• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2.3L (N/A & Turbo) Tech

dual plug heads to a 81 turbo

  • Thread starter Thread starter keepinitril
  • Start date Start date Sep 6, 2010

keepinitril

Member
Mar 24, 2009
102
1
18
Anaheim Hills
Sep 6, 2010
#1
  • Sep 6, 2010
  • #1
Im not into the turbo coupe yet, but Im stoked because we have a dual plug head at the shop.

81 is the cutoff for the historic (or histaric) class and I was going to find a pace car and throw the dual plug head on there.

BUT im curious what all is needed to make it work out. It looks like I need a DIS for it to work,
but I'd would rather see what others have done
 

Red_LX

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
5,896
73
129
Morgantown, WV...where couches meet their doom
Sep 7, 2010
#2
  • Sep 7, 2010
  • #2
People have used the dual plug head and either blocked the intake side set of plug holes or just left old plugs in there that weren't hooked up....otherwise, if you actually want the dual plug you might as well start with a complete DIS engine and build it up with turbo internals. There's really no gain in going to a DIS head.
 

Jax Rhapsody

Member
Apr 13, 2009
65
0
6
Louisville,KY
Sep 14, 2010
#3
  • Sep 14, 2010
  • #3
Unless he has an early dual-plug that had two dizzy's. With megasquirt you probably could have some advantages. Especially with changing the firing orders.
 

bhuff30

Founding Member
Dec 11, 2001
6,037
35
129
Olathe KS
Sep 16, 2010
#4
  • Sep 16, 2010
  • #4
Jax Rhapsody said:
Unless he has an early dual-plug that had two dizzy's.
Click to expand...

Don't think I've seen that before. Any pictures?
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Dec 27, 2010
#5
  • Dec 27, 2010
  • #5
A dual-distributor 2.3? That's a new one.

There's not much special about the dual-plug head over an oval- or d-port casting and definitely nothing to be gained if only one set of plugs is used.
 
D

Delray Dude

New Member
Jul 7, 2010
263
1
0
Dec 28, 2010
#6
  • Dec 28, 2010
  • #6
Even if one side is dead (plug wise) one would gain the use of the roller cam assembley if the old head were not.
 

mustang_matt

New Member
Oct 8, 2010
29
0
0
TEXAS
Dec 28, 2010
#7
  • Dec 28, 2010
  • #7
dont bother with the dual plug head. I built a turbo 89 stang a few years ago, and the dual power heads just doesn't flow as good as the turbo heads.. problem is alot of the turbo heads are cracked now. I used the stock head off the 89 4 popper. but the combustion cambers are smaller on the n/a heads so you can run into detonation problems if you run to much boost. you will really need to watch your timing. BUT really just dont waste your time on a dual plug head.
@65shelbyclone it wasn't a dual distributor it was a coil pack setup. with a dual drive control module.
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Dec 29, 2010
#8
  • Dec 29, 2010
  • #8
Delray Dude said:
Even if one side is dead (plug wise) one would gain the use of the roller cam assembley if the old head were not.
Click to expand...

It would be a lot easier to just put the roller setup in an earlier head.

mustang_matt said:
@65shelbyclone it wasn't a dual distributor it was a coil pack setup. with a dual drive control module.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with the EDIS system. I had never heard it called "two distributors" before.
 
Z

zonker

New Member
Dec 7, 2010
12
0
0
Dec 29, 2010
#9
  • Dec 29, 2010
  • #9
+1

the dual plug head has probably the worst port flow of any of the 2.3 heads, and with it's closed chamber it's gonna raise the compression ratio.

as for the dis issue, u can use a 8 plug head on a 4 plug car with distributor without issue, other than leaving the intake plugs unused.

hmm. u could always open up the combustion chamber then cc them. that would take care of the CR issue.

and a little porting around the valve guide area will help flow...

so i guess if you're up for the labor of reworking the head a little thaen yes, it will work dandy.
 
D

Delray Dude

New Member
Jul 7, 2010
263
1
0
Dec 29, 2010
#10
  • Dec 29, 2010
  • #10
65ShelbyClone said:
It would be a lot easier to just put the roller setup in an earlier head.
Click to expand...

Very true and good point.
 
D

Delray Dude

New Member
Jul 7, 2010
263
1
0
Dec 29, 2010
#11
  • Dec 29, 2010
  • #11
zonker said:
+1

the dual plug head has probably the worst port flow of any of the 2.3 heads, and with it's closed chamber it's gonna raise the compression ratio.

as for the dis issue, u can use a 8 plug head on a 4 plug car with distributor without issue, other than leaving the intake plugs unused.

hmm. u could always open up the combustion chamber then cc them. that would take care of the CR issue.

and a little porting around the valve guide area will help flow...

so i guess if you're up for the labor of reworking the head a little thaen yes, it will work dandy.
Click to expand...


