351w Head Suggestion

[jaystang]

Hey Guys,
I'm in the process of rebuilding a 351w and I'm looking to see what my best option for heads are. I'd like to beef up the proformance a bit, but i'm not looking for extreme power. I'm planning on putting a mild cam and a 4v edelbrock 600cfm carb. The block is dated as a 1984 block. I think its safe to assume that the heads on it are 2v heads. Running a 4v carb w/ 4v heads is ideal right? I'm on a very tight budget and can't afford new aluminum heads, so I was hoping to find something more in the used/rebuilt/or rebuildable area. Any suggestions anyone might have would be great!

Thanks,
~Jamie

 

[robert campbell]

Jamie,
I need to do some research on the combustion chamber size on the 84 351 head. The old 69/70 351 head had slightly bigger valves and were the hot choice until the after market world kicked in. They had slightly larger combustion chambers that would lower your compression, but could be milled enough to make this go away.

Your motor is new enough that I need to ask a couple questions. Does the stock 351 intake have 6 bolt holes on each side or 12 total like a 302? Early 351 used 8 on each side or 16 total. Somewhere in the late 70’s early 80’s the head on a 351 is identical to a 302 head. No difference. Or do you have early heads?

Answer this question and I will give you a suggestion or two.

Rob

 

[jaystang]

The intake is a 12 bolt. As for the heads i'm not positive what they are, i have yet to find a casting number (they were a rusty mess). The engine actually came out of a 1995 pickup truck. The guy said he purchased it as a rebuilt motor 4 or 5 years ago (it was used in a snow plow truck which explains the rust). That leads me to believe the heads could really have been off of anything. I will let you know if I can determine exactly what they are.

Thanks for the help!

 

[di81977]

Jamie,

Not an expert here, and not sure this is relevant to an 84 block. Typically the 2v heads are more desirable due to smaller combustion chambers resulting in higher compression ratio. (I know the Cleveland had 2v and 4v heads, but did the Windsor have this also???)

My suggestion, find the money and put on aluminum heads. Lighter weight and breaths better. Second choice, look into 351C heads, makes what is called a Clevor engine. 351C heads flow much better than 351W heads. Not sure what mods are required to do this (intake manifold, accessory brackets, etc), but there is tons of info on the internet.

Good luck
David

 

[robert campbell]

Jamie,
Cast number should be in on the surface where the valve springs sit. 60’s heads start with a “C”. So a C8OE head is a 68 head. 70’s start with “D”. D0OE is a 1970 head. So 80’s start with an “E” so it might be E4OE for an 84 head. Might be E8Ae or whatever but the first two characters give the decade and year.
So a 90 head is “F4OE“ for 94. Something like that.

But you have told me what I need to know. They are the newer 351 head that is the same as a 302 head in that year. The “351” Windsor line never had a 2V/4V version. Now you have a bunch of thoughts. David is completely right! Try to save up for some aluminum heads if you can. No single modification, tuned properly, will resort in more horsepower. The Cleveland head is a good choice and the 4V and 2V heads are very different. The hot ticket is a set of closed combustion chamber “Aussie” (GTBandit where are you?) 2V Cleveland heads. You will need a matching intake. They are no bargain and were a hot ticket before the after market ramped up. Lots of people do these to be different!

The only other choice in my mind is a “ported” set of iron heads. They can make great power and there are a lot of guys doing this. But they are not cheap either. By the time you order them in they will ruin nearly a grand. Where do you live? There may be a guy near you. Or try to find some use heads on the internet. Somewhat a crap shoot to get a good set.

With what you are building the stock heads will work well. What are you putting the engine in? Are you using headers or stock manifolds? If you are not going to shorty’s of long tubes, not amount of headwork will show a substantial improvement.

Give me as much detail as you can on what you are building!

Rob

 

[jaystang]

Dave and Rob, thanks for all of the advice. This is very helpful.

