Tod Buttermore will be bringing his blocks to market one of these days, and I plan to build an engine for my Pantera around an alloy version of his block, stripping 200 pounds from a Pantera will make a big difference. My lament is this ... I would like to use my choice of classic 4V intake manifold on my new alloy motor, and have that good ol' 4V power characteristic, but my only choices in alloy heads are small port ones. Why hasn't somebody manufactured a good ol' 4V head in aluminum?

I understand that CHI markets a 4V head, but its really a small port 3V head that's been opened up for 4V manifolds. I also understand Dave/AFD can modify his small port SP4V head in the same manner. But that's not the point. The folks who like the newer high velocity heads have a growing number of choices in heads and manifolds. But us old timers (and young guns) who like a motor that hits like a charging rhino at about 3200 rpm have no choices in alloy heads to mate up with the classic intakes (Shelby/Blue Thunder, Holley Strip Dominator, Weiand Tunnel Ram, Ford's FA single plane with a Dominator pad, and all the Boss 302 stuff too).

I would bet with the introduction of Tod's block in aluminum, there would be a market for an oem looking 4V head in aluminum too. Is anybody paying attention?

-G
__________________________________________________

I hear you George, but I don't think this will happen. Maybe we can get Tod to make them when he gets a free minute.

https://secure.demonweb.co.uk/earls100/earls_shop/images/NOS14545.jpg



"Understeer is hitting the wall with the front of your car. Oversteer is hitting it with the rear." --"Fireball" Roberts

That shot doesn't even last as long as me.... ughhh!

Buy my C302B's and you have at least a set of Ford parts. Your C valvetrain and covers will bolt right on and they will do everything a 4v will and more.

71 M code Mach 1, Tremec TKO, Wilwood SL6's, road racer.

Why not just get the benefits of a more modern 3V/4V type head? An an ally Cleveland does sound like a nice option....
Cheers, Martin

The alloy small port heads are different, yes, and they seem to perform very well. But different is not better, just different. I've never bought into the mind set that the 351C 4V needed to be re-engineered. I can understand the Aussie hot rodders wanting to improve upon the 2V head, but I can't understand why anybody would feel compelled to "stuff" a 4V intake port and make it work like a 2V intake port. WTF! I like the original 4V design and I think it works just fine. If I want a high velocity motor, I can choose a 351C 2V or a 351W. But I would like the third option, a 351C 4V in 100% aluminum.

I'm the guy who will be mashing the throttle pedal, and when I do I want my new motor to feel and sound like a Cleveland, to have that brutish "tamed" race motor feel to it. I realize I may have to "settle" for a set of CHI or AFD heads that have been altered to mate up with 4V intake manifolds. If I do I'll be tempted to paint my new motor orange.

-G
__________________________________________________

I'm also mystified by the lack of alloy 4v heads when so many serious competitors used the C for very serious hp and tq levels.

The 4v Clevo has been everywhere and done everything from Pikes Peak to Bonneville to anything else.
Perhaps the iron heads were so good that no one felt they needed to be improved upon?

Still, with an alloy block from Tod I'd really like to see an alloy 4v head to accompany it.

When the manifold is on, you can't see if its a small or large port "4v".
Why do you specifically want a "big hole"?
If you want large port, CHI make a 258CC head, and AFD are bringing out a 400+ cfm heads as well.

the manifold can't hide the fact that the motor runs like a small block Chevy.



-G
__________________________________________________

George, some of the younger guys don't understand the point you're making. The original iron Cleveland was everything that a small block Chevy was not. It was an engine that sounded, performed and made it's horsepower in an entirely different engineering approach. Huge quantities of air, fuel and spark made that brutal horsepower. I still marvel at the "sound" that Bill Elliott's T-bird made in qualifying at Tallegega in 1987, compared to the Chevy of Dale Earnhart and the Olds of Bobby Allison who sat on the outside of the pole at more than two miles per hour slower. There will never be another engine that can make that sound coming out of turn four to the tri-oval. I still get the hairs standing up on my arms when I think about it. I came home and bought my first Cleveland powered Ford. I still have that car and engine.

To get another 2mph back then out of the body he was using with the CD it had factors to an embarrasing hp disparity for Chevy, Olds, Pontiac, and Buick competitors.

Remember when everyone who didn't know squat claimed it was the swoopy tbird body?

But we ain't too old to get a "rise" out of our 3K rpm light switch.









