Mercury Cougar Owners banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
OK i know most of you are going to say WHY?. But i just want to do it, i have a set of good 351 heads and a very worn out 289. I hope to keep this thread going with pictures and advice to help the next guy decide for himself if it is worth it for him to try.
I will be using 69 351 W heads on a 68 289 2V. Got the motor out and heads off today and this is what i found.
68 289 2V heads have 63 cc combustion chambers and the 351 have 60.4 cc. That is a very small plus to the build. If you have the 65, 66, 67 289 heads they have 54cc chambers so without special pistons your compression is going to be way to low.
The water jackets are in different places on the intake side of the surface of the head. Many people said their engine ran way to hot after swap. I am going to drill holes in head using gasket as template to have water flow like the 289. 289 rebuild.1 001.jpg As you can see the 351 head is on bottom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,552 Posts
Fresh heads, on worn rings, will increase oil consumption by a noticable amount. If you have the engine that far apart, I would recommend new rings and bearings, and then back on the road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,633 Posts
Have you read the Ford Muscle Parts books that explain how to do this properly? You will need to make other upgrades to take advantage of the heads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Fresh heads, on worn rings, will increase oil consumption by a noticable amount. If you have the engine that far apart, I would recommend new rings and bearings, and then back on the road.
I am going to have the block rebuilt. Going with flat top 5cc relief pistons. Should give me close to 9 to 1 compression.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Have you read the Ford Muscle Parts books that explain how to do this properly? You will need to make other upgrades to take advantage of the heads.
No where could i find this book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Looks like you have to use the 351 intake gaskets due to different water jacket. Also different bolt pattern. 289 has 4 less bolts. 289 rebuild.1 004.jpg 351 on right. 289 rebuild.1 005.jpg
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,000 Posts
A better idea is to use a set of 289 heads with a 351W engine. Install 2.02 / 1.66" valves. CC = 62 - 64.

There is nothing gained by using 351W heads on a 289. Been there, done that. '69 351W heads are about 84 CC.

OK i know most of you are going to say WHY?. But i just want to do it, i have a set of good 351 heads and a very worn out 289. I hope to keep this thread going with pictures and advice to help the next guy decide for himself if it is worth it for him to try.
I will be using 69 351 W heads on a 68 289 2V. Got the motor out and heads off today and this is what i found.
68 289 2V heads have 63 cc combustion chambers and the 351 have 60.4 cc. That is a very small plus to the build. If you have the 65, 66, 67 289 heads they have 54cc chambers so without special pistons your compression is going to be way to low.
The water jackets are in different places on the intake side of the surface of the head. Many people said their engine ran way to hot after swap. I am going to drill holes in head using gasket as template to have water flow like the 289. View attachment 29677 As you can see the 351 head is on bottom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
A better idea is to use a set of 289 heads with a 351W engine. Install 2.02 / 1.66" valves. CC = 62 - 64.

There is nothing gained by using 351W heads on a 289. Been there, done that. '69 351W heads are about 84 CC.
Royce are you sure. 84 cc? I will admit i did not cc the 351 but it is clearly smaller with the heads side by side. I am not doing this and expecting some huge gain in power i just want to use these heads to save over $1000 if i got aluminum heads. If the power is the same OK by me. And let's be real if you get aluminum heads it would be silly to not get headers and a new intake. So now i got to spend some $500 more. I don't got loads of cash to spend on my cars so i think this may be a good alternitive. Other wise these heads will sit in the shed for many years to come and the 289 heads are way to worn to repair. If i don't get this car running soon i might as well put it in the shed too.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
646 Posts
69 and 70 351w had 60 cc heads. They had slightly bigger valves than the 289 and 302. 1.84 intake and 1.54 exhaust in 351 versus 1.78 and 1.45 for the 289/302. As far as putting rebuilt heads on an older engine increasing oil consumption, the science is not there. Putting on fresh heads can have the inverse affect on oil consumption whereas new valve seals and lesser valve stem-to-guide clearance can give better oil control and can reduce oil consumption. UNLESS THEY KNURLIZE! Do not let them knurl the guides. Knurled guides can increase oil consumption and this may be where the claim of rebuilt heads causing oil consumption may have originated. Oil control of the oil rings does not work any worse due to the fresh heads. Unless you go to small chambers that really ups compression(more than the 3 cc diff on the mentioned heads) there will not be enough change to affect blow by and that associated oil consumption (oil loss actually). If the valves were so bad in the old heads that compression gets a boost, that would have shown up in how the engine ran. Just as an FYI, Ford back in the day referred to the 69/70 290 HP(under rated of course) 10.75 compression 351W engines as the GT40 windsor. We didn't see that nomenclature again until the 80's Gt40 heads years later.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,000 Posts
I don't know where you are getting the idea that 69 - 70 361 heads are 60 CC but it is incorrect where ever it came from.

