what heads do you guys recommend for my 93 gt?
- Thread starter Killer5.0
- Start date
Here's his current set-up:
1993 Mustang GT 5spd
here is a complete list of what i know.
bbk 70mm throttle body
bbk 70mm MAF
bbk fuel pressure regulator
bbk fender mounted cai
bbk headers (dont know if long tube and dont know about h or x pipe)
borla pipes that dump b4 rear axle
f303 cam
200a alternator (just put in)
gt40 upper and lower intake manifold
underdrive pulleys (bbk i think)
bbk lowering springs
camber plates
short throw shifter
3:73 gears
1993 Mustang GT 5spd
here is a complete list of what i know.
bbk 70mm throttle body
bbk 70mm MAF
bbk fuel pressure regulator
bbk fender mounted cai
bbk headers (dont know if long tube and dont know about h or x pipe)
borla pipes that dump b4 rear axle
f303 cam
200a alternator (just put in)
gt40 upper and lower intake manifold
underdrive pulleys (bbk i think)
bbk lowering springs
camber plates
short throw shifter
3:73 gears
When doing a swap like this. Try to stay with the same company. Each company make there own power package
I have run 3 sets of different heads. I ran 2 sets of edelbrock heads. 1 set of Performer heads on a stock 302 with b-303 cam and cobra intake. The car ran ok but the parts were missed matched.
I built a 331 and used edelbrock Victor Jr heads and custom cam and an Edelbrock RPM II intake. That motor ran very well. It felt very strong. I never got to any power number on the motor because I wrecked the car.
Then I have my turbo 347 now. I was running the Trickflow Heads, stage 1 cam, and trickflow intake. The runs really strong. The only thing I change was the intake I had the RPM II laying around and throw it on. The pick up a lot do to the better desing. But now I want to go and try the Trickflow Box-R-Series Intake. The trickflow tiwsted wedge heads are unported and have gone a best of 9.40's
http://www.trickflow.com/egnsearch....4294908282+4294924761+115+325385&autoview=sku
I have run 3 sets of different heads. I ran 2 sets of edelbrock heads. 1 set of Performer heads on a stock 302 with b-303 cam and cobra intake. The car ran ok but the parts were missed matched.
I built a 331 and used edelbrock Victor Jr heads and custom cam and an Edelbrock RPM II intake. That motor ran very well. It felt very strong. I never got to any power number on the motor because I wrecked the car.
Then I have my turbo 347 now. I was running the Trickflow Heads, stage 1 cam, and trickflow intake. The runs really strong. The only thing I change was the intake I had the RPM II laying around and throw it on. The pick up a lot do to the better desing. But now I want to go and try the Trickflow Box-R-Series Intake. The trickflow tiwsted wedge heads are unported and have gone a best of 9.40's
http://www.trickflow.com/egnsearch....4294908282+4294924761+115+325385&autoview=sku
Trick flow TWs, better valve placement/angles unshrouds the valve, shorter intake runner= less advertised cc but same Average cross section of bigger heads. You can mill the crap out of a TW for better comp ratio. Always check PR length and PV clearance, no matter what head you choose. I agree, small heads don't always give you more low end torque. I personally would go with a custom cam and TW heads set up by the same person doing the cam.
Horsepower TV just had a helluva build up with a 306 with RHS heads 200cc intake runners, a weiand intake, 650 cfm carb, and some comp cams cam single stage ( don't remember the specs, I recorded the show though!) They were running 89 octane gas, (the motor had about a 10.2 cr), and two degrees of timing and laid down 404 hp and 380 lb-ft of torque. For heads I would definitely go with Trickflow or AFR. A custom cam will be more expensive but can be suited to your needs and get more power than a ots cam.
