Does anyone know anything about these heads? They have 1.94 valves in them, and I am not sure if they are factory or if they were installed. They also have screw in studs in them. Also does anyone know what all has to be done to put a 88 shortblock from a 5.0 HO shortblock only in a 73 maverick. I heard I had to change the balancer and flywheel, is this true. Thanks Steve
Sorry, the heads also say BA 45 302. I would also like to know the combustion chamber volume. Thanks.
If they say... ...D2... and have screw in studs and 1.94 intake valves they have been modified to accept those items. That is a typical cylinder head upgrade/modification as they didn't come that way from the factory assuming you are talking about a Windsor style Ford cylinder head. That keeps you from having to do it. It is highly possible that there are other modifications that the average person cannot notice without knowing what to look for. Ex. porting, and milling to raise the compression (makes combustion chambers smaller). Good find if you got them cheap. Seth
Weren't 72 302 heads around 56 or 58 cc . It doesnt really matter anyways . I have found that after you fool around with bigger valves it depends alot on where you seat the valve and how new the seats are . Some people will install new seats just to get the comb chamber volume up especially in 351W heads
?? Are you saying that they trying to get a larger combustion chamber? That would decrease compression. I don't have the book for 71-72 heads but my guess is that they are higher in cc's than that. Probably in the 60's in cc's. They may be 57/58. Anybody got their book? What size combustion chambers came stock on 302 cylinder heads in '71/'72? There were probably a couple of different types. Seth
They're about as good as any other 302 head. Not bad, and the exhaust ports have thicker walls to allow for more port work, especially near the roof. The sides and floor are thin, though. I cc'd a pair I ported a long time ago, and after chamber polishing they were 61cc. They had 1.90/1.60 valves...not the 1.94's. Good heads for cheap$$$. As far as changing the later 5.0 to the early chassis, it will bolt in, unless you are going to use the clutch Z-bar. The late blocks do not have the hole drilled in them for the pivot ball, but the boss is still there so you can just drill/tap the hole. You won't have to change the balancer but you might have to change the flexplate if you plan on using a C4
My 302 engine block is an 88 (t-bird), and I used A harmonic balancer from a 73 302. no problems here.
Yes I meant LOWERS your comb chamber volume If you install new seats then the valve tends to sit closer to the piston which LOWERS your comb chamber volume . I guess some people probably would want a bigger combustion chamber , maybe for a blower but most would want to lower it .
68 to 72, 302 2v engines are speced at 63 cc and 9:1 cr. 73 to 76 engines are speced at 58 cc and 8:1 cr. The differences are chamber volume and piston to deck clearence volume as well as the piston top shape, between the year ranges on the 2 barrel engines. A 1.94 was installed aftermarket. No stock head came with that size valve. The best heads from this time peroid are the 69-71 , 351 4 barrel heads with 60 cc chambers, larger valves and larger intake runners. There numbers are D0OZ-6049-c and C9OZ-6049-f. You can tell 351 heads also by the larger head bolt holes, otherwise they look much the same. When installing larger valves, the shop should try to keep them at the same installed height because of spring height requirements and rocker contact angle with the stem tip. Having adjustable rocker arm studs does not alway gaurentee these requirements would be met with stock length push rods. The D20E-BA heads are listed for 71-74 with 58 cc chambers and 1.78/1.45 valves. To adjust for compression, it depends on what block year range and what head is used as to what to do. For example on 73-76 blocks, it is costly to increase compression without either decking the block and installing flat top pistons in place of the dished pistons or both.
Ken.... ...is that your protractor lying on the floor beside of you? I am just kidding !! Ken is better at explaining some of these things than most of us. I think he writes tech manuals on the side for fun money.
The early motors used a 28oz harmonic balancer the 5.0 they went to a 50oz use the harmonic balancer that came with the motor you are using unless you buy a 50oz harmonic balancer or have the crank balanced with the 28oz you should have saved the trim off the side of the car
theres links at my site to help with the casting numbershttp://home.columbus.rr.com/maverickgrabber/ Looks liked we are rained out for jegs Fri nite should have mine going by sat nite
little red-, I don't know if it will show up in the mail section of AUG issue MM-FF, but I contacted Mr Evan Smith about his article; showing page 180 top left in the July issue; that finding piston top dead center method was a no-no. He writes back that I caught him. I caught that mag. with inaccurate info in the past, on horse power calculations. When I had him do it over the phone, he saw the light. Depended to much on the dyno sheet supplied by an advertiser, that was used in an article!! The truth is, here, I have been around this leasure a long time and have a reasonable library of Ford material plus experience with Chevy and different forms of racing and engines. I have written some material. Currently re-searching and working out advanced control methods of switching a Kenne Bell super charged 5L SD for fuel ecomony to full power for street car use by a single switch. You should see some of the things I get into on other boards. This is just one way I get my personal enjoyment out of life. The Lincoln LSC is in the paint shop now and with refinished wheels, I'm looking forward to getting it back at the end of the month. Can't stand to drive anything else, I'm spoiled by the modified handling, all the other changes, and power the car now has.
