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

-
Status
Not open for further replies.
pittsburghracer said:
I wouldn’t be able to take much more than ten minutes of that.
Click to expand...
The wonderful thing is, that you don't have to. :) !!!
Short vids are ok, but I'm not a fan of the endless selfie stick method, and some of the music.
If you're watching something like fitting a bow headliner, then you may want a video that lasts longer than 10 mins and covers all the finer points and tricks.
 
Like watching people sculpt with feces. 240 CFM is weak. The numbers are only competing/ comparable to even older 360 heads of which numbers are considered already weak as well. ..meanwhile doing the same work to those puts them 20-40+ cfm better at every lift. Plain old crap vs expensive crap. Gold plated turds...if they didnt crack before..they will after all that work was done and their put into performance duty.
"Only 240cfm from that tiny head" ..
..the snidely one says.
Reality knocks and whispers..
"No butt nugget...you just mined an iron head to the size of an already existing head -aka the magnum head..and you're even larger than it now too."

Charles absolutely did say he..
"would have chosen a different head had I known how poorly they flowed"
end quote.
Subtle signs of folks telling you they know about something when in actuality they are pulling it from others literature, videos,forums,even utg AS THEY GO.. if he worked them in the 80's he would know quite well what they flowed. It's either.. dont know or ego that's come to play.

You're bragging on someone elses curtails, you meant for debate..but not the quality kind... more like the self entertaining version of antagonistic little guy complex.
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
Like watching people sculpt with feces. 240 CFM is weak. The numbers are only competing/ comparable to even older 360 heads of which numbers are considered already weak as well. ..meanwhile doing the same work to those puts them 20-40+ cfm better at every lift. Plain old crap vs expensive crap. Gold plated turds...if they didnt crack before..they will after all that work was done and their put into performance duty.
"Only 240cfm from that tiny head" ..
..the snidely one says.
Reality knocks and whispers..
"No butt nugget...you just mined an iron head to the size of an already existing head -aka the magnum head..and you're even larger than it now too."

Charles absolutely did say he..
"would have chosen a different head had I known how poorly they flowed"
end quote.
Subtle signs of folks telling you they know about something when in actuality they are pulling it from others literature, videos,forums,even utg AS THEY GO.. if he worked them in the 80's he would know quite well what they flowed. It's either.. dont know or ego that's come to play.

You're bragging on someone elses curtails, you meant for debate..but not the quality kind... more like the self entertaining version of antagonistic little guy complex.
Click to expand...
You've got your head porting sticky, why don't you go back and roost there? Don't want to share the spotlight?
Dude, let it go.
Better still, why don't you tell us all again how you harassed some guys into some shenanigans one weekday afternoon on a traffic filled freeway, and get yourself banned again?
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
Like watching people sculpt with feces. 240 CFM is weak. The numbers are only competing/ comparable to even older 360 heads of which numbers are considered already weak as well. ..meanwhile doing the same work to those puts them 20-40+ cfm better at every lift. Plain old crap vs expensive crap. Gold plated turds...if they didnt crack before..they will after all that work was done and their put into performance duty.
"Only 240cfm from that tiny head" ..
..the snidely one says.
Reality knocks and whispers..
"No butt nugget...you just mined an iron head to the size of an already existing head -aka the magnum head..and you're even larger than it now too."

Charles absolutely did say he..
"would have chosen a different head had I known how poorly they flowed"
end quote.
Subtle signs of folks telling you they know about something when in actuality they are pulling it from others literature, videos,forums,even utg AS THEY GO.. if he worked them in the 80's he would know quite well what they flowed. It's either.. dont know or ego that's come to play.

You're bragging on someone elses curtails, you meant for debate..but not the quality kind... more like the self entertaining version of antagonistic little guy complex.
Click to expand...

Don’t you love fools who think they are moderators and tell people to go to other threads?

Arrogant morons. That’s why all three down under blunders are on ignore.
 
Rat Bastid said:
Don’t you love fools who think they are moderators and tell people to go to other threads?

Arrogant morons. That’s why all three down under blunders are on ignore.
Click to expand...
Ignore? Good. But tell me, was that before or after you read that post? Because if I was on Ignore, then you wouldn't have seen what I wrote. :realcrazy:
Anyway, well, it is his thread, and it is about porting 318 heads.. so there is that. But don't let logic get in your way.
BTW, arrogant, is not a word you should be accusing others of.
 
