S.O.S

Chris, you are so nice.

I've seen that cast "302" under the VC in the heads, but, that does not necessarily mean they were actually used on 302's.

What engineering does and what actually gets produced are not always the same.

You are not right all the time either. Nobody is perfect, even you can't be right all the time.


I think you just need a hug.

Chris, my info is as reliable as a GM motor. ;)

Motors have no IQ. I however tested very high on all the tests I have taken in HS and college.

I still say it's the intake based on previous photo's, Six alignment guides are a bit much, shouldn't use any just asking for trouble if you do.

David,
Do you have the parts manual? I wonder if there's any details in it on the heads? If not, maybe Reid can find out?

JoeinNY wrote: Since you are pulling the heads would it be horrible to pull the whole engine and while it is out to pull the pan and look down into the bottom of the cylinders.. you will of course examine the top portion while the heads are off. In my experience otherwise good running engines that make water make it through a crack in the intake manifold or in the water jacket of the block. If it is a cylinder the crack would be below the area where the rings travel

This is a very true chance, I'd first inspect the intake installation, then the heads, and then cylinders/block

79nautique wrote: 79nautique wrote: Proof for Ahole, DH, DA, FI you pick the discription pay attention to the - letter very important if you want the best cast iron heads. sorry Tim smaller CC means higher compression, and with the same size valves guess what flows better, not p's

Actually the suffix in the casting number shows you the application. So, your DOOE-B is the 302 casting and the DOOE-C and DOOE-G casting were for the 351. Back in the early days Ford Muscle Parts actually had you using the 351 casting and you could change to their larger I think 1.88 intakes and 1.62 exhausts and recommended them on a 302 with their available pop up piston which brought compresion in at about 10.5. This was their hot ticket at the time.

Seriously doubt if the 69 mustang with a 302 had a DOOE-B casting head on it when it left the factory as that was a 1970 model engineering change. With all the head problems that they had in those days I would guess they easily could have been replaced very early on in the cars warranty years if you pulled them off a 69.

PAPA wrote: Seriously doubt if the 69 mustang with a 302 had a DOOE-B casting head on it when it left the factory as that was a 1970 model engineering change. With all the head problems that they had in those days I would guess they easily could have been replaced very early on in the cars warranty years if you pulled them off a 69.

I seriously doubt you have actually held a D0OE-B casting in your hand otherwise you would know that there are date codes cast on it as well, none of which are from the 70's. All of you can speculate all that you want but none of you have actaully had the heads in your possision or hands. Well one other person has but I doubt he looked that close at them, as I suspect his engine builder has all ready installed them on his engine.

vondy wrote: 79nautique wrote: I still say it's the intake based on previous photo's, Six alignment guides are a bit much, shouldn't use any just asking for trouble if you do. Not sure how using guide bolts could be a bad thing? If it is the intake then something is out of wack other than the installation.

I've never used guide bolts to install an intake. If you do you force the intake this way or that and do not allowing it to self-center in the vee like it has too. I also feel your are not sealing the water jacket correctly or using fel-pro gaskets.

Blown head gaskets and cracked blocks the leaks are always there cause drivability issues and bright white sprak plugs.

it runs fine one day and then the next there's water in the oil, so basicly a couple of thermocycles and it's toast, screams intake to me, blown head gasket the engine progressively gets worse, supposedly it runs ok, little stumble big deal, if it ran rough all the time, then head gasket might be it but it's not running rough or inconsistant.

new intake doubtfull, besides you would be able to see it no hidden passages on an intake.

did you add a bead of RTV on bothsides of the gasket and on all four waterjacket ports? last picture I saw it was real thin, what did you torque the bolts too?

Basically he is following the felpro installation tips (fit) guidelines, although they only recommend 4 guide pins be used there is no reason 6 would be an issue. It is the correct way to install the intake and make sure all the ports stay in line. I think you are barking up the wrong tree there Chris.   

What can i say the damn thing is a sticky wicket i would have tore it down the the block by now and magnafluxed everything but I can understand trying to avoid that ..

JoeinNY wrote: Basically he is following the felpro installation tips (fit) guidelines, although they only recommend 4 guide pins be used there is no reason 6 would be an issue.

your assuming that when the heads where machined they spec'd a projected tolerance zone to controll the bolts location, sorry they don't, so there is no way to control the location with pins because there angle and location are not controlled an inch or two above the mounting surface where the engagement of the pins occurs. This leads to mis-alignment issues and the tapper is never square or centered and you have issues.

79nautique wrote: PAPA wrote: Seriously doubt if the 69 mustang with a 302 had a DOOE-B casting head on it when it left the factory as that was a 1970 model engineering change. With all the head problems that they had in those days I would guess they easily could have been replaced very early on in the cars warranty years if you pulled them off a 69. I seriously doubt you have actually held a D0OE-B casting in your hand otherwise you would know that there are date codes cast on it as well, none of which are from the 70's. All of you can speculate all that you want but none of you have actaully had the heads in your possision or hands. Well one other person has but I doubt he looked that close at them, as I suspect his engine builder has all ready installed them on his engine.

Chris, All I was saying is that heads with that engineering number cast in them (DOOE) were designed for 1970 and newer model applications. They may have been cast in a foundry anytime from 1969 on up. The engineering number for Ford basically tells what the first application of what that part was for. They can produce them with that casting number as long as they want if the design isn't changed. Hope this clears this up. John.

As much as I hope Chris is right I don’t think I installed the intake incorrectly. The guide post causing things to not line up does not make any sense to me. Tonight I’ll pull the plug and temp sending unit and look to see if the ports are not lined up before I pull the intake. The head port is smaller than the intake port and when I did my dry fit you could see the edges of the head port encompassed by the intake port.

If it turns out to be the block then I’m going to have to have a come-to-Jesus with the boat and decide if she is going to go up for adoption. I’m estimating $2,600-$3,000 for a professional engine rebuild. Not including the price for a block. If I rebuild I don’t want to hook it up to a poor transmission so there’s $1,000. Not to mention I need to redo my stringers so there goes $1,200 or so. That brings us to around $5,200.

Not the kind of money I want to put into this boat all at once. If it were a more practical boat that would handle our rough lakes better and might actually have room for kids whenever we have them then yes. Say a Southwind or something like that. So add on the $3,000 or so already into the boat that brings the total up to $8,200 for a boat that will never be worth that or carry more than 4 people to the lake on anything but a calm day.

I do love the boat and if I spent $10,000 over a period of 15 years restoring the thing then no problem. But I can’t justify $5,200 right now.

Anyway, enough of my babbling.