Kaase Cyclinder Heads...331cfm stock

S

Stalone93GT

Founding Member

Jun 9, 2002

232

0

0

Pomona, California

Feb 13, 2004

#1

• Feb 13, 2004

• #1

http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=156886&prmenbr=361

Here is the link to these heads. My buddy just told me about them. Here are the specs on them

555-51501
302/351W Aluminum Head, Bare, Each
Specifications:
Casting: A356-A Aluminum, Heat Treated
Combustion Chamber: 60cc CNC Profiled Machined
Port Volume: 247cc
Valves: 2.100'' Int./1.600'' Exh., Stainless Steel, 11/32'' Stem
Pushrods: 3/8'' Heat Treated, 7.100'' Length for 302 Hyd. Roller, 7.750'' Length for 302 Solid Roller, 8.400'' Length for 351W Hyd. Roller, 9.050'' Length for 351W Solid Roller
Retainers: Chrome Moly Steel 10°
Rocker Studs: 7/16''
Valve Locks: 10°
Accessory Bolt Locations: Stock Placement
Head Bolts: Stock Dimensions
Rocker Arms: SB-Ford 7/16'', 1.6 or 1.7:1 ratio
Gaskets: Intake- Fel-Pro 375-1262, Exhaust- Fel-Pro 375-1486, Head- Fel-Pro 375-1011-2

THese heads flow 331 cfm intake @.800" and 210 cfm exhaust @ .800"

WHat do you guys think

 

M

mr.b

Founding Member

Aug 30, 2002

214

0

0

Feb 13, 2004

#2

• Feb 13, 2004

• #2

First off, if these numbers are correct, the exhaust flow numbers suck. 331cfm intake and 210cfm exhaust. That means the exhaust only flows 58% of the intake. Plus, this is at .800 lift, i am sure everyone runs that much lift on their street strip car, much less an all out race car.

Then we get to the port volume, 247 cc, that is friggin huge on a 302. Talk about a lazy bottom end on the street, these babies will have no low rpm air velocity.

I also like how they compared these heads to afr 185s, why didnt they compare them to the 225s? They would have flowed the same on the intake and then the afrs would have flowed a crapload more on the exhaust. Plus the afrs, with the smaller port volume, would have a much better bottom end.

But, they sound like something decent for a big inch motor or a very high winding small incher. Definitely not a good candidate for a street car though.

Just a head with a HUGE hole in it leading to the intake valve.

 

3

331 cobra

New Member

Oct 14, 2003

398

0

0

Silicon Valley CA

Feb 13, 2004

#3

• Feb 13, 2004

• #3

I'm waiting to see some real evidence before I form an opinion. I think the shape of the intake port is more curved and longer which is what accounts for the increased volume.

The information I have seen is from Jegs which should be taken with a grain of salt, but not dismissed, it does sound pretty good.

I think that they are smart enough to get it right, because they have cad drawings of the heads and that makes me think that they probably did some sort of computational fluid dynamics study to determine flow before they jumped in and made their patterns.

I'll wait and see how many people start buying them and how much sucess they have on the street and in the dyno room.

 

S

Stalone93GT

Founding Member

Jun 9, 2002

232

0

0

Pomona, California

Feb 13, 2004

#4

• Feb 13, 2004

• #4

what if these were put on a 383 stroker?

 

S

SmockDoiley

New Member

Jun 14, 2003

1,591

2

0

San Diego, CA

Feb 13, 2004

#5

• Feb 13, 2004

• #5

Just to let you know, they outflow all AFR heads at .400 to .800 lift. But correct, they will kill your 302 at low rpm. Great for a stroker though, 392-427.

 

S

Stalone93GT

Founding Member

Jun 9, 2002

232

0

0

Pomona, California

Feb 14, 2004

#6

• Feb 14, 2004

• #6

sweet....Do you think that these heads would be able to compare to AFR 205 or 225...i am going to want to be able to smog the engine but I want a bad ass set of heads when i build my 351

 

S

Stalone93GT

Founding Member

Jun 9, 2002

232

0

0

Pomona, California

Feb 14, 2004

#7

• Feb 14, 2004

• #7

oppps read that wrong My bad. What about other heads out there for 351?

 

tmoss

Gettin Wired

Founding Member

Jun 28, 2001

7,153

32

128

Saint Louis, MO

Feb 15, 2004

#8

• Feb 15, 2004

• #8

The port volume is misleading - a lot of it is supposed to be in the bowl area - cross section of the runner is 2.74 sqin versus the 1250 size runner of 2.4 sqin and an AFR number of about 2.55 sqin. What hasn't been brought up here is that the valves are conted and require all new pushrods and special valve covers. Total cost will be near $2,000. I think everyone is going to wait for a guinea pig. The March 2004 Car Craft has a write up on these heads.

 

Xtreme Limits

Founding Member

Nov 30, 2001

375

0

16

Hudson, Florida

Feb 15, 2004

#9

• Feb 15, 2004

• #9

i think ill stick to my pro topline heads, mine flow around those exhast numbers, and with a good port and polish job, my intakes will flow those intake numbers at lower lifts, mine are (215cc) so there still bad on a 302, but good on a stroker

i think these heads are going to be for the 408+ ci. guys, but still , like said before, WHO I THE HELL RUNS A .800 LIFT CAM , and the exhast needs to be opened up just alittle , i say for 800+ a head its not worth the money, e.i. get some AFR's, or Victor Jr.'s hell my Pro Topline heads were only $1025 to my door, they were setup for my cam and got some real flow numbers whats that $512.50 a head fully assembeld, i love getting stuff when nobody knows not much about them can you say dirt cheap, in 1to2 years im sure these head will be $1500+, heck they go for $1200 but i got them at cost

 

90mustangGT

I felt sorry for girls because

Founding Member

Jan 15, 2002

2,773

17

89

Dallas, GA

Feb 15, 2004

#10

• Feb 15, 2004

• #10

That is some monster ports and monster flow, maby too much for a 302 unless you were running lots of boost. A 2.1" intake valve is huge, you would need some pistons with a good notching to get that in. Also, what intake manifold could support that kind of flow? My guess would be out of the range of the long runner types.

I'd rather get those 4V heads, I think they would perform better overall, but like these heads mentioned, they are very expensive.