Those years were in the emissions stupidity. Compression was low, GM 305, Ford 302 and Mopar 318 were the economy V8s. As compared to the 350 CID range, the intake valves had about 0.050" less lift and longer duration. Vaccum was low, power was low and driveability sucked. Changing out to the 350 size cam made them run much better and vaccum was up. Even better would be to go with an "RV" cam with 0.050" lift duration of Int. 204° and Ex 214° with lift in the 0.425" to 0.450" and LSA of 108° to 110°. These engines all got a poor reputation but the engine displacement was not the problem. Similar was the Chev 307 had a bad rep. Basically a stroked 283, so a different cam would have changed their perception in a blink.
I’d call the 302 head the first step on the way out of emissions stupidity. True emissions stupidity of that era would be the open chamber head on a 318 (which they actually used on the 4-bbl police package engine) that gave about 7:1 compression. That head did much better on the 360 with more compression. Chrysler called the 302 the “fast burn” head, and used the closed chamber to get back some of the compression lost with the open chamber head, without making it ping like a Pontiac. It was pretty much a direct step along the path that lead to the much better flowing (in stock form) Magnum heads, but they really weren’t trying for flow. The magnum head did address things like raising the exhaust ports for way better flow, but then they screwed the pooch with the wimpy Chevy-like (actually a direct lift from the AMC 360) stud mounted rockers. Back to the 302… it was never meant form the 360, so it was never meant to need a lot of flow, it was all about torque (at least a fair amount of torque for the displacement) and efficiency. My father had a 302 headed 318 in an M-body, and that ugly shoebox would regularly get 18-22 mpg on the interstate. But it had SO many crutches… no 4-speed overdrive auto, but a stupid tall rear ratio and a 904 3-speed auto with an extra deep first gear ratio so it could (sorta) get itself moving almost like a normal 318 car from the late 60s.
@@stevelacker358Yes, open chamber heads are poor in combustion. Stud rockers are cheap to produce. Bean counters over the engineers. Mopar went for a powder about that time. The bean counters were taking control and the car guy engineers like Tom Gale left. At least the design and styling dept did not go as fruitloopy as the General did. Since the Daurekraute hostile takeover, Mopar has been on a slow slide. I am reluctant to cheer the Stellantis purchase of FCA. I do not think the Belgians have any saving grace brilliant ideas. The Pentastar does not seem the wonder originally anticipated and only time will tell on the Tornado engine. The brilliant idea of the General to put a 2.7L banger in a 1500 truck is not being accepted well in the market. Only time will tell how that engine lasts. I give it 5 years to join the dinosaurs. You know contractors are going to hook up to job trailers and flatbed trailers daily. Yup they have the torque but you need substace to last. Like Ford's "better idea" light bulb burnt out when they put a rubber timing belt that runs in oil at the back of the diesel engine. Trans and rear cover have to be removed to replace it.
The 302 heads are a pretty fair set of heads in terms of chamber design and port velocity. Last 318 I had was an 87 diplomat engine with a 90 tbi setup on it. 302 heads on those. Great idle quality, vacuum, and had solid low end torque and mid range power with long tube headers and exhaust.
My .02¢ , I’ve taken these ports to a .990” wide and raised the roof to a total of 2.1” , sleeve them with K&S 17/32 brass tube on Amazon, my next step is to change guides and run stock Magnum 1.92/1.65 valves with a smaller stem. Unshroud the valves, soften the chamber , and make some noise !!
As for your sycamore spray, Mopar heads aren’t like Chevy heads in that there ports are set up from the factory to bias the flow into the center of the cylinder. That’s how they make more power than a Chevy with smaller ports.
These intake ports are taller and designed to bring the flow down over the perifery of the valve and not across it. That is also why the valve is tulip shaped.
302 production run was 85 to 92. In stock form the biggest issue is shrouded valves. They can be enlarged to 4bbl port sizes, and get to high flow rates real quick.
