1968 302 4V exhaust manifolds ??

[daveS]

Hey there experts! I am working on an engine restoration of my '68 GTCS. It's a 302 4V. The process is slow but fun!

We've done some to the heads to improve flow and I would like to get some exhaust manifolds that have less constriction and allow the motor to breathe a bit better. I know that there are the HiPo 289 exhaust manifolds out there (posted a want ad in the classifieds) but they seem to be sort of rare. I've seen the Scott Drake reproductions of these and am considering buying some of those. However, I have heard that the repros have quality/alignment issues.

Do you guys have any recommendations on the HiPo manifolds or the reproductions? Any recommendations on some proper manifolds for this engine (other than the stock ones)?

Thanks!
-Dave

 

[stangfan]

Have you considered the Tri-Y headers?

 

[daveS]

Have you considered the Tri-Y headers?

Yeah I've heard about those and thought perhaps they might work. My experience with headers is has been that they almost always leak. Is this the case with the Tri-Ys? Who makes these? Any clearance issues with these? Also, I was hoping to get some castings that look stock in order to preserve the "factory look" under the hood.

 

[CougarCJ]

1969-70 351W exhaust manifolds, poor mans HiPo exhaust.

 

[BigJim]

We have Tri-Y's on our 68 and have not had any problems with them. They are better then stock but I would imagine regular long tubes might produce a couple more horses but I'm not sure it would be worth the effort for a street car.

 

[robert campbell]

Scott is correct about the 351 Windsor manifolds. They are basically identical to the Hipo manifold, but they are also hard to find. The repops I have worked with are just fine. You will need to have a local guy hook them to your stock H-pipe as they are way different than stock manifolds in there exit location.

One other consideration is a shorty header. JBA is top cabin stuff. These work well with power steering and do not interfere with your power steering ram of hose routing. I think they are a definite step better than the Hipo manifolds in performance

http://www.cjponyparts.com/jba-289-...ign=shopping&gclid=CN6Sw7aiosgCFUSCfgodAXcD3w

In my opinion the best long tube on the marker is the Ford Powertrain Applications header. It clears the ram without dropping it. Tucks up very tight. It does require a late model small diameter 302 starter. And it forces you to really look at your power steering hose routing. But it will work, just check lock to lock clearance of the hoses. I have the #2 on both my cars

http://www.fordpowertrain.com/FPAindex/Mustang1.htm

Here is a pick of how tight they tuck up. Notice the frame rails in relationship.

 

[daveS]

1969-70 351W exhaust manifolds, poor mans HiPo exhaust.

Thanks Scott. Do you know if these will drop in directly with no fit issues at the head or otherwise? Are these C9OE-9430-B, passenger side and DOOE-9431-B driver side?
-Dave

 

[daveS]

Scott is correct about the 351 Windsor manifolds. They are basically identical to the Hipo manifold, but they are also hard to find. The repops I have worked with are just fine. You will need to have a local guy hook them to your stock H-pipe as they are way different than stock manifolds in there exit location.

One other consideration is a shorty header. JBA is top cabin stuff. These work well with power steering and do not interfere with your power steering ram of hose routing. I think they are a definite step better than the Hipo manifolds in performance

http://www.cjponyparts.com/jba-289-...ign=shopping&gclid=CN6Sw7aiosgCFUSCfgodAXcD3w

In my opinion the best long tube on the marker is the Ford Powertrain Applications header. It clears the ram without dropping it. Tucks up very tight. It does require a late model small diameter 302 starter. And it forces you to really look at your power steering hose routing. But it will work, just check lock to lock clearance of the hoses. I have the #2 on both my cars

http://www.fordpowertrain.com/FPAindex/Mustang1.htm

Here is a pick of how tight they tuck up. Notice the frame rails in relationship.

Awesome Rob. You are shedding a lot light for me on perhaps going with headers. Are there any fit/interference issues with either of these other than having the adjust where the exhaust pipes tie in?
-Dave

 

[clubpro]

Dave,

Here are a pair of 69-70 351w manifolds -

http://www.ebay.com/itm/FORD-MUSTAN...LDS-/252105875062?hash=item3ab2ae5e76&vxp=mtr

Cheers,

Ron

 

[whodat]

I am strongly considering Sanderson FF3GTS-SEC headers. I was considering the JBA Headers as well. 1650SJS
302 p/s aod a/c

 

[robert campbell]

The JBA shorty's are 1 and 5/8 vice 1 and 1/2 in diameter. Small difference, but the tube must be stretched to cover the exhaust port without anything lapping inside the port. Not a problem on stock heads, but if your exhaust openings on the head are ported it could be a problem. I had this problem with a cheap set of long tubes that were 1 and 1/2 in a diameter.

The JBA's mated well to my Edelbrock performer RPM Aluminum heads.

