Recommendations on intake manifold for A3 heads and shop that can bung it for EFI

Thats no heap its a proper Classic car, my lad has bought a Mercury station wagon showing 20K miles, engines buggered but another piece of history.

When there gone there gone, good luck with your repairs bets Pete

I've had four of those intakes. The last one sold about a year ago for $850.

A 2v intake port goes the wrong way. It would never fit.

I don't know what the Cook ports look like. I don't know anyone who has one to look at.

At one point I took a regular Torker and epoxyed up the ports. There was a slight mismatch on the top of the A3 port since it was raised almost 1/4" from the stock 4v location.

There is a 5/8" difference in port floor heights.

If you're going to weld the FI bungs on, you could have the ports welded up also instead of epoxy.

You can reduce that by about 1/8" on by porting the top of the Torker port.

Used Torkers are pretty easy to find.

Here's the A331 manifold compared to a 2V intake gasket. Notice how the manifold's runners "peek" above the top of the 2V gasket.

Here's the A331 manifold compared to a 4V intake gasket. The manifold's runners are just "a bit" higher than the top of the gasket.

Here's the A331 manifold compared to a C302 gasket (Fel Pro 1265). Manifolds designed for the B351 and C302 heads can be easily opened up to mate with A3 heads.

The Scott Cook dual plane manifold will mate with an A3 head.

However, if it were me, I'd choose the CNC Trick Flow heads and their long runner fuel injection intake. The Trick Flow heads have a better combustion chamber than the SVO heads, and great low lift flow due to that combustion chamber. The CNC ported versions flow well up to 0.600" lift. Since FI is your goal, the Trick Flow long runner FI intake is far better at doing that job than a single plane carburetor manifold (longer, equal length runners).

There will also be off-the-shelf headers available for the Trick Flow heads in your Cougar's engine compartment. No such thing for the A3 style exhaust ports.

quote:

Originally posted by Looftie:
I am in the process of buying a virgin set of A3 heads for a mild turbo/EFI 351C that I am building for my 1973 Mercury Cougar convertible.

How much boost? Intercooled? What static CR are you targeting? Automatic (what stall) or stick? What rear end gear?

Best,
Kelly

Thank for the info, Doug. That's an excellent suggestion regarding using a standard 4V Torker and welding up the port floors since I'm going to have to have it modified for port fuel injection anyway.

Now that I think about it, if I went that route, I could just look at other intakes as well. For a 4v head application that probably wont be pushed past 6500RPM, is a Torker still the way to go or is there something better suited to street/occasional drag strip use?

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
I've had four of those intakes. The last one sold about a year ago for $850.

A 2v intake port goes the wrong way. It would never fit.

I don't know what the Cook ports look like. I don't know anyone who has one to look at.

At one point I took a regular Torker and epoxyed up the ports. There was a slight mismatch on the top of the A3 port since it was raised almost 1/4" from the stock 4v location.

There is a 5/8" difference in port floor heights.

If you're going to weld the FI bungs on, you could have the ports welded up also instead of epoxy.

You can reduce that by about 1/8" on by porting the top of the Torker port.

Used Torkers are pretty easy to find.

George,
Thank you for sharing all of those pictures. That really drives the point home. It's been a long while since I had a close look at a 4v head and intake (I used to have an M-code '71 Cougar convert). I forgot that the top of the 4v ports is also quite a bit higher as well as lower than the 2v port. That 2v gasket is a huge mismatch on the A3 intake.

Is it typical that the A3 intakes have such narrow ports or is yours possibly the Roush A331 casting?

I saw a picture recently of an Edelbrock casting of the A331 (unported) and it looked like the port size and shape almost perfectly matched the A3 head.

quote:

Originally posted by George P:
Here's the A331 manifold compared to a 4V intake gasket. The manifold's runners are just "a bit" higher than the top of the gasket.

The A3 head intake port is really the same width as the 4v port but the roof is raised about 1/4" and the floor is raised about 5/8".

It resembles a BB Chevy rectangular port head.

The 2v port goes the wrong way. It really is lowered in relation to a 4v and forget about it with an A3.

The casting of the bottom of the A3 head is different then the 4v is. You need to fill in the bottom of the intake port just so it will seal against the A3.

All things considered, George's suggestion of using a different head all together is a very good suggestion.

I don't know what you are getting those heads for but you are going to find that they are VERY easy to sell and in fact might even have people coming to the door and refusing to leave until they cut a deal for them.

The intake has always been the issue for them.