@@20alphabet I wonder if they offered any of those porting template sets like the ones direct connection used to offer back in the day. I wouldn't mind having some if so. My only concern in these..as with all the LA heads, is the heat crossover intrusion into the one port. I've heard about this some, and I've always heard that if you block off the heat crossover on each side it raises horsepower... but as far as the head itself Can the intrusion be remedied?
@@MidnightOilsRestoration Carbureted engines require heat to help keep droplets from forming. I know this from a slant six project. There was a fantastic intake offered by Mopar that had nearly equal length runners but no heat. It's original intent was racing, and was great at 4,500 rpm and above, but not for street.
I've got a set of these exact heads from the 318 I pulled to overhaul from my 87' B250RamVan. I bought a comp xe262 Cam kit with double springs/lifters/double roller timing chain. The bottom end looks brand new except for needing cam bearings. I'm going to do essentially what you've done with cleaning up the ports/bowls, and a little deshrouding the valves. Found a cast iron 4 barrel mount an Edelbrock 650. From the smog pump anemic 170...I'm expecting 300+! I can't wait to take my unsuspecting coworker who I bought the van from for a ride 🤣😳
I've only ported a few set of heads, all small block mopar. Because of the small size of the runners. If you can get the right port shape and valve jobfind me another small block heads with small valvesthat will beat them port energy density wise.
If I was being kind, I'd give them credit for using a lip on the valve to get fuel shear at low speeds. I've seen this on an number of standard valves over the years. Will be interesting to see what you end up with Charlie. Regards Greg
Many years ago, I followed David’s advice to port a Mini 1275 cylinder head. Even with my lack of experience and standard cam and carb, the difference was remarkable. Twin SU and Long Centre Branch exhaust made even more power. I never got around to fitting a fast cam. To be honest, that would probably need a steel crank to handle the stresses.
Charles could you pick up some area at the bottom and top of the pinch decreasing the radius there and raising the roof? And your thoughts on using the 360 size valves, 1.88 x 1.60? I know the want to use the 8mm LS exhaust valves.
Glad they finally got ahold of you on the 318. I messaged there channels for you but no reply. I'm excited and betting on you! I don't know what the "rules" are but what do you think about angle milling, port filling and different valve sizes?
I do not know D.V. 's full plans for valve size. He did mention 5/16" stems ls1? Valves. There is not tons of metal around the seat to make them bigger. I remember guys have cut these for 2.02/ 1.6 combo but that bowl will be thin.
I think I called them the same thing. That is what I think they are there for some valve jobs have cuts around under 45 seat. They are there for the same reason I believe.
When I allowed a 16v Fiat 1750 to lose it’s cam belt teeth, I was faced with replacing A LOT of expensive valves. However, shining a torch up the port will show no light if the valve is good. If in doubt turn the valve. Any light showing = new valve needed. Ultimately, I bought four exhaust valves and two inlets & all was good.
Dang close to 894 numbers there. I think 894 stock flow like 210 @ 450 lift right around 210 plus or minus 3-5 CFM. Exhaust side on 894 are 168-172 I’ve seen before. That intake number on the 302s very impressive
Is the groove on the intake valve for anti reversion? I noticed on my swirll port heads there is a groove underneath the valve seat is that for the same purpose?
I believe the ridge on the valves is for creating turbulence before the engine has had time to warm up and the fuel is still cool and not as vaporized, the turbulence creates extra swirl so as much of the fuel as possible is burnt as vapor and not fluid
@@ianhale4466 To help keep carbon off the seats sealing 45deg surface by making it a raised ridge. Also tumble the fuel . But since the groove loads up with carbon fairly quickly its mostly for long term sealing. (Carbon)Tumble means end over end swirl means round and round. You can look at 60's ford small block heads and they also have the groove under the seat. swirl is achieved by biasing the port to one side and a couple of other methods
I have ported a few chevy heads and I too have a dodge that I want to do as well I really appreciate your videos and hope you give old DV a good run lol
@@servediocylinderheads Im curious how fat is the stock 1.78 intake valve, so id like to ask you one question: What is the distance from the bottom of the valve to the height where the width is equal to diameter of the stem? Love your work, thanks, -juhana
Those years were in the emissions stupidity. Compression was low, GM 305, Ford 302 and Mopar 318 were the economy V8s. As compared to the 350 CID range, the intake valves had about 0.050" less lift and longer duration. Vaccum was low, power was low and driveability sucked. Changing out to the 350 size cam made them run much better and vaccum was up. Even better would be to go with an "RV" cam with 0.050" lift duration of Int. 204° and Ex 214° with lift in the 0.425" to 0.450" and LSA of 108° to 110°. These engines all got a poor reputation but the engine displacement was not the problem. Similar was the Chev 307 had a bad rep. Basically a stroked 283, so a different cam would have changed their perception in a blink.
