mustang geezer's Vs oz 2v head and carb setups???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date

whitch one do you think would give more bang for your buck???

  • Mustang geezer's

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • oz 2v head

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
ponyrider66
Are we to assume because you posted a link to my Aussie 2V site and Mustang_Geezer's that your comparing these two for your poll? I took another look at the log headed site again and noticed that it said the engine pulled hard thru 6500 rpm? For any kink of comparison the engine would have to be built nearly the same, and as my Aussie 2V engine is running a stock Ford Cam and was a stock engine rebuilt and the Aussie 2V head is stock with no porting or polish or oversized valves!

From Mustangs web site


Northend Machine and C&P Machine did the machine work, and I did all the wrenching and final assy myself. The speed parts came from Clifford Performance, Rocker Arm Specialist's, Mr Gasket, Accel, Holley, MSD, ARP, K&N, Crane, TransDapt, JP Performance and all the rest of the engine parts came from Federal Mogul.

Starting with the block, It was bored .060 over, decked .040, hot tanked, new cam bearings and freeze plugs installed. The crank was straightened and turned .010-.010 (undersized), the entire rotating assy was balanced and the rods were reconditioned and 289-302 V8 ARP rod bolts were installed also. It now displaces 206 c.i.

I choose to use the 2.3L HSC Ford Tempo pistons over the stock replacements, because the 2.3L piston is a flat top and the stock replacement piston has a large dish in it. It makes it a lot easier to raise the compression.

Being the crank has 7 main bearings, it is capable of 6,000+ RPM's with just these few simple steps noted above.

On the intake side it features a highly ported and polished 1980 head which I had new 1.75" intake valves installed and then head was milled approx .060" The carb was a modified Carter YF 1 Bbl off a 300 6 which is also hooked up to a custom ram air system of my own design that includes a K&N airfilter. I have since installed a 500 cfm Holley 2 Bbl directly to the intake log.

The valve train includes these parts from Clifford performance; 272H cam (.449 lift .272 duration) lifters, double valve springs, hardened locks and keepers and chrome moly pushrods. The timing chain and gears were imported from Australia (JP Performance.

The ignition system consists of a 1978 Ford Duraspark II distributor, MSD 6A box and MSD Blaster 2 coil, Accel 8.8 mm wires and and Accel U groove spark plugs gapped at .048"

The head is a 1980 (EO) unit which when used with the HSC pistons and a Ford "Steel Shim" head gasket allows me to acheive 10.0:1 compression. I also ordered a 1.6 ratio, aluminum roller tipped rocker arm assy from Rocker Arm Specialist's. I recently installed it and am quite pleased with the results!!.

Because of the high compression, I had to install a Holley water injection unit, and the fuel is straight 93 octane.

Exhaust duties are handled by a Clifford Performance 6 into 2 header which is Y'd into a 2.25" single pipe and leads to a Dynomax 1 in 2 out 1985 Camaro muffler mounted in the stock position.
Click to expand...

You ought to price out what his engine would cost to built, I'd say about $2,500 or $3,000 or more, and besides your poll will only mislead people into thinking that the resulting HP his engine makes is due to the log head being machined and a larger carb being added, which it is not!

Now go find a stock 200 with a machined log head, 2V carb and headers
and I'd bet on a DYNO you would not get 85 HP to the rear wheels!

Your comparing my apple to a crate of oranges! :wink:
 
I would say the Aus Head would probably do the most for performance for the cost. However the cost for the other option could be spread out and not be such a kick in the wallet!! I would go with the modified U.S. version but only because I'm POOR!!!!
 
I have seen the Aussie 2V head go for quite lows prices from time to time, my son found a complete head and intake for $450.00, just the Roller Rocker on Mustang-Geezers is almost $400.00 :shock: Don't get me wrong I think the log head can be build up to produce some good numbers, in fact I kinda wish I had gone that route and added the tripple offy converison just for the coolness factor! 8) But I don't want people misslead into thinking that because I paid $500. for my Aussie 2V head it some how is tainted, But that the other highly built up engine is a better bargain. When he's comparing a fully ported and polished, 272H camed high performance engine to my stock 200 with a stock Aussie 2V head! :evil:
 
8)

Hmm I spent close to $800 for my Oz head and to get it here. For the same amount of money I could have built a homemade 3 x 1bbl setup.

