Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

Registered
Joined
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
2.5 years ago I dynoed my stock 1966 2-barrel c-code mustang with c4 at my friends chassis dyno. Only modification I think was double exhaust pipe. Results... [email protected], [email protected] 馃コ Those are flywheel numbers after calculating drivetrain losses.

After that I have installed weiand street warrior intake, edelbrock 500cfm carb, pertronix I and flamethrower coil with 12v feed. Distributor springs was changed to lighter, full advance 36* comes in around 2800rpm, initial 10*. Results at chassis dyno [email protected], [email protected]

Carburetor primary and secondary have been tuned little bit after that with afr meter but not dynoed again. Maybe few horses have been gained after fine tuning.

Car has been fun to drive with those mods, it is more responsive at all rpm areas. Mpg has been gone up little bit, about 15L/100km at mixed driving. My driving is just weekend cruising, at town and highway, rpm range stays mainly low, at 1500-3000rpm. So my goal is to have reliable cruiser with low end and mid range grunt, maybe 200-230hp at flywheel.

For this winter's project, i have decided to pull heads and grind exhaust bumps and port match, and change camshaft. Heads have pressed-in studs which I will be leaving alone. New water pump, timing chain kit and valve seals go in also.

Edelbrock 2122 performer is propably the cam to be installed with new stock springs (melling vs350). Any other suggestions? Thats mild and popular grind. Summit, Jegs, Sealed power sell those grinds also but I think edelbrock cam+lifter kit should have highest quality as it is most expensive. Was reading somewhere that summit lifters had some issues, maybe that was 1 in a million, but i dont want to take risk.

I have double exhaust with stock manifolds. Is there any sense in grinding the exhaust bumps and changing cam, while I have stock manifolds? Will the stock manifolds restrict significantly? Hipo manifolds would be the next step but it would take 600-800$ more + extra time for this project, so I would rather go with stock exhaust.

Which kind of hp or torque numbers I could expect with this combo?

Couple exhaust ports after removing manifold. I guess the carbon build-ups in valves are from leaking valve seals..?
778864


778865
 

Registered
Joined
36,224 Posts
I have advocated port matching for a long time. Not a difficult project- If you can remove heads, you should have no trouble doing the job. Not truly porting, just cleaning the ports to the original design.

Port-Matching

The most recent port-matching job I did was on an A code GT, and he wanted the engine to appear stock. So, instead of the usual HP manifolds or headers, I cleaned up the ports in the stock straight manifolds. Now, there was no opportunity to dyno the engine, but from a pure seat-of-the-pants standpoint the engine ran much stronger, and smoother.
 

Registered
Joined
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Actually hedman shorties have been alternative for the hipos. I guess they also need different h-pipe, and are not interchangeable with stock "logs"?

22GT, mostly because of your posts and information about port matching, I got interested and encouraged to do this.

Good to know that also with the stock manifolds it is beneficial to do. I might do the exhaust upgrade during some other winter.

Is it enough to grind that bump away in left upper corner, or should i go also to that area in front of valve guide? Some port match guides tell to smooth the "nose" in that area, but in these ports I cant recognize such nose bumps...

What you think about the camshaft upgrade together with exh. port matching and previous upgrades? Would the 204*/214*, .448/.472 camshaft be suitable for this combo and my "sunday driving" purpose or should I stay with stock cam? Performer cam has a lot more lift than stock but i`ve read it`s ok for otherwise stock engine/drivetrain. My car has 2.80 rear ratio and stock convertor, and will stay that way for now.
 

Registered
Joined
317 Posts
Any grinding you do in those ports should be done only on the sides or top. If you grind the bottom of the port toward the heads mating surface, you could break into a water jacket. The exhaust gases flow toward the top of the port, so any grinding down low is a waste of time. That's where that exhaust bump is anyway. Also remove, just enough to smooth, the sharp edges under the valves on both int/exh. They screw up air flow also. In picture 186 #6 cyl still has the exhaust bump, #7 it's gone. You don't have to polish them smooth to a mirror finish. Just open them up. Just putting your finger down a ported/unported exhaust port and you'll feel the difference.
Even with factory exh manifolds you will get more HP. Just not as much as a good set of headers will.
Lunati #10310203 is a better cam. Edelbrock is to Chevy for my taste when it comes to their cams. Manifolds are good. Cams suck. Old Holman & Moody, Edel F4B, or Shelby manifold will get you more power then a Performer will. That's just an aluminum version of the cast iron factory one. They lighten the engine weight, but not much else.
 

Attachments

Registered
Joined
10,600 Posts
I'm thinking that carbon buildup is due to the carburetor being too rich. It's a common problem with aftermarket carburetors. They run fine, so people don't tune them.

My take is HiPo exhaust manifolds are for Concours cars. Pretty much any cheap headers are going to flow better than those. They are lighter as well. You will have to modify your dual exhaust to mate up to the headers.
 

Registered
Joined
317 Posts
In his case it looks like burn oil. I'd also go 1 heat range hotter on the plugs. Most people don't know that just cruising the boulevards really loads up an engine and cold plugs will carbon up because of it. Old school, was to taylor plugs heat range to the type of driving, in town or open road.
 

Registered
Joined
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Thanks for your replies. I`ll stay away from the floors and sides of the ports and just remove and smooth the bumps. I will check also those possible edges under valves.

I`m using autolite 45 plugs, thought they were fine. Last summer after tuning the carb afr was around 15 at cruise and at wot 12.5. But before that it might have been running rich.

That lunati cam has more aggressive ramps and more lift than the performer cam. I have understood that aggressive profiles need mods to valvetrain: springs, screw-in studs etc. Which kind of cam profile (duration vs lift) is considered too aggressive for stock 289 valvetrain & studs? I want to use pressed in studs and stock rockers, and that`s why i was looking 448/472 performer cam with lazy ramps. I have understood that Comp xtreme energy cams are out of question in my case.

One option I was looking at is Jegs house brand cam (555-200140). It has otherwise same specs as edelbrock 2122, but slightly faster ramps: advertised durations 262/272 vs edelbrock 270/280. Jegs rpm range 1500-4000 vs edelbrock idle-5500. Does that really make any difference? Any experiences from jegs cams/lifters? Edelbrock is 2x more expensive, but is the quality also 2x higher?
 

Premium Member
1966 Ford Mustang
Joined
23 Posts
Are you going to be measuring flow numbers at all? I'm torn between porting my c-code heads and just buying some AFR Enforcers. For about $1k, you can have a set of assembled as-cast aluminum heads. But if you can get flow numbers in a comparable range, that would be a lot cooler:cool:
 

Registered
Joined
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I was not going to flow them, just do the simple grinding. But nearby here is polytechnic, which does also flow tests as student works. I might ask them the price for that, it could be fun to have data of untouched/ported head, just out of curiosity...
 

Premium Member
1966 Ford Mustang
Joined
23 Posts
I was not going to flow them, just do the simple grinding. But nearby here is polytechnic, which does also flow tests as student works. I might ask them the price for that, it could be fun to have data of untouched/ported head, just out of curiosity...
For sure. You can actually see what your time and effort has accomplished. I always like to look at numbers vs seat of the pants feel. I'm going to dyno my stock c-code 289 this spring, and do it again after every upgrade. I just think that kind of stuff is cool.
 

Registered
Joined
37,168 Posts
Are you going to be measuring flow numbers at all? I'm torn between porting my c-code heads and just buying some AFR Enforcers. For about $1k, you can have a set of assembled as-cast aluminum heads. But if you can get flow numbers in a comparable range, that would be a lot cooler:cool:
FWIW, there really is no such thing as a "C" code head, at least until 1968 when the combustion chambers ballooned.
 

Registered
Joined
317 Posts
Jeg's house cam is a good one. Comp Cams seem to wear lobes fast. The real problem with push in vice screw in studs is spring pressure. Get over 325 and the press in becomes shaky.
If you do get new heads, Flotek #203-505 assembled. That'll wake her up with out killing your wallet.
 

Premium Member
1966 Ford Mustang
Joined
23 Posts
FWIW, there really is no such thing as a "C" code head, at least until 1968 when the combustion chambers ballooned.
Really? That鈥檚 good to know. I just know it鈥檚 a C Code That came with 54cc heads. I know a year or two later they came out with some 57 or 58, but never looked into it enough to see if those were also c code 289鈥檚 or not. 馃憤
 

Registered
Joined
317 Posts
Really? That鈥檚 good to know. I just know it鈥檚 a C Code That came with 54cc heads. I know a year or two later they came out with some 57 or 58, but never looked into it enough to see if those were also c code 289鈥檚 or not. 馃憤
Most of the "C" code heads you talk about later, were for the 302 stroke. That 1/8" longer stroke means more air at BDC and with a 54cc head will get about 1/2 a ration more comp.
For example. The early 429 and 460s (68-71) used the same heads and even the same Con Rods. But the crank and pistons were the only difference. They had to put a bigger CC dish in the 460 pistons to keep the ratio around 10.5-1. Just adding stroke say 302 to a 331, even with the same piston CC numbers will increase the comp ratio. Easy to pick up .5-.8 comp ratio just stroking it. That's why the bigger chamber.
 

Registered
Joined
37,168 Posts
Ford never made a "C" code 302. IF you were to install a typical 53.5cc 289 head on a 302 you would see an increase in static compression ratio of 0.43:1. Remember that the 302 connecting rod is .0625" shorter than a 289 rod so that the piston-to-deck clearance will remain the same at 0.016 inch.

The first 302 to appear in a Mustang, the "J" code 302-4V had a combustion chamber the same size as its predecessor, the 289-4V "A" code. The non-Mustang (in '68) 302-2V "F" code had a combustion chamber that began at 63 cc so it could run on regular fuel AND not produce an excessive amount of NOx emissions. It later shrank back to about 58 cc for a while and then ballooned to 69 cc in '77.
 

Registered
Joined
36,224 Posts
Actually hedman shorties have been alternative for the hipos. I guess they also need different h-pipe, and are not interchangeable with stock "logs"?

22GT, mostly because of your posts and information about port matching, I got interested and encouraged to do this.

Good to know that also with the stock manifolds it is beneficial to do. I might do the exhaust upgrade during some other winter.

Is it enough to grind that bump away in left upper corner, or should i go also to that area in front of valve guide? Some port match guides tell to smooth the "nose" in that area, but in these ports I cant recognize such nose bumps...

What you think about the camshaft upgrade together with exh. port matching and previous upgrades? Would the 204*/214*, .448/.472 camshaft be suitable for this combo and my "sunday driving" purpose or should I stay with stock cam? Performer cam has a lot more lift than stock but i`ve read it`s ok for otherwise stock engine/drivetrain. My car has 2.80 rear ratio and stock convertor, and will stay that way for now.
The upper left bump OR the center bump should be removed. The difference is whether the heads were cast at Windsor or Cleveland, I can never remember which is which鈥

That cam is pretty mild. It has a split profile, like the stock C3AZ-V, but frankly with the improved breathing of a port-matched engine with proper intake and carb, you could expect smooth idle and city driving from the C9OZ-C, with 218掳/218掳, .470/.470. Anything would breathe better than the C3AZ-V, though, at .368/.381. With that cam, dual exhaust is pointless, it can't breathe enough to need it.

H pipe is always dependent on manifolds, headers, and the like. Typically you can get the stock H pipe, and have it cut and attached to your headers. Sometimes it's easy. When we needed an H pipe for Tri-Y's, only a slight tweak was needed to weld a sawed off stock H pipe directly to the provided collectors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: juhkal

Registered
Joined
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The upper left bump OR the center bump should be removed. The difference is whether the heads were cast at Windsor or Cleveland, I can never remember which is which鈥

That cam is pretty mild. It has a split profile, like the stock C3AZ-V, but frankly with the improved breathing of a port-matched engine with proper intake and carb, you could expect smooth idle and city driving from the C9OZ-C, with 218掳/218掳, .470/.470. Anything would breathe better than the C3AZ-V, though, at .368/.381. With that cam, dual exhaust is pointless, it can't breathe enough to need it.

H pipe is always dependent on manifolds, headers, and the like. Typically you can get the stock H pipe, and have it cut and attached to your headers. Sometimes it's easy. When we needed an H pipe for Tri-Y's, only a slight tweak was needed to weld a sawed off stock H pipe directly to the provided collectors.
Thanks. I guess 448/472 cam is one step from stock and C9OZ-C is two steps. I have seen recommendations of that cam, but I think the smaller cam suits better for my goals, as I want powerband to be lower at the cost of some high rpm power. Right..? Also I want the car to retain (or even increase) fuel economy, for which I guess the smaller cam is better.

I was impressed of the gtonavy`s dyno results in this thread: Top end build for low and mid range torque

He had quite same engine specs as I`m planning, except higher compression (A-code) and hipo manifolds. If I get 80-90% of that I`m happy.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top