Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40,
mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry
rzcrisis, DoctorC, jamyers, Motorboy, fastpat, Silverback280, chad


<<< New Site Update >>>

head work question

Moderator: Mod Squad

User avatar
shortbox07
Registered User
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Indianola, IA
Contact:

head work question

Post #1 by shortbox07 » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:44 pm

so its that time of year were all taking the race motors to the machine shop and was thinking about taking my spare head for the 300 in at the same time. what are the best things to do as far as best "bang for the buck" i know that valves are great but there also big $. i guess what are you guys' thoughts?
A guy at the local parts store once asked me if i own any vehicles that aren't made up of 10 other vehicles ... i replied whats the fun in that!

my "six" collection
78' f-100 shortbox 300
67' mustang coupe 200

User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #2 by StrangeRanger » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:53 pm

In order of importance as I would rate it:
1) Bowl work
2) bowl to port transitions
3) blend/reduce valve guides
4) blend/reduce thermactor bumps
5) 3-angle valve job w/ back cut intakes
6) port (NOT gasket) match
7) polish, deburr and CC the chambers
1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

User avatar
shortbox07
Registered User
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Indianola, IA
Contact:

Post #3 by shortbox07 » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:59 pm

i figured i would focus my own time on the combustion chamber and runners. i just wondered if shaving the head is worth it or any other machine work is worth it that i couldnt do myself. the other thing i forgot to ask is if it would be worth while to dump the head i have in favor of a fuelie head?
A guy at the local parts store once asked me if i own any vehicles that aren't made up of 10 other vehicles ... i replied whats the fun in that!



my "six" collection

78' f-100 shortbox 300

67' mustang coupe 200

Fordman75
Registered User
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:43 am
Location: Southern, Minnesota

Post #4 by Fordman75 » Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:18 pm

Like SR said the bowl work will give you the "best bang for the buck".
Ted

54 Ford F100/F150 4x4
300, NP435 4spd, NP205 transfercase

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Post #5 by Lazy JW » Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:11 am

shortbox07 wrote: ....... the other thing i forgot to ask is if it would be worth while to dump the head i have in favor of a fuelie head?


Not for a high-performance engine. The EFI head has a nasty shrouding problem around the valves which severely limits flow at high speeds. This so-called "fast burn" chamber is at its best in stock-type applications where the main priority is economy.
Joe
"The White OX" 1974 F-350 300-6, Stock single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18A, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, but much increase is by the strength of the ox" (Proverbs 14:4)
Image

User avatar
shortbox07
Registered User
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Indianola, IA
Contact:

Post #6 by shortbox07 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:46 am

thats kind of what i thought, but this is going to be a mostly stock build. it will probably get either a stock cam with chev rockers or a mild cam, exhaust, and the 2v i already have on it, i just want to freshen the old gal up. i would also like to keep or improve my gas mileage, its just a daily driver after all. so i guess what i wanted to know is if the F.I. head in mostly stock form would be a better head than the carb version.
A guy at the local parts store once asked me if i own any vehicles that aren't made up of 10 other vehicles ... i replied whats the fun in that!



my "six" collection

78' f-100 shortbox 300

67' mustang coupe 200

User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #7 by StrangeRanger » Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:52 am

The fuelie head will raise your compression by 0.5. Depending on where you are now that may or may not be a good thing. The fast burn characteristic of the fuelie head can be removed by unshrouding the intake valves, which in turn lowers the CR slightly.
1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6048
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Post #8 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:11 am

StrangeRanger wrote: The fast burn characteristic of the fuelie head can be removed by unshrouding the intake valves, which in turn lowers the CR slightly - and slows the burn rate which, in effect gets you back to a carbed head (with head cracking issues we need not go into here) so you may as well just stay with a carbed head. FTF.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

User avatar
shortbox07
Registered User
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Indianola, IA
Contact:

Post #9 by shortbox07 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:06 am

would you want to remove the fast burn characteristic of the head? i know it would be a good idea to unshroud the valves but stock against stock which head would be better? im thinking now that im just gonna do a valve job and probably port match, along with a little clean up on the runners.
A guy at the local parts store once asked me if i own any vehicles that aren't made up of 10 other vehicles ... i replied whats the fun in that!



my "six" collection

78' f-100 shortbox 300

67' mustang coupe 200

User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #10 by StrangeRanger » Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:10 am

The fast burn head is ONLY compatible with the EEC computer-controlled ignition. If you try to run it with a conventional ignition, things will not happen at the right time or the right duration in the combustion cycle
1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Post #11 by Lazy JW » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:13 pm

At least a couple of forum members have used the EFI head in a carby application using Duraspark ignition with apparent satisfaction. This would necessitate a re-curve of the distributor to match the fast-burn characteristics. Poster jgetti is one, I don't remember the other(s).


To my thinking this has good potential for economy, but also has the possibility of death by detonation if the timing curve is not correct. Let the buyer beware.
Joe
"The White OX" 1974 F-350 300-6, Stock single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18A, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, but much increase is by the strength of the ox" (Proverbs 14:4)
Image

User avatar
shortbox07
Registered User
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Indianola, IA
Contact:

Post #12 by shortbox07 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:15 pm

thanks guys! i figured i might go to the junk yard over the x-mas break and look for some F.I. exh. manifolds and if the price was right pick up the head too, but in that case i wont even worry about it. :D
A guy at the local parts store once asked me if i own any vehicles that aren't made up of 10 other vehicles ... i replied whats the fun in that!



my "six" collection

78' f-100 shortbox 300

67' mustang coupe 200

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Post #13 by Lazy JW » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:17 pm

shortbox07 wrote:would you want to remove the fast burn characteristic of the head?....


Were I to use a fast-burn head in a carby application I would only do so in order to gain the fast-burn quality; therefore I would leave the valves shrouded and only do mild port work plus light polishing in the chambers.

Otherwise, I would prefer the open-chambered 300/240 head.
Joe
"The White OX" 1974 F-350 300-6, Stock single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18A, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, but much increase is by the strength of the ox" (Proverbs 14:4)
Image

User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #14 by StrangeRanger » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:31 pm

The old 240 head is more similar to the EFI head than to the 300 carby. It has a smaller chamber with the same volume as the EFI head. Unshrouding the EFI head would get you pretty close to a 240 head if it were not for its other issues.
1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

inline300
Registered User
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:33 am

Post #15 by inline300 » Thu Dec 25, 2008 10:49 am

My concern in regards to the efi head would likely be the fact they are prone to crack. Youd probably go through a few cores before you find a good one.

bentwire
Registered User
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:31 pm

Post #16 by bentwire » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:40 pm

i am building the 300 EFI head and have nio worries, i am counting on the swirl effect of the center heart to make my mix hit higher atomization qualities, also i have poked 1.96 intakes in the hole major port and polish releaveing a bit of the shrouding, this is a blown motor so the shrounding is not so much a problem as it would be nomraly aspirated
1984 F 150 302 AOD
1984 f150 4.9 4 spd 4x4 trulock
All kinds of used 300 parts blocks and heads to build trade and expierment with

American Thunder
Registered User
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Upstate, NY

Post #17 by American Thunder » Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:55 pm

StrangeRanger wrote:The fast burn head is ONLY compatible with the EEC computer-controlled ignition. If you try to run it with a conventional ignition, things will not happen at the right time or the right duration in the combustion cycle


I'm using a '95 300(with the stock efi head), and a points distributor.
1977 530hp 302 Mustang II videos:
Smokeshow at 8000 rpm
0-90 mph speedometer view

1983 4x4 Bronco - '95 300 converted to carb, 5-speed, 3.55 gears and 9" rear.