Im of the opinion that a fully ported and polished log head with the 3 bbl setup will perform close to the Oz head. And in the end you spend close to the same amount of money.

But there is still the WTF factor with an Oz head.
 
Your comparing my apple to a crate of oranges!
Click to expand...

Ben,
I think you just called me a fruit...or my car a crate!!! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

For the head and the cost of the machine work, (new valves, etc) the total price came to around $400.00

Then I figure that I have at least 40+ hours on top of that in my own labor portin & polishin the head and modifying everything to fit.

I guess if you want to compare the cost factor you have to figure out how much youre time is worth then figure that into the price also.

I'd get a Aussie head too, but I'm just a stubborn S.O.B. :wink:

Later,

Doug
 
this is the debate ive been waiting for though bang for your buck is misleading a stock oz head flows more than a stock log so i figger a fully modiedfied oz head will flow more than a modded log head
the stock oz with a holley is way cool but for less money you can have 3 carbs on a log head again way cool but i feel that it would not be near as well mannerd as the oz so a lot depends on your budget if you got the money for a oz if not than you can get close to the same performance
with a log but alot more elbow grease involved if doug paid hisself for the labor on his log i bet the price tag would get a whole lot closer to the oz
it just depends what your goals are and how the car will be used
in a perfect world azcoupe and mustang_geezer would live close enough
drag race :D
 
I have to agree with Doug, I have a D7 head that I paid 25.00 for, I picked up the adj. rockers, teflon valve seals, and double springs off E-bay for around 75.00 including shipping. (all new with the exception of the rockers). I have spent around 16 hrs. so far porting and polishing and grinding off the log to accept a 2 barrel, with maybe 8-10 more to go and I will have to spend about about 48.00 for 144 intake valves for the exhaust, and I will be doing the 3 angle valve job myself. I have a friend who has a machine shop and he said help yourself to any of machines you need. I know that this luxury is not available to everyone, but if you shop around , you can work out deals with others. If I buy a aussie head, I will still have to do the same work to that and purchase the same stuff for it, and I don't believe I can get one of these for 25.00. Or can I ? Anyone.
 
My turn. I have been thinking this one through for so time now. After some research I have come to the conclusion that the 2V has only one meaningful advantage over the US head, and that advanctage can be overcome.

The stock 2V has the same exhaust ports (uses the same manifold and requires a port divider to get the most from a header). The valves (intake and exhaust) are smaller and the valve stems are larger, i.e., larger guides and smaller valves don't improve flow. However, we all know the Mustangaroo got a minimum 35HP boost at the rear wheels from this conversion. I accept this number as a benchmark because the engine is otherwise stock (that is to say I think of a header and improved ignition as stock for our cars given the commonality of these mods). Additionally, my car runs the same carb, headers, approx CR, upgraded ignition and is well tuned. However, based on expert opinion I am convinced rear wheel HP has not been improved by more the 20.

Conclusion 1: Fuel distribution, period. It has to be the intake manifold and carb that make the dif. There is no other explanation I can come up with.

Conculussion 2: Late 1970's log heads have equal or better porting and larger valves with smaller stems and guides. Add 144 intakes as exhaust valves and a good valve job and this head will outflow the 2V IF YOU CAN GET EQUAL, OR ALMOST EQUAL, FUEL DISTRIBUTION. I believe this can be done with multiple carbs. There are a number of possiblities, including the "off the shelf Offy". Over the years I have owned a number of multicarb engines. Being a back year engineer type I am looking forward to playing with this opportnuity.

Goal: 105 at the rear wheels with a stock block, headers, upgraded ignition, and 9:1 CR for an all in price of under $500 (the cost of a very used stock 2V).

The upside. valves, guides, seats, manifold gaskets, thermostate housing etc are available at any parts store. 2V'ers be real here - we know you can modify your head to take US valves, guides, and seats - but not for the original $500. Also, I believe the 105 can be achieved B4 porting / polishing / etc. so there is more to be had, and still with the stock block.

