IF it will make you "feel" better..........I have World Product Windsor jr. heads (iron) @9.5:1 CR.(comparable to GT-40 heads according to the so called experts)  Of course its 'cammed-out-of-its-mind' butt...........ask Rudi/ask Bullet Bob/ask Mocha Man.....it WILL scoot!
Yes, its not maximum HP butt it is wayyyy faster than the old 289 that came out of it! I've only revved  it to 5500rpm a few times and it had PLENTY more...I was just chicken to take it further. Remember, it has an old 'peg-leg' 3.00:1 rear gear sooo 5500 RPM in second is the speed limit and........ it still had 3 more gears to climb through!!
Now imagine 30 MORE cubes and 3.25:1 gears!! Trust me I was plenty busy holding on....steering...and grabbing gears to take it much higher than 5500!!
I gotta disagree with TKO......with the right camshaft AND the right CAM TIMING.....600CFM carb...good breathing intake and free flowing exhaust..........you can run circles (quick circle) around any Hi Po 289 SBF and it was one of the quickest back-in-the-day!!
My question is................if you can get a 331 crank for the same price as a 347......WHY not get the big'un????
THAT is the question of the day!!
6sal6

Your final compression ratio is a combination of
piston top -dished, flat, , or raised
Deck height - top of piston to surface of block
And volume of combust chamber of the head.

It will be a dance to make all good for a 9:1 compression motor now and then swap to aluminum heads later. There needs to be some pre-planning for this next step now to make sure the compression doesn’t drop a bunch cause your choice of aluminum heads has a bigger combustion chamber.

Yeah .. that’s a good thing I am starting to draw this out on paper now ..

I know the head I have here has been machined before ... but let’s say it’s at 63cc volume .. I need to plan for the deck height that is on a stock engine with a 331 kit.. which is what..? Does anyone know?

I’ll calculate for 10:1 for now..
Again, I can look at the piston options , and see if the heads will need to be milled down a bit to bring compression up..

Question:: anyway for me to measure the volume of my combustion chamber right now? (To make sure it’s 63..?)

If you want to determine your existing combustion chamber volume, use a piece of plexiglass greased to the head with a small hole so you can fill the area with water from a burrete.

A piston manufacturer will be able to tell you what the deck height and chamber volumes used in calculating the compression ratio for that piston. Google for what the stock deck height of your block should be and compare to what the piston manufacturer is specifying.

10:1 is a lot of compression for an iron headed motor. It can lead to detonation issues. Generally, it’s 9:1 for iron heads and 10:1 for aluminum.

For my FE motors, excessive milling of heads causes issues with the intake fitting properly. I don’t know if that is an issue with the Windsor motors.

You will kill an iron headed engine with a carb and 10:1 compression ratio.  Unless you want to run 100+ octane this is not a good idea.  9:1 is plenty.  Compression is like anything else; it has to be matched to the other parts.  The cam, heads, intended RPM range, engine size, etc. all work together with compression.  10:1 is a compression ratio best suited for a 400+HP engine that will spin 6,000 or more RPM with a more aggressive camshaft.

Setting the engine for 9:1 now and hitting 10:1 later isn't that tall an order, but it is worth preplanning.  The engine is likely going to come in close to zero deck height.  That's how Ford's usually are.  The chamber volume is fixed at say 63cc (though you should cc it to be sure).  So the things you can vary are HG compressed thickness and piston dish/valve relief volume.

I'll link you to a compression ratio calculator I use, but if you go with a 13cc dish/relief volume and a 0.040" thick compressed HG you will end up at about 9:1.  If your new heads have a 58cc chamber and you use a 0.020 thick compressed HG you end up at 10:1.  AFR 185 Renegades are available with 58cc chambers.  HGs are easy to find from 0.020 all the way up to 0.080" thick compressed thickness.  Here's the calculator I use:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/compcalc.html

There are charts that will show you how to modify the intake based on how much you mill the heads.  It effects any engine, though FEs have a particular issue because part of the valve cover rail is part of the intake. 

What BB is saying on the size of an engine is spot on.  Some combinations just work really well.  Ever notice that Ford, GM, and Chrysler's best big blocks were all about 427 cubic inches?  They all made small blocks of about 302 cubic inches too (so did AMC and others).  The 327 was Chevy's best developed small block.  Some exceeded 1HP/cubic inch.  The L84 327s made 375HP stock (the same as the top dog 396 big block).  In some senses there is no replacement for displacement, and a big torquey engine has its place, but power comes from RPM.  Those bigger torquier engines didn't rev well because they had worse R/S ratios and were more limited by piston speed.  The 327 had enough stroke to make some low end torque, but kept a standard length rod for a good R/S ratio, and it used a 4" bore allowing big valve heads to be run without shrouding or interference issues.  The best heads were designed for the 327; the fuelies or camel humps. 