I did this exact swap 35 years ago on the 289 in my '67 Cougar and let me tell you it was not worth the trouble. I had a machine shop mill a set of C9 351W-4V castings as much as they dared and the best we could get to was still over 70CC. The slightly larger valves did not make up for loss of a full point of compression. I believe we milled something like .100". Had to mill the intake face to make it square with the manifold.

In my case the swap also was accompanied by a Crane Blazer 280 camshaft, a set of headers, Edelbrock Torker intake and an Accel dual point distributor. A Holley 600 CFM carb was used. Of course the stock head bolts won't work with 351W heads so a set of Boss 302 bolts was purchased from Eagle Lincoln Mercury.

After about a year I swapped back to the stock 289-4V heads which are 60CC chambers. They were rebuilt with stock size valves. There was a notable performance improvement going back to the stock heads.

69 and 70 351w had 60 cc heads. They had slightly bigger valves than the 289 and 302. 1.84 intake and 1.54 exhaust in 351 versus 1.78 and 1.45 for the 289/302. As far as putting rebuilt heads on an older engine increasing oil consumption, the science is not there. Putting on fresh heads can have the inverse affect on oil consumption whereas new valve seals and lesser valve stem-to-guide clearance can give better oil control and can reduce oil consumption. UNLESS THEY KNURLIZE! Do not let them knurl the guides. Knurled guides can increase oil consumption and this may be where the claim of rebuilt heads causing oil consumption may have originated. Oil control of the oil rings does not work any worse due to the fresh heads. Unless you go to small chambers that really ups compression(more than the 3 cc diff on the mentioned heads) there will not be enough change to affect blow by and that associated oil consumption (oil loss actually). If the valves were so bad in the old heads that compression gets a boost, that would have shown up in how the engine ran. Just as an FYI, Ford back in the day referred to the 69/70 290 HP(under rated of course) 10.75 compression 351W engines as the GT40 windsor. We didn't see that nomenclature again until the 80's Gt40 heads years later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
I have the book HOW TO REBUILD SMALL-BLOCK FORD ENGINES by Tom Monroe and it says that all 351W heads from 69 to 77 have 60.4 combustion chambers. I'm not saying that is correct but just that it does say that.



I don't know where you are getting the idea that 69 - 70 361 heads are 60 CC but it is incorrect where ever it came from.

I did this exact swap 35 years ago on the 289 in my '67 Cougar and let me tell you it was not worth the trouble. I had a machine shop mill a set of C9 351W-4V castings as much as they dared and the best we could get to was still over 70CC. The slightly larger valves did not make up for loss of a full point of compression. I believe we milled something like .100". Had to mill the intake face to make it square with the manifold.

In my case the swap also was accompanied by a Crane Blazer 280 camshaft, a set of headers, Edelbrock Torker intake and an Accel dual point distributor. A Holley 600 CFM carb was used. Of course the stock head bolts won't work with 351W heads so a set of Boss 302 bolts was purchased from Eagle Lincoln Mercury.

After about a year I swapped back to the stock 289-4V heads which are 60CC chambers. They were rebuilt with stock size valves. There was a notable performance improvement going back to the stock heads.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,000 Posts
The problem with the internet is many people have used Tom Monroe's book as a source for their web information rather than actually looking at or measuring a head. I think Monroe's book numbers might be NHRA minimum allowable specs rather than the numbers for heads as Ford produced them.

I have the book HOW TO REBUILD SMALL-BLOCK FORD ENGINES by Tom Monroe and it says that all 351W heads from 69 to 77 have 60.4 combustion chambers. I'm not saying that is correct but just that it does say that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Got the block to the machinist. Said he is real busy may take a few weeks before he can look at it.

I know it is important to know the cc of the chambers but if you look at the two pictures you can see that the 351 is a bit smaller than the 68 289 2V. I keep saying 68 289 2V because i think that that was the only year they were 63 cc unlike the early 289 with 54 cc. So putting 351 on a 289 that had small chambers= all bad.

