FYI FORD MustangSteve's Ford Mustang Forum » Dirty Pictures!

TremendousWand · 4/27/2020 8:03 AM

1966 Mustang Coupe, 1988 5.0 HO Swap, T5z, MAF EFI, 4 wheel disc brakes, 245/45/r17, full subrfame kit, painless harness

...Blown head gasket, busted valve...

Got the engine stripped down to basically the short block. It was a dirty job. Never been this far down into an engine before. Those head were terrible and man do they weigh a ton. I could visually see the car sit higher on the springs after removing the heads. Now for the good stuff! The first one was supposed to be a gif, not sure if it works. You can see from the image that the water ran right through.

Pulled the cylinder heads, did a water test on the one w/ no compression:

Then took a good luck at the head gasket. Either this is 30 years of build up or somebody tried to use gasket sealer at some point. Several of the ports were clogged. This engine was getting terrible coolant circulation.

Had some pretty bad corrosion through the intake ports too. Intake gaskets and valve gaskets appeared to have been compromised.

I'm going to bet who ever installed this engine pulled it straight from the junker and dropped it right in w/o doing any prep.

Now I got my work cut out for me. Got to do a lot of cleaning. Lots of carb build up on the cylinders but it they look really good. Since it was only the 1 cylinder that wasn't holding compression I'm going to move forward w/ just the cylinder head change.

FYI, cylinder heads are REALLY expensive. Lots of decisions to make. Trying to stay w/ in budget but making reasonable upgrades as I don't plan on being this far down in the engine anytime soon.

Last edited by TremendousWand (4/27/2020 8:05 AM)

BobE · 4/27/2020 8:47 AM

In the third picture, what is that metal strip behind the last pushrod?
The rear ports on both cylinder heads are the water jackets. These rear ports are blocked off by the intake manifold, so it is not abnormal for crud build up in this area.
I wouldn't jump to needing new cylinder heads, the existing heads can be cleaned and refurbished by a machine shop for considerably less money than new heads.
Suggest after getting the heads straightened out, flush the engine/radiator with a chemical cleaner available from most car part stores.

TremendousWand · 4/27/2020 10:20 AM

I think that's just a piece of a zip tie, I put together a bunch of pictures. Need to create a better post.
Didn't know that about the water jackets, i'll read up more.

Yea ideally I would pull the entire block and have it cleaned but I don't want to pull the engine. I'm going to clean it best I can.

Rebuilding the heads can get expensive. Summit sells refurbished set for $300 each. Just a rebuild is around $200. Any kind of machining will cost more.

Swapping heads is such a pain in the -oh no I used a word I shouldn't have- so if I was going to upgrade now would be the time but it looks like i'd be in it for $800 minimum do a cheap upgrade. Moderate aluminum cylinder heads are $1000k. No idea they were so expensive.

MWM · 4/27/2020 11:01 AM

If you are on a no budget, you can try porting your existing heads.

https://cdn.website.thryv.com/7fc8b09813234ba0b3c5e3c0a1b8c109/files/uploaded/Port%20Matching.pdf

Michael H. · 4/27/2020 12:19 PM

When building my 351W for my truck I bought a set of reman GT40 iron heads (not GT40P) for $550. That seems to be roller cam 302 you're working on... could be a decent upgrade.

TremendousWand · 4/27/2020 12:28 PM

Michael H. wrote:
When building my 351W for my truck I bought a set of reman GT40 iron heads (not GT40P) for $550. That seems to be roller cam 302 you're working on... could be a decent upgrade.

Yea, cheapest set on ebay are 700 and require rebuilding. Not sure what it is about those heads but they are crazy expensive even compared to aluminum ones.

6sally6 · 4/27/2020 5:45 PM

You can "wait-it-out" until some GT heads come about or.......do a little hand porting (ain't really that hard) ...get a valve job...mill'em a little....and re-use your heads.
Just a valve job (3-angle)..and having them milled down a few thousands will make a HUGE difference in your performance. And you should be set for another 50,000+ miles.
New springs would be a nice up-grade too!
6sally6
Grind that HUMP out of the exhaust ports at the very least!

TKOPerformance · 4/27/2020 6:03 PM

The GT40 and later GT40P heads are really just evolutions of the E7TE heads, which may be what you already have. The E7TE heads weren't bad. Basically the GT40 had better ports and the P heads raised the exhaust port. The idea was excellent low lift flow, and they worked. Stock for stock they are an upgrade, bot not worth anywhere near $700-$800 needing a rebuild. I wouldn't even pay that for them fully rebuilt. For another $200 you can just get a set of Edelbrocks, which will be better flowing and about 70lbs lighter.