Now, Fords are a little different because the 302 has a shorter deck height than the SBC.  This means they run shorter rods, so the R/S ratio isn't as good, but is still decent and this also shows why the 347 isn't as good as the 331 if the engine needs to rev., as the R/S ratio is worse, as is rod angularity. 

Still, for my money THE SBF stroker to build from a 302/5.0 is a 331. 
 

That C word bring used so often is a felony where I'm from.

Last edited by Bearing Bob (1/05/2020 6:23 PM)

Ah... we've lost another. After you've been charged, just plead insanity, it will be easy to prove

Last edited by Bearing Bob (1/05/2020 6:27 PM)

That 302 Chevy was a screamer, I was told. From articles I’ve read, 5 liters was the max displacement for Trans Ams racing.

RV6 wrote:

Bullet Bob wrote:

In MHO...the 327 Bowtie was the hands-down, best production V8 ever back in the day.   

I agree 100%, although the 302 Bowtie in the 69 Z/28 Camaro was a fun little screamer too!
 

At red line, yeah. At idle if you opened the door the drag on the alternator from the courtesy light would kill the engine. Not very streetable.

The 302 SBC had the same bore and stroke as the SBF 302, but due to differing deck heights the SBC had a longer rod.  This engine was built to allow competition in Trans Am racing where there was a 305 cubic inch limit.  This allowed Ford, Chevy, AMC, and others to compete with stock displacement engines. 

The Chevy 302 was a winner, at least at first.  In '67 they won.  In '68 Ford came close with the tunnel port 302, but couldn't keep it together.  '69 was a different story, as Ford now had the Boss 302. 

The 302 Chevy wasn't terribly streetable in stock form (but then neither was the Boss 302).  It was designed for racing with engine speeds nearing 8,000RPM.  Essentially created by putting a short stroke 283 crank in a 4" bore 327 block.  Its hard to separate lore from fact with these engines and the guy I'd most like to ask, sadly, has passed.  Some say they came with cross ram intakes and tube headers in the trunk, others say those pieces were legal but over the counter, and others claim they were delivered like that.  Its hard to separate what the factory did vs. dealers, etc.  Great pieces of automotive history for sure regardless. 

TKOPerformance wrote:

The 302 SBC had the same bore and stroke as the SBF 302, but due to differing deck heights the SBC had a longer rod.  This engine was built to allow competition in Trans Am racing where there was a 305 cubic inch limit.  This allowed Ford, Chevy, AMC, and others to compete with stock displacement engines. 

The Chevy 302 was a winner, at least at first.  In '67 they won.  In '68 Ford came close with the tunnel port 302, but couldn't keep it together.  '69 was a different story, as Ford now had the Boss 302. 

The 302 Chevy wasn't terribly streetable in stock form (but then neither was the Boss 302).  It was designed for racing with engine speeds nearing 8,000RPM.  Essentially created by putting a short stroke 283 crank in a 4" bore 327 block.  Its hard to separate lore from fact with these engines and the guy I'd most like to ask, sadly, has passed.  Some say they came with cross ram intakes and tube headers in the trunk, others say those pieces were legal but over the counter, and others claim they were delivered like that.  Its hard to separate what the factory did vs. dealers, etc.  Great pieces of automotive history for sure regardless. 

Maybe if the Z was going straight to a race team but as far as the general public for street use, no they did not come with anything in the truck other then a spare tire and Jack.

The cross ram, headers and carb would be over the counter and would be listed in the "Heavy Duty" catalog, not the regular parts catalog. I use to work in a Chevy dealer parts Dept in the mid 70's.

6sally6 wrote:

Just an FYI.........Boss 302's.........the ones raced in Trans Am used 289 rods (longer than 302 rods) and trick/shorter pistons to get the benefit of the long rod(another theory that could go ANOTHER 4-5 pages). Longer rod means shorter pistons.....shorter pistons mean lighter weight on the end of a connecting rod...which means ever higher RPM's for the 302....which means better capable of using those humongus ports and valves (valz in Alabama).......which means 8+ thousand RPM capability. Which is why I suggested to Gaba to get the longest rod available in his stroker kit to get a lighter piston.....which means............
Jus say'in
6sal6

I'm always a fan of running the longest rod possible.  A long rods does two things:

1.) It creates a more advantageous rod/stroke ratio.  An ideal ratio is 1.6:1 or better according to Smokey Yunick.  A 331 with a 5.4" rod and a 3.25" stroke comes out at 1.66.

2.) It reduces rod angularity, which does several good things.  First, it reduces cylinder wall wear because the piston is being thrust into the wall less.  Second, it improves power because the lower the angle of the rods interface with the crank the less power is wasted overcoming its own angular momentum.  More power is transmitted to the crank as a result, because less is wasted. 

3.) A longer rod will dwell at TDC a little longer, allowing a fraction of a second more to soak up power before descending. 

It illustrates the deck height difference between the SBF and SBC too.  In a Ford a 5.4" rod is considered long, whereas a Chevy has 5.7" rods stock and a 6" rod is considered long.  Its all about what the engine is designed to do