Head porting advice, and build up part numbers

[Tbone]

I have been doing some searching and reading on head porting recently. I haven't found as much info as I would like on specifically the Dodge 2.2 head. I have the older 287 head but the pictures below are from a 782 head. Anyways, I have some ideas on what to do. I pointed out some things on the exhaust and intake port. I would appreciate some advice on porting my head. I am looking for modest gains. I am not building a drag car, but I would like to get all the porting done now, rather than in stages. In case its hard to read, my thoughts are: 1. open the top and sides of the ports to match the gasket 2. raise the roof of the intake and exhaust runners 3. slight radiusing around valve bushing 4. radius short side radius so its more gradual 5. open up the valve seat to match the bowl throat, and blend together 6. open the intake/exhaust bowl around the middle. Please let me know your thoughts.

intake port


exhaust port

[tvanlant]

Quote:

1. open the top and sides of the ports to match the gasket

Probably don't want to go that big with the exhaust port, especially if you are going to be using a stock exhaust manifold.

Quote:

2. raise the roof of the intake and exhaust runners

If you've got a G head, there's not alot of roof raising on the intake that needs to be done.... not anything like the 782 anyway. On the exhaust.... watch out! Don't raise it too much.. there's a water jacket there! I've found that different castings will be much thinner in that area. The picture above shows alot of meat between the roof and the water, but I've run into heads with probably only half that much metal.

Quote:

3. slight radiusing around valve bushing

G head already has a nice valve guide support there. You can cut it down somewhat to help air get around it, though.

[quote]4. radius short side radius so its more gradual [quote]

Here's a good benefit to the G head. In the picture above, the 782 doesn't need much help on the short side. The G head, however, has a pretty big hump that can be re-shaped.

Quote:

5. open up the valve seat to match the bowl throat, and blend together

The seat and the bowl are usually pretty well matched. That picture shows a huge lip because there is no seat in there.

Quote:

6. open the intake/exhaust bowl around the middle.

Not sure what you mean by middle. All the heads are pretty poorly cas around the bowl area. Some blending from the runners to the seat will see some pretty good gains.
For a G head, focus you time on the floor and making the ports the same width all the way through (G heads neck down.. you will see). Without a flowbench to test results, it will be hard to say what you have or haven't gained. I have seen several who have posted head pics in which I am sure flow would have been lost, not gained. If you are going to try it without a flow bench, I would recommend just blending the bowls to the runners and radiusing any sharp turns. That on a G head will result in a moderate flowing head. Also, don't forget the chambers!

[Tbone]

tvanlant: Thanks for your reply. That helps a lot. I have a few questions, though. On item #5, my valve seats are bigger than the counterbore that they sit in, so the inner diameter extends into the air flow and creates a lip. I was thinking of grinding on the inner diameter of the valve seat to eliminate the lip. I wouldn't grind on the top were the valve hits off on the seat, though. What do you think?
Also, on item #6, you said to focus on the floor (and width). Based on what I read so far, I thought I was supposed to stay away from the floor altogether. Can you elaborate on this a bit?
Any advice on the head chambers? I was going to blend into the valve seat area to remove any sort of a lip, open up the side wall a little where the valves are very close, polish everything, and radius the sharp edge of the squish zone on the G-head.

[tvanlant]

That is interesting that the seats are larger. They must have been replaced at one time and not cut all the way out. Either way, go ahead and grind the seat. Make sure you use a good steal bit, though. Those seats are so hard if you use an aluminum bit, it will be dead in only seconds. Like you said, you can grind anywhere you want on the seat, really, as long as you stay away from the top 2 angles. Usually crappy valve jobs will have a bad transition from the 3rd angle to the opening, so I use a carbide to turn that transition into a nice radius.

For # 6, what you've heard is to stay away from the floor on the 782 casting. Completely different style floors between the G head and the 782. If I was able to post a link to TM.com, I would send you the link to the cut-up G head so you can see the difference. You've got the right idea on the chambers. You can't really "open up the wall where the valves are close to" because that material is where the head gasket seals to. Just make a nice radius on all the sharp edges in the chamber, like you said. Try to make it a smooth transition for the air to get from the chamber down into the cylinder. This also makes a smooth transition when the air is going out exhaust, and when the gas is being compressed it will make for a better squish.

[Fiveohwagon]

i was taught that you never want to make the long turn radius any longer than it already is "The roof" as you refer to it in your pictures, but always make the short turn radius shorter if possible and gasket match/blend any and all edges. that was the basic ins and outs of porting that was giving to me.

[Tbone]

I found some cut-away pictures of a G-head (see below). This is the head I have. I can really see how the exhaust necks down right after the bowl as you travel away from the valve (3rd pic). I could see why you would want to make the runner all one width, but wouldn't that eliminate the bowl section right under the valve? I was under the impression the bowl gives the runner a lower pressure area for the exhaust to flow into faster. But, if everyone is eliminating the (sides of the) bowl and making good power, I can't argue with that...


