David Vizard, Uncle Tony's garage, Unity motorsport. Mission impossible Dodge 302 Head porting

[Bakerlite]

What this thread shows how authoritarian peoples nature is it's all my way or the highway, no one has a each to their own mentality.

Every Ego is always looking for a place to roost..

 

[273]

So that engine isn't using all that 240 cfm of flow? The Ultimate say is what you use. Those Underheaded combo's

By ultimate I mean take a set of trick flows there’s a combo where you can’t get anymore real power out of them, it’s basically the best you can do, what is that who knows, so every other combo is only making a percentage of the available power. Can a well science out 302 head build be made to compete with some of the lesser than trick flow engines sure if that what floats your boat, but half decent trick flow engine generally gonna smoke ya with a lot less effort put into their combo.

 

[Killer6]

A port don't flow 195 cfm's on the engine, that just telling you how restrictive that port is even if the engine displaces 800 cfm which is like a 460 peaking at 6000 ish rpm that only a 100 cfm's a cylinder but your gonna need a fairly big port and a lot of cfm @ 28" for a 460@ 6000 rpm even though the engines only displacing 800 cfm

That's not even close to reality. The engine damn sure is using it. Even a cam with 250°@.050 is only giving each cylinder .007 seconds each cycle (at 6K)to fill with an actual 100cu.ft./min., that means the flow has to AVERAGE that amount of flow thru' the lift cycles, peak-lift flow numbers are not the definition of a good port. Tuned-length runners, excellent mid-lift numbers, & good port velo are more important in conjunction with the right cam utilizing the overlap. Once You've reached that head's limits, no matter how good, it's done. The "arguing" is just, should one whittle & work away at an efficient head with a lower ceiling, or just jump to a better head without all the hard work at a slightly lower efficiency.
The AVERAGE enthusiast usually prefers the latter, because it's more cost effective in reality, & more reliable in it's results.

 

[Hysteric]

Can a well science out 302 head build be made to compete with some of the lesser than trick flow engines sure if that what floats your boat

Do you really think this conversation is still about 302's? If you do then you're really not paying attention.

Once You've reached that head's limits,

Or is that better put the engines ability to use the head that's on it.

 

[Killer6]

Nope.

 

[forphorty]

So that engine isn't using all that 240 cfm of flow? The Ultimate say is what you use. Those Underheaded combo's sure seem to punch above their weight and use all the airflow those engine receive. Here's an interesting aside Qwkmopardans 410 stroker with 587's makes what it makes with 28 degrees total timing.......


125cc. That's even smaller than that 145 cc port. Still think a 318 needs a 160 cc port?


Its funny watching a daily driver street sedan that weighs at least 3400 LBS with a 318 and a tiny 218 hydraulic comp cam, stock converter and 3.23 gears run mid 12's with a 1.6xx 60 ft with only a stock valve sized 318 head.

3400 lbs, 318, stock converter , 3.23 gears. 1.6 60 ft. I would have to see it to believe it. You sure the car owner wasn't just messin' with ya?

 

[toolmanmike]

Wow, still talking about 302's. (or not) They aren't bad head. A great stock replacement for a 273 or early 318. Closed chambers and hardened seats are the pluses. They don't flow much better than the other small port heads and you can only port them so far. Use them for that. A replacement head for a 273 or 318.

 

[toolmanmike]

Hell, even Hot Rod used Magnum heads to build their "Magic' 400 horse 318.

 

[Hysteric]

I was shocked too. But I asked questions and the answers of who was involved with the build said more than he could ever tell me.

I know who ported the heads because he flows mine. I know the guy would built the carb. The owner and driver also runs a 9 sec street car with W9's. I looked at the 225's on the back stock rims with stock suspension and figured it was a nice stock resto with an addition of an air gap 650 Holley and an MSD ignition.

 

[Hysteric]

Nope.

So are you saying no matter what size head you put on it it will always make more power with more flow?

Wow, still talking about 302's. (or not) They aren't bad head. A great stock replacement for a 273 or early 318. Closed chambers and hardened seats are the pluses. They don't flow much better than the other small port heads and you can only port them so far. Use them for that. A replacement head for a 273 or 318.

I'm sure you would apply the same logic to Qwkmopardans 410 stroker that runs 9.6 @ 3000 LBS with a ported 587 head........

 

[toolmanmike]

So are you saying no matter what size head you put on it it will always make more power with more flow?


I'm sure you would apply the same logic to Qwkmopardans 410 stroker that runs 9.6 @ 3000 LBS with a ported 587 head........

