Forums
NautiqueParts.comNautiqueSkins.com - Correct Craft Upholstery and Part
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Gt-40 Heads and Max RPM
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Gt-40 Heads and Max RPM

 Post Reply Post Reply   
Author
reidp View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: December-06-2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 1804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote reidp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Gt-40 Heads and Max RPM
    Posted: March-20-2005 at 1:14am
First to specifically address the compression issue noted by WROLL above and without getting argumentive, a very common head used on many 302-351 engines from 75-77 on to the advent of the GT-40 headed ProBoss, was indeed this head shown in this E-Bay listing: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7961798817&category=33617

This same head was used on both 302 and 351 engines and used the small 5/8" or 18mm plugs, as stated before for purposes of identification. Notice the small valve and large chamber sizes, which is about 10cc larger than a P-head. Going from this head to a regular GT-40 or GT-40P head will indeed, with no question, significantly increase your compression ratio a full 1 to 2 points. As noted by Woody above, this change will surely show some improvements and the improvements will come from both the increased flow and compression when replacing this common head.
ReidP
1973 Mustang

Back to Top
Tim D View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: August-23-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tim D Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-18-2005 at 7:49pm
Hey Jim, with all this head talk, if you leave the interceptor exhaust manifolds on I don't think you can get much more performance since they're square on the inside.
Tim D
Back to Top
Jim_In_Houston View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: September-06-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim_In_Houston Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-17-2005 at 11:25pm
Thanks for the good advise Wroll. Your advise is consistant with others. While replacing the heads I also installed a SpeedPro cam and a Holley 480CFM 4V. ReidP or someone else on the forum with a 289/302 said they were using this particular cam with good results over a wide speed range. The old carb was a Holley 2V. I'm replacing the points with an SS conversion. It should be interesting. This stuff is fun huh?
Happy owner of a '66 and a '68 Mustang
Back to Top
WRoll View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: August-11-2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 12
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WRoll Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-17-2005 at 3:30pm
The biggest difference between a GT 40 head and a standard marine head is valve size and port shape. The increase in power is a factor of the head and camshaft; if you replace the head you should replace the cam shaft designed for a GT 40 to optimize your power. I do not believe the chamber size (cc) is much different from stock to the GT40 meaning the head change will not impact your compression ratio. You should see an increase in RPM’s since the engine will make more power but the increase is dependant on many factors such as camshaft selection, ignition ( I assume you are using a distributor that has points) etc. Don’t increase your compression without considering all the factors; camshaft, head design, ignition, carburetion and type of fuel. Design your engine improvements with a purpose in mind…
Back to Top
Jim_In_Houston View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: September-06-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim_In_Houston Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-17-2005 at 1:36pm
Thanks for the nice offer Reid. I'll run it this way all summer. I think 64 Skier is right though, high compression IS the way to go. I wasn't aware of the differences in combustion chamber sizes and I do have the dished pistons. Heck I may just swap pistons next year, why not?
Happy owner of a '66 and a '68 Mustang
Back to Top
reidp View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: December-06-2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 1804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote reidp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-17-2005 at 12:15am
But Jim, you will still gain some decent HP from the increased breathing and efficiency of the P-heads. Your c.r. shouldn't really drop given the minimal difference in chamber size between your original and the P-head. I wouldn't go for the smaller cc heads as their flow will never match what you've got. And should you EVER decide to upgrade any other aspect of the engine, no matter how many years down the road, your heads will definitely be up for the challenge. I think these are a sure upgrade for you. If you really want compression, I'll trade you a set of the small chamber 289 heads and give you some cash, but I'd feel guilty.
ReidP
1973 Mustang

Back to Top
Jim_In_Houston View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: September-06-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim_In_Houston Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-16-2005 at 2:14pm
My old heads are marked 302 D50E A3B, according to your chart 58.2 cc. I checked the exhaust port and sure enough they have the air injector bump with a hole! I really wasn't ready to pull the engine apart in install new pistions. The piston walls look great with no ridge at the top. I guess I will look for a set of 54 cc heads. Man o man, shoot!.
Happy owner of a '66 and a '68 Mustang
Back to Top
Jim_In_Houston View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: September-06-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim_In_Houston Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-16-2005 at 1:56pm
Well all of this is good news. Thanks..... I'm off to check my old heads... anyone want a fresh set of GT40-P heads?
Happy owner of a '66 and a '68 Mustang
Back to Top
reidp View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: December-06-2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 1804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote reidp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-16-2005 at 11:38am
Jim,
The formula for figuring the exact compression is a long one and not one that I've personally tried to use or calculate by. I'm not sure if the Ford Tech Line guys that I spoke to were using the exact formula or just going by the years-old Ford factory pieces and combinations thereof. I.e:

