Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. #2386961
10/13/17 05:21 PM
10/13/17 05:21 PM
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 180
Bradford, Ontario
B
Barrelhouse Offline OP
member
Barrelhouse  Offline OP
member
B

Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 180
Bradford, Ontario
Im having my 340 totally rebuilt my engine builder says that it would be a good idea to change my x heads to aluminum heads for better performance and lighter weight. What do you guys here on Moparts think is it a good idea and what are the best heads to use, thanks.

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Barrelhouse] #2386965
10/13/17 05:26 PM
10/13/17 05:26 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,459
Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy
Rhinodart Offline
Rhinotruck
Rhinodart  Offline
Rhinotruck

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,459
Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy
It all depends on what you are doing with the car. A street car has no use for aluminum heads, and a strip car has no use for steel heads. If it is a bit of both then it depends on how fat your wallet is and if you know a good head builder that does a good job for a good price. I have priced valve jobs on steel heads lately and it is getting expensive! eek


The funny thing about science is that if you change one miniscule parameter you change the entire outcome to the way you want it.

JB Rhinehart, Realist

A-Body's RULE!
Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Rhinodart] #2386994
10/13/17 06:16 PM
10/13/17 06:16 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
D
dogdays Offline
I Live Here
dogdays  Offline
I Live Here
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
They're not steel, they're cast iron. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Nearly every new car on the market, maybe all of them, use aluminum heads. So to say they have no business on a street car is an opinion whose time has passed.

Specifically, your old X heads will flow something like 220cfm, max. They have a lousy combustion chamber. Rebuilding them to stock specs will cost more than $600, if I remember the last numbers bandied about here. Fully port them and you might reach 270cfm, max. One plus is you already have them.

A brand new Edelbrock head flows 247 max out of the box. Run a good CNC program or have an experienced porter do them and you're tickling 300cfm, max.

So with the Edelbrock aluminum head you are looking at a possible 60hp gain.
Other advantages to the aluminum head: all the aftermarket aluminum heads have improved combustion chamber shapes which make the engine less octane-sensitive.
Plus, you can add about a full point of compression with the aluminum heads, going to 10.5:1 or a little higher. This is additional power and efficiency.
Plus with the more modern chamber design you can run less ignition lead (timing) and reduce the amount of negative work done on the piston.
Plus, the aluminum heads weigh about 1/3 as much as the iron heads do, and the weight is saved from high on the front end of the car, where it does a lot of good. IIRC LA heads actually weigh more than B/RB heads.

There are the Edelbrocks, the Speedmaster/Procomps, Hughes' varieties, and the Sidewinder from Todd Marsh (Sasquatch on this board.) There are also the ProMaxx heads which are the same as the Sidewinders but are priced higher.
There are also the Enginequest iron replacement heads which work very well and have a Magnum combustion chamber that is pretty successful. I believe there may be another iron head out there, too. Problem with the EQs is they are pretty expensive.

Good Luck!

R.

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Barrelhouse] #2387010
10/13/17 07:13 PM
10/13/17 07:13 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007
Bend,OR USA
C
Cab_Burge Offline
I Win
Cab_Burge  Offline
I Win
C

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007
Bend,OR USA
The new aluminum heads will flow more air and allow your engine builder to increase the compression ratio for your local pump fuel which will give you more power, which choice do you want? Another thing to consider is if you can find someone who needs or wants a set of those heads you can recover some money on them also work
For the best performance aluminum is the only choice up twocents


Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Cab_Burge] #2387024
10/13/17 07:44 PM
10/13/17 07:44 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
Supercuda Offline
About to go away
Supercuda  Offline
About to go away

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
Originally Posted By Cab_Burge
The new aluminum heads will flow more air


Since no specific head was specified you can't say this.

Plenty of aluminum heads out there that are crap and need rework out of the box, I suggest you google speedmaster heads. So when some say " the cost pf rebuilding an iron head" as an excuse tend to not add the cost of making sure you aftermarket aluminum head is ready to run.

Nor is there any actually data supporting the aluminum allows higher compression claims. Combustion chamber design is the major factor in allowing higher compression, iron hemi heads can run just as high a compression as aluminum ones. Assuming your new heads have efficient combustion chambers you can consider increasing your compression ratio.