Along these lines, I am looking forward to seeing the numbers from Mustagaroo after the cam and carb mods. These numbers will be another benchmark. Thanks much Mustangaroo
 
Great pic's JD. Those are HS6 SU's. In my opinion they may be a little big. I say this because I don't think the flow a 200 I6 needs to perform well can be achieved with a progressive set up and those carbs have 1.75" throats, i.e., could be to much off the line. I think 1.5", the HS4, is a better choice for a stock 200. However, since I plan to go beyond a stock block over time, and because both the HS6 and HS8 have the 4 bolt manifold (more options), I will probably go with the HS6 to start, IF I GO SU. I am convinced, however, that side draft is the correct answer to the fuel distribution issue. What would you say to one throat per value?? TUNING - WHO's AFRAID OF TUNING.

I think I have gone over the edge.
 
WTF :shock: :shock: I like that :wink:

Now gang lets look at the poll question again, the question was bang for your buck? Now someone needs to show me a stock 200 with headers and modified log head and 2V that is putting out 105 to the rear wheels!
That doesn't have oversised valves or was ported and polished or running roller rockers! You know STOCK :shock: :shock: :shock: My son Jason is building up a Aussie 2V, Stock head, ISKY 256 cam, CR about 9.6:1 headers, and were expecting to get between 140 HP - 150 HP to the rear wheels, and that engine still will only be built up half as much as Mustang Geezer's!

Now for the real HEAT.... I don't think anyone here knows the full power of a Built up Aussie 2V... because you don't have to build one up to OUT PERFORM the LOG HEAD! It's not that the Aussie 2V is so great it's the log head is a TURD and so named correctly! :wink:

We will post the DYNO number from my son's daily driver rebuilt next month, oh and I think by then my new dyno runs will be about 120 HP with my stock aussie 2V & block! :evil: :evil: :twisted: :wink:
 
I don't think anyone is challenging the performance of the 2V. It is simply our nature to wonder if there is another way. We wouldn't be putting ourselves through this if we didn't like to tinker and second guess each other. I think what I am trying to say is that I am not convinced that the TURD, as you call it, cannot perform as well as the 2V when set up correctly. As for all out potential, if you eliminate the 2V manifold advantage, I don't think there would be a difference. Which way is the quickest / simplest solution, no contest. All-in cost. I did know yet.
 
STEVE
As for all out potential, if you eliminate the 2V manifold advantage, I don't think there would be a difference
Click to expand...

Duh!!! Eliminate the 2V manifold advantage, I don't there think there would be a difference? Steve are we talking about the same engines?????

Other than the Aussie 2V what are you comparing??????????? They are the same?

If you really want to make up your minds of what is cost and labor effective, re-read the very long list of mods and 100's of hours labor done by Mustang Geezer (great job BTW!) to built up a log headed 200! Now compare it to bolting on a stock Aussie 2V head head and rebuilt using the old stock valves TOTAL cost $700.00!

The reason I went with the AUssie 2V was because I had allready rebuilt my engine two years ago before finding this great site! I didn't want to pull the engine and install a new cam and then re-built the engine up like Mustang Geezer's and invest all that money or time on my daily driver, so for me bolting on the Aussie 2V was by far the most bang for Money and effort! If your engine is running fine and stock and you don't want to rebuild it teh Aussie 2V is Great, If you are going to rebuild your engine then go ahead and built it up along the lins of Mustang Geezer's rebuild, that rebuild is what you would do if you had the money, time, talent, and experiance to do the job yourself as he has done (1 in 1,000)!

This comparission is like comparing Mustang Geezers (HP) to someone with a supercharger installed on their 200, it doesn't compare!

No more post on this subject by me, I'd rather argue which came first the chicken or the egg? :shock: :wink:
 
How about comparing Mustang_Geezer's to AzCoupe's? Aren't their engines setup ALMOST the same? How 'bout them apples?


Mustangroo, you've got a great setup, 25-28MPG plus the ability to cruise at 95MPH without a sweat. To most that is the goal.
 
Duh... I think you missed my point.

