[JV106]

205’s would work fine and give you room to grow if you ever decide to up the cubic inches.

When I priced the 11r’s the difference in cost between the 190’s and 205’s was about $500 for the set. The 205’s did not flow much more than the 190’s, so for the cost difference I went with 190’s.

I wish they offered 11r’s with a wider header bolt pattern. The stock 302 bolt pattern just sucks for larger primary headers.

 

[96pushrod]

I wish they offered 11r’s with a wider header bolt pattern. The stock 302 bolt pattern just sucks for larger primary headers.

This is the only thing I hate about the 11r heads. Getting my 1 3/4 primaries in was a royal pain in the ass. Like a hour and a half ordeal.

 

[Cougar5.O]

If you are going to put a burr to an intake - NEVER just do a port match.........

Even though I know what your point is here, it's a bit of a broad statement. A Supervic tapers a ton to allow it's use on smaller heads. Port matching it to, say, an AFR220 head can gain 30-50 CFM (intake flow, but combined flow benefits from a consistent taper from plenum to intake throat.) Granted it's a lot of work as one has to go 2-4" into the runners to keep the taper proper.

 

[CDW6212R]

If you are going to put a burr to an intake - NEVER just do a port match.........

Tom, how would you describe the TFS R lower ports near the head? I finally settled on a head choice, they will be CNC 205 ported TW Track Heat heads. Would you think those ports will be close, the intake is untouched right now?




I would not hesitate to run big heads on a 302, given a custom cam. The Boss 302 had 2.25" intake valves, and a dual plane intake from the factory in 1969. That had little low end torque, but it raced well in SCCA.

 

[rob]

Boss 302 was a turd accelerating from the factory.

 

[CDW6212R]

Boss 302 was a turd accelerating from the factory.

That was an extreme example I know, the bottom end wasn't good. But Ford built and sold it, and it was driveable on the street. Our standards are higher today, but those things did run good for what they were. My first engine build was a 351C-4V, and it was soft taking off, but great after 25mph. Today we want it all, great top end, and a strong low range too. The EFI and better matched intakes now etc, help to make it happen.

 

[Barsh1995]

Boss 302 was a turd accelerating from the factory.

That was an extreme example I know, the bottom end wasn't good. But Ford built and sold it, and it was driveable on the street. Our standards are higher today, but those things did run good for what they were. My first engine build was a 351C-4V, and it was soft taking off, but great after 25mph. Today we want it all, great top end, and a strong low range too. The EFI and better matched intakes now etc, help to make it happen.

That's a good example I think and I'm sure the heads flow better and are designed better now too but I'm far from a expert I guess if you gear the car low enough you could get the low end torque if it was that bad not like we're towing anything either

 

[tmoss]

Tom, how would you describe the TFS R lower ports near the head? I finally settled on a head choice, they will be CNC 205 ported TW Track Heat heads. Would you think those ports will be close, the intake is untouched right now?

Stock, the TFSR lower is cast for a 1250 size port. The head should be a 1262R port size or a tad less. What that means is the intake runner exit to the port will be smaller than the head. Is that defacto a bad thing? The intake exit is the last chance for the intake to "point" the central air column into the bowl which WILL influence how much filling you get. Point it at a shrouded side of the bowl and it will be a different fill than if you point it where the least bowl/valve cylinder fill restriction exists. We don't claim to have enough to dial in on all that, so we ALL make judgement calls and experiments on where that is. We've had fun watching results - just havin a good time.....

 

[tmoss]

That's a good example I think and I'm sure the heads flow better and are designed better now too but I'm far from a expert I guess if you gear the car low enough you could get the low end torque if it was that bad not like we're towing anything either

Welcome to old school - better learn how to shift :wink2:

 

[CDW6212R]

Stock, the TFSR lower is cast for a 1250 size port. The head should be a 1262R port size or a tad less. What that means is the intake runner exit to the port will be smaller than the head. Is that defacto a bad thing? The intake exit is the last chance for the intake to "point" the central air column into the bowl which WILL influence how much filling you get. Point it at a shrouded side of the bowl and it will be a different fill than if you point it where the least bowl/valve cylinder fill restriction exists. We don't claim to have enough to dial in on all that, so we ALL make judgement calls and experiments on where that is. We've had fun watching results - just havin a good time.....

