early heads question

[Brant]

long story.
I was trying to find 69S heads to run on my 2.0 vintage car.

I had found a half set, but they had been cut to fit a 2.2

I was just told that Henry makes a spacer ring so they can still be used on a 2.0 motor.

This got me to thinking (dangerous)
is the stud spacing different on the 2.0 versus the 2.2?

could all 2.2 heads be used on a 2.0 with this spacer ring?

(don't have my bruce anderson book with me at work right now to verify if the stud spacing changed those years)

TIA
(auntie)
brant

[Henry Schmidt]

SEE ANSWERS BELOW.

Originally posted by Brant
..............................This got me to thinking (dangerous)
is the stud spacing different on the 2.0 versus the 2.2? No, the stud spacing is the same.

could all 2.2 heads be used on a 2.0 with this spacer ring? YES, with a caveat. The piston dome must be changed the maximize the conversion. 2.0 and 2.2 chamber shape and valve angle is different.

(don't have my bruce anderson book with me at work right now to verify if the stud spacing changed those years)

TIA
(auntie)
brant

[MBruns]

We build an 80-81mm cylinder that is for making a 2.0 with 2.2 cyl heads or like yours that have been machined to be like 2.2 take a look on our web site JBRacing.com
Mike Bruns

[Brant]

Henry,

ignoring compression differences...

If you changed pistons to match the 2.2 head shape
versus using the correct 69S head with the early piston shape.

which style/shape and valve angle is going to be best for a performance application? (I'm not allowed to twin plug)

Also, I'm not going to be able to afford top dollar pistons...
so it would likely be JE if that matters.

------------------------------------
MBruns, I'll definitely look at that .... thanks!
brant

[Brant]

MBruns, wow... nice website! Nice work.. very impressive stuff

Henry, and all....
one more question about going with the 2.2 heads;

Is the valve angle on the 2.2 so different that you need a 2.2 camshaft carrier box, or will the 2.0 cam box and gears all work?

brant

[Brant]

anyone care to venture a guess about the shape efficiency?

and do the early valve angles require different cam box's?





TIA

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally posted by Brant
anyone care to venture a guess about the shape efficiency?
and do the early valve angles require different cam box's?
TIA

The flatter the combustion chamber the better the air flow and flame propagation.
Small changes make big differences.
The early chamber is so deep that air flow is lame, especially at over lap.
This deep chamber also require a very steep piston dome that splits the flame causing detonation and an increased need for twin plugging.


No, valve angle do not effect cam tower choice.

Although the cam boxes changed throughout the years, they are all basically interchangeable.
That is a very broad statement so I'll clarify it slightly.

Early change boxes were designed with no oiling tube.
The next generation 67 had a oiling tube but oil 6 holes not nine.
Next came the cam towers with 9 hole oiling tube until 77
From 63-77 they had 3 47 mm cam journals. With one exception 76-77 3.0 Turbo.

In 78 the cam towers got 4 49 mm cam journal.

You can use any cam tower with any head with one caveat.
Valve stem lengths vary so if you put a 3 journal 47 mm cam tower on a 3.0 head the valve stems end up very short.
The valve stem length was changed to compensate for a large base circle on the 4 journal cam.

[Brant]

wow.. thanks again Henry.

sounds like for a race motor, I'm better of going with the 2.2 heads and different pistons... (practically the same price)

is there any reason not to do this?
do your rings seal fine for high performance applications?
is there any longevity trade off?

brant

[Wayne 962]

I agree. The 2.2 heads are a much improved design over the 2.0 ones...

-Wayne

[Henry Schmidt]

The best reason not to use the rings on old bored out biral cylinders is my new cylinders.
906 replica 81 mm Nikasil built for 2.2 -2.4 heads.

[Brant]

those are pretty..

how come this little head update project of mine is suddenly looking quite expensive.

brant

[kenikh]

Originally posted by Henry Schmidt
The best reason not to use the rings on old bored out biral cylinders is my new cylinders.
906 replica 81 mm Nikasil built for 2.2 -2.4 heads.

Are they done testing and up for sale now?

[Henry Schmidt]

Very close, you are just like me " the patience of a 4 year old.

[kenikh]

4 year olds love toys.

[kenikh]

Reopening this thread. I just opened a '69S motor that had an interesting surprise inside. The '69S heads have been cut for 84mm Biral cylinders, the pistons are indeed 84mm 'S' pistons, but, I see no evidence of the pistons being altered for the 2 liter valve angle. My questions:

1. If the pistons are unmodified, do you need to run a suboptimal deck height to clear the valves? I can potentially measure later, but don't have plastigage lying around and really have no need to do this other than morbid curiosity.
2. Since the domes are shallower, what CR are you looking at using 2.2S pistons in 2.0S heads?
3. What effect on air flow does the lower dome have on this combo?

For context, I bought this motor with the intent of using its parts to rebuild my numbers matching '69S case into a fully correct motor. It was running all '67S parts when I bought the car, which I have taken off the short block and sold. The decision I need to make now is to:

• Use my 80mm P/Cs from the old motor and use Henry's adapters with the heads from this motor.
• Use the 2.2S P/Cs from this motor and sue the heads as-is.

I was planning on using the 80mm 'S' P/Cs in my '65, which is why this is dillema.

[kenikh]

No one?