SB Ford: 4 barrell intake on 2 barrell heads??

Picked up a rebuilt 1969 Ford 302 2 barrell engine w/o intake and wanted to see if I can use a 4 barrell intake on these heads?

Just want a dependable street engine-not looking to set any speed records.

Thanks

 

Yep...no major difference btwn stock Ford cast iron heads, without porting. Valve sizes vary, but ports are all very similar: small.
before I get torn apart...no major difference btwn. stock early Ford 302 heads.

 

Early 289 4 barrel motors ( A code and K code) had smaller combustion chambers, but the same valves and ports. No problem to bolt up a 4 barrel intake to a 2 barrel motor. You may need to be careful which linkage and carb if you are using, if you have an auto trans though.

 

Thanks for the info.
I also have a set of nice early 289 heads. I know they can be bolted to the 302 but would they work?

 

as stated above, they have smaller chambers, so they will bring compression up...not a bad thing, depending on what ya' got for pistons, cam, deck height...if your not looking for major performance, and the motor is running good...I would leave good alone. everything else being stock, the head swap alone won't be worth much, the valves in the 289 heads are probably smaller, too...

 

A lot of the 302 heads of that period have a stupid lump intruding into the exaust ports, a boss for an air injection system I think. Most 289 heads don't have it, so flow is helped a little. You may get an adjustable valvetrain with the 289 heads, a plus with aftermarket cams.

If I were you, I would port the exaust side and bolt blend the 289 heads at your leasure, and have them rebuilt and swap them in later. That's me though, I have no idea where your skills and budget and performance expectations are at.

Best of luck with your project.

 

I would aim towards the 289 heads. Bump your compression a half a point or so. The valve sizes are the same on most 289 and 302 heads, so you're not losing there. But the 4bbl mani on the 2bbl heads is no problem. My daily driven 289 is a factory 2bbl with an Edlebrock Torker II and an Edlebrock 600. Runs great. plus 15.1 on the qtr which I can live with.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 289 heads have the small chambers, stud-mount rockers, I had an early set on my 289, a while ago...I only think that the gain in compression is worth little, without other motor mods, such as cam, screw in studs would be good, too, and if a cam, then how about valve springs? if real performance is not the issue, only getting her rolling, then this motor, if compression is o.k., rings, bearings, etc...is fine, the way it is, and won't break the bank. If a real nasty f-er is desired, then, really the whole motor and drivetrain should be evaluated, and considered as a combination.
thats when it snowballs...
besides that, if REAL performance is desired, then a good set of aftermarket iron heads, will way outperform any ported early heads, $ for $. You will spend more making the early heads work half as good, unless you do them yourself, AND know what your doing.
JMO.

 

Pedestal rockers on a 289? Hmmm...doubtful.

Someone mentioned adjustable rockers - good luck finding 289HP heads - you can identify them by the pushrod holes - they're slots instead of holes to keep the alignment & have to use hardened pushrods just like you would with guideplates.

The late 60s 302 heads are very good - heart-shaped combustion chambers. Your 302 heads are this type. Good chamber shape.

351W heads work well too - bigger ports & valves until mid-70s.

By '77 or so, all SBF heads were identical crap.

The 2bbl - 4bbl intake-to-head issue is only with 351C. Don't sweat it for Windsor engines.

 

I'm sorry, let me be more specific, since everyone here knows everything, and is a smart ass...
MY 289 heads had adjustable stud mounted rockers, screw in studs, guide plates, etc...do they come from the factory that way? no. they come with stamped rockers, and press in studs...and hi-po heads are about worthless, too, unless you are restoring something but, they are not "rail" mount rockers, like on the later small block...thus, they can be machined for screw in studs, and an adjustable valve train with afore mentioned rockers...like mine were.
the best years for the Winsor head, from Ford was '69- '70.
and they are still not very good...
my fault, I meant to say "stud" mounted...the pedestal rockers were late model...I am chagrined...
( of course, everybody here is still a smart ass, and knows everything...)

 

Early heads have the oval slot. I have the original 1964 heads on my Galaxie and the have the slot. I pulled the press in studs and put in 3/8" screw in studs, and was able to run roller rockers without a seperate guide plate.
My engine was not a HiPo, just a 2 bbl.

 

You're right - I forgot about that. Been ages since I played with early SBF...


DirtyThirty - chill out, dude - don't take this message board, or yourself, so seriously. You'll have an aneurism or something.

 

I'm fine...just busting balls at the thoughtful, chin-rubbing sarcasm with which you used to deride my statement...but, I can take it...espescially when I'm wrong! I was thinking one thing and saying another! damn it...I hate to give anyone wrong info...not my intention, I knew what I meant to say... but sometimes the brain gets stuck in "N" anyway...It has been a while, for me too, since my last small Ford, but...I was WAY into the cylinder head game, building it, because they are at a disadvantage, here...

 

Nothn for nothin Flat Ernie may not know everything, but he sure knows a hell of a lot. I'd like to stick up for another Jersey fella, but he pretty much knows whats what.

Thats the truth, I'm doin the same thing right now, trying to keep this motor budget but I can't see passed the shitty heads.

 

It's all good fun, folks!

I'd give up the 1/2 point of compression on the 289 heads - I think the late 60s 302 heads have a much better chamber...