That which does not destroy you makes you STRONGER!!

but faster

'His nickname might have been "happy" were it not for the 351 cleveland'

Wasn`t the old Motorsport A4 head the same as a 4V ? Gary

with the raised ports built in .

all three svo heads were based off of boss 351 heads . Since their were no packaging constraints they raised the ports on all three heads to "increase the radius of the short turn making the flow transition more gradual"

the A3 had the largest ports with the intakes being sort of square .

the B351 was intermediate and kind of a jack of all trades .

the c302 was arguably more like the original 4vs than the other two because they put one of the design elements back in that ford had been using since they developed their own flow stand in 1962 !

Prior to 62 draftsmen were largely responsible for intake port designs and the engineers just worked out cross sections . the ports were typically straight and uncomplicated .

when they fired up the flowbench things changed ! the 427 high riser was developed before the flow bench and the medium riser after .

what made the medium riser an all around better head ? It had a hump in the port floor which "PUSHED THE FLOW PATTERN UP TO THE ROOF ALLOWING IT TO DROP EVENLY AROUND THE VALVE CURTAIN AREA RESULTING IN MORE COMPLETE UTILIZATION OF THE VALVE CURTAIN AREA RAISING THE DISCHARGE COEFFICIENT"

By the time they did the cleveland they were using that technology along with a "kickout" on the pushrod wall which causes the flow to swirl around the valve in a clockwise direction looking down from the top . Also the valves were canted away from the cylinder walls for obvious reasons

the c302b had the hump in the floor put back in ! for the same reason they did it the first time .
This port looked rectangular and it had a kickout on the pushrod wall for the same reasons as before , going all the way back to the 60's .

the 4v head is characterised by having a broad flat short turn crest with generous area which does wonders for flow in a "side draft" head .

A 4v succesor could be made which would have all the goodness of the 4v heads left intact and probably made a little better for racing by not making some of the compromises that ford did to put these things in passenger cars .

'His nickname might have been "happy" were it not for the 351 cleveland'

For what it is worth George, I had a set of closed chamber heads with a Torker intake manifold and a big cam in my Pantera. The low end power was so poor that the car wasn't even fun to drive. It ran well above 5000 rpm, but it didn't get there real fast either. I switched to CHI 2V aluminum heads and a matching TFC 2V intake manifold and the car has never run better and that is in all the rpm ranges. Same cam, same headers and same carb as before. It also still sounds very much like a Cleveland. The stroker engine that will be built for this car using the Fontana aluminum block will have the same CHI 2V heads and TFC intake manifold that is on the engine in the car now.

I wouldn't sell these new 2V type aluminum heads short if you are going to be driving the car on the street most of the time.

Jim I agree drivability is improved with the 2V heads, and the modern crop of 2V heads all breath very well. They improve throttle response. I was putting 2V Aussie heads in cars back in the eighties for that very reason. I've recommended the 2V heads to other Pantera owners often over the years, I probably recommended them to you. I've had a life long love affair with this motor.

The issue is choice. If I want a small port high velocity head I have plenty of choice. If I want a 4V head with original Ford engineering, 40 year old iron is my only choice. I want to be able to run my choice of classic 4V intake manifold, have that classic 4V power characteristic (drivability is not the criteria) in a 100% aluminum motor.

The fuel system I've chosen for my aluminum Pantera motor is the lower half of a Weiand tunnel ram and two Holley Dominators operating in an independent runner configuration.





In my mind, this is what a mighty Clevo is supposed to look like. It will sure make the Ferrari guys pee their pants. Can you understand why I might want a 4V head for this fuel system?

-G
__________________________________________________

something who ain't got a care in the world. She could be driving a Chevy for all I care. That dog won't hunt either, I reckon.

1983, my friend had just blown up his 2 Dodge 340 in his late model dirt stock car. The rules were rather open, Holley 650 carb I forget the list number and $1,200 claim which was irrelevant 'cuz that never happened. I just happened to have my highport plated 12.5-1 engine sitting on a stand and after a few beers we decided to weld in some motor mounts and we found a set of 360 degree headers that we made fit, by the next weekend we were back at the track. We knew that the Cleveland needed a bit more gear than the 340 or SBC's so we dropped a set of 6:50's that guys only ran when the track was really tacky, Well it was dry slick, The engine screamed;that sound, that wonderful sound of a bad to the bone 357 screaming out of the corner then right up to dual valve spring valve float into the corners. With those 360 headers dumping on the grandstand side, it really barked. I'm feeling the sound as I type. After that first race we must have picked up 50 new fans and after the night was over, the were all in our pits, they all wanted to know what the heck was powering that sound. We told them it was a Cleveland Ford and the expression was like, no way, Fords don't scream like that, we said "ours does"

I talked to a guy 2 weeks ago, he still has the heads and crank/pistons/rods the 4 bolt block had 5 sleeves in it when we sold it and he put another before he gave up on it and ran Windsors. I might offer him some ridiculous amount and buy the parts back some day. Maybe next spring. I'd love to hear that sound again, even if I have to pay to build an engine for my brothers A-Mod ($500 dollar claimer class) Yikes! but it might be worth it.