289 rebuild.2 002.jpg Left pic is 351 289 rebuild.2 004.jpg 289 below valves is open more then 351.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
My '69 shop manual shows the combustion chamber volume on the '69 351W heads to be 58.9-61.9 cc. Also, don't forget that the 351W uses a larger head bolt. I think you need to get some sleeves to use the smaller 289/302 head bolts. Putting 289 heads on a 351W??? Don't think so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Just give it up, Royce nailed it, nothing to gain. Reconfigure something else if you want to make a frankinstein monster? I have a used D2AE-CA -4v engine complete for sale? Make a Boss/Cobra Jet 351 with about 400 ponies and on the cheap too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
My '69 shop manual shows the combustion chamber volume on the '69 351W heads to be 58.9-61.9 cc. Also, don't forget that the 351W uses a larger head bolt. I think you need to get some sleeves to use the smaller 289/302 head bolts. Putting 289 heads on a 351W??? Don't think so.
You are right the sleeves as you say are bushings or washers.Some Aluminum heads have the 1/2 inch holes so i guess you need them on the 289 and 302 also?
I think what royce was saying was 289 head with larger valves is good, but you need to port them real good , and compression may be a bit high. I get ya Royce.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,633 Posts
The Ford Muscle Parts book from back in the day describes how to do this right, and almost no one (me included) did it by the book. Consequently they get mediocre results.

According to the book, to do this right you have to change a lot more than just the heads.

In addition to the heads themselves, they recommend that you use larger GT40 style valves, different push rods to accommodate the longer valve, Pop-up pistons to compensate for the larger 351 combustion chambers (10cc reduction in volume). Part of the gain in performance is from a step up in compression. Then you use 351 intake gaskets to avoid the water leak, and 289 head gaskets. You also need to use special cylinder head bolts with either integral washers, or preferably a stepped bolt that fits both the 1/2 inch holes in the heads, stepping down to the 7/16ths inch threaded holes in the block.

Valve sizes:

Intake:
289 302 1.74"
351 1.84"
GT 40 1.875"

Exhaust
289 302 1.45"
351 1.54"
GT 40 1.625"

The heads are just the beginning. They also recommend that you use a different cam, (several choices available). Steel tube headers, a re-curved dual point distributor and an aluminum dual plane intake manifold with larger ports. are also part of the package.

They emphasize that this is a package. To get the results they promise you have to do the ENTIRE package.

The Ford engineers knew what they were doing. What several of us have proved is that trying to second guess and short cut what they did does not work... LOL!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
646 Posts
I have seen 69 heads sitting face up next to later model 80 plus cc heads. Didn't need to perform a cc test to see the huge diff. The 69 heads are only about the 60 cc as stated. I could go down to the shop and cc some 69 heads if that helps convince some.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,950 Posts
^^ YES - 69/70 W heads had a few variations from 59.7 cc to 61.9 cc (D00Z-6049-C) - I JUST Dug through my old notes when we cc'd mine prior to porting and this is spot on......as Bill says, you will certainly have to make the mod's if you want to make this happen. (Ford used to sell kits with pop-up pistons, special head gaskets (c80z-6051-b), manifold gasket (d1az-9433-c) and those special step head bolts. You can get the sleeve kits now I suppose, but in all honesty, with the machine work/costs and parts to do it right, you are looking at aftermarket heads cheaper. Back in the day throwing in the screw in studs and chevy valves was the way to go - no doubt. But with costs through the roof at the machine shops, you gotta take a long hard looks at the aftermarket..even on motor builds we are finding that crate motors are cheaper than like-built home jobs. On other notes on these 69W heads, they are very easy to take way to far on porting and actually hurting performance. Matching Intake and exhaust ports is critical - but you need to leave the interior parts alone for the most part: only grind the first 1/2" from the port and do the same for the fisrt 1/2 under the valves to the pocket and don't do any more!!! extra is not good in this case. (totally different from other heads for the most part) No to mention it's easy to blow into the water jackets on these.....I smoked more than a few back in the day!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
The heads i got are basicly free. Had them on another motor when bottom end lost a rod bolt so i know they are good. Already has screw in stud and very mild poting, mostly just removing smog hump. If i can't get heads to work well then aftermarket heads will be next. I had to do bottom end anyways. Not going for anything over 300 HP, and yeah if you had 54 cc heads you do need pop up pistons but my motor had 63 cc (C80e heads) so i can't see why the 351 won't be ok. Realisticly i probably won't get but 250 hp but that is fine for a daily driver for me.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top