They say there are no such thing as a stupid question.
They say there is always the exception that proves the rule.
Don't be the exception.
Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Barrelhouse] #2387026
10/13/17 07:48 PM
10/13/17 07:48 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
Funny, on my 340 F/Sock engine, NHRA rates the iron head at 300 hp and the Eddy aluminum head at 297 hp. They are lighter but we have to add the weight back somewhere.
If just doing a valve job, keep them, unless you got money to burn. Downside, no hardened seat for the ex valve in stock form.
Compare both on paper, list all the good-bad points and cost for each. You'll see which way is best for YOU.

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Barrelhouse] #2387070
10/13/17 09:30 PM
10/13/17 09:30 PM
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 180
Bradford, Ontario
B
Barrelhouse Offline OP
member
Barrelhouse  Offline OP
member
B

Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 180
Bradford, Ontario
Thanks for the great advice fellow Moparts members i feel like my best bet is to keep my X heads and have them rebuilt. Im not going to race the car it will be a fun every day fair weather driver nothing more. I do want a honest 400 HP so the engine will be properly built to match the heads etc, etc.

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Supercuda] #2387075
10/13/17 09:42 PM
10/13/17 09:42 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
3
383man Offline
Too Many Posts
383man  Offline
Too Many Posts
3

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
Originally Posted By Supercuda
Originally Posted By Cab_Burge
The new aluminum heads will flow more air


Since no specific head was specified you can't say this.

Plenty of aluminum heads out there that are crap and need rework out of the box, I suggest you google speedmaster heads. So when some say " the cost pf rebuilding an iron head" as an excuse tend to not add the cost of making sure you aftermarket aluminum head is ready to run.

Nor is there any actually data supporting the aluminum allows higher compression claims. Combustion chamber design is the major factor in allowing higher compression, iron hemi heads can run just as high a compression as aluminum ones. Assuming your new heads have efficient combustion chambers you can consider increasing your compression ratio.




I have to disagree on the higher comp. Aluminum heads will disapate the heat faster which will allow you to run higher comp and not have detonation. Its a know fact thats also why most say you can get away with about 1 point higher comp with aluminum heads and not because of the combustion chamber design which I do agree the newer aluminum heads do have better combustion chamber design's. Ron

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: dogdays] #2387076
10/13/17 09:42 PM
10/13/17 09:42 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,459
Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy
Rhinodart Offline
Rhinotruck
Rhinodart  Offline
Rhinotruck

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,459
Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy
Originally Posted By dogdays
They're not steel, they're cast iron. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Nearly every new car on the market, maybe all of them, use aluminum heads. So to say they have no business on a street car is an opinion whose time has passed.

Specifically, your old X heads will flow something like 220cfm, max. They have a lousy combustion chamber. Rebuilding them to stock specs will cost more than $600, if I remember the last numbers bandied about here. Fully port them and you might reach 270cfm, max. One plus is you already have them.

A brand new Edelbrock head flows 247 max out of the box. Run a good CNC program or have an experienced porter do them and you're tickling 300cfm, max.

So with the Edelbrock aluminum head you are looking at a possible 60hp gain.
Other advantages to the aluminum head: all the aftermarket aluminum heads have improved combustion chamber shapes which make the engine less octane-sensitive.
Plus, you can add about a full point of compression with the aluminum heads, going to 10.5:1 or a little higher. This is additional power and efficiency.
Plus with the more modern chamber design you can run less ignition lead (timing) and reduce the amount of negative work done on the piston.
Plus, the aluminum heads weigh about 1/3 as much as the iron heads do, and the weight is saved from high on the front end of the car, where it does a lot of good. IIRC LA heads actually weigh more than B/RB heads.

There are the Edelbrocks, the Speedmaster/Procomps, Hughes' varieties, and the Sidewinder from Todd Marsh (Sasquatch on this board.) There are also the ProMaxx heads which are the same as the Sidewinders but are priced higher.
There are also the Enginequest iron replacement heads which work very well and have a Magnum combustion chamber that is pretty successful. I believe there may be another iron head out there, too. Problem with the EQs is they are pretty expensive.

Good Luck!

R.



Steel is a generic term, lighten up Francis... tonguue


The funny thing about science is that if you change one miniscule parameter you change the entire outcome to the way you want it.

JB Rhinehart, Realist

A-Body's RULE!
Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: 383man] #2387086
10/13/17 10:04 PM
10/13/17 10:04 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
Supercuda Offline
About to go away
Supercuda  Offline
About to go away

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
Originally Posted By 383man
Originally Posted By Supercuda
Originally Posted By Cab_Burge
The new aluminum heads will flow more air


Since no specific head was specified you can't say this.