Last edited:
Bakerlite said:
You've got your head porting sticky, why don't you go back and roost there? Don't want to share the spotlight?
Dude, let it go.
Better still, why don't you tell us all again how you harassed some guys into some shenanigans one weekday afternoon on a traffic filled freeway, and get yourself banned again?
Click to expand...
Are you jealous or just envious... I Can't figure it out..or care to.
I do know you're on one hand saying to stay on topic, like the other sceen name as well.. yet you're bringing up some other thread as if it's relevant to the topic.. which is not about porting 302 heads.. it's about building a 318 engine and that just happens to be one of the parts involved in it. I swear..lol if you liked that connecting rod up your keister as much as you like that 302 head up there.. you would be saying this topic was about those connecting rods.
They can make some power after you put 'a couple grands time' port/valve work into them..but ultimately they aren't going to make 9's or support any 4" arm motors full potential...so that limits usage and puts them in a small box...318 or less cid unless your building a truck motor and aim for mpg's ...now remember the comment about CFM battle... that's all you're doing. That's you buddy... caught up in a flow number.
"Tiny port flows 240 cfm"
Let's break that down..
"Tiny port"=actually @/over 150cc now
"240 cfm"= what a bowl blended 1.88 j head does.

Not much wow factor left after it reaches the same size as a better flowing head. No more tiny, tiny.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why anyone would get sooo excited over any head below 270 cfm @ .500.
 
fishmens67 said:
I don't know why anyone would get sooo excited over any head below 270 cfm @ .500.
Click to expand...
I don't know why anyone would be triggered by a tiny port flowing 240 cfm. Do we get excited over how much airflow we use or how much we get but don't use?
 
Last edited:
toolmanmike said:
In the 1/8th.
Click to expand...
You mean this guy?>>>


GTX JOHN said:
We use the factory thermoquad amd manifold even thou it is a major
mismatch to the heads.
I still race a 318 small valve 302 4000Lb Aspen /Wagon with stock 390 lift cam and stock compression/
heads/manifold/ carb when I am not feeling good enough for the faster cars. I was shocked how well the stock 302 flowed compared to
my best 202 X heads up to max lift of 390 on the same bench even with the tiny valves (Hint: well over 200 CFMS's with the
right valve job.

The Wagon held the O/SA NHRA record @ 11.83 @ 109MPH. complete with Roof Race and Air Deflector
for years!

To see it Google: John Irving Drag Racer
Click to expand...
 
George Jets said:
This is really the intake manifold they need to used on their 302 headed 318 final build using mopar parts.

These made for mopar dual plane aluminum intake manifolds even have Chrysler part numbers on them.

Proper runner sizes to match up to the 318 cylinder heads, for the smooth port flow and port speed.

View attachment 1716030680

View attachment 1716030681

Definitely going to need more carburation than the stock 2 bbl that was original In 1969.

View attachment 1716030682

More like this mopar larger cfm 2 bbl carb to make the power.

View attachment 1716030684
Click to expand...
:lol: Does this adapter convert a 2bbl intake to 4bbl too. lol
 
fishmens67 said:
:lol: Does this adapter convert a 2bbl intake to 4bbl too. lol
Click to expand...

Sure Can

After they get done with their 2 bbl test, they can test a 4 bbl on their same stock 2 bbl intake, 318 engine build without having to change the intake.

2 bbl 318 = 1 hp per cu. in.
4 bbl 318 = 1.25 hp per cu. in.

Can have some fun with that.

Screenshot_20200821-090527_Gallery.jpg


Works on these 318 intakes too:

20230109_070335.jpg


20221226_070107.jpg


Mid Rise ^^^ 318 Intake

☆☆☆☆☆
 
Last edited:
RB,
Post #954.

The reason 'the arrogant morons' from down under are on ignore [ but aren't? ] is because we call out your bullshit...such as still waiting for......'the math' to build an engine that doesn't need 30* of idle timing.
And then there is the hypocrisy...the fools who think they are moderators.....like you, who TELL people to go way????
 
Really think the 3 guys doing this 318 ported 302 head engine build, should do it with all mopar parts. 340 cam is fine.

No offset grind on the crank, no overbore on the cylinders, no aftermarket pistons, no LS valves, no angle grinding the head.

___________

Brian's 318 pictured here is built with all mopar parts, it is pushing an easy 300 horse power.

Stock spec '69 318 short block, stock bore, stock 9.2:1 cr pistons, stock free floating light rods, and stock crank, stock oil pump, thin .028 ths head gaskets, mopar 340 cam.

Stock Spec Reman 302 heads, stock size valves, with 3 angle valve job, no port work except for gasket matching the 302 heads to the intake manifold.

Stock A body exhaust manifolds, gasket matched to 302 heads. With 2 1/2" TTI exhaust system.

IMG952017011295175305873.jpg


Would be real easy to put the 2 barrel adapter on his intake manifold and run the stock style 2 barrel carb on it to see what kind of power it makes vs the 4 bbl.