Imagine if Brother Nick showed up with a 351M (400crank) block w/ a welded up Torker intake and those heads and pistons,(they would be 14-1 at 400cubes they now run alcohol. no cheeby guy in his right mind would claim it, and they all run chebbys.
blizz

All Right You Sons-a-Bitches, Let's Have a Race! Smokey Yunick

ULTRADYNE when the exhaust valve is slapped open rapidly it will make a more sharply percussive , louder exhaust note , and the strong initial pulse will help scavenge later on in the exhaust stroke .

friend of mine was telling me about his dragger , 351cid 272-282 108lsa ~.640 lift flat tappet UD lobes from lunati . he put 1" shorter tires on his stick car and bumped the shift light up about 300 rpm , put an 8500 rpm chip in which is 500 up from what he normally runs .

What do you think happened with that shorter tire turning ~500 more rpm thru the traps ? 660 feet ... FOUR MILES PER HOUR FASTER . that's a lot of speed to pick up in 660 feet especially when you consider that he was effectively using lower gears .

HOW ?

It was making more hp over 8000 rpm . 4v heads with a good valve job and MINOR porting in the throats.

If you've heard a sbc turn over 8k it really doesn't sound any different , just "faster" clevelands sound bigger and bigger the more you turn them up !

'His nickname might have been "happy" were it not for the 351 cleveland'

The Clevo with 4v heads even on a mild bottom end is still a great combo for running the standing mile in production class (stock block and heads) all the way up through the speed brackets until my old Cougar can't go any faster without serious aero mods.

I'm looking forward to the coming season but will luckily need all the forward weight I can get so the iron parts will work out fine.

Good Lord does that story take me back to 1975 and my local dirt track where I heard EXACTLY the same thing, a Cleveland turning about 7500 through those 180 degree headers exiting the passenger side of the car. WOW!!!! It made a sound I'll never forget, and years later I built my car with one of the Dr. Gas crossovers under the car to hopefully mimick that sound and it worked!! I got questioned by people all the time about what I had in the car. Oh sweet memories......

Hi all, wrong cam choice can turn a 4v headed clevo into a dog,a cam to suit a 4v wont suit 2v alloy heads and vice versa,this myth about no low down power is caused by poor cam choice in most cases,its disappointing to see these motors getting bagged because people dont understand how to cam them!

Hey George,

I hear your lament, but wonder what's wrong with AFD's 4V heads?

http://www.ausfordparts.com/afd4v.html

I seem to recall that at one time, Ausheads carried both 2V and 4V closed-chambered heads in aluminum, but now their website only shows 2V versions:

http://www.yourmail.org/ausheads/2Valloy.html

And CHI's street heads would seem to bolt right up to your intake and exhaust too:

http://www.chiheads.com.au/4v_228cc.php

I've heard nothing but bad things about Procomp heads, but they are available, and seem to be advertised as bolt-on stock replacements. Built heads are advertised on their website:

http://www.procompelectronics.com/index.php?target=products&product_id=37590

And Jegs is now carrying them bare:

http://www.jegs.com/i/Procomp+Electronics/746/3061/10002/-1

I am going to build a 408C pretty soon, and will probably wind up using the AFD heads, or if not, then the CHI street heads....

Mike

Hi Mike,

I got your email. I'll respond to it detail after I've finished the
posting on the latest round of dyno testing.

> I hear your lament, but wonder what's wrong with AFD's 4V heads?
>http://www.ausfordparts.com/afd4v.html

Those don't fit George's requirements. The AFD "4V" port is
a reduced volume port with a raised floor. It's designed to
fit the raised floor Australian single plane intakes like
the Active, TFC and Parker Funnelweb. They do not match up
to your Blue Thunder intake ports.

> I seem to recall that at one time, Ausheads carried both 2V and 4V
> closed-chambered heads in aluminum, but now their website only
> shows 2V versions:

I'm pretty sure he can get any of AFD's heads but there may be a
wait time.

> And CHI's street heads would seem to bolt right up to your intake and exhaust too:
>http://www.chiheads.com.au/4v_228cc.php

Those will work for you but George just wants a copy of a Boss 351
cylinder head in aluminum without any port or chamber improvements.

> I've heard nothing but bad things about Procomp heads, but they are available,
> and seem to be advertised as bolt-on stock replacements.

They are not bolt-on stock replacements. They are a copy of the
CHI 3V's and a poor one at that. They were down a bunch of power
to unported iron 4V heads and even more to CHI 3V heads in our
testing. I'll have comparison plots soon.