GT40 or GT40P vs what you've got? I'd port the ones you've got for about $50 in supplies if you already have a grinder (not a Dremel, a real deal rotary grinder).

Daze · 4/27/2020 6:14 PM

TremendousWand wrote:
FYI, cylinder heads are REALLY expensive. Lots of decisions to make. Trying to stay w/ in budget but making reasonable upgrades as I don't plan on being this far down in the engine anytime soon.

Have you considered flo-tek heads?

I have two sets, one on a 302 and one on a 351 and I LOVE THEM. I first purchased them from Speedway but Summit is selling them now too. They are a budget aluminum head at $439 each but are by no means a cheep head. The quality is quite good. Also they are not like the failure prown pro-comp heads. Yes these are cheep Chinese castings but they are assembled in the US with quality valve train parts, so you get budget friendly and reliable. Don't get me wrong they will not perform as well as any of the other brands like Edelbrock or Trick-flow BUT at half the price they are still a vast improvement over all OEM heads. I used vlave size, compression change and actual flow results from both an E7 head and the flo-tek heads and put all the specks into my virtual dyno. The flo-tek heads made a BIG difference.

E7TE heads 8.8 CR every thing else is stock to a 351 roller engine

Flo-tek heads 9.5 CR every thing else is stock to a 351 roller engine

TKOPerformance · 4/27/2020 7:32 PM

At $879 a set they are only about $120 less than a base level set of Edelbrocks. These E-Street heads are an amazing bang for the buck:

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-5023/make/ford

Personally I avoid any car parts made in China. I've seen issues with metallurgy from stuff made there over the years. Edelbrocks parts are 100% made in the USA. Buy American and Americans work, yadda, yadda, yadda. Not trying to get into anything, point, counterpoint, caveat emptor, etc.

Daze · 4/27/2020 7:54 PM

that is true but the combustion chamber is smaller on the flo-tek units. Also the e-street does not have the heat crossover making it less friendly as an OEM replacement. Flo-tek is still the better budget option IMHO

Last edited by Daze (4/28/2020 8:59 AM)

MS · 4/27/2020 8:00 PM

Just FYI , rear water crossover ports are typically blocked between heads and intake by the gaskets. This directs water flow from pump to front of block, through the block to rear of block, then into the heads, then back towards front of block where it enters the intake and goes to the thermostat.
So, sometimes a blocked passage is supposed to be blocked.

TremendousWand · 4/28/2020 8:24 AM

I ordered a pair of remanufactured GT40 heads from Jegs...$735 after core charge.
Best all around option for me. Allows me to keep my existing headers, plugs, wires, EGR all the while being a mild upgrade. I picked up a set of upper and lower gt40 intake manifolds on craigslist for $100 so this should all pair up nicely. I've opted not up upgrade the cam. Got to draw the line somewhere in terms of funds. Looking to upgrade to rocker roller arms but that might be pushing the budget too.

ATK is local to grand prarie texas and build performance engines too so I felt comfortable.

https://www.jegs.com/i/ATK-Engines/059/2FX2/10002/-1

Last edited by TremendousWand (4/28/2020 8:25 AM)

TKOPerformance · 4/28/2020 2:45 PM

Honestly its fine, the GT40s were typically used on engines with garbage camshafts anyway. The best cam ever paired with them was probably the 5.0 HO cam when used in the '93-'95 Cobras. The first gen Lightnings had a dinky flat tappet cam if you can believe that. All other applications were trucks that weren't cammed for performance. Point being, it will still pick up some noticeable power. Though, the Cobras in lieu of a better cam did use 1.7:1 roller rockers (sometimes spec;d as 1.72:1). They were Crane Energizer roller rockers built under contract for Ford with Ford part numbers stamped into them. The Cobras used a cast version of the GT40 tubular upper, with the same GT40 lower. They had larger MAFs and TBs, plus 24lbs/hr injectors and a specific ECU. I think the '93s were only rated at 235HP, but the '94-'95s were rated at 305 despite being identical to the '93 engine. Scuttlebutt is that the '93 was downrated by Ford.

BobE · 4/28/2020 3:50 PM

TremendousWand wrote:
I think that's just a piece of a zip tie, I put together a bunch of pictures. Need to create a better post.
Didn't know that about the water jackets, i'll read up more.

Yea ideally I would pull the entire block and have it cleaned but I don't want to pull the engine. I'm going to clean it best I can.

Rebuilding the heads can get expensive. Summit sells refurbished set for $300 each. Just a rebuild is around $200. Any kind of machining will cost more.

Swapping heads is such a pain in the -oh no I used a word I shouldn't have- so if I was going to upgrade now would be the time but it looks like i'd be in it for $800 minimum do a cheap upgrade. Moderate aluminum cylinder heads are $1000k. No idea they were so expensive.

