HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

[cordes]

I could have sworn that Stephane used a FB head on his car back when. IIRC he stated that he had to pull less timing per degree of boost with the FB vs the G head.

[cordes]

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/sh...ll=1#post15476

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?1491-287-or-782-head-on-GLHS&p=15452&viewfull=1#post15452

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?1491-287-or-782-head-on-GLHS&p=15847&viewfull=1#post15847

[Shadow]

My gutted Shadow went 11.68 @115 with the 2.5 with untouched FB head(88 tbi cam), then it went 11.32 @118 with the same head on an 2.2

Interesting;

20+ years ago, when I was first looking into how far I wanted to go on this platform, decisions were much easier and I really didn't take any of the variable that are floating around today into consideration.

I felt that to Max out one of these 8v mtrs, the Head Would ultimately be the limiting factor. Believing that, and having the 2.2 or 2.5 to choose from, it only made sense that the head would choke the 2.5 Faster as the 2.2 could use the head more Efficiently at higher RPM. That along with the fact that the I/C'd 2.2's came with some serious hardware like Forged Steel cranks ect, and the choice was made.

So for me, it all came down to Flow;

The 2.2 could take better advantage of the limited flow of the 8v heads, and the G-head, flowed Better right out of the box than the FB head. KISS!

Did I really have any idea how far the Charger would go on so little............Nope. If anyone would have told me that I would be running 9's on a stock ported exhaust mani I would have told them Not likely. (and that way After I made the statement that the stock ported piece would support 500WHP) lol

So the Q is; Did you swap everything over to 2.2 and all other things being equal, realize all gains from 2.2 vs 2.5 alone? Or were there other variables, like bigger shot of N2O or other pieces changed at same time?

Cause your statement almost makes it look like the 2.5 was already being choked from the stock FB head and the 2.2 used the restriction more efficiently

Rob, this has got me very curious. I've had several folks suggest that I put turbo exhaust valves in my ported G head that is currently on the N/A 2.2 in my Scamp, and run that on the 2.5 turbo motor I'm building this winter. From what you are saying, it sound like a good idea. I'm not going for extreme hp here, my goal is about 300 hp. Now, one issue I am concerned about, I had the head cut .015" originally to get the compression up for the N/A motor. Do you see any issue with that in a turbo application? I do have a stock FB head sitting here as well. I just bought +1mm valves for it, and was planning on sending it to the machine shop after the first of the year. But I could be persuaded to change direction... Where is a good source for +1mm valves for a G head? My current head has stock valves that have been back cut.

I'm thinking along the same lines as you are. I'm building the motor for 20 psi, but plan to start at stock levels and tune from there. This is going to be a street cruiser/weekend fun machine, not a drag racer. I just want to be able to really screw with the mustang/camaro guys and ricer wanna-bees...

I'd love to hear your thoughts on a propper setup for what I'm planning.

I've purchased +1mm G-head valves from Cindy as recently as last summer, but IMS she only had intakes. I don't see the .015" being an issue and a properly ported stock valve head is plenty for only 300hp. Are you Sure you are going to be happy staying there?

So were does your experience lie? Have you run a G-head 2.5 combo before, or is all of your experiences with FB heads?

IF you are set up for success with FB heads as far as ECU and fuel/spark goes as well as having the most success/ experience with running them, then I would say stick to that, because your HP goals are really not head limited.

Having said that, the G-head with .015" removed may be an almost "drop in" to run on higher boost/ pump gas.

I would need to know more about your set-up; What turbo your planning to run, what electronics ect.

I could have sworn that Stephane used a FB head on his car back when. IIRC he stated that he had to pull less timing per degree of boost with the FB vs the G head.

Stephane was running Pure Alcohol and a head that was so modded that I really don't think it can be used as a comparo in this discussion.

Something significant to keep in mind;(I can't speak for Reeves, cause I don't know)

Aside from larger vales and hardware, both Warren and myself are running Stock ported heads with No welding or filling done to them...........

[glhs875]

Stephane was running Pure Alcohol and a head that was so modded that I really don't think it can be used as a comparo in this discussion.

Something significant to keep in mind;(I can't speak for Reeves, cause I don't know)

Aside from larger vales and hardware, both Warren and myself are running Stock ported heads with No welding or filling done to them...........

I can remember some of those old posts!

[mopar-tech]

Run both the bathtub and swirl head on the Reliant, didn't see a huge difference between the two performance wise.

FYI- The 440+ dyno pull with the Reliant was done with a swirl head.

I'm more concerned with lifting the front of the chamber than which casting to run based on my experiences.

Gary

[MILKCARTON]

SHADOW, now you made me really think about it...engine/nos wise everything was the same. The only thing I did change was the final drive from 3.02 to 3.50, I thought I might need to help out the 2.2 with a 26" slick..

