• Mustang Forums
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech

Compression ratio

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeffnoel
  • Start date Start date Apr 10, 2004

jeffnoel

Founding Member
Aug 31, 2002
1,638
5
37
Clovis, CA
Apr 10, 2004
#1
  • Apr 10, 2004
  • #1
I know there are charts that show what the compression ratio would be if you take say a 78 302 (8.4) and install 69 351W heads (goes to 9.5). These charts are assuming your keeping the stock 78 302 pistons. What if you changed to flat tops and did the head swap? Any ideas on what the compresion ratio would be then? The only reason I'm referring to 351W heads is that they have the same 60cc combustion chamber which the aluminum heads I want have.
 
N

Northern J II

New Member
Jul 25, 2003
157
0
0
Belwood Ontario Canada
Apr 10, 2004
#2
  • Apr 10, 2004
  • #2
If the flat top pistons are level with the top of the bore, use a 85-93 302 H.O as a refferance. happy head hunting
Remember not to give up too many CC's to raise the compression ratio, you may be better off with less compression and larger ports. 302's do not breath much. I picked 58cc heads in hopes of raising the compression ratio to build more power. My car kinda drops off at 4500. Edelbrock Performer heads Rev cleanly to 6000RPM. Thats my next step. My current heads breath really well, but only when the nitrous is flowing
 

Blue Thunder

15 Year Member
Mar 20, 2004
1,003
55
68
Upstate New York.
Apr 10, 2004
#3
  • Apr 10, 2004
  • #3
All factory 289, 302,(excluding the massive 69-70 BOSS, and the GT-40P 5.0 Explorer) and 351W(excluding the 69-74 castings, which are superior) heads have virtually identical CFM airflow values. The only real difference in ANY of the small block Ford castings is the volume(in CCs) of the combustion chambers. Increasing compression is of course the easiest means of increasing power and efficiency. However, if you use castings with very small CC chambers, some of the benefit you're gaining from the higher compression is being lost because the smaller chambers also tend to shroud the valve's flow ability. The idea situation is a chamber that's large enough to leave the valves unhibited by the chamber wall. For this reason, it's better to use other means to manipulate compression ratio. Start with a casting with a fairly large chamber, and then have them milled to decrease the CC. A shallow, wide chamber will make more power than a deep narrow chamber. Of course, if money is a big factor, then slapping on a set of heads with small chambers will still give you higher compression, and will make you more power, but the motor wont be as efficient as it could be.
 

Blue Thunder

15 Year Member
Mar 20, 2004
1,003
55
68
Upstate New York.
Apr 10, 2004
#4
  • Apr 10, 2004
  • #4
I'm still in the process of writing a virtual dyno program for market. It's partially operational at this point and I can use it to plug in whatever numbers you list to quickly calculate compression ratio. (Figuring it out manually is time consuming)

No combination of parts seems to be identical in any engine, so you really need to measure the pieces you plan on using and list the specs for proper mechanical compression calculation.

These are the related measurements you need to take:

Deck clearance of block:
Combustion chamber volume in CC:
Compressed head gasket thickness: (.038" is usual)
Number of eyebrows per piston: (2 or 4)
Engine Bore:
Engine Stroke:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
New Edge 3.8L Forged Internals
  • NtheGAME
  • Jun 1, 2025
  • SN95 V6 Mustang Tech
Replies
1
Views
778
SN95 V6 Mustang Tech Jun 3, 2025
Noobz347
9
Milton Questions, 351 swap newedge
  • 996stang
  • Jul 20, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
1
Views
226
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 25, 2026
Killer351w
K
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
982
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
HP woes with Sniper Sytem
  • Stang_1973
  • Mar 10, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
16
Views
884
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Mar 13, 2025
revhead347
Motor given to me and I’d like to rebuild it what do I need to do
  • Creomod
  • Dec 14, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
386
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Dec 16, 2024
AeroCoupe
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?