Rob, for a little more detail, i'm building the 351w to mate up w/ a T5 tranny which will then go in my 68 coupe (which i later plan on making into a gt/cs clone out of). It's not a drag car or a daily driver, just a nice weekend cruiser that i'm hoping to get a little more power out of. Currently it has the numbers matching 289 in it w/ a c4. I wanted to keep that in close to original form, so that'll be pulled out and bagged for storage while i have a little more fun with the 351. I do plan on using long tube headers, but i have yet to decide on a specific set yet. The internals of the 351 i'm going to keep. The end goal is to get a little more power out of the top end of the motor, but not too much power that i need to start chaning the bottom end. I would consider keeping the heads that are on it now, but the driver side head is just a rusted mess (looked like a missing inner fender on the previous vehicle that motor was in because the passenger side is in great shape), so with that said I just wanted to weigh my options w/o breaking the bank. Are there any "low end" (cheap) aluminum heads which may work out well for a setup like this?

As for my location, i'm in the Boston area. The motor is actually down in Rhode Island so i will try to find the cast numbers when i down there next.

Thanks again for all the help guys!
~Jamie

 

[di81977]

Jamie,

Putting a 351W in a 68 coupe is an engine conversion. The 68 mustang did not come with a 351W. I currently have a 393 stroker in my HCS (essentially a 351W block).

Couple things you need to keep in mind. While the engine will bolt right in, the engine will sit a bit higher. Hood clearence could potentially be an issue with a high rise manifold and you might need to make a few modification to get your alternator and/or PS pump to line up. I have aluminum heads and needed to have a piece made (actually my local mustang shop already had them for the conversion) that changes the location of the holes for the accessory brackets. Also, you will need special conversion headers to address clearence problem underneath. They make them, check out Summitt Racing's website. Last think I can think of is to make sure you use the correct water pump so that your outlet lines up with your radiator. You might need to spend some time at your local auto parts shop finding a hose that works.

It is not as hard as it sounds and there are plenty of people who have successfully done this. For me, it was about getting the extra cubic inches!

Sounds like a fun project. Let us know how it turns out.

david

 

[robert campbell]

Jamie,
David is all over it. You have a few challanges to get through to install a 351 in a 68 Mustang, but it is an easy conversion. David mention alot of them. Radiator and waterpump are definitely a couple as he mention.

As for low end heads, Edlebrock is about as good as it gets. You might find a used set on the internet from a reputable guy. They would be a huge upgrade to your project and with the intake, cam and headers make it very potent. I would even look at the Edlebrock Performer RPM cams if I was you. Summit offers "copies" (Summit Brand) of them that are very cheap. Like 80 bucks for a cam and lifters. You may want to rethink the 600 CFM and go a bit bigger. You are wanting to go fast not save gas right? 670 Holley Street Avenger would be a good choice.

Cable clutch? Rear end ratio?

You would really like yourself for the head upgrade. Save and do it, or you will feel bad later!!!

Rob

 

[jaystang]

Hey Guys,
I've been doing a bunch of research and I'm back with another question.

First off I've been watching these heads, I'm not sure if anyone has any experience with these but they seem to be as close to "affordable" as i can find. Anyway i was interested in matching these up with an edelbrock rpm intake. My concern is weather or not these will match up ok.

Heads:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/e...y.com:80/?from=R40&satitle=260197074778&fvi=1

The edelbrock website says the following about the rpm intake...
"Designed for 1969 and later 351 Windsor Ford V8 high-performance engines with Edelbrock Performer RPM cylinder heads, modified OEM cylinder heads or equivalent. "

What exactly would have to be "modified" (if anything) to make this work if they didn't fit? My guess would be they would need to be port matched, but I just wasn't sure.

Thanks,
~Jamie

 

[robert campbell]

Jamie,
Never heard of this guy, but the feedback is great. They would be perfect for you. Huge amount of voluum and a ton of satisfied customers.

You may need to use the intake gasket to compare the head to the intake. If the intake port is smaller than the head port, it is not much of a problem. If the intake port is larger, it will create a lip. You will need to use a high speed grinder to match them.

My gut says these will be very close. If you put a performer rpm on an old 289 or 260 head, you would have a mismatch. I would bet these heads are at least as big as a 351 port or bigger.

I may need to buy a set!!!

Rob

 

[jaystang]

Great, this is great info to know. Thank you once again.

ps, i just realized the link was broken, its fixed now.

