351 windsor heads higher compression?

[turbo2256b]

After pollishing the combustion chambers on my 351W heads on off a 69 Cougar ,now on the quad motor, they ended up around 69.8CCs

[Dave84]

Ok they are " DOOE-C " heads,,, so they are good ones?

[Dave84]

sorry i meant D0OE-C

[gadget73]

Yeah, they're the good ones.

[Mercracer]

I personally would find someone who thought that they were valuable heads and sell them to buy a set of GT 40 heads.
The downside to those heads is press in stud rockers, non-hardened valve seats and most likely worn out valve guides. The exhaust ports from the factory suck. They have the 60cc chambers and the larger valves and intake ports. The smog hump on the exhaust side is what gets in the way. If you can find someone to do your machine work for cheap, they are a decent head to start with.

[turbo2256b]

In my estimation there the best heads to use on a 302. All the aftrmarket stuff is too big. If the heads have been run with leaded gas the seats should be ok. I ran my 69 headss for 180,000 miles on unleaded after doing a competition valve job on them the lead seasons the seats.

[OVERKILL]

The FS guys favour the GT40P's as the "best" stock head.

[turbo2256b]

The FS guys favour the GT40P's as the "best" stock head.

pORTED THEY FLOW THE SAME AS E7s. The E7s will accept larger valves the Ps wont becausse of the spark plug location. Most serious racers I know want the GT40s and tell me they dont want the Ps. One engine shop used to ask me if I had any 40s every time I WENT THERE. I have no use for P heads myself.

[OVERKILL]

The P heads flow a LOT better than E7's do, they flow the same on the intake side (unported) as the standard GT40's do, and the exhaust side, with the smaller valve, flows BETTER than the standard GT40's do. The revised spark plug location in conjunction with the better exhaust side makes them a more "advanced" head than the traditional GT40 casting and there are apparently people doing VERY well with them.

Cleaned up with some mild port work, they will flow over 200 on the intake side and 170 on the exhaust, and this is with the stock valves. E7's with the same type of port work typically flow ~170/~130.

As I said, they are very popular amongst the FS guys and CAN be made to work VERY well, but, since they ARE a different head, there might be a different approach to making them work. Of this, I am unsure, I have just heard a LOT of good things about them, if done right.

[OVERKILL]

For the sake of redundancy, I'm going to post some GT40P info, if you want to read more than you EVER possibly wanted to know about GT40P heads, go here:

http://www.stangpro.com/html/article...les/gt40p1.htm

Then, for the DYI porting guide for them:

http://www.stangpro.com/html/articles/gt40p.htm

[turbo2256b]

Have ported both with stock valves the P head flows the same as the E7s with stock valves. E7 will accept larger valves and flow better.

[turbo2256b]

Well I see some mistakes he made on his intake. Hope he did better on the rest.

[OVERKILL]

Have ported both with stock valves the P head flows the same as the E7s with stock valves. E7 will accept larger valves and flow better.

Read the article. There is a LOT of good info surrounding the P heads, and, as I said, if done RIGHT, they are a wicked performer. They have more potential than the E7's do because the pushrod hole doesn't invade the runner as much as it does on the E7's, that's just one of the areas where they are a better head.

The numbers from Stan's site show 240/166 for E7's, I believe those are YOUR numbers, right?

Now, the P's flow 195 STOCK on the intake side, where as the E7's flow a hair over 150CFM, that's almost 50CFM stock for stock, and the exhaust side, the E7's flow ~113CFM while the P's flow ~140, almost a 30cfm difference!

Now, I know that with some mild port work, they will flow 170cfm on the exhaust with the stock valves........... Which is much better than the E7's.

Now, I will state that your numbers for E7's are the highest I've ever seen Prior to that, 217 is the highest I'd ever seen for them. But I've seen over 240 for iron GT40's a pile of times, so I'm surprised to see you haven't gotten the same massive improvement on those heads as you have on the E7's, after all, you've improved runner flow 90cfm on the intake side, that same sort of improvement on the GT40 or P heads would yield a 280CFM intake port.............

But stock for stock, the P's are a MUCH better flowing head, that's irrefutable. Obviously, you've done some amazing things with the port work on the E7's, but if somebody is using a fresh set of stock heads with some new springs, the P's are a better choice IMHO.

I'll see if I can dig up some FS info regarding them.

[turbo2256b]

Our exhaust on the E7s is more than the intake starts with like 190 with a pipe. My issue with the P heads is once start to port them and get the air flow up there is mmore to be had but there is that spark plug boss in the way. So instead of installing bigger valves for the next up grade its off to purchase another set of heads to go to the next level. Were as my 69 351 heads started with a mild bowl port some corn rolling and stock valves. That put me in the low 12s. 180,000 miles later I have done like a stage I port flow benched this time at 235 CFM @ .5 lift with an air flow increase at each lift point.
Now sporting 1.94/ 1.6 valves. Next time they need redone they could be taken further.

After training in Ideas Cadd software I ended up without a task for a bit and redesigned the 302 family of engines to current standards just for kicks. I moved the push rods appart a bit. Added a rocker shaft and ofset rockers like a hemi not as radical of an ofset. This left me with room for just about any size port the engine needed without the interferance of the push rod in the port. This left me with the room to do a split port easly and or single port sized to the engine displacement. The heads were also designed as seperate right and left units so the ports could be aimed in the same direction for better flow. Not the typical reversed direction on the one side loosing flow because its facing forward on one side to the rear on the other. I also composed an over head cam version.

The block worked out best with two deck height versions. Giving the ability of this family of engines a range of 221 to near 460 CU INs. The block was redone based on several bore and stroke combos. Its structure was redone to reduce flex and twist .It was shortened around 1 1/2 inches over the current 302 / 351 because the cam gear was no longer needed. A gerotor pump was integrated into the block set up in a superior configuration than the Mod engine uses. Wide oil pan rails and a wider distance between crank and cam to allow for crank clearances. Bore was reduced a bit to allow water between the bores. I as working out the details of over head cam configuration when I was called upon to do some real work. Of course Ford was nt interested in a smaller lighter stronger engine package.

[OVERKILL]

Back in the 60's there was a dual overhead cam version of the 302 actually, called the Indy Cammer, pretty neat concept back then, but, like many other engines, it didn't really go anywhere due to restrictions and regulations.

I see a GREAT number of similarities between your 351 heads and the standard GT40's, the difference being the exhaust side, out of the box, simply has weaker flow than the GT40's do. I was under the impression that the GT40 heads were designed after the 351 heads, and this pretty much backs that up.

Yes, the P's are limited due to valve size, but in a class where you must run stock valves, its not an issue

Were you using Autocad for your designing? It would be fun to re-design an engine with it I think.............And it sounds like you had fun doing it!