At least he started out with 1.88/1.60 valve heads. I have a head guru a few miles away that could work wonders with those magic "587" heads but why? When you can start out with something better. May be a alloy head done right could make him go 9.30's. What ever.

 

[318willrun]

Wow, still talking about 302's. (or not) They aren't bad head. A great stock replacement for a 273 or early 318. Closed chambers and hardened seats are the pluses. They don't flow much better than the other small port heads and you can only port them so far. Use them for that. A replacement head for a 273 or 318.

I have not seen a small block door car on all throttle go into the 8's .... no, make that 9's... on 302 heads. Maybe they would and should ??? 10's ??

 

[Hysteric]

May be a alloy head done right could make him go 9.30's. What ever.

He has Edelbrocks running similar times. Says he prefers the 587's. Looks like we're still stuck talking about 302's.

Hell, even Hot Rod used Magnum heads to build their "Magic' 400 horse 318.

And it was down 21 HP and 37 TQ pounds @ 3000 compared to the other smaller port engine.

And the winner for the most irrelevant post of 2023 so far goes to:

I have not seen a small block door car on all throttle go into the 8's .... no, make that 9's... on 302 heads. Maybe they would and should ??? 10's ??

 

[318willrun]

He has Edelbrocks running similar times. Says he prefers the 587's. Looks like we're still stuck talking about 302's.


And it was down 21 HP and 37 TQ pounds @ 3000 compared to the other smaller port engine.

And the winner for the most irrelevant post of 2023 so far goes to:

irrelevant? I guess all I have, after 35 pages, is how 302's are king kong.... I was humbly, quietly... no, over here... wondering why nobody fast has 302 heads ?? Must be a reason, huh?

P.S. - I have 302's on a 318 right now.

 

[NC Engine Builder]

**** a 302 head, and why is ONE guy insisting on proving how great they are. They are a waste of time and money to prep to the level he keeps making reference to.

 

[Hysteric]

Take the 220 cfm & multiple by 2 for the layman’s approximate HP potential would be of course 440 hp. Now the trick is to get the intake and carb up to meet the goal.

Thanks Rumble.

 

[Killer6]

Nope.

 

[Bakerlite]

BTW, Charles may be doing these 302 heads, but I don't think they will be getting used on the build. I think this is some sort of competition between him and Vizard.

 

[George Jets]

Charles used the 302 heads because they were the only Mopar heads that he had.

How come they did not gasket match the 302 heads to the stock 318 intake manifold gasket ?

That is the very first thing you do when establishing smooth port flow. Can't see the forest for the tree.

There is a big step there to remove with any manifold that is bolted up to the 318 302 heads to avoid turbulence.

More important than any internal port work that they are trying to achieve.

Proper port match as follows:

Needs gasket matching as pictured below on the stock 302 heads:

For some reason they have not done this important step???

 

[George Jets]

My friend John of Talljohnsfunshop just did a vid about the rods... and using a high quality scale..shows a 40 gram diff between 273 floaters and 340 floaters.

Yep, the 340 floaters are the heavier 645 rods. Thank You

 

[Rat Bastid]

How come they did not gasket match the 302 heads to the stock 318 intake manifold gasket ?

That is the very first thing you do when establishing smooth port flow. Can't see the forest for the tree.

There is a big step there to remove with any manifold that is bolted up to the 318 302 heads to avoid turbulence.

More important than any internal port work that they are trying to achieve.

Proper port match as follows:

View attachment 1716031144


Needs gasket matching as pictured below on the stock 302 heads:

View attachment 1716031145For some reason they have not done this important step???

The last thing you do is a gasket match. Shape matters.

 

[273]

That's not even close to reality.

My point there's a difference between what an engine actually displaces cfm of air, and even more accurately weight of air then what a flow bench measures.

 

[273]

Do you really think this conversation is still about 302's? If you do then you're really not paying attention.

I was using 302 as an eg..

Or is that better put the engines ability to use the head that's on it.

Depends what your trying to accomplish build goals how you want the car to function.
Look at most muscle cars power was done generally with cam duration and poor heads compared to modern engine power made with heads over cam eg.. LS, Hemi etc..for better driveability fuel mileage etc...

 

[Killer6]

My point there's a difference between what an engine actually displaces cfm of air, and even more accurately weight of air then what a flow bench measures.

I re-read Your post, We're actually on the same page there, just put differently. My head says 288cfm avg to get the job done right, and yeah, the bench is only a tool...but a useful one.

 

[MOPAROFFICIAL]

Every Ego is always looking for a place to roost..

You're roosting.
Do you have any idea what port volume the 587 is at that flow....probably not.
I do. I bet about 5 other posting in this thread and maybe 20 more reading it do as well... but you don't. Why is that?