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6048
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Post #18 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:47 pm

American Thunder wrote:
StrangeRanger wrote:The fast burn head is ONLY compatible with the EEC computer-controlled ignition. If you try to run it with a conventional ignition, things will not happen at the right time or the right duration in the combustion cycle


I'm using a '95 300(with the stock efi head), and a points distributor.


If you haven't retarded the initial timing and backed off the vacuum advance then you will be running over-sparked, i.e., past the minimum spark needed for most torque output. Higher octane fuel required and reduced efficiency will be the result. And possible detonation damage.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

American Thunder
Registered User
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Upstate, NY

Post #19 by American Thunder » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:58 pm

I cant use the vac advance, only initial and mechanical. If I recall, I think total timing is only 22-24 degs or so.
1977 530hp 302 Mustang II videos:

Smokeshow at 8000 rpm

0-90 mph speedometer view



1983 4x4 Bronco - '95 300 converted to carb, 5-speed, 3.55 gears and 9" rear.

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6048
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Post #20 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:08 pm

Then you're good to go.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

300 HIPO
Registered User
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:08 am

Post #21 by 300 HIPO » Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:45 am

StrangeRanger wrote:The fuelie head will raise your compression by 0.5. Depending on where you are now that may or may not be a good thing. The fast burn characteristic of the fuelie head can be removed by unshrouding the intake valves, which in turn lowers the CR slightly.


How is it possible to change the Compression Ratio by unshrouding the intake valves..I have never heard of such stuff..I do not see how this is real, you are not changing the size of the combustion chamber, so how does this change the ratio of compression?

Please show me this one.
87 Dodge Shelby GLH-S #0867: Custom 2.7 litre. Hybrid T3/T4 @ 32 PSI. 3 bar map.
88 GTU: 1.3 litre. 2135 lbs. Twin rotary. custom intake & exhaust. Racing Beat header, 5th injector, 125HP N.O.S.
88 Econoline: cold air/ramair 4" dual intake, K&N, 3" exhaust. magnaflow muffler.
94 4.6 Thunderbird: 3.5" MAF coldair/ramair intake, cone filter, dual exhaust, cats gone.
U.S. Army Recon 93-04

User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #22 by StrangeRanger » Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:51 am

Think about what you're saying. You unshroud the intake valve by removing material from the combustion chamber wall and creating a larger flow path around the valve. This removed material increases the size of the chamber and lowers the CR
1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

User avatar
80broncoman
Global Moderator
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:49 pm
Location: The Great state of Ohio!!

Post #23 by 80broncoman » Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:59 am

And remember the schrouding is the wall next to the valve this can be minimunized by also using a cam with as much lift as you can stand (with out overcamming) and milling the head which shortens the wall.
OAPSE Union Member

Real men don't wear Bowties
When it come to engines If its .001 loose nobody knows, But if its .001 too tight EVERYBODY KNOWS!!
80 bronco FUV (farm utility vehicle)300 T-18 3.50s EFI head, offy C dual plenum, 500 edel carb, 1.7 roller rockers, Crane 260 cam EFI Exh

mutt
VIP Member
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, Ca.
Contact:

Post #24 by mutt » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:37 pm

I did some unshrouding around my carb 300 head, easing that shoulder out to the head gasket line. I certainly made the chamber bigger. Not by a lot, %-wise, but by some, lowering the compression. I milled the head .030, I doubt it made up for it entirely.
OTOH, you can certainly see how that shoulder restricts flow, and how flow can only be improved by the work. Gain in power? Loss? Balance out??
not enough to be noticed by my ass dyno.....id say itsworth the time, if the heads off. zero decking & head milling would recoup it certainly....

American Thunder
Registered User
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Upstate, NY

Post #25 by American Thunder » Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:50 pm

Not to mention, removing that shroud sure would make timing it with an old points distributor a lot easier!
1977 530hp 302 Mustang II videos:

Smokeshow at 8000 rpm

0-90 mph speedometer view



1983 4x4 Bronco - '95 300 converted to carb, 5-speed, 3.55 gears and 9" rear.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 21 guests