A multi carb set up (side draft in my opinion) would mitigate the manifold advantage of the 2V. That accomplished, the all out performance diff is probably minor. I did say that I don't view my solution as simpler, but I did say that I believe the stock 2V advantage can be mitigated. There are a number of home made multis out there. Attaching the cabs to the side is no more difficult that putting them on the top.

I don't understand your irritation over this issue. I don't think anyone is suggesting you didn't get a lot for your investment. I certainly am not suggesting that you can't get alot more. I am simply saying I have a different adgenda.

Didn't this post start out asking for opinion? Isn't that what this forum is all about? We listen, and learn, from each others ideas and do what WE WANT TO DO.
 
Nice debate. Here's my thoughts.

Most guys that are running the OZ heads have done so because thy don't care to mess with multiple carbs, so that needs to be taken out of the equation all together. And may not posess one or all of the following, the time, the skill, or have the equipment to do the mods, like Doug and others.

We are comparing 2V to 2V, head to head. Both heads have equal exhaust runners and valves so no reason to discuss that. The difference is in the intakes. All things being equal (carb cfm, valve size, etc) I would say the OZ head will out perform the log head hands down. There is no way you can get the flow numbers of the log head to equal that of the OZ head simply by machining the log manifold and bolting on a 2V carb.

As for the cool factor, its just a matter of opinion. Some like the looks of the OZ head, other will appreciate the mods that Doug has done and will applaud his efforts. Want to talk about cool, bolt that triple sidedraft Weber set up onto an OZ head and you would have the ultimate cool. And the log head, regardless of the modifications, would be hard pressed to out perform it.

More bang for the bucks, I don't think any of the guys who have max'd out our 200's are really concerned about that. If cost per HP was a major issue we would all be visiting Stangnet instead of Fordsix.

If were talking bolt on performance for the average guy with out the skills or tools required to make his own adapter and modifications, he would need to have this all done for him. Looking at the cost to machine the log, modify it to accept an adapter plate, have the adapter made up, and modify the accelerator linkage (which is more complicated for this set up than the OZ), it would cost somewhere between the cost of an OZ head to maybe half as much. For those who obtain the same skills as Doug and having the necessary equipment, then modifying the log becomes a viable solution, but only if its a TIY project. Even then, I still don't think it would out perform, or even match the performance of the OZ head.

Imagine if Doug would have bought an OZ head two years ago and spent the same amount of time on it that he has on all the different setups he has experimented with to get to this point. I would bet his flow numbers would exceed those of any log head, even with multiple carbs. Even Doug will tell you he has been tempted by the dark side, must be a reason.

But this is just my opinion. Guess that why I have an OZ head. As to which motor produces the most HP, I would say we are pretty darn equal, and it would be a good match at the track. Right Doug? So when are you driving down to Phoenix? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Yep, ours are just about the same buildup 8)

Mike's 67 Mustang...................Doug's 66 Mustang
Compression 9.6:1..................10.0:1
Overbore .030.........................060
Cam 272H...............................272H
Carb 350cfm Holley.................500cfm Holley
Roller Rockers.........................Roller Rockers
Aussie 2V head.......................Rather odd looking "Turd" head
Headers..................................Headers
Duraspark/MSD ignition...........Duraspark/MSD ignition

Now if I swapped to a Aussie head (The dark side has called more than once as you know) You would still be able to beat me in a "heads up" race just for the simple fact that I'm carrying more "Ballast" around then what you are :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

According to our adoption agency, Arizona ranks in the top 5 states that they place children from....So maybe with some luck this coming summer..... :wink: 8) 8)

Later,

Doug
 
I donno Doug, last time I was at the docs office, I was 271lbs. Must be all them rocks upstairs.

But I'll still beat you, remember I'll be bolting on those triple SUs sitting in my garage before then. :wink: :lol:
 
As far as the head/log/carb goes we really have 4 lines of thought.

1. Keep everything stock
2. Upgrade to a 250/300 YF
3. Mill the log for a 2V
4. Aussie 2V

Depending on your skill, budget, and motovation most will fall into one of the four choices.

As far as bang for the buck, buy a car with a V8.

For the pole, I vote for the Aussie 2V, it looks cool, it requires less DIY fabrication, and its different (which is why most of YOU claim to have I6's)

I still love those baby moons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top