Here's a thought, you could go to a Weber intake. Hall Pantera already has those that will bolt right up to the heads with little or no port matching.

Then you could go to individual runner fuel injection. Those throttle bodies are already available off the shelf now.

If you still wanted to use the blower, then you would just have to plumb the blower to a common air cleaner or air chamber.


It sounds more involved but you could actually wind up being cheaper to go that route.

Modifying a used Torker would probably be the most economically solution over all though.


The A3 heads, although quite good for their time, and actually still quite good now, are more of a collectors item these days.

Most don't even know what we are talking about when they are mentioned now.

They are 1981-3 racing items and some here weren't even born yet then.


On that thought, I sold A3's to what he described himself as, "an engine builder". When he got them, he got on the phone and claimed that I misrepresented them.

These things were virgin, virtually out of the box. He told me they were "radically modified". Now this is a "Ford Engine Builder"?

Seems he didn't know what an A3 head was and thought that was some sort of a generic term for a C302B head.


That "small port" A331 intake manifold that George posted with the C302 gasket on it was probably mine and those are the size of the ports the "builder" expected?

Oye carumba...kids!


Oh, just in attempting fairness to all, some will say the C302B head flows much better after it is ported.

I'm not going to deny that BUT the sets that I have seen AFTER they have been "done" bear a very very similar appearance in port dimensions to the stock A3.

Now that's just my observation which obviously I could not have seen all but inside secretly I'm laughing.

Kelly,
I haven't really set a limit on boost yet. My long-term goal is 500whp (650ish at the crank) at ~6-65000rpm on an interia-style chassis dyno. The bottom end is currently a 20-30k mile stock rebuild so I'm going to crawl into boost, rev limit to around 5800rpm and settle on lower power until I can put a set of forged pistons with some nice, beefy ringlands inside and maybe a 393 or 408 storker crank to help the turbo spool.

Based on previous turbo projects, I used a recent machine shop check of my heads as an excuse to put down a set of Cometic MLS gaskets and ARP head studs. I doubt I will need them just yet but both parts will be reusable when I go through the short-block.

For my larger goal, the boost required to get there is going to depend on how well my heads, intake and cam are matched and how well my charge piping and exhaust piping are sized/plumbed (among other things like charge density). My plan was to use my stock 2v heads (new guides, seats, springs match to cam, stainless 1-piece valves, unported) as a baseline to see if I can hit my number on pump gas. If I can't, the injectors and fuel pump are sized for and compatible with E85. Switching to that will give me better detonation resistance and a massively improved latent heat of vaporization. Plus, it's cheap race gas in the midwest. I'm running a -10 supply and -8 return which should be overkill at my power goal, even when a conservative BSFC for a turbocharged E85 application is used.

After I find out what the 2v heads can do, it was my intention to switch to a better flowing aluminum head. My hope was that I would gain improved detonation resistance and hopefully hit the same power/torque numbers on lower boost. Area under the curve is another story. I've accepted the fact that after all the A3 effort, the 2v heads might still be a better fit for my mostly street car application.

I am actually working on the intercooler support brackets right now. Since a restraint I set was not cutting the car's chassis (no shock tower delete and Mustang II suspension swap), I decided to go the air-to-water route. I couldn't make the 2.75" OD tubes that I calculated necessary fit in front of the radiator without some convoluted piping arrangement that snakes under the radiator. Moreover, any air-to-air core that I managed to make fit would have to be undersized or very thick because there is not much room vertically or left to right.

The heat exchanger I chose is a crude looking, cheap aluminum core shaped like a shoe box. The brand (Frozen Boost, ChiCom stuff) has excellent reviews from folks on theturboforums, yellowbullet and others. It is alleged to have a ~0.2psig drop at its 600hp rating (I'm skeptical and plan to test with PTs and thermocouples).

Static CR is not precisely known. The engine was rebuilt when I was a snot-nosed teenager with more car ego than knowledge or experience. I found the original machine shop build slip but even they didn't know what the CR was. The pistons they chose were Sealed Power 30-over replacements for a stock H-code Cleveland. They are cast which makes them a time bomb. My assumption based on the minimal decking needed for the block and heads is that I am probably no higher than 8.5:1 based on my head castings and '73 h-code specs (8.0:1).

Dynamic CR is another matter. I wasn't content with the Crower Baja Beast cam that was originally installed so I swapped it for an Ultra Beast (220/226 dur, 0.529"/0.540" lift) before I committed to turbocharging this engine. I think the overlap is too much for my static compression and might lead to reversion issues with my turbo. It was a boneheaded choice on my part but I still want to see how it does. A mild hydraulic roller will be in the final setup.