That cam was my first semi performance grind.
307 ripped if built right.
I’d call the 302 head the first step on the way out of emissions stupidity. True emissions stupidity of that era would be the open chamber head on a 318 (which they actually used on the 4-bbl police package engine) that gave about 7:1 compression. That head did much better on the 360 with more compression. Chrysler called the 302 the “fast burn” head, and used the closed chamber to get back some of the compression lost with the open chamber head, without making it ping like a Pontiac. It was pretty much a direct step along the path that lead to the much better flowing (in stock form) Magnum heads, but they really weren’t trying for flow. The magnum head did address things like raising the exhaust ports for way better flow, but then they screwed the pooch with the wimpy Chevy-like (actually a direct lift from the AMC 360) stud mounted rockers. Back to the 302… it was never meant form the 360, so it was never meant to need a lot of flow, it was all about torque (at least a fair amount of torque for the displacement) and efficiency. My father had a 302 headed 318 in an M-body, and that ugly shoebox would regularly get 18-22 mpg on the interstate. But it had SO many crutches… no 4-speed overdrive auto, but a stupid tall rear ratio and a 904 3-speed auto with an extra deep first gear ratio so it could (sorta) get itself moving almost like a normal 318 car from the late 60s.
@@stevelacker358Yes, open chamber heads are poor in combustion.
Stud rockers are cheap to produce. Bean counters over the engineers.
Mopar went for a powder about that time. The bean counters were taking control and the car guy engineers like Tom Gale left. At least the design and styling dept did not go as fruitloopy as the General did. Since the Daurekraute hostile takeover, Mopar has been on a slow slide. I am reluctant to cheer the Stellantis purchase of FCA. I do not think the Belgians have any saving grace brilliant ideas. The Pentastar does not seem the wonder originally anticipated and only time will tell on the Tornado engine.
The brilliant idea of the General to put a 2.7L banger in a 1500 truck is not being accepted well in the market. Only time will tell how that engine lasts. I give it 5 years to join the dinosaurs. You know contractors are going to hook up to job trailers and flatbed trailers daily. Yup they have the torque but you need substace to last.
Like Ford's "better idea" light bulb burnt out when they put a rubber timing belt that runs in oil at the back of the diesel engine. Trans and rear cover have to be removed to replace it.
The 302 heads are a pretty fair set of heads in terms of chamber design and port velocity. Last 318 I had was an 87 diplomat engine with a 90 tbi setup on it. 302 heads on those. Great idle quality, vacuum, and had solid low end torque and mid range power with long tube headers and exhaust.
My .02¢ , I’ve taken these ports to a .990” wide and raised the roof to a total of 2.1” , sleeve them with K&S 17/32 brass tube on Amazon, my next step is to change guides and run stock Magnum 1.92/1.65 valves with a smaller stem. Unshroud the valves, soften the chamber , and make some noise !!
As for your sycamore spray, Mopar heads aren’t like Chevy heads in that there ports are set up from the factory to bias the flow into the center of the cylinder. That’s how they make more power than a Chevy with smaller ports.
These intake ports are taller and designed to bring the flow down over the perifery of the valve and not across it. That is also why the valve is tulip shaped.
The ridge is where the engine gnomes have their picnics
302 production run was 85 to 92. In stock form the biggest issue is shrouded valves. They can be enlarged to 4bbl port sizes, and get to high flow rates real quick.