[83scamp]

I've purchased +1mm G-head valves from Cindy as recently as last summer, but IMS she only had intakes. I don't see the .015" being an issue and a properly ported stock valve head is plenty for only 300hp. Are you Sure you are going to be happy staying there?

So were does your experience lie? Have you run a G-head 2.5 combo before, or is all of your experiences with FB heads?

IF you are set up for success with FB heads as far as ECU and fuel/spark goes as well as having the most success/ experience with running them, then I would say stick to that, because your HP goals are really not head limited.

Having said that, the G-head with .015" removed may be an almost "drop in" to run on higher boost/ pump gas.

I would need to know more about your set-up; What turbo your planning to run, what electronics ect.

We can go to PM if it keeps the clutter out of this thread, but here are the basics I've planned on, based on information I've garnered from here & turboDodge.com:

2.5 common block
I can go either a G head or FB, either one mildly ported with +1mm valves
88tbi roller cam
2 piece intake w/52mm TB
ported stock exhaust mani
+20 injectors
89 SMEC electronics from a Shadow
Turbo, I have a TII garret at home, but I am considering the S50 package from FWP.
5 speed trans behind it.

As far as my experience, I'm a total newby to tuning, I was hoping to get a pre-made tune from Boost Button, but looks like that may not happen now with Rob's impending retirement, unless somebody else picks it up. So I may go with a FWP stage 5 tune. I would like to make my SMEC flashable so I can learn to tune over time.

As far as my hp goals, yeah, I think 300 will be fine for me. This truck is going to be a good weather driver, not a drag strip terror. I'm going to have enough trouble getting traction with 300 hp, I don't think I'll need more...

[chromguy]

We can go to PM if it keeps the clutter out of this thread,

I find this topic tres interesting, so my vote is keep the clutter...PLEASE!

[83scamp]

I find this topic tres interesting, so my vote is keep the clutter...PLEASE!

I'm OK with that too. It is an interesting thread. It's gotten way off base from the original post, but the information presented here is awesome!!!

I know I'm asking some totally newby questions, but I do want to learn more a programing and how to best build the new motor for my Scamp...

The contributors to this thread are some of the greatest minds in the T-M world. They have built amazing rides, and I hope to learn a lot from them.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Rob, this has got me very curious. I've had several folks suggest that I put turbo exhaust valves in my ported G head that is currently on the N/A 2.2 in my Scamp, and run that on the 2.5 turbo motor I'm building this winter. From what you are saying, it sound like a good idea. I'm not going for extreme hp here, my goal is about 300 hp. Now, one issue I am concerned about, I had the head cut .015" originally to get the compression up for the N/A motor. Do you see any issue with that in a turbo application? I do have a stock FB head sitting here as well. I just bought +1mm valves for it, and was planning on sending it to the machine shop after the first of the year. But I could be persuaded to change direction... Where is a good source for +1mm valves for a G head? My current head has stock valves that have been back cut.

I'm thinking along the same lines as you are. I'm building the motor for 20 psi, but plan to start at stock levels and tune from there. This is going to be a street cruiser/weekend fun machine, not a drag racer. I just want to be able to really screw with the mustang/camaro guys and ricer wanna-bees...

I'd love to hear your thoughts on a propper setup for what I'm planning.

I would absolutely run a FB head in your application. Better efficiency and will work fine on pump gas up to your 20psi goal. It was good enough to hustle my fat J-body to 80mph in the 8th on 22+psi on a stock Garrett And I had full boost by 3k, no matter what I had it set at. Shifted my 2.5 at 5k, but the same head on a 2.2 @ 17psi would pull to 6k easily in my Daytona.

[OmniLuvr]

Aside from larger vales and hardware, both Warren and myself are running Stock ported heads with No welding or filling done to them

well, warren did do a little something different, but may not pertain to this matter. I think he added a stud in front of the spark plug hole (if I remember correctly)

I believe he welded a nut or something into the "open deck" part of the block between the outside of the block and cylinder, then installed a stud, and drilled a hole in the head with accompanying nut boss to be able to add more "clamping" force to the front of the chamber in hopes of not lifting the head as easily....

^

I'm more concerned with lifting the front of the chamber than which casting to run based on my experiences

[mopar-tech]

well, warren did do a little something different, but may not pertain to this matter. I think he added a stud in front of the spark plug hole (if I remember correctly)

I went a different direction, had the chamber welded up at the sand casting "half moon"

[OmniLuvr]

I went a different direction, had the chamber welded up at the sand casting "half moon"

that sounds interesting...

[mopar-tech]

that sounds interesting...