There were a number of 289 heads available in terms of chamber size, which in conjunction with piston design as you know, determines your compression for a specific bore x stroke engine. Look at this chart of old Ford head casting numbers and chamber size: http://web.ask.com/redir?u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d0EF2E89A502C65A04%26sid%3d18DEC7436BB30BE14%26qid%3dBEEB9B9D912D0247A6B525799909866C%26io%3d6%26sv%3dza5cb0de0%26o%3d0%26ask%3dford%2bC6OE%2bcylinder%2bhead%26uip%3d438cfebc%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dCylinder%2bHead%2bCasting%2bNumbers%26ac%3d31%26qs%3d1%26pg%3d2%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d102%26te_id%3d%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.mustangii.com%2fhead.asp&bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dford%2bC6OE%2bcylinder%2bhead%26o%3d0%26page%3d2&q=ford+C6OE+cylinder+head&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.mustangii.com%2fhead.asp&qte=0&o=0&abs=Cylinder-Head+Casting+Numbers+...+ENGINE.++YEAR+CASTING+NUMBER.++COMBUSTION-+CHAMBER+VOLUME+(CC)+...+*C6OE-C%2c+E.++C6OE-M+*C7OE-A+Rail-type+rocker...&tit=Cylinder+Head+Casting+Numbers&bin=&cat=wp&purl=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fi%2fb.html%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d0EF2E89A502C65A04%26sid%3d18DEC7436BB30BE14%26qid%3dBEEB9B9D912D0247A6B525799909866C%26io%3d%26sv%3dza5cb0de0%26o%3d0%26ask%3dford%2bC6OE%2bcylinder%2bhead%26uip%3d438cfebc%26en%3dbm%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3d%26ac%3d31%26qs%3d1%26pg%3d2%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fmyjeeves.ask.com%2faction%2fsnip&Complete=1

I know your new heads aren't on this chart, but this is a good starting point by looking at comparable chamber sizes. But they mean little without knowing what piston you have, flat top or dished, etc.. I'm rambling I know so I'll try to get to something concrete:,...

Typical factory automotive '65-'67 289-4V engine used flat top pistons and 54+/- cc head (see chart) which resulted in the factory rated 10.0:1 cr. Check your original heads to see which ones you have. If they are of the 54 cc variety, then you probably have dished pistons to lower the cr as the marine engines like yours were typically 8.5-9:1. If that's the case, then the P heads are going to "drop" your compression by half a point or so. This based off a rule of thumb of 1cc equalling .15 to .2 points of compression. We purchased a 302-4V Interceptor a few years ago which had heads stamped "2V" and which had the large 63cc chambers and this similar head is shown for a late 289. If you buy chance had these heads, then the P's will give you a boost to the 10.0 range, assuming you've still got the original pistons.

77Stang can you this chart and compare his existing heads to what he might want to pursue in order to gain the max benefit.
ReidP
1973 Mustang

Back to Top
64 Skier View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: February-08-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 415
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 64 Skier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-16-2005 at 6:55am
Takes a few more hours on the phone, but matching the compression ratio to a specific head is how to get more than 250 HP out of a 289.

I just rebuilt last year and the Speed shop doing the boring work kept telling me to quit worrying about the stock 289 heads and just increase the compression to 165 psi and we'd be OK with speed and pump gas. We did put larger valves in the old head with a Performer intake and 4bbl and now she get's to 5000 RPM very quickly.

Geeky...but if you calculate piston speed at 3500 RPM and intake/exhaust CFM....those Monster heads can be a little over the top. Could be cheaper to get a better prop and have the same performance!

Keep Wrenching!!!

Acts like a new engine
64 Skier
66" HO VTX and 67" HO Triumph
71CC
Back to Top
Jim_In_Houston View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: September-06-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim_In_Houston Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-16-2005 at 6:37am
Reid, I just finished bolting on my GT-40Ps (on my 289) and I hope to have my engine running and my boat in the water this week-end (weather permitting).

I have been curious as to the new compression ratio. You think it will around 10:1 with stock pistons? If so, what are you basing that on (if you don't mind me asking)?

How much have you advanced your timing? -jim
Happy owner of a '66 and a '68 Mustang
Back to Top
reidp View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: December-06-2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 1804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote reidp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-16-2005 at 12:37am
REVELATION. Key issue here is the new heads on a STOCK 302. I've got a set of the cast iron Jr's and while yet to install them, I was displeased when I saw this same chart comparison some time ago, and as I read it the 40P's are significantly better on the intake side and only marginally off on the exhaust side. And if you look at the two side by side, the Jr's do have larger exh ports. But I paid just over $800 for the Jr's and the Ps are out there for almost half that. I really like them both. But my reason for getting back on this thread was what I missed in regards to chamber size and resulting compression with either of these good heads compared to what may be currently on the stock 302-351. If 77Stang has the small plug heads(5/8" vs 13/16") then these have a large chamber size in the neighborhood of 69cc's. The P's are 59+/- and the Jr's are 58cc. While I'm still not sure if you'll get 400 rpm, you will certainly get some serious added compression and horsepower with that standard piston. If that engine is currently rated at 8.5:1 compression thereabouts, you can end up with something in the 10+:1 range. That's not to high in my book and just be prepared to run premium fuel as so many of us do.