> I am going to build a 408C pretty soon, and will probably wind up using
> the AFD heads, or if not, then the CHI street heads....

The CHI's are a known quantity. The AFD's look good but I've
not had a chance to test them. However, since you want to keep
your Pantera's Blue Thunder intake, your choice will likely be
the CHI with 4V intake port. Unfortnately, CHI just raised
their prices by a substantial amount.

Dan Jones

Mike,

hey I don't see you around these parts too often, nice having you post.

As far as I know, when AFD changed the name of their head to SP4V, it represented a change in the head's intake port configuration. The first iteration of the AFD head was a 4V port with the floor filled in, a good match with the Parker 4V funnel web. The current iteration of the head is a raised 2V port, basically the same configuration as the CHI 3V head. I assume Dave understandably doesn't want to use the same terminology as his competitor, so he calls it a "stuffed port" 4V or SP4V head. I wouldn't sell the AFD head short, although it is not marketed as well here in the states, AFD has a very loyal following in OZ. Dave says he can flare open the port of his SP4V head to mate with 4V intake manifolds, thus making it identicle in concept to the CHI 4V head.

I've tried to make it clear to everyone that what I'm after is choice. I don't believe I'm alone in this. I think it would be nice to have ONE set of "true" 4V heads in aluminum available to those of us who actually like the power characteristic of the original design. By "true" 4V what I'm getting at is a head that bolts up to all the original 4V manifolds & headers and retains the good parts of Ford's engineering in the ports. A lot of Cleveland enthusiasts have strong feelings about the excellence of the original design, they like beating Wheezer (Windsor) & Chitty (Chevy) powered competitors with their 40 year old iron. The excellence of the original design and the power characteristic of that design are two of the reasons for wanting a 4V head in aluminum.

I find the selection of intake manifolds designed for the 3V heads to be very limited, and the Aussie intake manifolds are terribly expensive here in the states. But there are some very good classic 4V intake manifolds; the Shelby/Blue Thunder, the Weiand Tunnel Ram, the Holley Strip Dominator, plus Ford's various alloy intakes for the Boss 302 and Boss 351. Every US Cleveland enthusiast has at least one of these setting on a garage shelf. It doesn't make sense to me to bolt those big port intakes to a head that doesn't compliment the design criteria of the intake manifolds. The ability to use the classic 4V intake manifolds is another reason for wanting a 4V head in aluminum.

On the subject of intake manifolding, the 2V heads also have a better selection than the 3V heads. The new Edelbrock RPM Air Gap intake is an excellent design, it appears TFS will be releasing a fuel injection lower manifold soon, Parker & TFC make high rise single plane 2V intakes, the Edelbrock performer makes more sense for a 2V motor, and Aussie Speed's web site still says they're working on a quad weber IDF intake (indiviual runner). IDF Webers are a more successful street carburetor than the Weber IDA.

I don't know what you want to achieve with your motor, but if drivability is on the list, then perhaps its time to sacrifice the Blue Thunder intake and just buy a set of TFS, CHI or AFD 2V heads and the new Edelbrock air gap intake. That seems like it will be a hard set up to beat for street driven cars with power bands up to 6500 rpm. I happen to know one Pantera vendor is already offering such a crate motor with a solid lifter camshaft having docile street manners and 500 BHP on tap too (if memory serves me its a stroker motor). If street manners and power in the 400 to 500 BHP range were my top priorities, that would be the combination I would look at first.


-G
__________________________________________________

Thanks Dan, George.

My motor is going to be a 408C stroker with a roller cam; it will see a fair amount of track time, but I'm not a guy who enjoys revving the heck out of his engines, so 6500 rpm would be a perfectly good redline for me.

Because of my added displacement and roller cam, I think (that is, I've been told) that the stock 4V port sizes would allow me to realize the full potential of the bottom end, while the 2V size might be a limiting factor.

Plus, I'm in love with my Blue Thunder intake--it's been milled so it fits under the stock engine screen, a major aesthetic consideration which rules out virtually every other 'performance' intake manifold choice.

I've written to AFD to find out about availability of their 64cc 4V head with stock 4V Cleveland intake port sizes, which would allow me to bolt on my existing intake with no modifications. I'll report what I find out from them.

Regarding the Ausheads:

http://www.yourmail.org/ausheads/2Valloy.html

Dan--are you saying that this is simply another retailer of AFD heads? For some reason, I was under the impression that these were different, unique heads, and more or less a carbon copy of the Ford 2V Aussie and 4V quench heads. Although now that the website has changed a bit, reading the description, they do sound an awful like like the AFD heads.