 

[di81977]

Personally, I think even inexpensive aluminum heads work great. My Corvette mechanic once told me that he always buys the generic heads. (No knock on top end heads, I am sure there is a big difference in air flow, porting, etc)

I just saw this in the latest Hemmings Muscle Machines magazine. It was in the tech section. Rob mentioned earlier about the bolts on the intake manifold. The original 2V intake manifold had 16 bolts. This guy wanted to know if his aftermarket Edelbrock Performer intake (part number 2181) with 12bolts would work.

The Tech guys response was that this is a common question and is addressed in the Edelbrock catalog. It says "use 12 bolt intake gasket set (Fel-Pro #1250 recommended). For van installation use OEM Ford "van" intake gasket set; will fit early 16 bolt heads with Ford 16 bolt intake gasket set."

This might show my complete ignorance, but question for Rob. The ebay sale states that the deck height is .200" thicker. Will this have the impact of reducing compression if not addressed in the rebuild?

David

 

[robert campbell]

Actually they are talking about the thickness of the head mating surface. No connection to deck height of the block. The overall thickness of the casting that makes it rigid and not warp. Basically an overall thicker head.

I counted the bolts in the picture. If the pic is correct. Only 12. I have used a set of 351 windsor heads with 16 bolt holes. the performer RPM intake will have 12 holes. If you get a head with 16 all you have to do is plug the holes that will not be used with an allen head bolt.

The intake gasket is always fun. With the heads Jamie is looking at and the performer rpm intake use the 1250 gasket as David says. He it right on!!

Rob

 

[jaystang]

I just noticed this guy offers 3 different ones. All the specs seem the same except for one is 175cc intake runners, one 190cc intake runners, and the other 210cc. What do you think is ideal here?

 

[robert campbell]

Some comparison. The Edelbrock Victor Junior head is considered a “step” into serious performance. The Edelbrock Performer RPM is more a street strip version. The Performer has 170 cc intake and 60 cc exhaust. The Victor Jr. is 210 cc intake and 75 cc exhaust. So with that in mind you have a comparison to his heads. You may want to ask him about exhaust cc size.

For your original thought of building this motor my first thought would be the 190 cc head. You were discussing a mild build. So with that in mind the smaller runners will build great torque in this motor.

Have you bought the cam yet??

Rob

 

[jaystang]

Ok great, thats pretty much what i thought. As for cam, i have not picked it up yet, but i am planning on getting the Performer RPM cam and lifter kit.

So i guess if all goes at plans i will end up with these 190cc heads, performer rpm intake, performer rpm cam, and undecided on carb at this point. If i go this route it does seem like i will have to go higher then the 600cfm. I was only planning on going w/ that because i already have a pretty much new one running on my 289. Edelbrock's site recommends there 750cfm carb w/ the rest of the RPM parts.

With all of the parts mentioned above, do you think the stock bottom end will be ok? Diving into new pistions/crank really isn't something i want to do. The motor is extreamly clean on the inside (only 40,000 miles on it), so i'm ok with leaving the bottom end as is, as long as it will hold.

 

[di81977]

Carb selection - have you seen this on the Holley website. Might be of interest. I switch off between an Edelbrock Performer 600CFM and a Holley 750Double Pumper. They both work fine, but when I race, I use the Holley.

david

 

[jaystang]

Thanks Dave, I will look into the holley carbs. I was kinda partial to sticking w/ edelbrock due to satisfaction in the past, and keeping consitancy w/ the rest of the parts on the motor (ie: intake, cam, etc..) but since i'm not going to be going w/ edelbrock heads may as well weigh out my other options in the carb department.

Thanks.

 

[robert campbell]

Jamie,
Bottom end will be fine for your mild build. The perfromer RPM cam and lifters is a great selection!! I would up myself to the a 670 Holley street avenger. But the 750 Edelbroock will work good to. The 600 CFM Edelbrock will work with a bit of jetting. May hold you back a hair at 4,500 and above, but it would work good at lower RPM's.

The 40,000 mile 351 will be a great foundation for you build!!! You will make some great power!!

Rob

 

[jaystang]

Rob and David,
I appreciate all the help. I think you have answered all of my questions and I have great direction now on where i want to take this build. I hoping to have this complete by the spring so i will be sure to post some updates w/ the progress and perhaps a dyno.

Thanks again,
~Jamie