, other than maybe get rid of the big dumbo ear towing mirrors. A suburban is not much more areodynamic than a brick.

Why do you avoid the e10? Is it detonation or just poor performance?

I avoid the E10 becuase a gallon of ethanol has less energy than a gallon of gasoline. So even an 10% blend of ethanol will reduce the MPG.

A little bit of trivia. The factory Corvette team, which races in the American Lemans, switched to E85 a year or two ago. They got permission from the ALMS officials to cary extra fuel onboard because of the reduction in MPG between gasoline and E85.

I got 14.5 last weekend filling up in Oregon, 15MPG filling up in Washington. I don't think gas matters when talking 87 octane, and our trucks economy.

15MPG was about 25% trailering with around 1000lbs/75% unloaded 500lb trailer, 14.5MPG loaded 75% trailering with 1000lbs/25% unloaded 500lb trailer.

I used cruise the entire time (about 550 miles), and 95%+ of the driving was freeway, always 60MPH.

IMO narrow tires and as little height as possible will increase mileage much more than dropping 100 pounds.

As a "decent" average, in a gas K/V truck, you are talking 15MPG. A 10% MPG increase is 1.5MPG. Rough estimate, assuming 10% MPG increase (wildly optimistic), $2.50/gal, 30 gallon tank, it would take 200 fillups to break even based on $1500 investment (AFR heads, new intake, misc parts).

Twice a week fillups it would take 2 years to break even. Halving the parts cost would halve the break even time of course.

When I first bought my suburban, I was getting around 7mpg (2500 with a 454, TH400 & 4.10's). I put in a set of 3.42's, and turned up the PSI in the tires. Now I'm up to 10mpg combined.

I realize trying to maximize the MPG of a big ass suburban is a money loosing plan. But heck, it's my money, and I love the idea of having a 2500 suburban that gets 20+mpg on the highway.
 
I don't think you'll get anywhere NEAR 20MPG. I hate to be negative, without going hybrid or diesel, it ain't happening. If it was possible, GM would have done it.

They can't pull that out of new ones, and that should tell you something.

As an edit, you can probably go back and search my posts on economy about 5-7 years ago. I expected with TPI, Vortec heads, higher compression, better exhaust, better pistons, decent gears, narrow tires, and a lightened truck (stripped interior) I would be somewhere on the order of 20MPG+.

Look at what I'm getting now. I have about equaled what I got from a 1983 K5, stock with 305/carb/700R4/NP208 and 31" tires, but I've added a heavier rear axle and transfercase and 50 cubic inches. The difference between the weight or efficiency of those two setups doesn't equal anywhere near the 1000lbs I have been towing, yet my loaded/unloaded mileage is near the same. It's an admirable goal to net better mileage, but spending money for tiny gains isn't really satisfying. I've spent a fair bit of money on my setup, and while mileage isn't better, it certainly is more fun to drive.

As mentioned earlier, aerodynamics plays a huge roll, and we can't get around that. Nor can the automakers, to a point.
 
Last edited:
Why not to run E10: (by buzzz miller. Please take this post for what it is. This is a very generalized idea, and the math has been estimated for making things simple. Finding fault in a small corner is possible, but I wanted to not write too much of a book.)
Ethanol is a form of alcohol. Similar in properties to the likes of methanol. Ethanol is grown from multiple sources including corn, sugar beets, etc. Methanol is a great fuel for making lots of performance and a wide tuning window. (See alcohol running fully-cars, dragsters, boats, etc.) Although the burn rate is twice of that of gasoline. 12and change to 1 air/fuel ratio for gasoline and 6 and change to 1 for methanol. (So in a very rough estimation of math, you burn twice the amount of fuel to make the same energy. So again in rough estimations, a vehicle optimized at 20mph would get around 10 on pure methanol with no other changes other than fuel.) Ethanol is a little less than twice, but the same idea.
Ethanol is a great fuel. Lots of potential not found anywhere else. E85 is a spectacular product. All of my tests have E85 at just over 106 octane from the pump. Lots of really nice attributes. Burns very cool. Makes great power. You can run large compression without any problem of detonation. We are talking over 13:1 compression. But you just have to forget about fuel economy. With E85, 85% ethanol and 15% regular unleaded, you are burning somewhere in the range of 35% - 42% more fuel all else remaining standard. If you want to build a vehicle specifically to run on E85, then great! Do it! A 550 horsepower small block, or 700 horsepower big block is not difficult on E85. If you have it available at the pump near to you. DO IT!
But it does not help anything unless you have set the system up to be optimized with it. Without upping the compression, adjusting camshaft profiles, or at least upping the timing, you will not see an advantage by puting ethanol in your vehicle. You pretty much have to start over and design an engine to run on E85. You could do slight but similar adjustments to optimize on E10. Unless there is a problem with your car that is set up for standard gasoline, like it is pulling out timing from a knock sensor or something like that, E10 will not make more power. It cannot. It will also get worse fuel economy. It has to. You can't cheat physics and mathmatics.
But it sure does make great power. Here is my last E85 build;
k39.jpg

Oh yeah, and engine is just an air pump. If you get air in and out with less disruption and resistance, you will make more power and use less energy to do it. That is how you increase MPG. But to think that there is some magic trick, or some 1970's carburetor that was government or oil companies covered up that did it, you are listeneing to the same tall tales of a perfect woman or a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. 16 or so is really good for a big tire, lifted blazer.
 
What about the normal iron heads vs the vortec heads, are they a simple bolt on, lets say a TBI engine??
 
Vortec heads aren't a simple bolt on for anything. At best on a carbed setup with a stock cam, you need a new intake.

At worst, you need new valve springs, new intake, adapters for the intake (if TBI) new tuning, etc.

There are better aftermarket heads out for comparrable price, than stock Vortecs.
 
just asking mine is already carbed, i was thinkint on the aluminum head upgrade but cant really decide on wich, ill let you guys do it for me:D
 
I guess there are a few questions to find the right head.
Are you set on aluminum? What price range? What is your engine? What cam are you currently running, or plan to run?
 
The best things you could do for mileage on a burb are:

-get an overdrive transmission with lockup torque converter (or manual with overdrive gearing)

-get tall skinny tires

-get tall (numerically low) gears

-keep your truck stock height or even lower it

-get a 2WD

-get a diesel
 
I think the weights savings with aluminum heads on a truck is a moot point, It's not going to help much to save 40 pounds when you weight 5500.

I think what would be ideal is saving for a ls1
 
Air resistance. It increases approximately at the cube of the speed. In other words, if you double the speed, 2X, you get 2X2X2 or 8 times the resistance.
Not true. Drag increases quadratically with forward velocity (i.e.: it's proportinal to the square, not the cube of velocity). It is indeed the largest contributor at highway speeds on level ground like you said.

Weight is the biggest factor towards fuel consumption when accelerating from a stop or going uphill (dependent on the grade and the speed you're at).

I got 24MPG at 65MPH in my stock-height 1/2-ton shortbed pickup with 3.08 gears, 33x9.5" tires, a 700R4 burning diesel with a turbo. That truck weighed considerably less than a Burb.
 
Top Bottom