Looking forward to hearing your collective words of wisdom on this topic....

Mike

Mike,

I think that link you have is a bit of old internet stuff (copyright on the bottom says 2002, 2003). If you click on the link that says "about us" you'll find it states those pages weren't published.

Try this link for something more currenthttp://www.ausfordparts.com/

Aus Heads / Aus Ford Parts is owned by a gentleman named Phil who operates out of Oregon. He's a good man. You wanna buy an Australian part, he's your go to guy. He and Dave both read this site, so HI DAVE & PHIL!

He doesn't manufacture heads, he just sells AFD heads, along with a bunch of other aftermarket parts & used Ford parts sourced from Australia.

I believe this is the current addy for AFD, look at the Ford heads, you'll see the intake ports are much narrower than the were years ago (3V size)http://www.airflowdynamics.com.au/

I agree a 408 cubic inch Cleveland wakes up the very low rpm performance of the 4V heads, but if you're gonna use CHI or AFD heads its a moot point, those are small port heads modified to fit your 4V manifold.



-G
__________________________________________________

Thanks George,

All this time I thought Ausheads and Aus Ford Parts were competing organizations. Somebody needs to kill the old, obsolete website.

I see what you mean about the new AFD head having different ports from the ones I've been looking at all this time on the old website.

I'm torn between going with the known quantity (CHI) and experimenting with the AFD heads...

I also am torn between starting this project soon, or waiting until this time next year. I don't see any other alternatives, because one way or the other I WILL be enjoying my Pantera on the road and on the track next spring and summer, as I have this year. :>)

Mike

I figured I would post some pics of the AFD heads I bought Early 06, Heads dated 09/05. They are the early 4V's. I may use them on new build, but are bare, may end up on E-bay.....Tim
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

Hi,

Can you provide the measurements (height x width) of both the intake and exhaust ports? I'm curious to see how they compare with AFD's current offerings?

Mike

These are my early AFD 2v heads from about 5 years ago, and definatly look different than the new crop they make. I did have AFD modify the exhaust to their more modern X-port. The new ports look small and oval on the intake compared to old.

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[Those will work for you but George just wants a copy of a Boss 351
cylinder head in aluminum without any port or chamber improvements.]


Dan, aside from a little cleanup and a good valve job, what "improvements" would you deem necessary to "improve" on a 4V head?

This is an honest question. I'm not picking a fight and I know that a lot of folks use aftermarket heads. I see the difference in the engineering philosophy. This is a "change" from what Ford engineers developed but does that mean that it's improved?




Thanks

> Dan, aside from a little cleanup and a good valve job, what
> "improvements" would you deem necessary to "improve" on a 4V head?

1. better short side radius - With minor work on the short side
radius, you can take a 280 CFM 351C-4V head and make it flow
320 CFM.

2. smaller port and bowl volume - Increased velocity at the same
flow rate makes beter power due to increased momentum.

3. improved exhaust port (raise the port floor, improve the short
side radius and minimize the area changes)

4. perhaps a revised combustion chamber

> This is a "change" from what Ford engineers developed but does that
> mean that it's improved?

If it's cast in aluminum so that it's lighter and easier to repair,
then that's improved to me. If it needs less spark advance and can
tolerate higher compression ratios on the same octane fuel, that's
improved to me. If it makes better power and torque across a wider
RPM range, then that's better to me. Ford evolved the 351C head with
the A3, then B351 and C302's. That led to the C3 Yates and SC1 and
to the D3. I'd love to have a set of D3's with matching IR EFI intake.
With relatively small ports, the canted valve D3's that Vizard flow
bench tested peaked at 434 CFM intake and 283 exhaust (w/o pipe) with
the best low lift flow he's ever recorded (195 CFM @ 0.25").

> So why in the name of sanity do we then copy Chevy cylinder head design
> and stuff the ports?

Who's copying a Chevy port? Is the Ford Motorsport A3 a Chevy port?
I guess one could argue the 351C port has it's origins in the canted
valve BBC, though.

> Damn, I could have swore I saw a picture of some Alloy Boss 302 Heads
> Now I just have to find it again, some SK part for Trans Am.

I've got some pictures of the raw castings for the aluminum 351C heads
that Ford did for the aluminum 351C block.

Dan Jones

My question regarding making the Cleveland head like the Chevy head was not aimed at the SVO variety of head at all, what I had in mind was the 3V & SP4V heads. I understand why the SVO heads evolved as they did. I also read your arguments regarding high velocity, but I believe the 4V design philosophy is also relavant and not to be dismissed so easily.