Right now the car has a stock FMX and set of 3.89s with a PowerTrax locker. The locker is awesome for laying even stripes but as a middle aged guy, I can no longer stand the clicking around corners. It's being replaced with a Traction Loc or aftermarket LSD.

I was going to go back to milder gears with a built 3-speed auto (probably not an FMX) but I am now leaning towards keeping them and swapping to a built 4R70W with a Baumann controller. Converter stall speed is still an unknown. Transmission tech isn't my strongest suit. I'd like it to be electronically locking if the two-piece input shaft will allow at my target power level.

Sorry for the novella. I love talking about this stuff and I know from years of lurking on this forum that you guys are a very knowledgeable set.

quote:

Originally posted by Panterror:

quote:

Originally posted by Looftie:
I am in the process of buying a virgin set of A3 heads for a mild turbo/EFI 351C that I am building for my 1973 Mercury Cougar convertible.

How much boost? Intercooled? What static CR are you targeting? Automatic (what stall) or stick? What rear end gear?

Best,
Kelly

I appreciate your input. You definitely raise good points. In your estimation, what would a set of virgin A3 heads typically go for (before shipping)?

I've seen two sets recently but the one on ebay a couple of weeks ago scared me away (guides were knocked out, one chamber was missing valve seats and had been peened around both seats).

I'm not 100% set on the A3s. Trickflow, CHI or AFD might end up being a bit cheaper to get up and running and probably have a better combustion chamber design. I don't normally flip Cleveland stuff but if there is value, maybe.

There is just something about the A3s being a Ford Motorsport part and having some of the '70s prostock "fixes" that appeals to me. It's probably not the most practical choice for me. In an alternate universe, had the Cleveland not been axed, I could see it eventually going to a production aluminum head with raised ports (maybe not as big as an A3 though).

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
The A3 head intake port is really the same width as the 4v port but the roof is raised about 1/4" and the floor is raised about 5/8".

It resembles a BB Chevy rectangular port head.

The 2v port goes the wrong way. It really is lowered in relation to a 4v and forget about it with an A3.

The casting of the bottom of the A3 head is different then the 4v is. You need to fill in the bottom of the intake port just so it will seal against the A3.

All things considered, George's suggestion of using a different head all together is a very good suggestion.

I don't know what you are getting those heads for but you are going to find that they are VERY easy to sell and in fact might even have people coming to the door and refusing to leave until they cut a deal for them.

The intake has always been the issue for them.


Here's a thought, you could go to a Weber intake. Hall Pantera already has those that will bolt right up to the heads with little or no port matching.

Then you could go to individual runner fuel injection. Those throttle bodies are already available off the shelf now.

If you still wanted to use the blower, then you would just have to plumb the blower to a common air cleaner or air chamber.


It sounds more involved but you could actually wind up being cheaper to go that route.

Modifying a used Torker would probably be the most economically solution over all though.


The A3 heads, although quite good for their time, and actually still quite good now, are more of a collectors item these days.

Most don't even know what we are talking about when they are mentioned now.

They are 1981-3 racing items and some here weren't even born yet then.


On that thought, I sold A3's to what he described himself as, "an engine builder". When he got them, he got on the phone and claimed that I misrepresented them.

These things were virgin, virtually out of the box. He told me they were "radically modified". Now this is a "Ford Engine Builder"?

Seems he didn't know what an A3 head was and thought that was some sort of a generic term for a C302B head.


That "small port" A331 intake manifold that George posted with the C302 gasket on it was probably mine and those are the size of the ports the "builder" expected?

Oye carumba...kids!


Oh, just in attempting fairness to all, some will say the C302B head flows much better after it is ported.

I'm not going to deny that BUT the sets that I have seen AFTER they have been "done" bear a very very similar appearance in port dimensions to the stock A3.

Now that's just my observation which obviously I could not have seen all but inside secretly I'm laughing.

I was pretty excited when I saw that Trickflow finally came out with the EFI Cleveland intake based on the 5.0 long-runner design. I bought my current setup a few years before that but I briefly considered selling it in favor of the then-new TF setup.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will clear my hood. The 75/90mm R-series are 11.0" tall from block to top. The the Box-R-Series are 12.0". It's been a while since I checked but I seem to recall having around 9" from the block to the stamped steel reinforcement in my hood. If the entire middle section of my hood was at the same height as the ram-air cutout, I think the R-series option would work.

quote:

Originally posted by George P:
The Scott Cook dual plane manifold will mate with an A3 head.

