Turbo Dodge Forums banner

stock 782 vs the stock 655 8v heads

23K views 115 replies 28 participants last post by  Glhs60 
#1 ·
Text Line Design Font Pattern


This head I was told by Gary D flows less than a 782 at low lifts and therefore sucks. Clearly I wasted a lot of time on that BS. The 655 starts pulling away from a 782 at .100" lift on the intake and .200" on the exhaust.

On the being fair factor the 655 was machined 10 years ago and has the single angle cut seats and valves. The 782 in question has the muilti angle grinds and seat hone that is standard today.
 
See less See more
1
#100 ·
This is a reman 655 head i just picked up. rebuilt most likely a decade ago.
un touched or modified.




You can see the valves. and the size of the intake port. even the exhaust side looks more open.
the roof looks a little ugly in front of the guide. but i can cut that down and wedge it.
It looks alot like a 351C 2V runner to me. or the aussie 3v/4v runner




I wish my Ported 782 head had such a clear view of the bowl and valve.
The sides are a bit pinched. but the runner looks really nice.





a decent far off shot.. who ever is complaining about these runners really must not have much experience with other engines/styles of heads.. this is really nice.


lastly you can see the cam caps are studs and nuts. and its missing the 4th mounting bolt for the a/c bracket.

Anyone build one of these lately have a good line on Single grove keeper larger exhaust turbo valves?

Looking to make a beehive,PT lifter. Ti retainer, single groove keeper, Larger valve head.
 
#103 ·
Sometimes I think the people that wrote things in that book were on Crack. You ALWAYS either STUD or HELI-COIL aluminum. Now if the studs are of a shittier metal then maybe, but a good quality stud will always out perform a bolt in aluminum. Maybe they said it to keep people from using the old stuff. ???? They also said you shouldn't go over 14psi. How many of us run more than that all day long?
 
#104 ·
Sometimes I think the people that wrote things in that book were on Crack. You ALWAYS either STUD or HELI-COIL aluminum. Now if the studs are of a shittier metal then maybe, but a good quality stud will always out perform a bolt in aluminum. Maybe they said it to keep people from using the old stuff. ???? They also said you shouldn't go over 14psi. How many of us



run more than that all day long?


That was going to be my next point. Where at in an case else in forever and always has a stud been WORSE than a bolt. That literally makes zero sense in reality.

I promise you the only reason they went to bolts is :
#1only one part number not two
#2 easier to assemble. Less processes.
#3 the cam tower bolts are not high torque or stressed area. Stud not required for longevity.


Please for the love of god can this platform stop blindly quoting things from decades ago that have been proven otherwise.
 
#114 ·
anyone have any pictures /post / evidence that anyone at all ever broke a cam stud?
or had a problem with the cam stud? or had a engine failure regarding cam stud failures?



This platform out of all the others i have ever been on. is the most backwards, hard headed, and unable to accept reality or understand that things change over the years, as i have ever been on.
This platform also argues about the most menial pedantic hypothetical insignificant nonsense.
And this is the worst about rehashing something heard 20 years ago ONCE. that has been proven NOT to be the case 1,000 times over.. but still wants to constantly repeat the wrong info that was believed one time. ( See 1piece vs two piece, and throttle body sizes.)
 
#115 ·
Easy there trigger. Nobody is arguing with you. Take a prozac and slow down. I completely agree that a properly designed stud is stronger than a bolt. Chrysler modified/updated/changed all kinds of things on these motors over the years. Some to save $$$ during production, others to improve durability/warranty/NVH issues. The cam stud was done for durability reasons. If you've ever seen a picture of an original stud next to the much improved bolts, you'd understand. Those original studs were a joke next to the bolts. Now, can I quote the engineer or tech bulletin proving that, no. All my engines have had bolts, I've never lifted a cam in 27+ years of having these motors, and the N/A motor that just came out of my Scamp had MP valve springs, cam, & PT lifters, and was regularly spun to 7K.

As far as arguing about non-sense, that's all in your opinion. Trust me, I've belonged to other forums that have argued way more meaningless stuff than this one. And have since left a couple for that reason.

Yes, technology advances, things change. I have a copy of the MP Speed secrets book at home I like to read. Better than 1/2(probably a lot more) of the material in it isn't valid anymore because of advances and progress. It's more of a historical curiosity anymore than a bible on how to modify your 2.2/2.5. Doesn't mean it didn't work back in the day with what they had available.

As with any forum, you have to cautiously read what is written, and go with what you think is best. Nobody is perfect, and there is no one person that has all the right answers. Trust me, I read all kinds of threads, and talked to many folks before tackling my turbo conversion on my Scamp. In the end, I trusted the guys I know are going fast and not breaking stuff to give me the answers I needed. But even then, I did my own thing in a few areas. It works, and I now have one bad-fast L-body.


I try to help where possible, but I know I'm not infallable. If I know I make a mistake, I own up to it, and try and post a correction.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top