TURBO vs N/A intake - exhaust gasket.

[speedfreek500]

I pulled my cyl head for a 1995 aclaim or sprit cant rember but it was the metal gasket on a 782 head N/A.

[GLHS60]

All I can guess is: BATH SALTS??


Thanks
Randy

... and if you want ghetto, cut it out of a cornflakes packet and slather it in muffler cement... smokes a bit the first few times you run it, but then you can tell everyone you use carbon reinforced ceramic...

[GLHS60]

So you mean I've been Simonized!!

Thanks
Randy

If your talking 8 valve, they are the same gasket n/a to turbo.

I pulled my cyl head for a 1995 aclaim or sprit cant rember but it was the metal gasket on a 782 head N/A.

[Juggy]

if you want a reusable gasket, just purchase the copper one off of ebay.

I have been running it for years and have purchased a few, also got a couple guys in town running them! it will pay for itself in no time....

[RoadWarrior222]

Only thing I'd be nervous about with copper, is it hardening up, no problem during use, but there's a slight chance it won't seal too well at the next reinstall.... but it's very easy to fix by throwing it on the BBQ or something every time you reuse it just as a precaution.

[GLHS60]

I stumbled across a 655 head today and just might get to use this gasket!!

Thanks
Randy

LOL. Yep find a head to fit your gasket. I love it

[speedfreek500]

I stumbled across a 655 head today and just might get to use this gasket!!

Thanks
Randy

Haha only one 655 head? I am sure if you look alittle harder you might find another one or two still in the bag lol.

[turbovanman²]

I stumbled across a 655 head today and just might get to use this gasket!!

Thanks
Randy

Crappy head,

[4 l-bodies]

I stumbled across a 655 head today and just might get to use this gasket!!

Thanks
Randy

Sell it to the Popester. I'm sure we'll get a flowbench sheet proving it's superiority to anything short of a ported 16V head.

[turbovanman²]

Sell it to the Popester. I'm sure we'll get a flowbench sheet proving it's superiority to anything short of a ported 16V head.

LOL. I was waiting for someone else, what took you so long,

[GLHS60]

Simon, when you were running 8 valve engines, what problems did you experience with the 655 head??

Thanks
Randy

Crappy head,

[RoadWarrior222]

What a thing to ask, with his luck he probably managed to get shrapnel damage to his house using it as a doorstop.

[crusty shadow]

The Pope has my 655 head right now. you might be eating your words when i get it back...

---------- Post added at 06:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

simon has never run a 655 head just like everyone else on this board. opinions were formed a long time ago even though the Pope has real world experience with this head on the flow bench.
"
you have to keep in mind that turbo-mopar is the board for " if it aint a TIII its crap" crowd so you have to take pretty much anything said on here about the early 8 valve heads with a shovel full of salt.

[4 l-bodies]

The Pope has my 655 head right now. you might be eating your words when i get it back...

---------- Post added at 06:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

simon has never run a 655 head just like everyone else on this board. opinions were formed a long time ago even though the Pope has real world experience with this head on the flow bench.
"
you have to keep in mind that turbo-mopar is the board for " if it aint a TIII its crap" crowd so you have to take pretty much anything said on here about the early 8 valve heads with a shovel full of salt.

Yeah, I know all about the Popesters views on what a good flowing head is. Here is one example of his "real" world experience. I flowed one of Ed Peters max effort g-heads (not a 655 but rather a 445/287) many years ago. Here are the #'s. Intake at .400-.550 lift was 161-165. Exhaust at same lift was 117.4-131.8. This was max effort ported stock valve sized head. I didn't own the head, and after seeing the #'s, glad I didn't. I suggested to the guy that did own it, sell it and start over. Well the Popester got his hands on it (think Jay actually bought it) and raved what an awesome low lift flowing head it was. Hehe. I then made this guy two heads. One swirl and one g-head for two different motors. My exhaust #'s on both heads were higher than the Peter's intake #'s! Intake #'s were around 35 CFM higher @ .500 lift.
This tells me the Popester doesn't know (or didn't know) what a good flowing 8V head is. Many of us on this board cut our teeth on and continue to own 8V vehicles. I've ported & flow benched dozens of 8V heads so I do know what I'm talking about. Many others on this board also know all about 8V heads, while others expertise is in Lotus, Masi, or late model 2.0/2.4 motors. We are hardly all pro TIII here, we actually make fun of the TIII durability issues, the Masi's incredible expense, and the never ending mods the Neon guys do to their vehicles.
The 655 has an inferior exhaust port. That is not an opinion but a fact. IMO, the only reason it flows what it does in stock form is because it has larger volume ports than the other 8V heads. All it is is a poor man's ported head. It can easily be surpassed by a swirl or 455/287 head in the hands of the right person porting without much effort.
Have you ever thought if the 655 head is so great, why aren't all the fast 8V guys running them? IMO, I'm afraid your putting your hard earned money into porting the wrong cylinder head. However, let us know when you get that 655 exhaust port to flow mid 160's to mid 170's @.500 lift and after verifying that on the flow bench I use, I'll be the first to eat my words and say the 655 is at least a good flowing 8V head, and the Pope really lives up to his username. Until then I'll let the flow #'s speak for themselves. Check out this cut-away of the 655 head. Look carefully at the exhaust port. If it is superior, why did they stop using it?
Good luck with your cylinder head build.
Todd

[crusty shadow]

well lets see, things like big ports and high flow volume arent the kind of traits you want on a cylinder head that has to pass things like emissions tests. the ports on the 8v head got ever more restrictive as time went on for just that reason, and evolved to the swirl head- thats a known fact.
i still dont understand how you're comparing a 287/445 head to a 655 to assume the 655 is crap. have you actually flowed a 655? if you're just going off the half cut pics and not actual flow data of THAT casting you're just assuming, and we all know assumption is the mother of all ---- ups.
again i have to say if you dont have experience with that casting # then you're just assuming and everything you say in relation to it is heresay.

i might be eating my words, you might be eating yours, we'll see. if it ends up sucking then i'll pull all the parts out of it and do a different head, chalk it up to a learning experience. we should know something by the end of the summer, i'll post the end results when its finished.

[4 l-bodies]

My point with the Peters 445/287 head is that Rob wouldn't know a good flowing head if it bit him. At least this was the case many years ago. The emissions hogwash is just more Pope logic that has become fact on TD. The cylinder head changes that occured year to year is called evolution. Almost every aspect of the 2.2/2.5 vehicles evolved into something better than the previous version. This ranges from transmissions, blocks, cylinder heads, suspension, electrical, engine management, exhaust, etc. You name it, the later model stuff is for the most part better. So go ahead and use your mid/late 70's technology on your vehicle and see where it takes you. BTW I have flowed a 655 head. That is why I know they are hardly the Holy Grail of cylinder heads.
Todd

[turbovanman²]

Simon, when you were running 8 valve engines, what problems did you experience with the 655 head??

Thanks
Randy

No, I used a 287 head I believe but hated it, not suited for a heavy auto van.

Others love the G-head combo, I prefer the swirl or 16 valve route.

See above for the 655 story and we have another thread from before on it.

[GLHS60]

So I guess the general concensus is to have the Pope port it for me if he is not too busy.

Thanks
Randy

[turbovanman²]

So I guess the general concensus is to have the Pope port it for me if he is not too busy.

Thanks
Randy

Correct,