Regarding the zip-tie, I strongly suggest that while you have the engine opened up that you cover it up with some rags, towel, etc. Referring to the third picture, that hole in the middle of the lifter valley is an oil drain back hole, you don't want anything falling down that hole as the camshaft is directly below, and below that is the crank and oil pan. You'll want to keep any items that can fit down the hole, including any dust and dirt from entering the engine.

50vert · 4/28/2020 4:08 PM

The 305 hp 95 Cobra R engine was not really identical to anything else. 5.8 vs 5.0 in the 240 hp 94-95 Cobra.
The 5.0 94-95 Cobra used exactly the same MAF and TB as the 215 hp GT.
Just sayin'.

Ron68 · 4/28/2020 6:05 PM

TremendousWand wrote:
I ordered a pair of remanufactured GT40 heads from Jegs...$735 after core charge.
Best all around option for me. Allows me to keep my existing headers, plugs, wires, EGR all the while being a mild upgrade. I picked up a set of upper and lower gt40 intake manifolds on craigslist for $100 so this should all pair up nicely. I've opted not up upgrade the cam. Got to draw the line somewhere in terms of funds. Looking to upgrade to rocker roller arms but that might be pushing the budget too.

ATK is local to grand prarie texas and build performance engines too so I felt comfortable.

https://www.jegs.com/i/ATK-Engines/059/2FX2/10002/-1

I used a pair of 98 Explorer GT40 heads on my 351W. The head bolt holes had to be drilled out for the larger 351W head bolts and I didn't find out until I installed them that the stock 5.0L valve springs were too weak for the cam I was using. I got valve float at about 4500 rpm. I had to get stiffer springs and that cured the problem. I had a friend who does porting work do some work on the heads also before I installed them.

And I see now that you have a roller engine - so my situation doesn't match yours - as I still have a flat tappet engine........:-(

Last edited by Ron68 (4/28/2020 6:10 PM)

Coupedaddy · 4/28/2020 11:08 PM

Have you purchased already I have a GT 40 set up heads upper and lower intake that’s with valve covers they are powdered coated I can make you a deal on The heads are not the ones in the picture I can get pictures of the heads are 3 bar Gt 40 not P heads I can get them to you
As my cousin picked up the speakers from you for me

Last edited by Coupedaddy (4/28/2020 11:27 PM)

Coupedaddy · 4/28/2020 11:11 PM

The throttle bracket is powder coated as well I was building a GT 4O swap for my coupe but went the Holley Sniper route instead Wich I had taken the time to install but I didn’t have the time as my dad passed last year Rushing to get the car ready for Myrtle Beach and it got cancelled Lol

Last edited by Coupedaddy (4/28/2020 11:18 PM)

TKOPerformance · 4/29/2020 5:37 AM

50vert wrote:
The 305 hp 95 Cobra R engine was not really identical to anything else. 5.8 vs 5.0 in the 240 hp 94-95 Cobra.
The 5.0 94-95 Cobra used exactly the same MAF and TB as the 215 hp GT.
Just sayin'.

I'm not talking about the '95 Cobra R engine. Yes, it was a 5.8 and those cars were meant for racing, though few were actually raced. Most ended up in the hands of collectors.

The standard GT throttle body was 60mm. The '93 Cobra used a 65mm, but the '94-'95 used the same TB as the GT. Another Ford cost cutting measure.

The MAFs were 70mm, same size as the GT, BUT the ECU worked some trickery in the MAF transfer function to account for the fact that the meter was meant for 19lbs/hr injectors and the Cobras all used 24lbs/hr injectors. FWIW the MAF carries a distinct part number (F1ZF-12B579-AA).

'93s also had factory underdrive pulleys (crank and water pump). '94-'95 did not.

'93s were rated at 235HP at 4,600 RPM, so you need to read between the lines there. The rev limiter on these cars was 6,250 RPM. Ford used a play from the 428CJ playbook. Unless anyone believes that the 428 only made 335HP. Consider that the '93 Cobra had different heads, intake, TB, larger injectors, specific ECU calibration, higher ratio roller rockers, etc. All that to net 20HP? The guys at SVT would have been embarrassed. John Coletti (the head of SVT at the time) paid for the brakes on every '93 Cobra out of his own pocket because Ford wouldn't come off the money.

In '94-'95 the official claim was 240HP, but again, this engine was mostly the same as '93, so the HP was rated at an RPM well below where peak power was made.