Plenty of aluminum heads out there that are crap and need rework out of the box, I suggest you google speedmaster heads. So when some say " the cost pf rebuilding an iron head" as an excuse tend to not add the cost of making sure you aftermarket aluminum head is ready to run.

Nor is there any actually data supporting the aluminum allows higher compression claims. Combustion chamber design is the major factor in allowing higher compression, iron hemi heads can run just as high a compression as aluminum ones. Assuming your new heads have efficient combustion chambers you can consider increasing your compression ratio.




I have to disagree on the higher comp. Aluminum heads will disapate the heat faster which will allow you to run higher comp and not have detonation. Its a know fact thats also why most say you can get away with about 1 point higher comp with aluminum heads and not because of the combustion chamber design which I do agree the newer aluminum heads do have better combustion chamber design's. Ron


There is zero data to support your conclusion and "it's a known fact" doesn't count unless you can show the data.

Closest I have seen is that car craft did a iron to aluminum comparison with two otherwise identical aftermarket heads.

They tested the myth that the ability of aluminum to wick away heat would affect power output. Zero difference in power output.

They also detected zero issues with detonation, 10.88:1 comp ratio, using pump gas and speculated that maybe the compression ratio needed to get higher to see anything. But at that level there was NO difference in power or detonation between the two materials.

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ccrp-0602-iron-versus-aluminum-cylinder-heads-test/


They say there are no such thing as a stupid question.
They say there is always the exception that proves the rule.
Don't be the exception.
Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Supercuda] #2387100
10/13/17 10:28 PM
10/13/17 10:28 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
3
383man Offline
Too Many Posts
383man  Offline
Too Many Posts
3

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
Originally Posted By Supercuda
Originally Posted By 383man
Originally Posted By Supercuda
Originally Posted By Cab_Burge
The new aluminum heads will flow more air


Since no specific head was specified you can't say this.

Plenty of aluminum heads out there that are crap and need rework out of the box, I suggest you google speedmaster heads. So when some say " the cost pf rebuilding an iron head" as an excuse tend to not add the cost of making sure you aftermarket aluminum head is ready to run.

Nor is there any actually data supporting the aluminum allows higher compression claims. Combustion chamber design is the major factor in allowing higher compression, iron hemi heads can run just as high a compression as aluminum ones. Assuming your new heads have efficient combustion chambers you can consider increasing your compression ratio.




I have to disagree on the higher comp. Aluminum heads will disapate the heat faster which will allow you to run higher comp and not have detonation. Its a know fact thats also why most say you can get away with about 1 point higher comp with aluminum heads and not because of the combustion chamber design which I do agree the newer aluminum heads do have better combustion chamber design's. Ron


There is zero data to support your conclusion and "it's a known fact" doesn't count unless you can show the data.

Closest I have seen is that car craft did a iron to aluminum comparison with two otherwise identical aftermarket heads.

They tested the myth that the ability of aluminum to wick away heat would affect power output. Zero difference in power output.

They also detected zero issues with detonation, 10.88:1 comp ratio, using pump gas and speculated that maybe the compression ratio needed to get higher to see anything. But at that level there was NO difference in power or detonation between the two materials.

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ccrp-0602-iron-versus-aluminum-cylinder-heads-test/



Well if thats true then you did show fact to back most of your theory and I will admit that. They did say that they did not prove about the fact if aluminum heads will support more comp because they did not run high enough comp as they did prove at 10.88 comp both seem to be about the same. What seems funny to me is most I talk to with aluminum heads say they usually like less timing but maybe they are comparing a new aluminum head with a modern design chamber to an old iron head. And as far as I know its a proven fact that aluminum will disapate heat faster then cast iron but maybe not enough to make a difference. I dont know if anyone has ever tested the same thing to back the saying about aluminum being able to run higher comp but I seam to hear so many say it and many eng shops seem to believe its true also. But after seeing that test it may be that since most aluminum heads out there today have much better combustion chamber design then the older iron heads from the 60's and 70's and maybe thats why many believe the aluminum work better and can get away with higher comp. And most today including me build their engines with good quench and swirl flow chamber aluminum heads and can get by on higher comp. And of course I can run higher comp on pump gas with my closed chamber aluminum heads and good quench when compared to running an open chamber 906 head.
That is an interesting article and thanks for posting it as I have never seen that article. Ron