G-head intake


G-head exhaust


G-head intake & exhaust, top view

[The Pope]

the 81-82 655 G casting head stomps 782 hard in low and high lifts out of the box. In flow bench testing the high end volume was as high as a ported and polished 782. Thats raised roof, cut bowls, polished runners and a cut and curved combustion chambers. Gasket match the 655 and take sand paper rolls to it and your done. Then add matterial to the intake with a welder and port the snot out of a 2 piece or the DC intake. Port and coat the exhaust manifold next. The intake and exhaust manifolds won't allow much more than a stock G casting 287 or 445 can flow stock. Add big valves and you better have some real work done to the intake and a header out right replacing the stock manifold. Lastly the +1 valve are worth barely 1% flow increase for the trouble, big waste of money. Next your going to need a bigger cam to use the added flow. I know the heads mostly suck for flow, but always keep in mind the manifolds were made to match the heads flow. So drastically changing the head flow without everything else is a joke and a waste of money, turn the boost up instead.

Rob

[crazymadbastard]

I bought this kit, summitracing sells it too. They have a porting guide too:

http://www.sa-motorsports.com/litera...05.06B_MED.pdf

[Tbone]

Thanks for the help, guys!

Hey Pope, I have a question about the 3.3L conical spring upgrade. I picked up some springs yesterday from a 94 Caravan. I see that they are shorter than my stock springs in my 85 head. Is that a problem? I am also planning on using the 88 TBI cam if that plays a roll at all.

Also, I am looking for some used PT lifters. Are the lifters supposed to be hard or spongy when I push on them? Most of my stock lifters were hard, but one was spongy, so I wasn't sure. Also, do you have some washers I can buy from you?

[The Pope]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tbone Thanks for the help, guys! Hey Pope, I have a question about the 3.3L conical spring upgrade. I picked up some springs yesterday from a 94 Caravan. I see that they are shorter than my stock springs in my 85 head. Is that a problem? I am also planning on using the 88 TBI cam if that plays a roll at all. Also, I am looking for some used PT lifters. Are the lifters supposed to be hard or spongy when I push on them? Most of my stock lifters were hard, but one was spongy, so I wasn't sure. Also, do you have some washers I can buy from you?

No the lifters are NOT supposed to be spongy ever

I still sell the washers

The 3.3 springs must be shimmed untill they bind at .480" lift or the seat pressure is too low.

Brand new pt lifters cost half what new 2.2 lifters cost, why are you buying used?

I would buy the comp Cams 26995-16 springs and sell half of them to someone else. They are a drop in and are the "real deal" that can run up to .600" lift. Keep in mind conicals don't go bad from spring harmonix that isn't there. Buy the comps and I dout you'll ever need to buy new springs ever again. Then buy LS1 Chevy V8 retainers or the Comp LS1 retainers, chevy has them cheaper. Then buy Mopar Performance P5007440 lifters, 4 in a box so buy 2 boxes, I've seen them online for $23 a box. I sell the washers for $5 a set shipped in the US. After all this you will hear the injectors fire for the first time LMAO.

Rob

[Tbone]

Thanks for the info. I will start looking for a good price on PT lifters online.

When checking for bind at .480" lift, do you want the spring to be totally bottomed out? What's the best way to setup the spring so you test for binding? Do the Comp Cams springs need to be shimmed at all?

Tom

[Tbone]

I could not find much online except for the wyckoffchryslerparts.com website. They have a deal on 4 lash adjusters for $26.45. My question is, why does this site and other sites say that part # P5007440 is for the 95-99 neon DOHC? See below.

P5007440 Hydraulic Lash Adjusters (1995–99 Neon DOHC, 2.4L DOHC Engines

[detobias]

those are the right lifters ; the 95-9 DOHC uses the same style lifter as the 2.4 (which are all DOHC) ; the 2.4 lifters are an upgrade for the 95-9 DOHC (which are otherwise identical except lacked the hole for letting out trapped air, that was th eimprovement made on the "PT" lifters)

we just call em "PT lifters" - since the PT only came with the 2.4, then if you ask for PT lifters you'll get the P5007440

(which altho listed as a Mopar Performance part, is really the stock part on the 2.4)

I hope that makes sense ?

I got a used set from my local ChryCo dealer machanic friends when they warranteed a cracked 2.4 head

[The Pope]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tbone Thanks for the info. I will start looking for a good price on PT lifters online. When checking for bind at .480" lift, do you want the spring to be totally bottomed out? What's the best way to setup the spring so you test for binding? Do the Comp Cams springs need to be shimmed at all? Tom

The stock installed height on the 2.2 / 2.5 is 1.70". Bind means bottomed out at .480" lift, that means you shim the spring up a little.

The comps do not need any shims, perfect out of the box. They will bind at .600" which is much larger than any current 2.2 cam. They are also designed for a 1.70" installed height. Just the best spring you can buy for a 2.2, "if" you ask me

they both use the same retainer

Rob

[The Pope]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tbone I could not find much online except for the wyckoffchryslerparts.com website. They have a deal on 4 lash adjusters for $26.45. My question is, why does this site and other sites say that part # P5007440 is for the 95-99 neon DOHC? See below. P5007440 Hydraulic Lash Adjusters (1995–99 Neon DOHC, 2.4L DOHC Engines

As the Neon currently is still making Mopar money they came out with a new lifter to help with windage related lifter destruction. The 2.2 needed this back in 83' with the first HO engine. But the tech didn't show up untill the 2.2 was long gone, so I stole tech from a newer engine and found a way to use it in the older engine. It is amazing how much the 2.2 and the 2.4s are a like, almost scary.

Rob