The SVO heads were manufactured for the needs of pro-level race teams. If the amateur guys benefited it was strictly by chance. The Phase I/A3 head was a mere copy of what the Pro-Stock guys were doing. Filling the intake port floor, raising the exhaust port helped the head breath better at higher valve lifts. The height of the 4V ports was optimized for 0.600" valve lift, but during the seventies the camshafts used in all types of racing rapidly progressed; by the mid seventies the NASCAR guys were running camshafts with almost 0.700" valve lift, and the Pro-Stock guys were opening the valves even further still.

The smaller high velocity ports of the B351 & C302 SVO heads were changes made in response to restrictor plates, correct? The plates defeated the operating parameters of the 4V head and they hurt the Cleveland motors much more than the Chevy motors. Besides, by the time the NASCAR teams were done porting the B351 or C302 heads to their liking, the ports were nowhere near the "as cast" volume. Although the "as cast" volume of the C302 ports actually makes for good throttle response on the street, the NASCAR guys weren't interested in response below 4000 rpm anyway, and those heads were made for them. The raised ports of those heads improved flows at higher valve lifts. Dirt track was a different story of course. A lot of guys remained competitve with iron heads in various forms of amateur racing because there were no restrictor plates. Interesting also, the C302 head returned to the practice of swirling the mixture within the intake port, the next head, the Yates head, was cast with high swirl combustion chambers instead.

I realize castng an aluminum 4V head within the limitations of the 4V manifolds will have the same valve lift vs flow limitations that the iron version has, obviously this head will be of interst only to street guys and amateur racers. That's who I have in mind anyway, we don't need state of the art. 1970 technology with a few tweeks will be good enough.

How'd I do




-G

Anyone here trial fitted D3,s on a 4 inch bore yet? how close is the intake valve to the cylinder wall,i have a set of D3,s from roushyates but no bare block to test them

lets get back to it.

You guys wanna defend the small port stuff? .... explain to me why you would take one of the best OHV intake ports ever designed, already the best intake port in its class and STUFF IT to make it work like the competitor's head, when the competitor's motor couldn't compete with the Cleveland on equal ground?

The Cleveland wasn't a defective design! It was superior! The various race sanctioning associations placed weight penalties or restrictor plates on the Cleveland powered vehicles to keep the racing competitive. Without such penalties, the Cleveland flat out smoked the Chevys and Mopars. So why in the name of sanity do we then copy Chevy cylinder head design and stuff the ports?

If you just wanna chew the fat about AFD/CHI/TFS/Edelbrock heads, please start a new thread.

Thank You.

-G

I always LOVED my 4v head on the street. Allt he old timers told me my setup was unstreetable yet i deemed it tame and daily dove the "beast"

I always loved the way the powerband came on like a 2 stroke. I would mat it from a roll, the car would start to move out 2000 it pulled like my dads built 350, 2500same, 3000same, 3500 and the tires would start to sqeal a little, 4grand and they would start smokeing even in a 2nd gear roll. My big block chevy friends didnt get why i was dead even with a built 454 and the 5.0 guys didnt get it either.... after all it was a stock motor, stock cast heads, cam intake carb headers.

4V FTW. I also want STOCK 4v heads in aluminum for my twin turbo motor all the "stuff" I built works on stock 4v exhaust and I think the HUGE ports are great under BOOST!

Set the rules then let the chips fly. Some mod help would keep it on topic. As in the past, when people want to discuss 4V heads, others need to respect the topic and keep the "use the XYZ head" comments out of it.

"Understeer is hitting the wall with the front of your car. Oversteer is hitting it with the rear." --"Fireball" Roberts

you are disregarding all the wild stuff that the nascar boys and the nhra folk HAD to do to these heads to use them. including bill elliot and dyno don. they were very sucsesful with them but not in stock form. as far as the tecnoligy put into them any modern day head porter will tell you that the engineers must have been smoking dope. I have 4v's and they are amazing but don't think for a minute that mopar and the other brand were not sucsesful in racing. the reason some of us stuff the intake ports is because we want to go faster and make more power with out buying after market heads and this is done by increasing the velosity of the incoming charge of air/fuel mixture and inturn closing the intake valve later. all this increases the veometric eficentcy(spell check) of the motor and MAKES MORE POWER. also as far as the racing bodys giving weight breaks to the other small blocks the cleveland has big block valves and really a big block head of corse it wasn't fair. it's great that you love nostalgia but you don't have to dog the rest of us out. we are not trying to be different we are trying to improve upon the greatest small block ever built.

George asked about an alloy version of the 4V head, he did not ask about where can I find a C302, A3, CHI, AFD, BT, Brodix, TF or any version of these, George is a pretty smart guy, he probably knows where he can purchase any of those and probably knows the pricing too.