However, if it were me, I'd choose the CNC Trick Flow heads and their long runner fuel injection intake. The Trick Flow heads have a better combustion chamber than the SVO heads, and great low lift flow due to that combustion chamber. The CNC ported versions flow well up to 0.600" lift. Since FI is your goal, the Trick Flow long runner FI intake is far better at doing that job than a single plane carburetor manifold (longer, equal length runners).

There will also be off-the-shelf headers available for the Trick Flow heads in your Cougar's engine compartment. No such thing for the A3 style exhaust ports.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Looftie:
I appreciate your input. You definitely raise good points. In your estimation, what would a set of virgin A3 heads typically go for (before shipping)?

I've seen two sets recently but the one on ebay a couple of weeks ago scared me away (guides were knocked out, one chamber was missing valve seats and had been peened around both seats).

I'm not 100% set on the A3s. Trickflow, CHI or AFD might end up being a bit cheaper to get up and running and probably have a better combustion chamber design. I don't normally flip Cleveland stuff but if there is value, maybe.

There is just something about the A3s being a Ford Motorsport part and having some of the '70s prostock "fixes" that appeals to me. It's probably not the most practical choice for me. In an alternate universe, had the Cleveland not been axed, I could see it eventually going to a production aluminum head with raised ports (maybe not as big as an A3 though).

[QUOTE]

FYI, the b351 head is a smaller port version. It probably would be a better street head. It is more specifically tuned to the 351 then the A3 is. It was designed to use smaller valves though.

Some would say the C302 versions would be best for the street but if you look at the port size they are very close to the port dimensions of a 302W head. I think you need a flow bench, a GREAT grinder to get them to work?



I would think that your A3 heads would be in the value range of what a current good set of top aftermarket heads bring? MAYBE more because of the Ford oval thing? Unfortunately for buyers, talk on this forum about them has perked a lot of interest and probably spiked the value just a bit? I am guilty of that as well.

I can't answer other than that. If my set needed to be replaced, I'd be interested but having said that, mine came off of a circle track race car and had already been prepared for that.

For one thing they were shaved in order to get the chamber volumes down to 60. So I'd have some work to do on brand new box stock heads.

They DO need some relatively minor work done to them like shaving them in my opinion.



Maybe put them up for sale here for "best offer"?
See if that brings you an offer that you can work with to switch heads?

Incidentally, I agree with you on having the Ford oval on the part. To me it's a plus. Not everyone cares about that though? They are seemingly developing a reputation making them more desirable similar to the 427MR & HR heads?



OOOOH! One other thing, the headers for these heads in your chassis may in fact qualify as a "nightmare".

I had these in my 68 GT350 and the headers had to be hand made.

I CAN tell you that Jay Bittle, aka, JBA, DID in fact make a set for that application and that if you call them the part number is still good BUT don't count on them having any? Just another consideration.

Those exhaust ports on all of those heads, i.e., A3, B351, C302 are all raised A LOT from the original 4v iron heads, and the angle of the port is UP, not down.

That takes some finagling to get right. Mostly the chassis is going to make you turn the exits as straight down as you can. A 1.71 exhaust valve needs a 2" primary tube. A 1.60 like on a C302 head would use a 1.75" primary tube.

Exactly how you are going to get 2" primary tubes on THOSE headers to fit that chassis is going to be like being an alchemist?



The original flow numbers test on the exhausts used a 3" radius stub tube(as I remember). The ironic thing about that though is that they flowed better that way then with a straight out "gasser" type of exit.

The point is that the "high port" aluminum heads of that series (of which the A3 is one) will work much better in a car like a Pantera then a Mustang/Cougar simply because you can do more with the exhausts in the Pantera.

The Mustang/Cougar chassis is VERY LIMITING to the headers and will negate getting the maximum from the exhaust port improvements of the head.

Most of the improvement provided with that head is from the significantly better exhaust ports vs. the 4v iron heads.

You just can't take an existing set of headers for a 351-4v in that car, and change the flanges and expect them to bolt up. For one thing you won't find pre-made 2" primaries. 1-3/4", yes.



Lastly, the A3's show that they work better with more cubes like a 383, etc, then a 357. Frankly for me though, you won't hear any complaints here.

What ALL the NUMBERS showed was that the B351 head was noticibly better. For me, they noticibly sucked. The A3 was better. Not just a little. Quite a bit but then again I liked the Torker with a 750 DP Holley BUT the Torker LOVES a 12.0:1 engine. I can't do that any more.