Creates its own problems, had to align bore the cam towers after. Aluminum moves around a lot when its heated.

[Shadow]

Run both the bathtub and swirl head on the Reliant, didn't see a huge difference between the two performance wise.

FYI- The 440+ dyno pull with the Reliant was done with a swirl head.

I'm more concerned with lifting the front of the chamber than which casting to run based on my experiences.

Gary

Just to be as clear as possible here; I'm not saying that either head can't be made to perform as well as the other. An experienced head porter, or Better yet, Someone who simply Knows what they're doing! lol can take their pick, as they will be able to do what is needed in Both the porting department and the tuning/ other supporting attributes department. (+ there are many ways to skin a cat as we have all seen over the years )

All I'm saying is that in My experience, the G-head is much closer to the goal and needs way Less work done to get it to perform to the same level as a FB 782 with a lot more hrs put into it. If you are not one to count your time, the point is prob moot.

I'm also saying that for someone with little to no experience, the G-head is more forgiving. Has a much wider tuning window from stock vs stock, and responds better to mild modding as a result.

A good and simple eg. of this is the area that 5DIGITS highlighted on the FB head chamber earlier in this thread. Doing any sig amount of porting Without addressing this area of the chamber, specially around the Intake valve, and your leaving Sig flow behind. So G-head valves are Less shrouded right off the batt.

Another eg. is the port roof above the valve (guide area). First time I really took a good look at a G-head vs FB I thought I was looking at a Ported head vs non ported! The FB is Flat, almost ridiculously. While the G-head is Raised and has Much better entry to the valve. By the time I remove enough material out of the roof area of a FB head to Equal a G-head, I would almost be finished the runners on the G-head.

Who knows, maybe it's just me We all have our preferences and experience in what has worked for Us and we all seem to be able to get results in the end. Just my .02$

We can go to PM if it keeps the clutter out of this thread, but here are the basics I've planned on, based on information I've garnered from here & turboDodge.com:

2.5 common block
I can go either a G head or FB, either one mildly ported with +1mm valves
88tbi roller cam
2 piece intake w/52mm TB
ported stock exhaust mani
+20 injectors
89 SMEC electronics from a Shadow
Turbo, I have a TII garret at home, but I am considering the S50 package from FWP.
5 speed trans behind it.

As far as my experience, I'm a total newby to tuning, I was hoping to get a pre-made tune from Boost Button, but looks like that may not happen now with Rob's impending retirement, unless somebody else picks it up. So I may go with a FWP stage 5 tune. I would like to make my SMEC flashable so I can learn to tune over time.

As far as my hp goals, yeah, I think 300 will be fine for me. This truck is going to be a good weather driver, not a drag strip terror. I'm going to have enough trouble getting traction with 300 hp, I don't think I'll need more...

We could go to PM's if this is bothering anyone. I've never shy'd away from off topic Q's because the only importance to me is the forum. (ie. IF you have the audience, highly viewed topic, then prob best avenue to ask Q's and get solid answers)

And there are more than enough with experience here to answer pretty well any Q you have. (although most aren't going to want to Tell you What to do. That is best left to You)

First thing that sticks out to me; S50 is a Big turbo for a Max goal of only 300hp. You would be giving up a lot of trans response and Great drivability vs say a 46 trim stage 1 which is fully capable of making 300hp at 17-20psi.

2nd would be electronics; If you were going to stick with stock cal I would suggest running the FB head because you will have a better match and I'm not sure you have the experience to set up a G-head on a 2.5 optimally using stock cals.

IF you really want to use the G-head, I would def say Get the stage 5 cal. I have never run anything less.(except when we ran the MP S60 cals before the vendors existed) In the early days I never was interested in Stage 1/2/3 ect. I wanted the most aggressive cal I could get, and then I would fit the rest of the pieces of the puzzle together. Most back then said "you can't do that, it won't work", just like the techs at MP who told one of our customers he couldn't run the S-60 fuel pump/SMEC, +40's and 3 bar map on a TII SMEC based, otherwise Stock car. "It won't work unless you run Everything in the pkg"! lol

well, warren did do a little something different, but may not pertain to this matter. I think he added a stud in front of the spark plug hole (if I remember correctly)

I believe he welded a nut or something into the "open deck" part of the block between the outside of the block and cylinder, then installed a stud, and drilled a hole in the head with accompanying nut boss to be able to add more "clamping" force to the front of the chamber in hopes of not lifting the head as easily....

^

Yes, he added clamping nuts and bolts to the front of the head to address the lifting issue, but I don't believe he welded anything on either block Or head and I was referring to porting/chamber work when I made that statement

Creates its own problems, had to align bore the cam towers after. Aluminum moves around a lot when its heated.

