• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

Let's discuss aluminum heads... BTW: Dumped the Chevy

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratio411
  • Start date Start date Sep 3, 2004
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2

1320stang

Founding Member
Nov 13, 1998
4,329
23
89
Edmond, Oklahoma
Sep 10, 2004
#21
  • Sep 10, 2004
  • #21
I had him until he reminded me about the under 6000 rpm tidbit. This motor is turning 8000 on the indexed '65 cast crank in the '65 2 bolt block with no girdle, just a windage tray, with stock length Howards Aluminum rods with a V6 Chevy big rod end (what size is that?) and some heavy TRW 12.7:1 pistons (which is about 11.5:1 with the '69 351w head).

I never dyno'd it, but I'm pretty sure it's REALLY close to 500hp at the flywheel, if not over it. The shortblock is now wearing a set of out of the box Canfields and a Funnel Web intake with a ProSystems 850DP. The rods probably have over 200 runs on them and have never been re-bearing-ed.
 

Max Power

Active Member
Jul 31, 2003
1,774
1
36
St Paul
Sep 10, 2004
#22
  • Sep 10, 2004
  • #22
Welcome my Maverick brother. Join us on the Maverick boards. I can give you the URL if you need it.

First, I don't trust the computer models on a lot of these things. Real world dyno tests have proven them wrong time and again, as mentioned above.

Also, people tend to fixate on intake flow numbers for heads, but the real gain in aftermarket heads for small block Fords is on the exhaust side. I look at exhaust numbers first, as there are very few Ford heads where the intake flow can't keep up with the exhaust side.

I have seen a number of dyno tests and it seems the average performance increase for each point of compression is approx. 4%. Of course, when you step up from 8:1 motoors to 11:1, you have to change cams and flow characteristics to make it work, so the numbers can be variable.
 
F

fastcoupe68

Member
Mar 10, 2004
368
0
17
nj
Sep 10, 2004
#23
  • Sep 10, 2004
  • #23
never said that stock casting heads wont perform either just alot cheaper to do it with the aftermarket stuff and dollar for dollar stock heads cant match up! 1320 stang I bet that car is going just as fast if not faster with those canfields on there, spend some money on them and go lots faster than those 351w heads ever let you go!
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Sep 10, 2004
#24
  • Sep 10, 2004
  • #24
Max Power said:
Welcome my Maverick brother. Join us on the Maverick boards. I can give you the URL if you need it...
Click to expand...
Yeah, after ignoring the Mav for years, I am starting to do things to it now that I am not distracted by the Chevy anymore.
The roof rotted out on the car.
It came 30 years ago with the 3/4 vinyl top, I had 15 years to get a brain an take it off to prevent the problem I have now, but didn't do it until it was too late.
I have some pin holes in the passenger rear floor pan, but other than these 2 things, the car is rock solid.
I am going to weld up the holes in the pan and my uncle has a parts Mav with a solid roof, so I am confident it will come together.
I am going to go slow with it.
Before, I ignored body work all together and my engines made good power, but were never nice to look at like so many ultra clean engine compartments some folks have on this site.
Body comes first for once, then the rest is going together with perfection as the goal.

What sites do you travel for Mav info?
I have 1 that I have been creeping around quietly for a few years... maverickcomet.to
It's a slow forum. Nothing like stangnet. The latest message in a forum might be days old at times.

Dave
 

1320stang

Founding Member
Nov 13, 1998
4,329
23
89
Edmond, Oklahoma
Sep 12, 2004
#25
  • Sep 12, 2004
  • #25
Nope, slowed down, but it's running street radials and a 4.33 gear with a transbraked PA C4 and a 4500 stall.

But I can tell, it doesn't make as much power. Maybe if it had the tunnel ram and 660's on the Canfields. I gave $2150 for the 289 and no intake or carbs, have another $500 in those. Pretty stinking cheap. It would have run 10's if we had new slicks.
 

Max Power

Active Member
Jul 31, 2003
1,774
1
36
St Paul
Sep 13, 2004
#26
  • Sep 13, 2004
  • #26
Dave, the active Maverick board is:

http://mmb.maverick.to/index.php?s=

They have plenty of activity, although not as much as here. They also use the same software as here. Since there aren't as many members, the software moves a lot faster too.

See you there!!!
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

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
934
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
K
Engine 2000 Mustang GT - Fuel issue post-blown spark plug repair
  • kenster1092
  • Feb 26, 2026
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
4
Views
379
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Mar 10, 2026
kenster1092
K
SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
  • WhiteCobra95
  • Sep 8, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 6, 2025
Habu135
HP woes with Sniper Sytem
  • Stang_1973
  • Mar 10, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
16
Views
877
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Mar 13, 2025
revhead347
SURGING IDLE / NO IDLE CHECKLIST FOR 1996–1998 MUSTANG GT (4.6L 2V) - Work In Progress
  • Noobz347
  • Aug 30, 2025
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
753
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Aug 30, 2025
Noobz347
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific 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?