Last edited by 383man; 10/13/17 10:30 PM.
Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: 383man] #2387117
10/13/17 11:04 PM
10/13/17 11:04 PM
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 559
Idaho
L
LaRoy Engines Offline
mopar
LaRoy Engines  Offline
mopar
L

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 559
Idaho

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Barrelhouse] #2387169
10/14/17 01:33 AM
10/14/17 01:33 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
Ron, I'll add one thing. Kenny L at Indy Head told me on my 499 engine with their heads that he built while at Mc Candless, I needed to be at 200 degrees on the starting line because if not the engine would be down on power. The heads lost heat to fast and had to build the heat. When first running the car I went 5.50s with engine getting over 200* and hotter. I dropped the temp (at the line with better shrouds and fans) to 160*, not wanting that much temp,and ran 5.70s. Ran it back hot again after he told me this and ran 5.50s. I would say he knows what he's talking about.

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: cudaman1969] #2387172
10/14/17 01:39 AM
10/14/17 01:39 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
3
383man Offline
Too Many Posts
383man  Offline
Too Many Posts
3

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
Originally Posted By cudaman1969
Ron, I'll add one thing. Kenny L at Indy Head told me on my 499 engine with their heads that he built while at Mc Candless, I needed to be at 200 degrees on the starting line because if not the engine would be down on power. The heads lost heat to fast and had to build the heat. When first running the car I went 5.50s with engine getting over 200* and hotter. I dropped the temp (at the line with better shrouds and fans) to 160*, not wanting that much temp,and ran 5.70s. Ran it back hot again after he told me this and ran 5.50s. I would say he knows what he's talking about.



I take it they were aluminum heads ? Ron

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: 383man] #2387205
10/14/17 03:38 AM
10/14/17 03:38 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
Originally Posted By 383man
Originally Posted By cudaman1969
Ron, I'll add one thing. Kenny L at Indy Head told me on my 499 engine with their heads that he built while at Mc Candless, I needed to be at 200 degrees on the starting line because if not the engine would be down on power. The heads lost heat to fast and had to build the heat. When first running the car I went 5.50s with engine getting over 200* and hotter. I dropped the temp (at the line with better shrouds and fans) to 160*, not wanting that much temp,and ran 5.70s. Ran it back hot again after he told me this and ran 5.50s. I would say he knows what he's talking about.



I take it they were aluminum heads ? Ron

Yes, If I remember right, been over 18 years, 440-1 low deck, in 95 whatever was the best for a stock block, around 830 hp

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Rhinodart] #2387209
10/14/17 04:00 AM
10/14/17 04:00 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,363
Cotati, CA
Dave Hall Offline
top fuel
Dave Hall  Offline
top fuel

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,363
Cotati, CA
[/quote]

Steel is a generic term, lighten up Francis... tonguue [/quote]

"Anyuos homoos wanna call me Francis????????????? I-ke-ya!!! haha

Hey man, just the having no water in the exhaust manifold bolts was enough to convince me to go with an aluminum head. Iron heads are always cracking and crap. Aluminum is just better, period.

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: cudaman1969] #2387210
10/14/17 04:04 AM
10/14/17 04:04 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,363
Cotati, CA
Dave Hall Offline
top fuel
Dave Hall  Offline
top fuel

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,363
Cotati, CA
Originally Posted By cudaman1969
Funny, on my 340 F/Sock engine, NHRA rates the iron head at 300 hp and the Eddy aluminum head at 297 hp. They are lighter but we have to add the weight back somewhere.
If just doing a valve job, keep them, unless you got money to burn. Downside, no hardened seat for the ex valve in stock form.
Compare both on paper, list all the good-bad points and cost for each. You'll see which way is best for YOU.



So the lower hp engine will actually run farther under the index than the iron head? Makes sense.

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Barrelhouse] #2387236
10/14/17 09:22 AM
10/14/17 09:22 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,363
Abilene, Texas
F
fastmark Offline
master
fastmark  Offline
master
F

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,363
Abilene, Texas
I knew a Super Stock racer back in the day that helped me on some info when I bought my 65 lightweight Dodge. He lived in Homa, La so I got to watch and hang around him back in the day of class racing when there was lots of class racing. He raced SS/BA in his 65. The 65 hemi came with alum heads. He found some obscure bulletin from Chrysler that allowed the 64 iron head as a replacement for the 65 alum head. The heads were identical except for the material. He said he always ran the iron heads because they were faster. They held the heat better and the heat meant more power on the dragstrip in class racing. I think they ended up using the street hemi heads because they were more plentiful and legal too. I’ve seen him win class several times. He raced out of the Southland Dodge group. I bet the Teuton’s could probably add some input on this as well.

