Vintage Mustang Forums banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part JUNE's Ride of the Month Challenge!
  • May's Ride of the Month contest ended with a tie! Go to this thread to vote on the winner! VOTE HERE
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
SO how bout it. I have a stock head with stockcam and pistons. I am looking at an old ford performance book and it says that the 351w heads on a 289 is a good cheap upgrade to gain larger valves and ports. my motor is a 68 289, should i look for some windsor heads?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,294 Posts
They're not that hot of an upgrade anymore, compared to an early 289 head, the intake ports and slightly larger valves are the only improvements, and chances are you'll spend at least $500 getting them rebuilt at the machine shop and shaved so you don't loose compression.

Good sets seem to go for $150, that plus machine shop costs will get you a set of the cheapo chinese aluminum heads with good components...if you got a 'lucky' set, you'd be in business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,947 Posts
The 68 289/302 2V motors had large chamber heads that year so the 351 heads would actually increase compression slightly...They would be a good swap for that motor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,047 Posts
Yes it would be, if the heads are in good condition and are early 351W heads late 70ies heads have same puny 1.78/1.45 valves as 289/302. Seats, valves, valvesprings and guides add up quite a much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Im am thinking of going and cheecking out a junkyard this weekend. What cars should i look for to pull some 351w heads off of,( montego, fairlane, ....?)I know its not the best way but it is usuallly cheap and sometimes you get lucky.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,947 Posts
It doesn't matter which car its more the year..1969-1974 for sure..75-76 should still have the bigger valves but its kind of a grey area..The 1977 and later have the small 302 sized valves and huge chambers so don't get those.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
Stick to '69-'70 351W for this application. Mustang, Cougar, Fairlane, Torino, LTD, basically any mid or full size Ford could have a 351W. After '70 (or was it '71?) the chamber size got a little bigger which isn't good for compression in the 289. If the juunkyard has late model vehicles as well as classics keep you eyes open for a '96 Explorer V8. They would have GT40 heads which for all practical purposes are equal to the early 351W heads for performance. They have the same basic port size and valve diameter, but the chambers are 64cc vs 60cc for the 351W heads. That 4cc difference isn't a real big deal and could be corrected with a small milling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,252 Posts
I thought the only improvement was that the 351 heads had larger intake ports. Valve sizes and exhaust ports are the same. Don't know about the chamber volume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,947 Posts
Rickmaan said:
Stick to '69-'70 351W for this application. Mustang, Cougar, Fairlane, Torino, LTD, basically any mid or full size Ford could have a 351W. After '70 (or was it '71?) the chamber size got a little bigger which isn't good for compression in the 289. If the juunkyard has late model vehicles as well as classics keep you eyes open for a '96 Explorer V8. They would have GT40 heads which for all practical purposes are equal to the early 351W heads for performance. They have the same basic port size and valve diameter, but the chambers are 64cc vs 60cc for the 351W heads. That 4cc difference isn't a real big deal and could be corrected with a small milling.
According to all the books I have the 351 chamber size stayed at 60.3cc from 1969-76.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,588 Posts
We had good luck with the C9-D0 castings in our racing engines. Be sure to use hard washers under the head bolts...

IMO, the best way to deal with CR issues with the W head is to go with a solid dome piston (ala L2249) and correct the volume by milling the dome.

In racing engines, we sought to maximize compression so milled the heads .040-.060 and ran the pistons OEM. Got close to 13:1 in the 305's...

Pat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
I had this done to my engine, early 351w heads, surfaced, 3 angle vale job, diloden head bolts 89100, gaskets, comp cam 7831-16 push rods, new roller rocker arms, new intake & exhaust valves. The net result of this work was GREAT. Not necessarly cheap but great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I hear alot of good things about the C9-D0, and that the the bolts are 1/2" but are 7/16" on the 289. Should i drill and tap on the block or are there some miracle bolts i can use?
kyle
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,242 Posts
From my understanding of the 351 heads (and the books I have), frdnut's info seems spot-on. As you read, this used to be a great basic upgrade for a 289/302.
Stick to the years mentioned, rather than the specific vehicle, if you're raiding a junkyard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,294 Posts
KHALE08 said:
98 exploder V8. do the water passages line up?
The heads work, but the spark plugs are angled as compared to regular SBF heads, since the late-1996+ Exploders used the GT40P heads. If you're looking for Exploder heads that will fit with no real other work needed, you want a set of 1995-early '96 exploder heads, since they are the conventional GT40s. Good luck though, the only place outside of the internet that I've seen GT40s for sale has been swap meets. I asked the local junkyards about an Exploder motor and they all said the same thing "We ain't got any, those are for our 5.0 Mustangs!" :/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,588 Posts
KHALE08 said:
I hear alot of good things about the C9-D0, and that the the bolts are 1/2" but are 7/16" on the 289. Should i drill and tap on the block or are there some miracle bolts i can use?
kyle
There might be a shouldered bolt now, but we always ran ARP/Milodon (back before ARP existed) 7/16" studs with the washer. No issues. I always o-ringed my blocks due to the compression ratio but don't know that it was imperative. Never a gasket failure (meaning the studs did their job fine).

Pat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
If you do find a set, you should clean up the exhaust ports. There's a big thermactor hump that does nothing and a little bowl work/port contouring helps a ton. Hardened seats for the exhaust valves is cheap insurance too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I am watching those same ones. It has a couple days left and i am going salvage yard hopping on sat, hopefully its not a fall out(like the last 3 times)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
KHALE08 said:
98 exploder V8. do the water passages line up?
It was the '96 Explorer head I mentioned, not the '98. As someone else pointed out, there's a big difference in just a year in this case. IMO the GT40P ('96.5 - '02 Explorers) is a much better head but the spark plug angle makes header fit a big pain. That's why I was recommending the GT40 ('95 - '96.5), it's an easy bolt on compared to the '97-later version. I'm not surprised they would be scarce in junkyards, they're about the cheapest head for the 5.0 Fox guys to upgrade their rides with.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top