The point of this thread is he is building a good old 4V Cleveland, the same engine that was dropped into a very large version of a Mustang, that stayed in the top 10 quickest factory cars for years!

It is a legendary engine, thats what he wants to build. Putting any of the above heads atop his Cleveland block is akin to putting a 3 car garage on a home in the historic district. Yes you can store more cars, but the house now has no appeal in the district.

If you want to discuss another head style please start your own thread, any further derailing this one will be interpreted as trolling and will be dealt with as such.

4V Cleveland heads pretty much banned by most racing bodies; Because they perform so poorly?

>you are disregarding all the wild stuff that the nascar boys and the nhra folk HAD to do to these heads to use them. including bill elliot and dyno don. they were very successful with them but not in stock form. as far as the technology

Yes they did some wild stuff, partly because they could, they were not limited by shock towers. The exhaust side was compromised to accommodate the shock towers in a production car. How these modern heads compare to an Factory 4V with quick turndown headers would be an interesting comparison test.


>put into them any modern day head porter will tell you that the engineers must have been smoking dope.

I would bet that most porters either dont have the slightest clue what those engineers were trying to accomplished, that is why 40 years later we are still trying to unlock those secrets. Those that do understand, probably dont say much, why give away what others havent figured out?

>I have 4v's and they are amazing but don't think for a minute that mopar and the other brand were not sucsesful in racing.

The other brands were not as successful as the 4V Cleveland, but they had the rules makers in their corner so things like factoring and special parts allowances where so prevalent back then.

>the reason some of us stuff the intake ports is because we want to go faster and make more power with out buying after market heads and this is done by increasing the velosity of the incoming charge of air/fuel mixture and inturn closing the intake valve later. all this increases the veometric eficentcy(spell check) of the motor and MAKES MORE POWER.

I would dispute that if you bolt up a set of headers to clear a 70 Mustang shock tower, most of that power is negated. Ill repeat the reason for that X-port was to clear those towers.


>also as far as the racing bodys giving weight breaks to the other small blocks the cleveland has big block valves and really a big block head of corse it wasn't fair.

The original 4V head design was for a 302, which even though I do not believe in the big block / small block argument I would have to say the 302 was a small block therefore, small block valves. Just not Chevy small block valve size.

>it's great that you love nostalgia but you don't have to dog the rest of us out.

It is not my intention to dog you or anyone else out, I merely want to keep the original posters topic on track, and that was he wanted to find a set of alloy 4V heads.


>we are not trying to be different we are trying to improve upon the greatest small block ever built.

So am I, Thats why I spend hours a day learning, reading and help maintain this forum and others to collect and archive this information for the betterment and the improvement of this hobby.
-blizz



4V Cleveland heads pretty much banned by most racing bodies; Because they perform so poorly?

I stand corected.

It's hard to put a 1.625 valve spring on a sbc ...



'His nickname might have been "happy" were it not for the 351 cleveland'

In the spring of 1973 sandy elliot ran 9.36 @ 146 mph in the "candy striper" pro stock pinto weighing 2321 lbs . this engine had x port plates and the intake ports were raised somewhat as well . He was running the old GK 332-B cam flat tappet 288 @ .050 duration 108 lsa sometimes run straight up . 2 660 holleys

In the summer of 1974 gapp and roush ran 8.88 @ 153.06 mph weighing 2420 lbs , mustang II . this engine was fundamentally the same as the sandy elliot car displacement was about the same very similar head mods 2.25" x 28" long headers with a 4" collector 2 6464 holleys . this engine had the GK 321-D cam 284-294 duration 106 lsa about .750 lift .

As you see in only one year the cars were going 7 mph faster , .48 seconds quicker , and weighed 99 lbs more . the only obvious differences I can see would be the bigger carbs and the roller cam ...

Maybe that's all their was to it ?

Do You think it was as easy for the chevy guys to drop ~.5 seconds while weighing ~100 lbs more ?


'His nickname might have been "happy" were it not for the 351 cleveland'

I'll tell you one thing thats for sure, the 69 boss 302 stang was no match for a 69 z28 with there little 302 with a stick this I know first hand

was that with or without the BOSS302's production 6100 rpm rev limiter?
there was a REAL reason it got a rev limiter before being put in the hands of the general driving public.

Randy...have you heard of North Alabama Speedway?
Would you happen to know any of the drivers? Shoot me an email if you do, please...i have a few questions for ya.

Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines-
Enzo Ferrari

[ it's great that you love nostalgia but you don't have to dog the rest of us out. we are not trying to be different we are trying to improve upon the greatest small block ever built. ]

Buddy, no one's dogging you or anyone else and I would argue that what made the cleveland "the greatest small block ever built" was indeed the magic of the 4V heads. Hell, it couldn't have been the thin cylinder wall block with the oiling challenges, could it?







