mrgem

After 2+ years in the bodyshop, my 65 Cyclone is just about ready to haul home and be united with the 331 (66 289 block) I had built for it 4 years ago.

When my machinist and I were trying to pick the components that would go into the stroker build, I specifically told him to avoid any head that gives you spark plug access/interference heartburn. Finding headers to fit early Falcons/Comets is tough enough...I did not want the typical GT40 headaches.

So...He picked the then new Roush 180 iron heads.

Now, I'm reading that these heads will also interfere with the flanges on my Hedmann shorties. Has anyone had experience with Hedmanns and Roush 180s? What plugs did you chose?

Thanks for your help!

__________________
GEM- 66 Mustang GT FB, 65 Cyclone, and other brand x stuff

65FalconLover

I'm not sure what you mean by interfere with the header flanges. Aren't they the same as any other SBF head, unlike some of the raised port stuff? Also, if you're building a performance engine you might want to rethink the shorty headers anyway if they're the problem. They're not made for higher RPM use and are designed more for low to mid RPM torque. A set of long tubes might be a better choice on a stroker.

Maybe a look at your engine and drivetrain specs would tell that story.

John

__________________

'65 Falcon Futura 347 stroker. Comp roller cam, 10.8:1, RPM intake, 750 DP, AFR185's, C4, 9-inch http://www.fordmuscleforums.com/gara...ehicle_id=1106

79futura

spark plug angle.

__________________
1979 Fairmont

1968 Falcon 351 W RHS heads, 9 ich posi, toploader 4 speed victor jr-unfinished

mrgem

John -- Thanks for the input. As another poster has indicated, the problem with many aftermarket SBF heads is the spark plug angle. It interferes with the header flange unless you use headers made to specifically work with those heads GT40P heads were notorious for incompatibility with exhaust headers.
Re. the shorties. Torque is what I want. That is precisely why I wanted a stroker. By definition strokers make better power (torque that is) lower in the RPM range than grossly oversquare engines like the 289. Over the years, I've had cars with both long tube and shorty headers. I'll take shorties ever time. No fried starters, no ground clearance or P/S clearance problems, and nobody knows you've got a modified car if the hood is closed. It is simply a matter of taste. If I were doing a drag car, I'd probably run long tubes, because, as you pointed out, the engine makes more power at higher RPMs. But this engine will rarely see the north side of 5500 RPM -- so no problem with shorties. Thanks again for your comments.

__________________
GEM- 66 Mustang GT FB, 65 Cyclone, and other brand x stuff