Mopar Performance offered a hand ported version of the same heads. According to their literature they guaranteed a 50 horsepower increase.
@@20alphabet I wonder if they offered any of those porting template sets like the ones direct connection used to offer back in the day. I wouldn't mind having some if so. My only concern in these..as with all the LA heads, is the heat crossover intrusion into the one port. I've heard about this some, and I've always heard that if you block off the heat crossover on each side it raises horsepower... but as far as the head itself Can the intrusion be remedied?
@@MidnightOilsRestoration
Couldn't tell you. But the heat riser on a street car is a good thing.
@@20alphabet for warmup I can understand but doesn't it cause a lot of vapor issues with today's ethanol fuel?
@@MidnightOilsRestoration
Carbureted engines require heat to help keep droplets from forming. I know this from a slant six project. There was a fantastic intake offered by Mopar that had nearly equal length runners but no heat. It's original intent was racing, and was great at 4,500 rpm and above, but not for street.
I've got a set of these exact heads from the 318 I pulled to overhaul from my 87' B250RamVan. I bought a comp xe262 Cam kit with double springs/lifters/double roller timing chain. The bottom end looks brand new except for needing cam bearings. I'm going to do essentially what you've done with cleaning up the ports/bowls, and a little deshrouding the valves. Found a cast iron 4 barrel mount an Edelbrock 650. From the smog pump anemic 170...I'm expecting 300+! I can't wait to take my unsuspecting coworker who I bought the van from for a ride 🤣😳
It will be a good runner compared to stock.
R ya gonna play with the material around the spark plug Charlie?
I am not sure what I will do there.
I've only ported a few set of heads, all small block mopar. Because of the small size of the runners. If you can get the right port shape and valve jobfind me another small block heads with small valvesthat will beat them port energy density wise.
Not sure what you are asking me.
If I was being kind, I'd give them credit for using a lip on the valve to get fuel shear at low speeds. I've seen this on an number of standard valves over the years. Will be interesting to see what you end up with Charlie. Regards Greg
Ridge is for fuel atomization on the valves.
revaporation ridge to help shear the fuel which in theory supposed to help reatomize the fuel in the chamber?
I would think so.
Take off the ridge on the back of intake valve and let it flow.
Good luck Mr. Charles. It's time the student snaches the pebble from the master's hand (reference from 1970s Kung FU series)! Work your magic!
I appreciate that you think I have a chance. Thanks
Many years ago, I followed David’s advice to port a Mini 1275 cylinder head. Even with my lack of experience and standard cam and carb, the difference was remarkable. Twin SU and Long Centre Branch exhaust made even more power. I never got around to fitting a fast cam. To be honest, that would probably need a steel crank to handle the stresses.
Enjoy ur time with Andy n DV Charlie
No doubt a good time will be had by all!!
@@servediocylinderheads Super anxious to start seeing ur porting results Charlie
Charles could you pick up some area at the bottom and top of the pinch decreasing the radius there and raising the roof?
And your thoughts on using the 360 size valves, 1.88 x 1.60?
I know the want to use the 8mm LS exhaust valves.
360 valves are a nice upgrade. I am only going to see what I can get with stocker size.
Hey Charles, after thinking about it for a bit, how much would a good valve job do to these heads in this stage of porting?
Probably a nice boost in cfm.
According to head porting guru Mikeo, the right seat/valve combination and valve job can give you more than bowl blending and porting alone.
@@20alphabet I think I can get there with stock valve sizes. We will see.
@@servediocylinderheads
Based on the information included in your other videos on the subject, I believe you are right.
You really should measure an uncut stock head. They are nowhere near 170 on the intake. Actually, for 302 heads those are pretty good.
So my first cut wasn't too bad even though it looked terrible. Thanks
That ridge is a shear line to help bend the flow of gas
Glad they finally got ahold of you on the 318. I messaged there channels for you but no reply. I'm excited and betting on you! I don't know what the "rules" are but what do you think about angle milling, port filling and different valve sizes?