That which does not destroy you makes you STRONGER!!

So this actually got me wondering, how would we go about updating the design? Or would we? While yes it was a pinnacle design when created, I think stands to reason that we could update some of the components of the head. My questions:

Do we change out the combustion chamber?
Does the exhaust need to be modified?
What do we do to the intake ports?

Obviously we want to keep it a true 4V head, so no filling the intake.

Basket Case

I think what George wants is a replica of the 4V closed chamber head in aluminum. No changes at all.

Now I just have to find it again, some SK part for Trans Am.
-blizz

4V Cleveland heads pretty much banned by most racing bodies; Because they perform so poorly?

Blizz, to answer your question Pt # SK42624.
The only guy I know that has any stock 4V aluminum heads is Randy (GT350HR). and they were not for sale the last time he posted here. Had 2 sets as I remember, 1 set NOS. That head was cast in 1968 and no one since has bothered to make them. TRUST ME...i've looked.

Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines-
Enzo Ferrari

Didn't Dyno Don, Lee Hunter and Jack Roush have some of these heads as well? I heard through the grapevine that they did.

using the same criteria we used with Tod's block, the original plus some small changes those in the know deemed necessary.

-G

is it possible to do pinned as cast decks and chambers?

material under the ports to seal a valley cover, and machined to facilitate a rev kit being installed

taller V-cover rails

a little thicker all around to eliminate the 'seeper crack' problems and provide more meat for porting in the ares where Joe made swiss cheese

Singh groove chamber

"You boys better hold on 'cause I'm gonhafta stand on it" ~ Dad Seegle

"is it possible to do pinned as cast decks and chambers? "

just make the decks thicker .

"material under the ports to seal a valley cover, and machined to facilitate a rev kit being installed "

69 boss 302 heads could provide a template for the port flanges

" taller V-cover rails "

pie job

"a little thicker all around to eliminate the 'seeper crack' problems and provide more meat for porting in the ares where Joe made swiss cheese "

between the valve cover rail and the exhaust guide material should be added in the water jacket. adding material to both roofs would help as well .

"Singh groove chamber"

that was a joke right ?


'His nickname might have been "happy" were it not for the 351 cleveland'

It seems like someone could easily use a CAD program to "read" an iron 4v and come up with a CAD file that could be manipulated and put through flow testing digitally before the first chunk of alloy was whittled out.
Doing that, it would be possible to simulate all the little changes we (you guys) have documented in FoMoCo literature and see what and how the progression went in terms of results, physics, etc.
This would give 2 great benefits. We could unlock the path they used to the final result, effectively peering into the past a bit, and we'd easily have an alloy CNC'd 4v head.

I know it's not cheap, but there have to be investors willing to invest in something that would sell x number of units.


I suppose what I'm trying to say in a nice way is that there's really no excuse for us to not have an alloy 4v head in 2009/2010 other than someone taking the initiative to make it happen. We have the technology. We can make it better, stronger, faster.

-G

The 4V head swirls the air fuel column within the intake port, around the intake valve and drops the column homogenously around the full circumference of the intake valve's head. By virtue of the fact that the air fuel column has dropped around the intake valve it has been "aimed" by the intake port's geometry to enter the cylinder at the same angle as the intake valve pocket. Flowing into the cylinder at this angle allows the swirling air fuel column to swirl (or spiral) within the cylinder as it fills the cylinder.

So would adding a high swirl combustion chamber to the 4V head make more power? Consider this.

The C302 head swirls the mixture within the intake port AND has the same port geometry as the 4V head, it has the standard Cleveland combustion chamber. The valves of the Yates heads are not canted, the intake ports do not aim the mixture in the same direction as the C302 head, the Yates head was therefore designed with a high swirl combustion chamber, necessary because the air fuel column did not swirl within the cylinder the same way it did in the 351C 4v or C302 heads.

I assume the CHI & AFD heads do not swirl the air fuel column within the intake port, therefore the air fuel column will not flow evenly around the intake valve head and will not enter the cylinder in the same angle as the air fuel column in the 351C 4V or C302 heads. The CHI & AFD heads also have high swirl combustion chambers.

have I explained this well enough? I see a pattern.

-G

John from CHI mentioned to me he was going to cast an exact replica big port factory head, in alloy, about a year ago, It didnt seem to eventuate, but possibly he saw some demand for it at the time, the business has new owners now, and I am out of the loop..



Xa falcon
tremec TKO
10.8 @ 130mph, 3900lb