• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Crazy Thought
#1
I've been wondering for a while now if anyone has ever tried putting 302 tunnel port heads on a cleveland. I know the 302's couldn't pull enough air for them to work properly but i wonder if a cleveland could.
  Reply
#2
They are the same heads as a 4v cleveland.
Jeff T.

Low buck, touring style, '73 Convertible "rolling restoration", 351c, 2v heads with a shave and a haircut, Performer intake, Holley 650(ish), roller rockers, screw in studs, guideplates, stainless valves, Duraspark / Motorsports MSD, T-5 conversion. 1-1/8" front, 3/4" rear swaybars KYB shocks and some home brewed subframe connectors. Future plans; JGC steering box, Cobra brakes and... paint, interior, etc.

When I die I want to die like grandpa, peacefully in my sleep... not screaming, like his passenger.

[Image: 1_12_09_14_10_15_11.png]
  Reply
#3
No, no they're not. The boss 302 which came out in 1969 used the same heads as the cleveland but the tunnel port 302 which was the same block as the boss had huge ported heads that more resembled the boss 429 heads or the 427 SOHC heads.
The heads proved futile on the track because the 302's just couldn't rev high enough to utilize the large ports of the head. So Ford grabbed heads off the upcoming cleveland and put them on the tunnel port block thus getting the boss.
I realize boss heads are the same as cleveland, but the tunnel port are completely different. They are also quite rare. Thats why I'm asking is someone might have ever put them on another engine because of the collectability status of those heads.
  Reply
#4
The link to the attached thread provides some pretty good information (especially the 4th or 5th post) and is in line with my understanding and reference material on the subject.

http://www.fordmuscleforums.com/all-ford...-port.html


BT
  Reply
#5
Right so now that, that is out of the way. Because the tunnel port head is so rare it might not have been tried before. It should bolt right on. The manifold would have to custom made. But the benifit of trying to put it on the cleveland is the large main bearings would let you rev the engine higher possibly generating the CFM needed for the heads to be benificial.
  Reply
#6
I stand corrected! As for using heads where the ports are too big there are 2 alternatives; higher RPM or more cubic inches or both I suppose.
Jeff T.

Low buck, touring style, '73 Convertible "rolling restoration", 351c, 2v heads with a shave and a haircut, Performer intake, Holley 650(ish), roller rockers, screw in studs, guideplates, stainless valves, Duraspark / Motorsports MSD, T-5 conversion. 1-1/8" front, 3/4" rear swaybars KYB shocks and some home brewed subframe connectors. Future plans; JGC steering box, Cobra brakes and... paint, interior, etc.

When I die I want to die like grandpa, peacefully in my sleep... not screaming, like his passenger.

[Image: 1_12_09_14_10_15_11.png]
  Reply
#7
(09-24-2010, 06:37 PM)CrashOverdrive Wrote: Right so now that, that is out of the way. Because the tunnel port head is so rare it might not have been tried before. It should bolt right on. The manifold would have to custom made. But the benifit of trying to put it on the cleveland is the large main bearings would let you rev the engine higher possibly generating the CFM needed for the heads to be benificial.

Might as well be fuel injected Wink
  Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Pedestal mount rocker thought Omie01 3 575 02-07-2015, 03:48 PM
Last Post: Don C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)