Keep in mind though that all of this information just proves to many others that I am loosely hinged in reality which really is good for me. They are all afraid to talk to me and leave me the F... alone. That definitely CAN have benefits. So just take this all with a grain of salt.

Just food for thought?

quote:

Originally posted by Looftie:

... Is it typical that the A3 intakes have such narrow ports or is yours possibly the Roush A331 casting ...

The manifold in the pictures is a standard off-the-shelf example of the Edelbrock Torker version of the A331 manifold, its not a narrow port anything, its not the manifold I acquired from Doug.

quote:

Originally posted by George P:

quote:

Originally posted by Looftie:

... Is it typical that the A3 intakes have such narrow ports or is yours possibly the Roush A331 casting ...

The manifold in the pictures is a standard off-the-shelf example of the Edelbrock Torker version of the A331 manifold, its not a narrow port anything, its not the manifold I acquired from Doug.

Everything I previously typed somehow got deleted.

Here's a picture of the A3 intake next to the A3 heads that the guy in Texas had for sale on ebay last week. It makes me wonder if there were two version of the Edelbrock A331 casting in addition to the Roush A331 casting. These ports look quite a bit different than yours. They look more like this one:
http://351cleveland.wikifoundry.com/page/M9424-A331

I obviously have a lot to learn about these old school speed parts. Until a month ago, I didn't even know these aluminum heads existed. I still want to learn more about the B3s, which seem to be even less common. C3s aren't an option for me because they lose the Cleveland valve cant and require an expensive shaft mount rocker setup. I don't plan to ever pull the revs to justify such an expenditure.

Very cool stuff. I'm glad I joined this forum.

Justin

those pictures were from an old post of mine dated 2008. I was "sure" I hadn't acquired Doug's manifold yet ... but after seeing the picture you just posted, I thought to myself "yeah that's what the A331 looks like". So I double checked that old post and now I have to apologize, those pictures are indeed pictures of the small runner version of the A331 manifold, the one I acquired from Doug.

I'm getting old and forgetful. My concept of time is very bad.

It can happen to anyone George. Sometimes this stuff is confusing if the part isn't right there in front of you.

It does answer the question though, that it appears there are at least two versions of the manifold.

The only thing I would tell everyone is that particular small port is the only one I've ever seen.



Didn't Kelly Coefield in a previous post, say that in addition to the A331-A3 intake, he had one that fit the as cast B302 heads (like George's small port) plus one that fit the B351 heads but wasn't sure if that one (for the B351 heads) if that was just a small port opened up to match the B351's? Kelly?

Should we just call those A331-A3, A331-B351, A331-C302?



As I remember, that small port was about 6 or 7 pounds heavier as well because the runners were closed down so much?

As I said previously, the problem with the A3's is finding one of those manifolds to use.

A STOCK Torker closed down to match the head ports, is a very good alternative for them now.

You can use the tall spider manifold but it is not likely to fit under the hood.

I don't think either one of those "Torker" manifolds was listed in the Motorsport catalog back then either.



The ORIGINAL C302 heads used the standard Boss 302 7/16 rocker arms and studs, not the shaft mounted rockers.

Here's a complete set up for sale somewhere in the past,

http://forums.corral.net/forum...svo-a351-intake.html

They show studs, not shafts.

I think these are getting confused with the Yates heads? Those use the shafts instead of studs.

IF you were interested in this set of heads, you want to see what the intake ports look like.
Why the seller didn't post pictures of those, I don't know.

Things like this/that tend to show the misunderstanding of even what the owners of the parts know about the parts. I'm afraid that the Chevy people have seriously infiltrated our ranks for the purpose of just creating confusion amongst the most vulnerable of the Ford newbies?

Here's a picture of the Yates C3 head. It IS NOT the same head.
It is made for NASCAR and to optimize those engines for NASCAR rules restrictions.

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug: Didn't Kelly Coffield in a previous post, say that in addition to the A331-A3 intake, he had one that fit the as cast B302 heads (like George's small port) plus one that fit the B351 heads but wasn't sure if that one (for the B351 heads) if that was just a small port opened up to match the B351's? Should we just call those A331-A3, A331-B351, A331-C302?.....Kelly?