I can see the possible need to improve the port flow, but why bother with the compression ratio? I understand stock turbos came with lower compression, but raising the the ratio a tad wouldn't really matter in my opinion. If one was worried about too much boost due to a higher compression ration, then they can always regulate wastegate to achieve the desired boost - and well, if one was going to this much trouble, you would think they would already have an adjustable controller.

But then again, with as many lima engines out there - it's probably cheaper to just swap over the roller cam stuff onto the 4 plug head and do a small clean up on it and run with that.
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Dec 29, 2010
#12
  • Dec 29, 2010
  • #12
The higher compression is going to make ping a bigger concern around boost onset and also necessitate less peak boost. Generally speaking, less compression and more boost will make more power with a given fuel octane at the expense of thermal efficiency. Everything is a trade.
 
D

Delray Dude

New Member
Jul 7, 2010
263
1
0
Dec 29, 2010
#13
  • Dec 29, 2010
  • #13
65ShelbyClone said:
The higher compression is going to make ping a bigger concern around boost onset and also necessitate less peak boost. Generally speaking, less compression and more boost will make more power with a given fuel octane at the expense of thermal efficiency. Everything is a trade.
Click to expand...

Ok, makes sense. I know enough about turbos to be dangerous but not enough to be leathal...
 
K

KhanTyranitar

Member
Apr 21, 2011
93
1
9
Apr 25, 2011
#14
  • Apr 25, 2011
  • #14
Delray Dude said:
Even if one side is dead (plug wise) one would gain the use of the roller cam assembley if the old head were not.
Click to expand...

Why not just use the roller cam, it will work with the old head.
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Apr 26, 2011
#15
  • Apr 26, 2011
  • #15
Why use a stock roller cam at all?
 
K

KhanTyranitar

Member
Apr 21, 2011
93
1
9
Apr 27, 2011
#16
  • Apr 27, 2011
  • #16
Because the roller cam is considered an upgrade replacement to the previous cams. It can be used without any tuning modifications.
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Apr 27, 2011
#17
  • Apr 27, 2011
  • #17
It's not an upgrade as far as the profile is concerned. It's a straight-across trade at best and the Ranger cam actually pulls the power spread downward. That's why no tuning is required.
 
K

KhanTyranitar

Member
Apr 21, 2011
93
1
9
Apr 28, 2011
#18
  • Apr 28, 2011
  • #18
The roller cam holds certain valves open longer, and opens and closes them more gradually, resulting in an increase in low end torque and fuel economy, while still keeping the top end power. Trust me, the roller cam is an upgrade. It also runs quieter and puts less stress on the lifters.
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Apr 28, 2011
#19
  • Apr 28, 2011
  • #19
There sure are a lot of complaints that it signs off early and needs to be retarded several degrees for "keeping the top end power."

I'm not saying it's a bad cam and it may even be worth a few ft-lbs down low, but I wouldn't suggest that anyone go looking for one thinking it's a fabulous upgrade...because it's not fabulous. I would say keep the followers, sell the cam, and put the proceeds toward a better profile.
 
K

KhanTyranitar

Member
Apr 21, 2011
93
1
9
Apr 29, 2011
#20
  • Apr 29, 2011
  • #20
Maybe so, often the "loss of top end" is compared tot eh low end. The top end with the roller cam is the same as the old cam, but you get more low end.

I guess they way to sum up though, is the 8 plug head is not needed, and adds a lot of complexity to your project, and the roller cam doesn't offer significant benefits. For what you can save versus swapping and modifying an 8 plug head, you could buy a nicer cam with more lift.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Who the hell puts the wrong spark plugs in a 3.8L?
  • snowstang
  • Mar 25, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
12
Views
443
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Apr 3, 2026
LILCBRA
H
Forced Induction On3 Turbo Kit- Parts list NEEDED - 302 Stock Motor
  • Hirothecool1
  • Feb 27, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Mar 7, 2026
slow84lx
S
J
Help Figuring Motor Choice(Possible future turbo)?
  • jaygee15
  • Dec 14, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
13
Views
649
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 3, 2026
Jarhead67
J
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
894
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
B
water pump installation questions
  • B0udreaux
  • Feb 5, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
38
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 28, 2026
General karthief
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2.3L (N/A & Turbo) 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?