Finally, in '95 Ford claimed a 1/4 mile ET of 13.87. The car weighed 3,350. Add in some fuel and a driver and its more like 3,550 at race weight. The math says 240HP in the car gets you an ET of 15 flat. 305HP gets you a 13.88. I've personally seem a '95 Cobra run high 13s stock. One of my best friends has owned one since '96.

TremendousWand · 4/29/2020 7:00 AM

Coupedaddy wrote:
Have you purchased already I have a GT 40 set up heads upper and lower intake that’s with valve covers they are powdered coated I can make you a deal on The heads are not the ones in the picture I can get pictures of the heads are 3 bar Gt 40 not P heads I can get them to you
As my cousin picked up the speakers from you for me

That pic isn't working. PM me and I'll send you my email.

the heads are on order. I'd still be interested in seeing what you got, I'm trying to save some cash but the ones I bought are refurbished so I'm leaning towards not taking any chances at this point.

50vert · 4/29/2020 2:41 PM

TKOPerformance wrote:
I think the '93s were only rated at 235HP, but the '94-'95s were rated at 305 despite being identical to the '93 engine. Scuttlebutt is that the '93 was downrated by Ford.

Wether you were talking about the 95 Cobra R with the 5.8 engine or not .... doesn't change the fact that it was the only Cobra rated at 305 hp.

Last edited by 50vert (4/29/2020 3:51 PM)

TKOPerformance · 4/29/2020 5:53 PM

50vert wrote:
TKOPerformance wrote:
I think the '93s were only rated at 235HP, but the '94-'95s were rated at 305 despite being identical to the '93 engine. Scuttlebutt is that the '93 was downrated by Ford.
Wether you were talking about the 95 Cobra R with the 5.8 engine or not .... doesn't change the fact that it was the only Cobra rated at 305 hp.

Actually, the Cobra R was rated at 300HP at 4,800RPM. I tracked down both sales brochures. I also noticed that the Cobra R as pictures in that brochure lacked the big wing they typically were seen with, leaving the only features to distinguish it from a Cobra as the wheels and the double rise hood (which is pretty subtle, and easily missed if you don't know to look for it).

It was "common knowledge" when the regular Cobras were new that they made 305HP. Now in fairness common knowledge often turns out to be common, but not really knowledge. I'm betting that unscrupulous sales guys were passing off the Cobra R specs as Cobra specs to uninformed buyers.

In the end It doesn't really matter what Ford rated the car at. It made 300+HP. Dragstrip passes and dyno runs where the car made 250HP at the rear wheels all bear that out. Manufacturers uprate and downrate cars all the time for a variety of reasons. Chevy always downrated the Camaro in years when it and the Corvette had the same top engine option. The Corvette had to be first in power, even if it was just on paper. Ford uprated the first OHC Cobras and then had to replace the heads because customers complained. In Japan the entire auto industry has a gentleman's agreement where they will not rate a vehicle at more than 276HP, regardless of actual output.

KM · 4/30/2020 6:36 PM

MS wrote:
Just FYI , rear water crossover ports are typically blocked between heads and intake by the gaskets. This directs water flow from pump to front of block, through the block to rear of block, then into the heads, then back towards front of block where it enters the intake and goes to the thermostat.
So, sometimes a blocked passage is supposed to be blocked.

I noticed that when I switched over to a different manifold with a rear cross over .Motor seemed to run cooler .

Nos681 · 5/01/2020 6:23 AM

KM wrote:
MS wrote:
Just FYI , rear water crossover ports are typically blocked between heads and intake by the gaskets. This directs water flow from pump to front of block, through the block to rear of block, then into the heads, then back towards front of block where it enters the intake and goes to the thermostat.
So, sometimes a blocked passage is supposed to be blocked.

I noticed that when I switched over to a different manifold with a rear cross over .Motor seemed to run cooler .

The first Performer 289 intake had the rear coolant passages.
I had to modify my kick down linkage because of this.
I used the stock flow pattern as Steve described.
Essentially it was blocked on both sides and not used.
Fine for daily driver.

The newer ones don’t have the crossover anymore.

Last edited by Nos681 (5/01/2020 6:28 AM)

Index » FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Dirty Pictures!

Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Michael H. wrote:

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

TremendousWand wrote:

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

TremendousWand wrote:

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

TremendousWand wrote:

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Re: Dirty Pictures!

50vert wrote:

Re: Dirty Pictures!

Coupedaddy wrote:

Re: Dirty Pictures!

TKOPerformance wrote:

Re: Dirty Pictures!

50vert wrote:

TKOPerformance wrote:

Re: Dirty Pictures!

MS wrote:

Re: Dirty Pictures!

KM wrote:

MS wrote:

Index » FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Dirty Pictures!

Board footera

Index
» FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion
» Dirty Pictures!

Index
» FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion
» Dirty Pictures!