Yes, that's correct. I’ve seen a couple of the small port A331s and still have the one mentioned earlier. If I had to hazard guess, I’d say when that intake was tooled, they built one set of core box tooling that made the A3 size ports and runners. The small port versions were probably made by hand filing and sanding the larger core to the smaller runner size at the request of someone(s) Ford was willing to oblige. Castings were massaged like this for customs frequently.

quote:

C3s aren't an option for me because they lose the Cleveland valve cant and require an expensive shaft mount rocker setup. I don't plan to ever pull the revs to justify such an expenditure.

Be advised, there were two heads made by Ford that carried the C3 designation. The more recent ones pictured above do have different valve geometry and valve train components but the earlier ones are from the same era as the A & B series heads and use the same 335 series components as the Ford high port and the Clevelands. There were three heads in the early C series; C3, C302, C302B. C3s and C302s were very similar as were C302B, but C302B had a number of improvements such as thicker decks, more meat in critical areas to allow more porting freedom, the valve cover rails were raised about ¼”, and the one oddball head bolt boss that was shorter than the rest was raised so it was the same height as the rest allowing the use of all the same length head bolts/studs. This is typically the easiest way to spot a C302B with the valve cover still in place.

However, as all things Ford, there are exceptions as I have seen one set of earlier heads with the taller head bolt boss. For A3s, there were two different exhaust flange patterns too.

quote:

Originally posted by Looftie: I obviously have a lot to learn about these old school speed parts. Until a month ago, I didn't even know these aluminum heads existed. I still want to learn more about the B3s, which seem to be even less common.

B3s are the same head with an intermediate runner volume and cross section between the A3 and C3 series. The problem with these heads are they have usually been through so many hands and so fiddled with, you just don’t know what you’re getting unless you closely examine them. Occassionally, you find real gems that have been masterfully worked.

Justin, I’m not sure what the goals are for your build and if your response to my previous post about how your car is set up ever makes it to the board, I’ll comment further if you like, but A3s are actually a pretty good choice for a boosted engine not only because of the intake port side but also because the raised exhaust port performs much better and will be able to keep up with and support the additional power much better than 4V Cleveland. However, I think you should forget about them for your Cougar or any other shock tower for that matter, because with 9.2 deck and higher the ports are so much higher on these heads, there isn’t room to make any sensible exit turn before they hit the shock tower and this will negate the benefit and crap on the performance of the affected primaries. So unless you are going to cut out your shock towers and put a coil over kit in there, I’d suggest you forget it.

It’s not always a popular view but IMO, with the exception of combustion chamber design, in the 30 years since the old FMS high port heads there really hasn’t been anything new introduced by all the companies offering aftermarket that still have 335 series valve geometry….it’s all just marketing. This doesn’t not apply to the newer(est) variants with different valve geometry which certainly does matter but really only for people that are competing in professional ranks, not for guys with pump gas engines in street cars, even boosted ones. It’s about proper selection/combination of parts and who is building and working the parts. All other things equal, all the aftermarket heads won’t better (or IMO even match, due to the exhaust port) the performance potential of the old high port heads but you have to be in a power range that it matters and they have to fit your engine compartment. Panteras are a blessing in accommodating them but not shock tower street cars.

I also get a chuckle out the aftermarket heads guys complaining about their heads being copied in China when they in fact are just do the same of the original Ford design.

Now, valve train components such as cam, lifters, springs, valves have gotten better allowing reliable combinations not previously possible.

Adding a turbo, intercooler and waste gate, oil management, engine control, sensors, etc is a lot of additional overhead and complexity. Just me, but I wouldn’t add boost unless it was to achieve >800HP, but I wouldn’t throw that at a stock Cleveland block nor rods. I say this because 550HP hydraulic roller 408CI stroker Clevelands with sufficient street manners (even parked behind and automatic) are common now and engine builder you mentioned to me is knocking on the door of 600HP with his builds. I’m North of that but have a solid cam.

Even though >1000HP boosted street engines are becoming common, it’s a ball rolling down hill and even with engine and drive train components to handle the power, detonation control will require a departure from pump gas.

When you mentioned a mild boosted build, what difference does you head choice make when cam selection or a few psi of boost have more influence on result. What are the goals of your build?

Best,
Kelly

Just for historical accuracy, there is one more head to that series that never seems to appear anywhere?

The D head. That was a "semi-finished" head that was made for "custom porting".

I don't even think that they came with valve guides and seats installed however, I've never actually seen one in person.


Kelly. Way back in the olden days before I got electricity and indoor plumbing, I inquired with Jay Bittle (when he still owned the company) mostly to harass him for that set of "ultimate" GT500 headers that never seemed to appear.