20230104_220808.jpg



Screenshot_20230109-064856_Firefox.jpg


Need to find a shop with a wheel dyno next Summer and do some testing and see the results.

☆☆☆☆☆
 
Bewy said:
RB,
Post #954.

The reason 'the arrogant morons' from down under are on ignore [ but aren't? ] is because we call out your bullshit...such as still waiting for......'the math' to build an engine that doesn't need 30* of idle timing.
And then there is the hypocrisy...the fools who think they are moderators.....like you, who TELL people to go way????
Click to expand...

LOL. I had to unblock to see what bullshit you are saying.

All you clowns are on ignore because you are like petulant children. You think you run this place when you are just mouthy fools.

You havent called out my “bullshit” because I sat back and watched several other guys make a fool of you and your misunderstanding (thats as nice as I can say it) of how air bleeds function. You just won’t learn. So who cares what you think? Your hero Shrinker says you don’t understand how an air bleed functions. Tuner as well. They have forgotten more than you could possible ever learn.

Why should I post ANY more information or where to find the MATH on how to build a ******* engine you rank amateur? You ignore it anyway. You aren’t capable of reading and learning.

Plus, with your what??? Sixty five years of building record setting, earth rotating Pontiac and ****, you should have learned EMPIRICALLY how to build something that doesn’t NEED 30 or 40 or 50 degrees of idle timing to run.

And yet, you repeat the same error that PVA is an “emissions” function even though smarter people that you POSTED the facts that you are wrong.

So back you go on permanent ignore. I know you three asshats will dig away so go ahead. I could unload on you all but then I’d be gone and all the straight **** you goof balls post would go unquestioned.

Later dude. Oh yeah, why are YOU posting in a thread that has nothing to do with you? Pot meet kettle.
 
George Jets said:
Really think the 3 guys doing this 318 ported 302 head engine build, should do it with all mopar parts. 340 cam is fine.

No offset grind on the crank, no overbore on the cylinders, no aftermarket pistons, no LS valves, no angle grinding the head.

___________

Brian's 318 pictured here is built with all mopar parts, it is pushing an easy 300 horse power.

Stock spec '69 318 short block, stock bore, stock 9.2:1 cr pistons, stock free floating light rods, and stock crank, stock oil pump, thin .028 ths head gaskets, mopar 340 cam.

Stock Spec Reman 302 heads, stock size valves, with 3 angle valve job, no port work except for gasket matching the 302 heads to the intake manifold.

Stock A body exhaust manifolds, gasket matched to 302 heads. With 2 1/2" TTI exhaust system.

View attachment 1716033033

Would be real easy to put the 2 barrel adapter on his intake manifold and run the stock style 2 barrel carb on it to see what kind of power it makes vs the 4 bbl.

View attachment 1716033034


View attachment 1716033035

Need to find a shop with a wheel dyno next Summer and do some testing, and see the results.

☆☆☆☆☆
Click to expand...

Unreal. You do realize that build doesn’t FIT the “mission improbable” outline laid out by UT don’t you?

Yet you keep posting it. BTW I asked you before because you keep talking like it matters so I’ll ask again.

How much power is there in those “lightweight” rods with floating pins?

Venture a guess for me.
 
Rat Bastid said:
Unreal. You do realize that build doesn’t FIT the “mission improbable” outline laid out by UT don’t you?

Yet you keep posting it. BTW I asked you before because you keep talking like it matters so I’ll ask again.

How much power is there in those “lightweight” rods with floating pins?

Venture a guess for me.
Click to expand...
idk about the lightweight rods, but I always thought the advantage of floating pins was being able to put the pistons on the rods without needing an arbor press.
 
Rat Bastid said:
Unreal. You do realize that build doesn’t FIT the “mission improbable” outline laid out by UT don’t you?

Yet you keep posting it. BTW I asked you before because you keep talking like it matters so I’ll ask again.

How much power is there in those “lightweight” rods with floating pins?

Venture a guess for me.
Click to expand...

It's the whole package that counts, it's 100% stock components short block. Free floating light rods came stock on the '68 - '69 318s.


9.2:1 cr 230 hp from the factory in '69 with the 2 bbl.
 
RB,
The 'smarter' person who claimed the switch to PVA was NOT emissions related was shown to be WRONG....like you.....so many times. Shrinker & Tuner are your heroes......& nowhere, repeat nowhere, does either of them, or Taylor, or Larew, or Smith repeat your bullshit that a larger MAB starts the main system sooner.

Meanwhile, we wait.......& wait or the non-existent 'math' you claim that allows an engine to be built that does not require 30* of idle timing.
Just full of bullshit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
-

Back
Top