Rob

 

[whodat]

Not to hijack this thread but Robert that was the information I was looking for.

 

[robert campbell]

Whodat,
The Hipo and Windsor manifolds suffer from the same problem. In stock form their inlet passages are to small for heads that have been ported on a bunch. I have a set of iron heads that actually have bigger exhaust ports than the Edelbrock RPM heads.

Although you can port on both the Hipo and Windsor manifolds. They have plenty of meat on them. Just takes time.

Rob

 

[robert campbell]

Awesome Rob. You are shedding a lot light for me on perhaps going with headers. Are there any fit/interference issues with either of these other than having the adjust where the exhaust pipes tie in?
-Dave

Total bolt in. The only change is to a 302 starter from say 1985 up. They even sell high torque starters in this configuration. They are much smaller in diameter.

On the subject of the "clock-able" high torque starters, I tried two of them. They would not fit these headers.

The ball socket collector connection also saves a lot of ground clearance and does not leak.

But if you have power steering the hose routing is always an adventure. I have manual on both my cars.

Rob

 

[daveS]

Dave,

Here are a pair of 69-70 351w manifolds -

http://www.ebay.com/itm/FORD-MUSTAN...LDS-/252105875062?hash=item3ab2ae5e76&vxp=mtr

Cheers,

Ron

Cool thanks Ron. I tried the grab these but I was out bid. It turns out that he sold me another set he had, so I got lucky.

My engine is out of the car getting rebuilt right now. Once these manifolds arrive, we're going to assembly a dummy 302 block+heads we have sitting around, and also put these 351W manifolds on...this will be a fit test template. We'll drop this into the car to test the clearances before we put them on the finished motor. If everything fits well, then great! If not, I'll probably look into the headers options that Rob mentioned.

 

[CougarCJ]

I have 351W exhaust manifolds on my 1968 Cougar XR7 with factory 302-4V. I am running a cable clutch system with a T-5 transmission. I don't believe that there would be a problem with stock manual transmission Z-bars. But then again, the factory K code engines used a different Z-bar, than C and A code 289's.
The engine bay structures on Mustangs and Cougars were virtually unchanged from 1967-70.

 

[daveS]

I have 351W exhaust manifolds on my 1968 Cougar XR7 with factory 302-4V. I am running a cable clutch system with a T-5 transmission. I don't believe that there would be a problem with stock manual transmission Z-bars. But then again, the factory K code engines used a different Z-bar, than C and A code 289's.
The engine bay structures on Mustangs and Cougars were virtually unchanged from 1967-70.

Very cool Scott...I dig that year XR7!

My GT/CS is a J code (302 4V). The heads "non-smog" versions. I've got factory AC, factory power steering and a factory C4 auto trans. I'm guessing that these manifolds will bolt right onto the heads and the engine (with manifolds) will drop right in with no interference, but I've never tried it before. My guess is that I might have to do some welding work to reloacte where the manifolds tie into the exhaust system, but also an unknown for me.

Dave

 

[robert campbell]

Dave,
Should bolt right in. I would bet that if you purchased a factory H-pipe for a 1967 K Code Mustang, it would bolt right in also. Or if your H-pipe is in good shape, any quality exhaust shop should be able to modify it.

I like basically stock cars to have the factory H-pipe. I have worked on many a car with a custom exhaust that gets in the way when you want to drop a tranny. Auto or manual!! The factory H-pipe is designed to allow for tranny removal without dropping the exhaust.

Rob

 

[daveS]

I received some 351W "poor man's HiPo" manifolds last week. I compared them the the stock 302 manifolds from my car. The bolt patterns to the head are nearly identical so that is cool. However, there are some signficant differences:


Driver's side manifold is fairly different:
1. The drivers side manifold is several inches thicker (width) than the stock manifold. I am unsure if this will interefere with anything, but it seems like it might.

2. The location of exhaust pipe connection is about 3" further away from where the stock on is.

3. The exhaust pipe connection is about 5" lower to the ground that the stock on and also at about a 45 degree angle rather than straight.


Passenger side manifold is more similar than the driver's side, but still quite different:
1.The 351W manifold is also thicker (wider) than the stock 302 manifold.

2. The location of 351W exhaust pipe location seem to be about 1" higher than the 302. This area of the manifold is also slanded down at an angle rathter than straight.

With both of these, my concern is that they will both stick out further on either side of the engine than the stock manifolds. Any thoughts on potential interferences?

I think I can probably manage the different exhaust pipe tie in locations and the fact that these are angled as opposed to straight. Need to look at the suspension, etc to see if they'll clear.

Have any of you used these 351W manifolds on thier GT/CS?

Here are some photos of the driver's side comparison (quite a difference):

 

[daveS]

Here are some passenger side manifold comparison pictures: