Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best 351 performance upgrade?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I have some D0OE that have been reworked quite a bit and are much better than the gt-40p's if your interested.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by bobchris
      I have some D0OE that have been reworked quite a bit and are much better than the gt-40p's if your interested.
      Chris, you got any flow numbers to back up that claim?
      1990 Ski Nautique
      NWCT

      Comment


      • #33
        smaller chambers=higher compression, reworked runners=better flow, so yes they are Tim,

        seen stats with the same valve sizes and with out the exhaust runners being worked on and the flow was the same as the p's.

        and then le't not forget about the guide plates, screw in studs and real roller rockers not some pedistol want to be. so Yes they are much better than the P's talked about this many times, the p's are a nice up grade but not the best option.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by bobchris
          smaller chambers=higher compression, reworked runners=better flow, so yes they are Tim,

          seen stats with the same valve sizes and with out the exhaust runners being worked on and the flow was the same as the p's.

          and then le't not forget about the guide plates, screw in studs and real roller rockers not some pedistol want to be. so Yes they are much better than the P's talked about this many times, the p's are a nice up grade but not the best option.
          Just because runner has been reworked or opened up doesnt mean they will flow better. I have witnessed a decrease in size of 30% on an LS1 stock cathedral port head increase cfm by 50. Just as long as port shape supports port velocity witout turbulance, there will be an increase

          I too would like to see numbers to support the claim. Reworked doesnt necessarily mean reworked beneficially. Not trying to argue, just state/get the facts.

          BTW, what is the chamber CC of the heads?

          Comment


          • #35
            about 56-57cc now

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by bobchris
              smaller chambers=higher compression, reworked runners=better flow, so yes they are Tim,

              seen stats with the same valve sizes and with out the exhaust runners being worked on and the flow was the same as the p's.

              and then le't not forget about the guide plates, screw in studs and real roller rockers not some pedistol want to be. so Yes they are much better than the P's talked about this many times, the p's are a nice up grade but not the best option.
              Like TRDon said, theres no guarantee that the reworked runners improved flow- let alone improved it enough to outflow the P's. Thats not to say its not possible, but proof would be nice.

              Combustion chamber size is nearly a wash, as the P's are 59cc.

              Not sure what you mean by the pedestal rollers being "wannabe's". I agree that a 3/8" or 7/16" stud is stronger than the 5/16" pedestal bolts, but thats the only real advantage I can think of. The strength of the pedestals shouldnt be an issue in the RPM range we're all running in (below 6k). The lower friction of the roller tips is the same in either case.

              How much are you asking for your D0OE's? What do they have for valve springs? Sounds like youve got a lot into them. Dont forget, reman'd P's with upgraded springs and a 5-angle VJ can be had for less than $600. Theyre tough to beat as far as bang-for-your-buck goes.
              1990 Ski Nautique
              NWCT

              Comment


              • #37
                let's not forget that you have to dick with shims to get the ped's to work right with roller's as the roller has to be dead center over the valve stem, otherwise you will loose the valves and rockers very quickly has it enterduces a side load on the vlave stem and valve guide. And then let's not also forget about no guide plates with your p's either which is a another major no no when using roller rockers, but then if your using the cheap stuff then it isn't a roller tip on the push rod to start with so you can get by without them

                Comment


                • #38
                  With pedestals, you need to dick with the right pushrod length to get the same valvetrain geometry as you do with pedestal shims. Again, Im not arguing, Im just sayin

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TRDon
                    With pedestals, you need to dick with the right pushrod length to get the same valvetrain geometry as you do with pedestal shims. Again, Im not arguing, Im just sayin
                    yes your either shiming it or swaping push rods, with studs you measure it once then you have all the rest as the valve are all the same and if there not then you used a piss poor machinist as the seats should be exactly the same if done properly.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TRBenj
                      Combustion chamber size is nearly a wash, as the P's are 59cc.
                      you need to check your facts as they are not what you state Tim, and besides having a larger combustin chamber/lower compression 60cc they also have small exhaust valves 1.54 vs 1.60 on mine.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by bobchris
                        Originally posted by TRBenj
                        Combustion chamber size is nearly a wash, as the P's are 59cc.
                        you need to check your facts as they are not what you state Tim, and besides having a larger combustin chamber/lower compression 60cc they also have small exhaust valves 1.54 vs 1.60 on mine.
                        Chris, you must be thinking of the standard GT40's, because your facts are all off. You should read this article:

                        http://www.stangpro.com/html/article...les/gt40p1.htm

                        Nominal combustion chamber size on the P's is 59cc. The regular GT40's are about 65cc.

                        The P's have even smaller exhaust valves (1.46), yet still outflow the regular GT40's, which have the 1.54's. Check this head flow chart if you dont believe me:

                        http://www.allfordmustangs.com/Detailed/630.shtml

                        As you know, big valves and ported runners are not the be-all, end-all. The quality of the head design, along with the quality of the port work is way more important.

                        I still dont understand where the confusion over rocker's is coming from. Youre correct that the stud mounts are easier to set up and stronger, but when the pedestals are set up properly, they dont give up a thing to them, especially in our low RPM application.

                        I can think of a lot of better things to spend money on than paying to convert a pedestal mount head to a stud mount.

                        You still havent answered my question- how much money do you have into those heads? My guess is that you could have ended up with a much better head for the same amount of money invested- but some flow numbers would prove it either way. For now, Ill stand by my statment that the GT40p's are a much more cost effective investment.
                        1990 Ski Nautique
                        NWCT

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Completely unrelated sidenote- I saw an episode of Hot Rod TV the other day where they actually put roller lifters in a 351W. To keep the rollers aligned with the cam, the lifters were joined in pairs with a little bar. Has anyone considered doing this upgrade or would it be worthwhile?
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          2000 Ski Nautique GT-40
                          2016 SN 200 H5
                          www.Fifteenoff.com

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by M3Fan
                            Completely unrelated sidenote- I saw an episode of Hot Rod TV the other day where they actually put roller lifters in a 351W. To keep the rollers aligned with the cam, the lifters were joined in pairs with a little bar. Has anyone considered doing this upgrade or would it be worthwhile?
                            that is how roller lifters are designed unless the block was design for a roller lifters.


                            Tim I suggest you look at the website where you bought your heads from as they don't jive with your BS you've been posting here. As far as cost I have just about the same money in the machining as the tri-city cylinder heads sells the p's for.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by bobchris
                              Originally posted by M3Fan
                              Completely unrelated sidenote- I saw an episode of Hot Rod TV the other day where they actually put roller lifters in a 351W. To keep the rollers aligned with the cam, the lifters were joined in pairs with a little bar. Has anyone considered doing this upgrade or would it be worthwhile?
                              that is how roller lifters are designed unless the block was design for a roller lifters.


                              Tim I suggest you look at the website where you bought your heads from as they don't jive with your BS you've been posting here. As far as cost I have just about the same money in the machining as the tri-city cylinder heads sells the p's for.
                              Chris, Im not sure what youre talking about. I didnt buy my heads from any website. Every reliable source of information about the P's that I have found is in agreement, and can be summarized in the links I posted above. If you have something that would refute this info, please share!

                              So you have the same amount invested in the machining of your heads as the GT40p's from Tristate. Hopefully you either got the heads themselves for free, or those things way outflow any other factory Ford head!
                              1990 Ski Nautique
                              NWCT

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                well Tim you really should look at your own postings before you start talking **** so pull your little chart crap up and at the top, sellect 351W ported and then select gt-40p explorer as that's the BS you have and tell which has the better flow numbers? and it sure as he ll isn't the p's OK, SO pay close attention to the valve sizes to as they are exactly the same has what I have installed in mine.

                                so those p's are so good up too .500 lift then the intake takes a dump once you have more lift than that where the ported 351W don't drop off.

                                so p's to the 351's intake/ex flow numbers at .500/.600

                                p's 196 193 ex 139 142
                                w's 221 224 ex 171 172

                                is interupting your own information proof enough that the heads I have bet you BS hands down as the number do indicate that what I have flows more on intake and exhaust than your p's. So now will step of your soap box and admitt they are not as good as the heads I have, because the p's have lower compression, lower flow, and the valve train is not as strong either so since they don't win in any category how the hel are they better because the cost less big deal you get what you pay for.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X