I do not know D.V. 's full plans for valve size. He did mention 5/16" stems ls1? Valves. There is not tons of metal around the seat to make them bigger. I remember guys have cut these for 2.02/ 1.6 combo but that bowl will be thin.
@@servediocylinderheads Yep, probably don't need a 2.02 .Thanks for the video.
Darin Morgan calls them vaporization ridges under the valve
I think I called them the same thing. That is what I think they are there for some valve jobs have cuts around under 45 seat. They are there for the same reason I believe.
When I allowed a 16v Fiat 1750 to lose it’s cam belt teeth, I was faced with replacing A LOT of expensive valves. However, shining a torch up the port will show no light if the valve is good. If in doubt turn the valve. Any light showing = new valve needed. Ultimately, I bought four exhaust valves and two inlets & all was good.
Have ya started porting on the M8SSION IMPOSSIBLE heads Charlie?
Oh yes, stay tuned!
Yay!👏👏👏😁
Dang close to 894 numbers there. I think 894 stock flow like 210 @ 450 lift right around 210 plus or minus 3-5 CFM. Exhaust side on 894 are 168-172 I’ve seen before. That intake number on the 302s very impressive
Thanks, I have no reference on these. I wish I had some 1.88/1.6 valves to try. I bet they would fatten the curve.
There was another person he ran 1.88 he had issues with turbulence with the bigger intake
@@dang5553 I would still like to try. There is usually a way to deal with noisy turbulence. May be in valve job or port shape.
I believe what the problem was the infamous push rod pinch. With 1.78 ok with 1.88 around the pinch area is where he thought the turbulence was from.
@@1WILDsMoPARtech I did work on the valve job this weekend. I will get to flow it today. Thanks
how are you spraying the Dykem? And how close can you get to that coolant passage?
About 6" from radius in a circular pattern.
Which cooling passage are you writing about?
@@servediocylinderheads the one next to the outermost exhaust port.
@@SeanOBryanZZ I will guess and say the bulge in the port roof? Under .125 to water in the exhaust I think is pushing it.
If you do a set of #308 at it 360 heads.the make the floor of the exhaust ports much better.
Nice! Those heads seem to respond well to some porting.
Hard fought gains.
Is the groove on the intake valve for anti reversion? I noticed on my swirll port heads there is a groove underneath the valve seat is that for the same purpose?
Good guess but no.
I believe the ridge on the valves is for creating turbulence before the engine has had time to warm up and the fuel is still cool and not as vaporized, the turbulence creates extra swirl so as much of the fuel as possible is burnt as vapor and not fluid
The ridge would create tumble not swirl. Swirl is different
@@tomhutchins1046 so what do you think the ridge is for?
@@ianhale4466 To help keep carbon off the seats sealing 45deg surface by making it a raised ridge. Also tumble the fuel . But since the groove loads up with carbon fairly quickly its mostly for long term sealing. (Carbon)Tumble means end over end swirl means round and round. You can look at 60's ford small block heads and they also have the groove under the seat. swirl is achieved by biasing the port to one side and a couple of other methods
The water jacket bumps of the top of the port should not be ground all of the way down.
Good info. Thanks
@@servediocylinderheads yep with those you have to work with what you got. Unless you want to weld cast iron.
👍💪
The pushrod pinch looks pretty bad
Tiny
"Uncle Tony" says you don't need a flow bench to port heads. He's a poor example to follow.
I 2nd that. I think he's full of shit
I like Uncle Tony, lets not write bad things about people. Not everyone has the same abilities. I am sure the stuff he works on run well.
David Vizard also says you don't need a flow bench to get good results from porting heads.
This first cut on these heads could be considered ported by an amature they still are about 35 cfm up on the intake over stock. Not terrible.
Uncle Tony is always getting people in trouble
I have ported a few chevy heads and I too have a dodge that I want to do as well I really appreciate your videos and hope you give old DV a good run lol
I will need to do my homework!
@@servediocylinderheads Im curious how fat is the stock 1.78 intake valve, so id like to ask you one question: What is the distance from the bottom of the valve to the height where the width is equal to diameter of the stem? Love your work, thanks,
-juhana