The subject was about headers for the A3 in my 68. I think his main fabricators name was Mike?

He said something like, "you aren't going to believe this BUT we are actually building a set of those".

Of course I didn't believe him. This was Jay Bittle's "fantom header company".

He actually called me 6 months later with the "guess what" response. "Do you still want these" thing.

They even had a part number on them. That HAD to be1983 or 1984 because I didn't have my Pantera yet. Got that in '86.


In dealing with him JBA two years ago about a "guaranteed (what do you think we are stupid retards?)" about a set of headers for the 347, I was actually referred back to him by "the company" and he said he still had a set of those A3 Mustang chassis headers sitting around "somewhere"?

Loofty. If I were you I would call those guys and ask them about those A3 headers. Maybe they will pay you to get them out of there?

I wouldn't be shocked at all that they ask you if you know "THAT GUY Doug from NY"? They remember me. Trust me.

My question was, "So if you aren't stupid/retards, etc, why can't I turn my steering wheel to the left with your GUARANTEED to fit headers?" I can be so demanding sometimes.

I wouldn't be so insensitive myself to use that term, i.e., "stupid retards". That was someone in their customer service department.



Wait now...I just realized he was talking about me? "So don't turn left IS the solution"?


...and yes, I am STILL WAITING for the "ultimate GT500 headers". Hey. I'm a married man. I've learned to live with disappointment?

"C'est la vie, say the old folks...goes to show you never can tell?" Jee-ze!

Looftie, be aware that the Ford C3 head is NOT a 'slightly modified' C302-B head. It is in fact a completely different casting made for later NASCAR use. Among the significant differences are very small combustion chambers requiring new pistons or otherwise figuring out how to live with 14+:1 compression, shaft-mounted rocker arms such as Jesel in place of stock 351-C stud mounted valvetrains. I was told that no production intake manifold bolts on- they all need machining to fit- by one guy that, after thousands of $$$ spent, finally got his C3-head Cleveland running in his Pantera. He used D. Quella's split Weber intake with TWM/Weber-lookalike IR EFI setup. The injector bosses are already in those paired intakes. They require a custom built valley cover, too.

Using such heads really requires a complete engine built around the specifics of C3 heads, which is why C3s are often cheaper than other Ford Racing aluminum stagger-valve heads. I would steer clear of them except for a purpose-built pro-race engine by a shop that's been there with C3 builds. I would NOT try doing it yourself. Good luck- J DeRyke

Unless I'm mistaken I believe I have a set of the C302 heads with all the bolt bosses cast at the same height. They have a date code of 1990. They came from a NASCAR team that was in a class limited to 9.x/1 compression, don't remember exactly. They are fully ported. The plan is to put these on the Pantera at some point.

A look at the bolt bosses.

Exhaust port.

Intake port.

The valve retainers are titanium. The exhaust valve looks like titanium.

I'd recommend that you change those to chrome molly spring retainers and stainless valves.

You do not want titanium valves on the street.

Race teams change them after every race.

Doug,
I plan on having a shop go over them before running them. It will be a while. Need to have the water ports plugged on the front and setup for the Cleveland too. I think over all they are a good set. Hope so anyway.

Steve

I'd recommend taking them to Joe Lapine at Danbury Competition.

Let him set them up for you and sweat the details. He knows what he is doing.

He'll identify any issues with the heads if they are present.

Also be warned, he's going to talk you out of using a hydraulic roller lifter camshaft and telling you how bad the reliability of the components are. He does not mince words. His honesty in the end can be very refreshing.

quote:

Originally posted by T.Solo: Unless I'm mistaken I believe I have a set of the C302 heads with all the bolt bosses cast at the same height. They have a date code of 1990. They came from a NASCAR team that was in a class limited to 9.x/1 compression, don't remember exactly. They are fully ported. The plan is to put these on the Pantera at some point.

Like I said, always exceptions and there are many. I saw a set that were fully machined except had just valve pockets and virtually no combustion chamber, presumably so they could be machined to suit. In fact, some of the teams just ordered bare castings because they didn't want secrets divulged to other teams by Ford. -That's competitive racing mentality.

They look like a nice set of heads and should work well. What are the volumes of the CCs? The exhaust ports have been worked to rectangular exit. I have a similar set of heads with a beautiful set of stainless CNC’d exhaust flanges that transition from the rectangular port opening of the to a round stepped weld socket for the round primary tube.