That's interesting, definitely would not expect that. If you don't mind sharing, I sure would like to see a back to back dyno graph in the 2000-3500 rpm range of an efi 302 with two different port sizes and their complimentary cam. I think we can all agree that its easy to make more bottom end torque than a stock motor so I'm more interested in the afternarket head combos.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Well to be fair, if you want to see a comparison you'll have to use the same dyno. Intake cam events becomes more crytical using a "big" head, they'll take all the lift they can handle, duration, and LSA will determine where the power band is and how it's spread out. ACS on a TW 170 is closer to a AFR 185 than an AFR 165 but most people would say a TW 170 is a small head. If you look at advertised flow #s an AFR is flowed on a 4.125 bore where the TWs advertised on a 4.030. AFR stock valve placement shrouds the valves on a 4.030 bore and will drop numbers significantly. I personally wouldn't be interested in torque numbers at 2000 RPM unless you're running 2.73s, I'd be more interested in peak torque numbers. I doubt you'll see much difference in 2000-2500 with same cam and any of these style heads.
Thanks. I understand the need for a well thought out and executed comparison . . Trust me on that. I'm assuming this was done and that there is something out there that dispels the myth of snall ports/low end torque. Seems counterintuitive to me since I would have thought smaller port/cross sectional area for the same volume flow/rpm would lead to higher velocities which "could" lead to better volumetric efficiency at low speed/rpm.
I'm not doubting it, just would like to see what comparison tests have been done with the output being torque vs rpm curve. I'm not sure that a comparison in the tw vs afr head would prove the point given the afr's handicap due to the shrouding issue. By the way, thanks for explaining that, sure wish I knew that before purchasing mine back in '03.
I'm sure there's a majority of people that aren't concerned with torque below 3000rpm. But there are a few of us out there that are for various reasons like gearing, application (autox/ road course), or simply fun factor
I'm not doubting it, just would like to see what comparison tests have been done with the output being torque vs rpm curve. I'm not sure that a comparison in the tw vs afr head would prove the point given the afr's handicap due to the shrouding issue. By the way, thanks for explaining that, sure wish I knew that before purchasing mine back in '03.
I'm sure there's a majority of people that aren't concerned with torque below 3000rpm. But there are a few of us out there that are for various reasons like gearing, application (autox/ road course), or simply fun factor
I'll agree to this, as there are way too many variables to do a straight, unbaisad, A-B comparison. If you need an example, just look to the latest motor in the corvette. I don't have the numbers handy, but the heads are huge by 'Ford' comparisons. I don't see them crying about no torque. A Savy cam designer will know how to make use of the larger cross section. Port volume is misleading, as not all heads have the same port length. MCSA (Minimum Cross Section Area) is the number to look at.
. Almost any OEM style head will have shrouding issues on a 4.030 bore. This is where the heads with the relocated intake valve shine. They get the valve away from the cylinder wall, and now that part of the valve will flow better.
. Almost any OEM style head will have shrouding issues on a 4.030 bore. This is where the heads with the relocated intake valve shine. They get the valve away from the cylinder wall, and now that part of the valve will flow better.
I'll try and dig up some dyno graphs for comparison, probably won't be off the same dyno but will which type dyno will be shown. It's a newer way of thinking, with bigger heads on a small motor, so it's hard to get people out of the old way of thinking. Better flowing heads can run a smaller cam duration and wider LSA to make the power of a smaller head big cam, yet keep it more streetable do to the smaller camshaft desighn. LS1 motors are a good example from factory, most LS1 owners add only a bigger camshaft and turn stupid times at the track.
I'll dig around for some dyno graphs, but like I said before, they won't mean much. And they most likely wont be the same engine, but it should help prove a point.
As for velocity.... How do you measure velocity in an intake port of a running engine? And at what point is velocity too much, or not enough?
As for velocity.... How do you measure velocity in an intake port of a running engine? And at what point is velocity too much, or not enough?
I'll agree to this, as there are way too many variables to do a straight, unbaisad, A-B comparison. If you need an example, just look to the latest motor in the corvette. I don't have the numbers handy, but the heads are huge by 'Ford' comparisons. I don't see them crying about no torque. A Savy cam designer will know how to make use of the larger cross section. Port volume is misleading, as not all heads have the same port length. MCSA (Minimum Cross Section Area) is the number to look at.. Almost any OEM style head will have shrouding issues on a 4.030 bore. This is where the heads with the relocated intake valve shine. They get the valve away from the cylinder wall, and now that part of the valve will flow better.
. Almost any OEM style head will have shrouding issues on a 4.030 bore. This is where the heads with the relocated intake valve shine. They get the valve away from the cylinder wall, and now that part of the valve will flow better.