Just one of the reasons some prefer not to do any welding on components like cyl heads. Again, to each there own and hopefully Success to ALL!

[Warren Stramer]

Imho, In order to make a FB head into a max effort, high flow, high rpm capable head, you end up changing everything that made it "fast burn" to begin with.
You completely change and enlarge the intake port, you completely change the chamber, (especially if you fill with weld).
Also, the one remaining advantage the FB has, shallower chamber, comes with minor drawback of longer heavier valves, not a big deal until you start turning high rpm.
This is why I always just used the G head. If I wanted to run pump gas at only around the 300HP level, I would probably stick with the Fast burn head. Somewhere around the 450+ HP level with serious head mods use whatever is the easiest to reach your goal.
I do not like to weld on these heads. Like Gary said, they move around. They also get soft from welding, and they are pretty soft to begin with stock. I would never heat one above 275 degrees for very long without re-heat treating.
as an example of the material I would have to remove from a FB head to get the same area and flow as my race head check out these photos........one is a 782 head, the other is a G head intake (sorry for the 782 photo poor quality)

[glhs875]

Imho, In order to make a FB head into a max effort, high flow, high rpm capable head, you end up changing everything that made it "fast burn" to begin with.
You completely change and enlarge the intake port, you completely change the chamber, (especially if you fill with weld).
Also, the one remaining advantage the FB has, shallower chamber, comes with minor drawback of longer heavier valves, not a big deal until you start turning high rpm.
This is why I always just used the G head. If I wanted to run pump gas at only around the 300HP level, I would probably stick with the Fast burn head. Somewhere around the 450+ HP level with serious head mods use whatever is the easiest to reach your goal.
I do not like to weld on these heads. Like Gary said, they move around. They also get soft from welding, and they are pretty soft to begin with stock. I would never heat one above 275 degrees for very long without re-heat treating.
as an example of the material I would have to remove from a FB head to get the same area and flow as my race head check out these photos........one is a 782 head, the other is a G head intake (sorry for the 782 photo poor quality)

You bringing up the possible quest of making HP at a higher RPM than the norm. What I have discovered is that unless a much larger than stock camshaft is used, the HP peak of these heads will still be in the 6K or a little over range even in ported form on a 2.2, with an even lower RPM HP peak for a 2.5. And even with a larger than stock camshaft the area of the stock intake ports will still be a limiting factor. The factory designed (area) of the intake ports vs. engine size/design (stroke of engine and rod to stroke ratio plays huge role) hits mach speed and chokes out in the RPM range that is the norm for these engines, unless the area of the intake ports is increased a lot. A person would have to break out some measuring tools and a calculator after their peak RPM goal is decided for them to see just how much the area of the intake ports would need to be increased over stock for the airflow to stay out the choke speed point.

[Shadow]

You bringing up the Reality of making HP at a higher RPM than the norm..

Fixed it for ya!

[glhs875]

Fixed it for ya!

Do tell!!! Do you mean how you reworded my post, or something else?

[Shadow]

Do tell!!! Do you mean how you reworded my post, or something else?

You said "possible Quest", I corrected it to "Reality" because it has already been done and I had thought by now it was common knowledge.

I agree with the "around 6000RPM Max for Peak power on the stock cam, as way back when the Charger was only making 450ish WHP (Mustang dyno) it was making peak power around 5900rpm. Now, having said that, it would only lose something like 7WHP by 6500rpm, still we're talking peak #'s here.

I searched and search and couldn't find a single 2.2 8v dyno sheet that was higher with stock cam. (this was on the 88 turbo roller)

When I swapped out the little 57 trim for the Holset HE351, I was in fact "testing" the cam in the sense that I Knew the larger exhaust side of the turbo and Much larger compressor, should allow the peak HP #'s to go up IF the mtr could breath it.

When I went back and dyno'd 480WHP, peak TQ had gone up something like 500rpm, but peak HP hardly moved. That's when I knew the cam was done (or I was floating valves or both) While almost everyone else cried "the ported stocker exhaust mani is the Cork" (which at that point, Could have been true)

Long story short and I swapped in the F4 cam on the Good word of one Warren Stramer, who was also Famously Known back then for Proving the Taft S3 cam in his own set-up. Results are well known as the Charger has peak #'s in the 6700rpm range now and with only a decently ported G-head with +1mm valves.

Of course, this is small potatoes compared to what I was Really talking about, which also coincides with much of your post;

Warren's set-up IS running much larger than average ports And a Much Larger cam than any other turbo 8v I'm aware of and, according to his project log, Pulls Hard past 8000rpm

I thought this also would be common knowledge by now, never the less, it is the reason I corrected your quote.

It is No longer a possible Quest to make peak power well above 6000rpm, it is in Fact a Reality.............