Now, on the street, it may be different. I know all the cars now have aluminum heads and higher operating temps for better fuel mileage. But that is sustained driving. Dyno results could be tailored to show either.

Interesting discussion. I’m building a 340 for my friend with ported X heads that gets hot because they were ported too much. I sold him a virgin set of X heads for his matching numbered car but he may go with alum on this build.

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Dave Hall] #2387260
10/14/17 11:15 AM
10/14/17 11:15 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
Originally Posted By Dave Hall
Originally Posted By cudaman1969
Funny, on my 340 F/Sock engine, NHRA rates the iron head at 300 hp and the Eddy aluminum head at 297 hp. They are lighter but we have to add the weight back somewhere.
If just doing a valve job, keep them, unless you got money to burn. Downside, no hardened seat for the ex valve in stock form.
Compare both on paper, list all the good-bad points and cost for each. You'll see which way is best for YOU.



So the lower hp engine will actually run farther under the index than the iron head? Makes sense.

Car can be 30 pounds lighter, hard to say if faster. Depends on how they "prep" the heads.
Mr Hatch has a 71 Duster with E heads that went 9.99 in D weight, that's flying for a stock car-engine.

Last edited by cudaman1969; 10/14/17 11:27 AM.
Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: cudaman1969] #2387281
10/14/17 11:47 AM
10/14/17 11:47 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
3
383man Offline
Too Many Posts
383man  Offline
Too Many Posts
3

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
Originally Posted By cudaman1969
Originally Posted By 383man
Originally Posted By cudaman1969
Ron, I'll add one thing. Kenny L at Indy Head told me on my 499 engine with their heads that he built while at Mc Candless, I needed to be at 200 degrees on the starting line because if not the engine would be down on power. The heads lost heat to fast and had to build the heat. When first running the car I went 5.50s with engine getting over 200* and hotter. I dropped the temp (at the line with better shrouds and fans) to 160*, not wanting that much temp,and ran 5.70s. Ran it back hot again after he told me this and ran 5.50s. I would say he knows what he's talking about.



I take it they were aluminum heads ? Ron

Yes, If I remember right, been over 18 years, 440-1 low deck, in 95 whatever was the best for a stock block, around 830 hp



Thanks , Ron

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: cudaman1969] #2387391
10/14/17 04:27 PM
10/14/17 04:27 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,363
Cotati, CA
Dave Hall Offline
top fuel
Dave Hall  Offline
top fuel

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,363
Cotati, CA
I think the guys running in the heads up E final at Indy both have aluminum heads. Yeah, 10.00 is flyin' in D! If heat makes more power why do guys ice engines to go faster?

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Dave Hall] #2387463
10/14/17 07:49 PM
10/14/17 07:49 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
Originally Posted By Dave Hall
I think the guys running in the heads up E final at Indy both have aluminum heads. Yeah, 10.00 is flyin' in D! If heat makes more power why do guys ice engines to go faster?

Cool that cast iron skillet intake, I'll be using the LD340

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Rhinodart] #2387496
10/14/17 10:25 PM
10/14/17 10:25 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,886
Lost and Spaced
B
bboogieart Offline
master
bboogieart  Offline
master
B

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,886
Lost and Spaced
Originally Posted By Rhinodart
lighten up Francis...

haha
Nice Stripes reference.
Also good advice.


I have mechanical Aptitude.
I can screw up anything.
Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Barrelhouse] #2387640
10/15/17 10:46 AM
10/15/17 10:46 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,363
Abilene, Texas
F
fastmark Offline
master
fastmark  Offline
master
F

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,363
Abilene, Texas
Ok..I have a question for you stocker guys about the alum Edelbrock heads. I went by Summit racing on the way back from the races at Dallas yesterday and laid my eyes on the Edelbrock heads. The ports look very restrictive to me. It looks like they are made to port and I can’t see how they flow more than stock heads right out of the box. Now I could not see the area right under the valve which is the most important. Any feedback is appreciated. I’m sure they have not allowed porting in stock yet.

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: fastmark] #2387664
10/15/17 11:33 AM
10/15/17 11:33 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,363
Cotati, CA
Dave Hall Offline
top fuel
Dave Hall  Offline
top fuel

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,363
Cotati, CA
I don't race in Stock but it was posted here that the Edelbrock's are factored 3hp lower than the iron heads.

