gt40p heads?
12-05-2007, 01:09 AM
#13
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 614
RE: gt40p heads?
port the intake to a valve size. ask the guy again to explain that one[:-]
actually I would like to advise you to forget about the guy because that sounds like poppycock. yup thats right, pure poppycock, or drivel even[:'(]
actually I would like to advise you to forget about the guy because that sounds like poppycock. yup thats right, pure poppycock, or drivel even[:'(]
12-05-2007, 01:16 AM
#14
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 13,396
RE: gt40p heads?
ORIGINAL: Hamutoff
1.84(i)1.45(e)
FRPP and MAC work well both in shortie config, mac makes a BEAUTIFUL set of long tubes for the P & of course work on the rest of the reg. exh port sbf heads
anybody know if you can still get the gt40p heads new & drilled for smog or anybody who would drill ANY heads for smog? central coast mustangs used to sell them new & drilled but I think that company has been gone for some time.
1.84(i)1.45(e)
FRPP and MAC work well both in shortie config, mac makes a BEAUTIFUL set of long tubes for the P & of course work on the rest of the reg. exh port sbf heads
anybody know if you can still get the gt40p heads new & drilled for smog or anybody who would drill ANY heads for smog? central coast mustangs used to sell them new & drilled but I think that company has been gone for some time.
either way yes you will notice a difference from E7's to gt40p's. the p heads also bump the compression some from the small cc
12-05-2007, 02:57 AM
#16
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 614
RE: gt40p heads?
mix'n'match ok jasperstang here is the crazy story as i know it
the 5.0 pushrod got a extension on its death sentance through use in the explorer...they were using the gt40 heads to move the sucker, but new smog regs were going to shut it down before ford was ready to go mod motor for all trucks etc of so the P head was born---for temp usage.
because the exh port was finally truly redesigned its efficiency esp. under the curve (great flow down low) allowed the use of the old 1.45 from e7te old truck parts bin and retained the 1.8 intake from gt40 head they just replaced
e7te = 1.78(I)1.45(E)
gt40 = 1.84(I)1.54(E)
40P = 1.84(I)1.45(E)
I was not able to fit the 1.6(e) in my P heads even though I see them for sale on eBay, look how tight it was with 1.94(I)1.554(E)that I did end up fitting:
http://www.thatmetalbox.com/AUTOMOTI...GT40P-012.html
http://www.thatmetalbox.com/AUTOMOTI...GT40P-014.html
the 5.0 pushrod got a extension on its death sentance through use in the explorer...they were using the gt40 heads to move the sucker, but new smog regs were going to shut it down before ford was ready to go mod motor for all trucks etc of so the P head was born---for temp usage.
because the exh port was finally truly redesigned its efficiency esp. under the curve (great flow down low) allowed the use of the old 1.45 from e7te old truck parts bin and retained the 1.8 intake from gt40 head they just replaced
e7te = 1.78(I)1.45(E)
gt40 = 1.84(I)1.54(E)
40P = 1.84(I)1.45(E)
I was not able to fit the 1.6(e) in my P heads even though I see them for sale on eBay, look how tight it was with 1.94(I)1.554(E)that I did end up fitting:
http://www.thatmetalbox.com/AUTOMOTI...GT40P-012.html
http://www.thatmetalbox.com/AUTOMOTI...GT40P-014.html
12-05-2007, 09:06 AM
#17
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 13,396
RE: gt40p heads?
ORIGINAL: Hamutoff
mix'n'match ok jasperstang here is the crazy story as i know it
the 5.0 pushrod got a extension on its death sentance through use in the explorer...they were using the gt40 heads to move the sucker, but new smog regs were going to shut it down before ford was ready to go mod motor for all trucks etc of so the P head was born---for temp usage.
because the exh port was finally truly redesigned its efficiency esp. under the curve (great flow down low) allowed the use of the old 1.45 from e7te old truck parts bin and retained the 1.8 intake from gt40 head they just replaced
e7te = 1.78(I)1.45(E)
gt40 = 1.84(I)1.54(E)
40P = 1.84(I)1.45(E)
I was not able to fit the 1.6(e) in my P heads even though I see them for sale on eBay, look how tight it was with 1.94(I)1.554(E)that I did end up fitting:
http://www.thatmetalbox.com/AUTOMOTI...GT40P-012.html
http://www.thatmetalbox.com/AUTOMOTI...GT40P-014.html
mix'n'match ok jasperstang here is the crazy story as i know it
the 5.0 pushrod got a extension on its death sentance through use in the explorer...they were using the gt40 heads to move the sucker, but new smog regs were going to shut it down before ford was ready to go mod motor for all trucks etc of so the P head was born---for temp usage.
because the exh port was finally truly redesigned its efficiency esp. under the curve (great flow down low) allowed the use of the old 1.45 from e7te old truck parts bin and retained the 1.8 intake from gt40 head they just replaced
e7te = 1.78(I)1.45(E)
gt40 = 1.84(I)1.54(E)
40P = 1.84(I)1.45(E)
I was not able to fit the 1.6(e) in my P heads even though I see them for sale on eBay, look how tight it was with 1.94(I)1.554(E)that I did end up fitting:
http://www.thatmetalbox.com/AUTOMOTI...GT40P-012.html
http://www.thatmetalbox.com/AUTOMOTI...GT40P-014.html
12-05-2007, 09:02 PM
#18
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 943
RE: gt40p heads?
Chevy High Performance magazine has done tests on the usefullness of 2.02 valves (I know it's not Ford but it relates non the less). I can't quote the issue (my dad gets them not me) but they did tests on of course a 350 Chevy. Under 6500 rpm there was no increase in power on identical heads that had 1.94" valves. Above 6500 there was a signifigant increase over the 1.94s. These engines weren't S/C so maybe 2.02s will be better.
12-05-2007, 10:35 PM
#19
6th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: earleville md
Posts: 10,357
RE: gt40p heads?
i think its really stupid to say no to all heads w. out a 2.02 intake valve... you realize if their too big, that its actually a bad thing right? i forget the term im suposed to use... basically one valve will shroud the other...
also... im prty damn sure that any head w. a 2.02I needs the pistons fly cut(except the tfs heads, because they change the angle/placement of the valve)
id be perfectly happy s/cing a 1.8/1.5 head or w/e... valve size sure as hell wouldnt stop me...
as a matter of fact, im getting ready to run the gt40 heads, and if i decide to s/c it later, **** if ill think twice because of the heads...
if valve size is so imp. then why are ppl making a reliable ~470rwhp on STOCK parts and a turbo(9psi, ill find the link if youd like)?
i just think theres more research needed to be done, intake valve size is not what u want to use to compare two heads to one another...
also... im prty damn sure that any head w. a 2.02I needs the pistons fly cut(except the tfs heads, because they change the angle/placement of the valve)
id be perfectly happy s/cing a 1.8/1.5 head or w/e... valve size sure as hell wouldnt stop me...
as a matter of fact, im getting ready to run the gt40 heads, and if i decide to s/c it later, **** if ill think twice because of the heads...
if valve size is so imp. then why are ppl making a reliable ~470rwhp on STOCK parts and a turbo(9psi, ill find the link if youd like)?
i just think theres more research needed to be done, intake valve size is not what u want to use to compare two heads to one another...