FE Power Cylinder Heads

[Joe-JDC]

Yes, even though the GT-40 and CHI ports are cut ~90*, the port is already turned down.  If you look at a stock FE exhaust closely, you will see that the floor and roof are actually already starting to turn down.  IF an exhaust port were simply laid over another 45* and aimed downward, a header tube could be bolted up to the head like a Pontiac, or GM product and make a much cleaner header install, easier, and the flow would not be hindered  if the port is designed properly.  Just an idea, but I think it would solve the shock tower header headache.  Joe-JDC

[Stangman]

Jay Im sure it has been talked about but are these heads good for shock tower cars. As for what Joe was saying, lets say you didnt turn them down could you just take  off lets say 20 to 25 thousanths off  the exhaust face and just have that much more room for the pipes and the occasional bolt thats always close. I dont think that would hurt anything flow wise.

[jayb]

As the exhaust port is currently configured, they will not fit a shock tower car unless you cut the shock towers back somewhat.  I plan to do this on my 68 Mustang, first by installing coil over shocks (which will be significantly smaller in diameter than the normal springs), and then trimming the towers for header clearance.  My arm is being twisted by some folks to do a version of this head with the normal FE exhaust port location, so that shock tower surgery is not required and existing headers will fit, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to do that or not.  So many people cut the shock towers on their cars, and there are so many kits out there to convert to a different front suspension, that I'm not sure it makes sense to offer a set of these heads with the stock exhaust location; the exhaust port efficiency would be way down if I had to do that.  On the other hand, I sure would like to put a set of these heads on my 68 Shelby and my 69 Mach 1, and I'm certainly not going to cut the shock towers on those cars, so I'm waffling a bit on this...

[turbohunter]

All my towers are either cut or gone

[cjshaker]

This gets into kind of a grey area for a lot of people. I really don't want to cut the shock towers on my R-code Mach 1 either, and I assume Jay doesn't want to for the same reasons; namely value. But since I've already welded frame connectors on, the "original" thing kind of went out the window. I always told myself I didn't want to cut the car where it couldn't be put back to original. Now I find myself getting ready to cut the tunnel for a V-gate shifter, and possibly modifying the front and inner part of the wheelwell for a bigger tire.

I wouldn't think that anyone who's wanting to keep 'original' as part of the equation, would even consider these heads. There are certainly other head options that will make plenty of power for a 'stock' bodied car, and where you can keep the shock towers (Like Blairs Pro Ports). And since these heads would never be considered for any type of NHRA Stock classes, I wouldn't see the point. JMO

Life sure would be easier without those damn towers though. Of course it would also be easier if that 5th letter was an F, H, L or M, instead of an R..lol

[Joe-JDC]

The thing is on exhaust ports, you can have a VERY efficient exhaust port that is SMALLER than the existing FE port and still flow 70% bias with 475 cfm.  A C3 SBF head with 1.560" valve will flow 330cfm and the port is less than 1 3/4" round shape.  I have also seen the D3 heads flow 370 cfm on the exhaust with a 1.625" exhaust valve.    I have seen them round, "D" shaped, square, oval, and all combinations of the above.  With the short turn on the exhaust reconfigured to a round port shape, any shape or exit angle could be possible.  All it takes is a little thinking out of the box and looking at some of those other heads and how well they work.  Joe-JDC

[jayb]

I have subframe connectors on my R code Mach 1 also, but my rationale is that they can be cut off with little or no evidence that they were ever there.  Also, they are not visible on a casual inspection of the car.  I suppose shock towers can be replaced if they were modified or removed, but it seems like that would be a little more involved, and also if you look under the hood, its obvious that the car has been modified if the shock towers have been cut back or removed.  So I'm hanging with those hated things on my Mach 1 and Shelby...

[jayb]

The thing is on exhaust ports, you can have a VERY efficient exhaust port that is SMALLER than the existing FE port and still flow 70% bias with 475 cfm.  A C3 SBF head with 1.560" valve will flow 330cfm and the port is less than 1 3/4" round shape.  I have also seen the D3 heads flow 370 cfm on the exhaust with a 1.625" exhaust valve.    I have seen them round, "D" shaped, square, oval, and all combinations of the above.  With the short turn on the exhaust reconfigured to a round port shape, any shape or exit angle could be possible.  All it takes is a little thinking out of the box and looking at some of those other heads and how well they work.  Joe-JDC

Joe, I've looked at those C3 heads and the exhaust ports are raised way, way up.  If I was going to make a version of my head that had stock style exhaust ports I'd have to make sure that the ports were in the factory location.  And I think it would be difficult to turn that sharp corner and get the kind of flow numbers that you are talking about.  Not that there wouldn't be an improvement over the stock port, but I'm not sure I could get flow numbers that would match up well with the intake flow...

[Drew Pojedinec]

Cut shock towers decreases value?
I would think that if it’s done well it’s be desired.
Kinda like I view front discs and a dual master cylinder to be an upgrade on my Galaxie, certainly not a negative.

(This was a question, I do t own a shock tower car, so curious)

[C8OZ]

Beautiful work! I'm following this project with great interest.

Some folks are nearly religious about unmolested Ford towers. I "grew up" that way, too. I remember at 17 working way too hard to put 90 degree grease fittings into the upper control arms just to keep from drilling a hole. And chopping out rear tubs without a care in the world.

[Joe-JDC]

No one thinks twice about the shock towers of a Boss 429 car.  Ford did those right.  Joe-JDC

[Pentroof]

Looks good Jay.

I work quite a bit in additive technologies, although mostly printing metal on laser powder beds. Anyway, printing techniques that use a binder and particle, generally use a de-binding wash step to reduce the amount of binder before going into a final furnace sintering. Perhaps you should investigate a wash solution for removing the binder.

Previous comments suggested that pressure testing was the ultimate quality check for porosity and such. I strongly suggest you get a set FULLY x-ray'd or find an NDT house that offers industrial CT. It won't be cheap, but fill issues can produce voids, dross or other casting process induced issues that won't show up in a pressure test, but could create performance or functional issues.

[TomP]

I am a shock tower guy and would never get rod of the towers to fit heads. I would trim them back if needed but reluctantly.

[Dumpling]

I've thought about reversing the heads on the block; where the exhaust exits over the block In the valley area.  Something like the Indy DOHC.

This would obviously be easier with efi. It would also make turbocharging packaging easier.

OR...

picture one of those ribbons people wear, red, pink, purple, whatever. Now pump that flat ribbon up into a tube.  Make the exhaust port exit almost vertically from the head and use the ribbon-shaped tube to take the exhaust and re-route it downwards close to the block.  Header bolts on top (or nearly so) of the head and nothing but plain tubing running between the engine and shock towers.

[e philpott]

Seems like there is plenty of nice heads out there for shock tower guys already , this head is a serious piece that would be great on a serious piece like tube chassis type car or Super Pro/Q16 rear engine dragster