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Dave Hall] #2387736
10/15/17 01:57 PM
10/15/17 01:57 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007
Bend,OR USA
C
Cab_Burge Offline
I Win
Cab_Burge  Offline
I Win
C

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007
Bend,OR USA
Edlebrock makes several different part numbers and casting of their aluminum heads for the LA motors, only one is NHRA legal scope
The original X and 915 J, O, and U heads are very restrictive also, hence the acid porting back in the day whistling shruggy
I raced stock up to 1988, I later helped two different SO CA NHRA SB 340 racers, one held the E/SA record for two years and later set the C/SA record with a 1970 T/A Challenger, he bought every stock looking X and J head he could find and then had them flowed to get the best heads for his program shruggy He swap heads like I use to swap tires work My message is not all heads flow and perform the same, OEM, stock or otherwise whistling

Last edited by Cab_Burge; 10/15/17 01:59 PM.

Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Barrelhouse] #2387754
10/15/17 03:22 PM
10/15/17 03:22 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,826
las vegas
70AARcuda Offline
master
70AARcuda  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,826
las vegas
stock heads are controlled by the CC of the port. To make the eddy head legal in stock the valves have to be changed from 11/32 stem to 3/8 stem..


Tony

70 AARCuda Vitamin C
71 Dart Swinger 360 10.318 @ 128.22(10-04-14 Bakersfield)
71 Demon 360 10.666 @122.41 (01-29-17 @ Las Vegas)
71 Duster 408 (10.29 @ 127.86 3/16/19 Las Vegas)
Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Barrelhouse] #2387758
10/15/17 03:32 PM
10/15/17 03:32 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,193
fredericksburg,va
E, Stock heads.. They made it as close to stock as possible. One head fits all. Just like their BB E head, it starts out closed chamber and small valve to fir those early 60s heads, 361-383-413-426 then a lot of work to make them like a 906. This means one is allowed to "machine" it to open up the chamber and big ex valve, porting in a sense, but still must maintain same CC, combustion chamber and ports. Now they allow any valve job and look the other way untill you stir up to much dust, but then you get a HP adjustment. High dollar game to play, better have a big wallet or the smarts before jumping in. My top piston ring will cost me $1400 (to play big league). So anyway, the stock heads are drying up so something had to take there place.
Now they let us run the LD 340 intake (Eldebrock, with factory part number) :-) even though none came on a stock engine from the factory, politics! Chevy-Ford guys are crying the blues!

Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Barrelhouse] #2387783
10/15/17 04:34 PM
10/15/17 04:34 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 28,312
Cincinnati, Ohio
Challenger 1 Offline
Too Many Posts
Challenger 1  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 28,312
Cincinnati, Ohio
Originally Posted By Barrelhouse
Im having my 340 totally rebuilt my engine builder says that it would be a good idea to change my x heads to aluminum heads for better performance and lighter weight. What do you guys here on Moparts think is it a good idea and what are the best heads to use, thanks.


I have had good luck with edlebrock heads on my 340 and 440. Both got out of the box eddie heads and have ran great with no problems. My 340 is 10 years old now and has been driven 30K+ miles since then. I beat the crap out of the motor 3 different times/years out at Bonnelville running the motor at hi rpms for long periods of time.(many miles at a time and you can't hold it WFO but close...if you got the balls and motor) After those beatings it blew out the mufflers but the motor is still going strong. I drove it last night.

As soon as I backed out of the driveway after the rebuild and put it in first gear I could tell I had more ponies and a better handling car that was lighter. It took off like never before! The pistons were lighter too than the early hi compression pistons that were in there. I did not re balance the motor.

I used KB243 pistons on stock rods, CC the motor and it has 10.4-1 compression with open chamber 340 eddie heads made for the hi compression pistons. It runs great on 91 octane gasoline. twocents I built the motor.




Re: OE 1969 340 X heads vs aftermarket aluminum heads. [Re: Rhinodart] #2388355
10/16/17 08:22 PM
10/16/17 08:22 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
D
dogdays Offline
I Live Here
dogdays  Offline
I Live Here
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
Heck no, steel is not a generic term, at least not a generic term for cast iron. Ask any foundryman or metallurgist or welder, for that matter. They have different properties - machinability, weldability, ductility, castability, for starters.

R.

Page 1 of 2 1 2






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1