I'm currently running KB 116 domed pistons with ported 60cc 1970 351 heads which according to the Ford tech line results in approx 10.5: comp. With a never ending supply of cool water I've never had any issue with spark knock even running advanced timing. And the pistons and compression did make a considerable difference. My engine already had smaller chamber heads so I needed the domed pistons to get the compression increase.

So in essence, the biggest gain may result from the increased compression as opposed to the increased breathing capacity.
ReidP
1973 Mustang

Back to Top
64 Skier View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: February-08-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 415
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 64 Skier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-14-2005 at 4:34am
If you plan on buying heads take a look at this Web Site. The original 289 AND 351 4BBl from '69 were pretty weak. The Windsor Jr's are better than the GT 40's. If you have the money, it's hard to beat the Edelbrock.

Carefull with the 202 valves and piston clearance.

Great data base.

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/Detailed/630.shtml
64 Skier
66" HO VTX and 67" HO Triumph
71CC
Back to Top
reidp View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: December-06-2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 1804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote reidp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-13-2005 at 2:18pm
Woody,
I've come across a handfull on E-Bay from time to time and here are several sets here, although these are all used ones, currently $110-$300 set. I've seen new ones from time to time also on E-Bay and for very decent prices.

http://search.ebay.com/GT-40-heads_W0QQsofocusZbsQQsbrftogZ1QQsojsZ1QQfromZR10QQsacatZ-1QQcatrefZC6QQftrtZ1QQftrvZ1QQsadisZ200QQfposZQ5AIPQ2FPostalQQfsopZ1QQfsooZ1QQcoactionZcompareQQcopagenumZ1QQcoentrypageZsearch

http://search.ebay.com/GT40P-heads_W0QQsofocusZbsQQsbrftogZ1QQsojsZ1QQfromZR10QQsacatZ-1QQftrtZ1QQftrvZ1QQsadisZ200QQfposZQ5AIPQ2FPostalQQfsopZ1QQfsooZ1
ReidP
1973 Mustang

Back to Top
woodyelc View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote woodyelc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-12-2005 at 11:33pm
who has any of these heads for sale they have been out of stock for over a year now. when they were available we used them on some engines and they made a very big improvement over stock heads. did not have to change prop only if it was in need of repair anyway. hop this helps.
Back to Top
reidp View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: December-06-2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 1804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote reidp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-11-2005 at 11:55am
77 Stang,
Unfortunately, I don't believe these heads, by themselves on the stock engine, will gain you 400 rpm, but I really hope they do. We went with ported 351 heads and they were good for about 200+/- rpm. But whatever add'l rpm they give you, I wouldn't consider a prop change if your goal is to go faster. If the engine is to gain X number of rpm, you want to see it on that prop to realize the speed. The rest of that engine can certainly tolerate 4800 if the heads can benefit it to that extent. Hopefully your camshaft spec doesn't end up being the limiting factor, and not allowing it to reach 4800 or whatever rpm these heads may be capable of increasing it to, with the standard prop. There are plenty of members out there with an interest in this swap, so keep us posted.
ReidP
1973 Mustang

Back to Top
captan1 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June-02-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 180
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote captan1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-10-2005 at 10:25pm
I did this to my 1978 Ski Nautique w/351, it just seems to rev easier, I took the vales out and ground off some ridges and smog bumps, if you like the idea of way better breathing, there's a big difference in the heads.

I'm running a federal 13x14 before and after so can't compare the prop swap.

I just like knowing I have stuff under the hood, same cam and short block as stock.
Back to Top
GottaSki View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GottaSki Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-09-2005 at 2:53pm
I suspect, Yes, No, and unlikely/shouldn't matter.

If max rpms end up too high (>5k), perhaps consider adding diameter instead of pitch.
Back to Top
77stang View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May-19-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 342
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 77stang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-09-2005 at 2:30pm
I am considering bolting on some GT40-P heads on my stock ‘77 302. I’ve been reading articles around here and elsewhere and have about decided that I will move forward. However, I need a little help understanding “how” to interpret the expected increase in RPM’s. Specifically, since the new heads are suppose to add 400 RPM, does that mean –

1-Is the rest of my engine is already capable of pulling the additional RPMs?

2-Will I need to reprop the boat to turn 4800 at WOT?   Currently it is propped to turn the recommended 4400 at WOT.

3-Additionally, should I consider the maximum cruise RPM to increase from 3600 to 4200?

I realize this may seem a bit silly to some, but I really don’t know how I am to operate this old motor if I make this upgrade.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Copyright 2024 | Bagley Productions, LLC