ford j302 head

[n2omike]

The point is, not everything on a engine has to be aftermarket, its nice to utilize production parts in some instances. I will always maximize a production part before I move to a aftermarket part, just my way of thinking.

Valid point. I started out with a set of home ported 289 heads. They flowed 218 on the intake at 155cc and 176 on the exhaust. Was on a 306. Built a very similar engine with a set of home ported Frick Flow 170 TW heads. Picked up a little bit n/a, but the bigger heads woke it up big time on the bottle. Both were pump gas, flat tappet street engines in a 3300 lb 1966 mustang with a toploader 4-speed. Picked up a few tenths n/a, but went from 10.63 to 9.87 on the bottle. I guess nitrous likes big intake ports. lol

My theory is that smaller cubic inch engines can work with smaller intake ports. Small inch, big rpm takes a lot of little breaths, where bigger cubes wants bigger ones. Probably why de-strokers worked well back in the day of factory heads and limited airflow.

[PackardV8]

My theory is that smaller cubic inch engines can work with smaller intake ports. Small inch, big rpm takes a lot of little breaths, where bigger cubes wants bigger ones. Probably why de-strokers worked well back in the day of factory heads and limited airflow.

This has wandered way off the question, but hey, why not?

FWIW, I spent much of my engine building life on the small block Fords and the Studebaker 289", both having OEM heads with similar limited flow characteristics. What we found was that once the head flow limit was reached, the horsepower stayed the same, regardless of displacement. With the same heads, the Ford 289" and 302" made the same power. The Studebaker 224", 259", 289" and 304" could all be made to make the same power. The Fords were easier to turn the necessary RPM, because of the shorter stroke, larger bore, shorter pushrods. Unless building to a class limit or formula, there was no advantage to building a small displacement Studebaker; RPM costs money for the required better valvetrain components.

But yes, making horsepower with OEM SBF heads required a lot of experience and a lot of RPM. Once the aftermarket aluminum heads and stroker kits became catalog items, any kid with a credit card could make more power than the best full-race engine ever to come out of Shelby American.

[Joe-71]

I disagree with this analogy. I have found that the heads will make more horsepower on larger cubic inches due to the draw on the ports being greater. You can max out a 289 head, engine combination, take those heads and put them on a 347 and max them out, then install them on a stroker 385-395 W and make more horsepower with the same heads. The flow on a flow bench at 28" was 232 cfm, but the horsepower on the 393W proved there had to be more than 232 cfm through those heads to make the horsepower that it did. Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that 28" is not the final amount of draw on the intake port for a well built engine. I believe Weingartner proved this with a similar dyno session. JMO, Joe-71

[Mummert]

These results vary alot based on curtain area to displacement ratio. Small displacement engines with large valves are much more sensitive to intake valve closing and port velocity. Are the power gains coming because your drawing more air through the port on the down stroke or because your trapping more in the cylinder after bottom dead center. Its kind of something I've been chasing for a while on powersports engines. I think smaller displacement engines are easier to get the cylinder filled by bottom dead center but harder to retain the fill all the way to the valve closing, while larger engines may not be as full by BDC but keep filling better to the valve closing.

[Chris_Hamilton]

These wern't production heads though were they? I remember them in the catalog and at the time they were the heads for the 351W 385hp crate engine. Ford didn't have any production aluminum Windsor production heads at that time or ever(???). They went by the wayside IIRC when the GT40 aluminum head came out and all the aftermarket offerings started appearing. Early 90's was a fun time for the small block Ford. I remember going to Englishtown Raceway seeing Stormin' Norman in his 5.0 Convertible making passes with his stock block 5.0. Many others whose names escape me ATM.

[dfarr67]

With this particular platform- I say 'it depends' on your porting skills vs paying someone. I think in case with SBF I would prefer to buy a current aftermarket head that has been clean-sheeted. I'm a SBC guy but am somewhat jealous at some of the SBF Trick Flow offerings. In the last 10-15 years I believe there has been some advances in design software in the smaller non oem manufacturers.

[n2omike]

With this particular platform- I say 'it depends' on your porting skills vs paying someone. I think in case with SBF I would prefer to buy a current aftermarket head that has been clean-sheeted. I'm a SBC guy but am somewhat jealous at some of the SBF Trick Flow offerings. In the last 10-15 years I believe there has been some advances in design software in the smaller non oem manufacturers.

The SBF vs SBC has been an interesting journey. (ignoring the 351C)
Since the beginning, the SBF had a better architecture, but came with crappy heads. Unfortunately, they were all but ignored by the aftermarket. The stock heads were developed for 221ci, and didn't change a whole lot as the engine grew all the way to 351ci. The Chevy had much better heads from the factory, and had aftermarket support WAY before the SBF. It wasn't until the FOX mustang became popular that the SBF got much love from the aftermarket.