The flanges on that intake manifold sitting next to the heads in your picture look very thin. That along with the slots milled in the holes may suggest it has been machined for a lower deck height than 9.2” which wouldn’t be uncommon for a NASCAR engine if the lid came from the same place as the heads. You may want to check that.

Best,
Kelly

quote:

Originally posted by Panterror:

quote:

Originally posted by T.Solo: Unless I'm mistaken I believe I have a set of the C302 heads with all the bolt bosses cast at the same height. They have a date code of 1990. They came from a NASCAR team that was in a class limited to 9.x/1 compression, don't remember exactly. They are fully ported. The plan is to put these on the Pantera at some point.

Like I said, always exceptions and there are many. I saw a set that were fully machined except had just valve pockets and virtually no combustion chamber, presumably so they could be machined to suit. In fact, some of the teams just ordered bare castings because they didn't want secrets divulged to other teams by Ford. -That's competitive racing mentality.

They look like a nice set of heads and should work well. What are the volumes of the CCs? The exhaust ports have been worked to rectangular exit. I have a similar set of heads with a beautiful set of stainless CNC’d exhaust flanges that transition from the rectangular port opening of the to a round stepped weld socket for the round primary tube.

The flanges on that intake manifold sitting next to the heads in your picture look very thin. That along with the slots milled in the holes may suggest it has been machined for a lower deck height than 9.2” which wouldn’t be uncommon for a NASCAR engine if the lid came from the same place as the heads. You may want to check that.

Best,
Kelly

Granted I am not an engine builder but I don't understand the rational of squaring up the exhaust port, then making a transition piece to a round exhaust tube.

Kelly. Do you understand the thinking on that?

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:Granted I am not an engine builder but I don't understand the rational of squaring up the exhaust port, then making a transition piece to a round exhaust tube.

Kelly. Do you understand the thinking on that?

No, not really but not to let that get in the way and just thinking out loud, I'd say it was possibly done to increase the cross sectional area to further the flow potential of the port in a critical area. Sometimes it’s because of the porting constraints of the casting wall thickness but more likely because of the dimensional constraints of the port because I suspect there’s plenty more meat to port there.

A square cross section has about 21.5% (square not rounded corners) more area than the largest circle that fits within the square and this happens to be at the location where your trying to turn the exhaust flow as it exits the port so it may produce a similar effect to having a more gradual radius or higher round port. Once you’re outside the head your less constrained and practicality says you go back to bending round tube for headers.

Of course it assumes the entire cross section remains active and the transitions are such that flow doesn’t become turbulent or suffer other disruptive losses…..someone must have thought it worked. Same reasoning likely applies to intake port shape.

Best,
K

Kelly, I do not know for sure but I think the combustion chambers are in the 6Xcc range. We spoke before about this. I plan on using the CHI-3V Windsor dual plane intake. I've gathered the parts, heads and intake, now I need to find the time to focus on it. I explained to my wife that the parts do not go bad sitting on the shelf.

Steve

Here is an up close look.

Steve

Those are "stock" and are nominal at 63. Keep in mind Ford expected you to mill the heads to what you wanted.

You can't get them under 60.

The decks are thicker then stock iron heads are for that reason. They were built as all out race heads at the time. I believe the advertised thickness is 5/8".

I think mine are shaved .020 and cc'd at 60. They wanted to get to 59 but thought that was a bad idea.

The ONLY way to do it is to cc them. You can actually do that yourself. It isn't difficult at all.

These heads will take a heck of a shot before you crack the combustion chambers.

Lots of used ones show evidence of "something" bouncing around in one of the combustion chambers at some point.


That indent below the chambers, on the edge of the head that looks like a thumb print is there to show you what was shaved off of the head.

Some heads will be stamped on the side .020, etc. Look for stampings like that. Most good builders will mark them with what was cut off.

quote:

Originally posted by T.Solo:.....We spoke before about this. I plan on using the CHI-3V Windsor dual plane intake. I've gathered the parts, heads and intake, now I need to find the time to focus on it. Steve

If we spoke I probably mentioned the CHI 3V stuff is dimensionally different from standard 335 series heads/intake as far as mounting dimensions. The dimensional differences were serendipity for me and allowed nice port alignment when fitting their 9.5 version to a 9.5 deck block with Ford high port (A, B, C series) heads. It did require a thick gasket and the valley rails of the intake did require machining though. I did a detailed write up on it at another website but this site does not allow links to that forum. I can probably PM a link to you though.

Best,
Kelly

Thanks Kelly. I think I have you're information from our previous correspondence. I'll shoot you a PM.

Steve