They all suck on the exhaust side - an afternoon's work with a die grinder removing the thermactor bump & simple gasket matching on both sides does wonders for these heads. True, they're still way down on flow compared to any of the aftermarket (Fe or Al) heads, but it beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick! If you do the work yourself, you're only out the time & labor...

The C9 and D0 351W heads are good (for stock heads), but still require work & you'd lose compression. Wouldn't recommend them unless swapping pistons out too.

 

I don't get angry or offended easy, no animosity here...I CAN be a smart ass, though...but, if everyone here did'nt know everything, and was'nt a smart ass, it would'nt be a bunch O' men, now would it?
be more like girl scouts...or something even gayer...( sorry to the gays) I guess thats what the icons are for...

 

Hey, man...does'nt your boy have my old '54??? I remember your Fairlane at Billy Monroe's, right? I think thats you???

 

About the original question.....A typical Four Barrell only uses two barrels until pushed above progressive linkage setting.
Of course there are exceptions.
I have a pair of bare NOS 289 1965 heads to sell.
What are they worth??

 

there were four different types of SBF heads in the '67-69 range that I'm aware of:

Low perf 2V heads on the 289/302 - no discernable difference other than the Thermactor ports in the exhaust

high perf 4V heads - for the 289/302; nor real flow difference, but the comp ratio was a half point higher due to smaller chambers.

351 Windsor heads - when I was a kid, these were the hot ticket as a bolt-on mod; they supposedly added 25-30 HP

Finally - Boss 302 heads; big valve, small chamber pieces.

I've had all but the boss 302 pieces.

compared to the later 5.0 stuff, they're pretty mild. A mild street motor with a decent cam, smaller 4V carb and dual plane manifold will feel pretty sparky to about 5000-5500 RPM, but will nose over hard after that. Fine for the street, methinks.

 

Correct. ALL 289 heads (hi-po or not) have the slots in them (for non-rail rockers) till about mid-'66 when they had larger round pushrod holes in the head and used rail type rockers to locate/align the valvetrain off the valve tip. No need for guide plates on the earlier heads.

....as a public service reminder, anybody using guide plates on the later 289 and most 302 heads needs to make sure they also swap to a non-rail type rocker. Some companies offer rail-type roller rockers that'll raise hell with guideplates and/or early heads with the slots in them.

-Bigchief.

 

Ya thats me, so which Screamin Ink artist are you? Or am I way off? What 54? I feel stalked....! haha.

 

Your only serious buyers are gonna be restoration guys....and hard core ones at that. Your best bet is to hit Hemmings or some of the FoMoCo based resto site/clubs and post casting numbers and date codes. If they're a matched set you MIGHT get $400 bucks for them....and thats probably being very generous since there were literally millions of '65 289 heads cast and finding decent cores for 100 bucks a pair is still no challenge. I've got 10 sets that are nice.

Anybody building anything performance oriented is money ahead by running new aftermarket iron heads and since yours are not Hi-Po heads they're not much more than NOS quality door stops.

-Bigchief.

 

....as a public service reminder, anybody using guide plates on the later 289 and most 302 heads needs to make sure they also swap to a non-rail type rocker. Some companies offer rail-type roller rockers that'll raise hell with guideplates and/or early heads with the slots in them.

-Bigchief.[/quote]

Chief - Tell me more, I thought all stud mount rockers were the same. I have 289 HP heads, and I managed to damage the pushrod slots on 1 cylinder. (long story: broke a rocker nut, limped motor a few hundred miles w/o rockers on 1 cylinder, now the slots are wrecked on that cylinder) Anyway, I just ordered some guildplates up to get it back on the road. Should work?

 

nah...I work at my own shop, down here in the dirty south of the state...dudes name, with my old car is Russ...not too many Early sixties flamethrower equipped Fairlanes around here...easy deduction!

 

not going to get a big bump up in compression by just swapping to 289 heads.......it will be about 54 cc with 289 head (regular head not hi-po.....all the ports are the same size as the hi-po) on the 69 302 it is 58 cc......the big gain from swapping heads is on the later 70's 302 when ford went to 69 cc heads........on porting on 289 head you have more meat on the 289 head where the push rod holes are oval not round....on round hole head you can cut into the push rod hole easy........and get ready to do a lot of cutting on the exhaust side....if the heads need a complete rebuild might as well add 1.90/1.60 valves.......ford heads are choked down bad on the exhaust side so the work is best done there........

 

I still say the heart-shaped chambers of the late '60s 302 heads are the best chamber design...

these heads still need loads of work to halfway flow well....

 

I like how we have our own conversation amongst many ford tech posts here. Yup thats it, Russ, I couldnt think of who you meant at the time. I try to keep a low profile with my car you know what I say?? Haha.

 

Ernie
I think you are right. I'm looking at World Products SB head listing in the Jegs catalog and it says " a heart shaped combustion chamber for maximum effciency.."

 

For Chuckspeed and others, one slight addition. The heads used on the high perf., solid lifter motors in '65 & '66 had an additional feature, the valve springs sat in a machined pocket to keep them stable.

 

And had factory screw in rocker arm studs........also don't forget the 1967 hi-po's.......last year for them in a production vehicle.....