Once BOTH engines had plenty of time to develop in the aftermarket, the design limitations of the SBC started to become apparent. The SBC is very limited by the siamese intake ports. Port area is very limited, as there is only so much room between the pushrods. The SBF has a LOT more real estate to take advantage of when designing larger intake ports. The SBF also has a taller deck height, so bigger cubes to feed those heads are also easier to come by.

Oddly enough, you almost never hear of serious SBC engines anymore. They seem to have all but died! Everything GM is now on the LS platform. The SBF when properly built and LS are pretty good competition. The SBC started strong and had a huge advantage for a long time. Sure is interesting to watch it's fall in popularity.

And yes... LOTS of really good Ford heads out there now! ....especially if you open it up to units based around the 351C.

Interesting enough... The BBC vs. BBF is almost the exact same story as the SBC vs SBF!

[lance flake]

I remember the first set of J-302's I ever saw. Local guy bought a set in the late 1980's. I was just a kid but I remember it being a big deal. Those things were crazy high at the time. They were like $1000-1200 bare. He had them on a 306 in a 1965 Comet Cyclone with a 4 speed. He still has the car and heads!

[289nate]

I find it somewhat comical when people discuss production heads and their short comings. My friend had a 289 with 219 peak CFM @ 28 inches, 1.780 intake valve and 1.450 ex, no chamber work, flattop piston topped with a motor craft 4bbl, somehow this made 469 HP @ 7300 RPM and ran 10.29 @ 3150.

I really respect the guys who do that. They are bad to the bone. But usually it is class rules that limit them and force them to work with certain parts. Not what is best and most cost and/or time efficient. An example would be the guys chasing stock block 8.2 deck Ford records at the dragstrip. Nobody is wasting time with stock heads because they aren’t limited by rules.

When you look at paying to have a class legal engine built with “stock” parts you could’ve easily made well over 500 hp with aftermarket parts and the same budget. I remember what Alex Denysenko said he paid BES (IIRC) to do the “stock” 289 heads on Moneymaker. Small fortune and a waste of money for someone not trying to race in the class or not trying to prove a point.

Our own Bill C builds amazing little fords. Intake and heads may appear budget. But the cost of one of those engines isn’t budget friendly nor meant to be. Just like having Mummert work a set of small chamber 289 castings to his EMC specs. Not budget friendly and not the right call for many.

I completely respect the efforts and results of the people and types of builds I mentioned above. Absolutely incredible stuff. But you cannot look at your buddy running a 10.2 and say an aftermarket head isn’t needed until you want to run faster. Not that that is what you were saying. Just want to clarify for the casual reader.

[PackardV8]

I find it somewhat comical when people discuss production heads and their short comings. My friend had a 289 with 219 peak CFM @ 28 inches, 1.780 intake valve and 1.450 ex, no chamber work, flattop piston topped with a motor craft 4bbl, somehow this made 469 HP @ 7300 RPM and ran 10.29 @ 3150.

I really respect the guys who do that. They are bad to the bone. But usually it is class rules that limit them and force them to work with certain parts. Not what is best and most cost and/or time efficient. An example would be the guys chasing stock block 8.2 deck Ford records at the dragstrip. Nobody is wasting time with stock heads because they aren’t limited by rules.

When you look at paying to have a class legal engine built with “stock” parts you could’ve easily made well over 500 hp with aftermarket parts and the same budget. I remember what Alex Denysenko said he paid BES (IIRC) to do the “stock” 289 heads on Moneymaker. Small fortune and a waste of money for someone not trying to race in the class or not trying to prove a point.

Our own Bill C builds amazing little fords. Intake and heads may appear budget. But the cost of one of those engines isn’t budget friendly nor meant to be. Just like having Mummert work a set of small chamber 289 castings to his EMC specs. Not budget friendly and not the right call for many.

I completely respect the efforts and results of the people and types of builds I mentioned above. Absolutely incredible stuff. But you cannot look at your buddy running a 10.2 and say an aftermarket head isn’t needed until you want to run faster.

Agree completely. I was at a vintage race recently. There were several Mustangs of '65-'70 era. One guy, with a period-correct Parnelli Jones restoration, had gotten tired of blowing up and paying premium prices for Boss 302" builds. He bought a NASCAR takeout, just didn't raise his hood and ran toward the front of the pack. Since the vintage crowd is thinned out, it's sort of become 'run-what-ya-brung'. Several of those with period-correct builds made a point of raising their hoods, but he just kept his closed and smiled.

jack vines

[289nate]

Edited my post you quoted to acknowledge the fact that Vortech pro did not intend it to come off that way. I simply wanted to add some clarity to the subject for the casual reader.

[colejames73]

I have a set of J302 Heads that I might part with. Does anyone have spec sheets for these? I'm located in Beloit ,WI