Thanks, I asked that because I plan to bolt the TFS R lower onto my stock GT40 long block, then fit the KB blower. After that, I'll build a small stroker with the TFS heads to use the same intake/blower, dial in etc. I don't know how much a little porting of the intake could do given boost. But I might want to if I thought I might miss the power goal by a little.

 

[tmoss]

Thanks, I asked that because I plan to bolt the TFS R lower onto my stock GT40 long block, then fit the KB blower. After that, I'll build a small stroker with the TFS heads to use the same intake/blower, dial in etc. I don't know how much a little porting of the intake could do given boost. But I might want to if I thought I might miss the power goal by a little.

At two atmposheres about twice as much as N/A

 

[96pushrod]

If you are going to put a burr to an intake - NEVER just do a port match.........

Tom, how would you describe the TFS R lower ports near the head? I finally settled on a head choice, they will be CNC 205 ported TW Track Heat heads. Would you think those ports will be close, the intake is untouched right now?

Imo if you’re going to run the 205s then you should have the lower port matched. Matt did mine and it’s an absolutely perfect transition, not even a slight mismatch.

 

[AlexLTDLX]

Corral will say you will lose all that low rpm stump pullin, boat pullin TQ everyone on here loves so much.

I just saw the '16 in your sig - wow. Any info on it anywhere?

 

[1995gtCPE]

Corral will say you will lose all that low rpm stump pullin, boat pullin TQ everyone on here loves so much.

I just saw the '16 in your sig - wow. Any info on it anywhere?

Thx! It's my daily driver. I'll send u a pm.

 

[buddy rawls]

Boss 302 was a turd accelerating from the factory.

the two 'truly stock' boss 302s I have driven were quite strong. the key to a big port small motor is in letting it be a big port small motor. for a given rpm, the intake lobe will be quite small, and the exhaust has to be early. In addition the headers and exhaust system have to accommodate the inlet flow capability.

there is a reason that Ford recommended 1 7/8" and 2" primaries for the it.


big duration and tight lobe separation cams are not right for these set-ups. all that does is make for a motor that is not cammed right, does not generate good cylinder pressure, and has zero appeal until further up the rpm spectrum. In reality a large port slow velocity motor has all the filling capability it needs, it is not a restricted motor, and valve events and ramps are essentially used to boost velocity. A restricted motor uses valve events to increase filling potential. Torque and midrange with a large port motor like boss 302, even at modest rpms, can be more than enough to prove naysayers wrong.

the few I have done cams for were impressive, one a full race motor. but I have done more than a few 4V clevelands, sure a little different, with the larger cid, but still suffer from same stigma. everyone says the heads are too big and don't work. they work fine. its the combination that's not working.

 

[stangjumper]

Buddy would you say a smaller head like a 190 would work better in this situation? Obviously the correct cam and other supporting parts.

 

[rob]

Motor trend in 1969 ran 15.9@90. I am sure with mods the stock boss 302 can be an animal. I read all the the mags available to me on microfiche and never saw one perform.

 

[tmoss]

Motor trend in 1969 ran 15.9@90. I am sure with mods the stock boss 302 can be an animal. I read all the the mags available to me on microfiche and never saw one perform.

Do you think those would be the numbers today??? Were they run on stock tire technology for the day? We've come a long way baby....

 

[rob]

I’m talking about a boss from the factory. Throw a tire on it and it will be faster as will an old lx or a new coyote.

Obviously, doing the mods Buddy mentioned will make it go faster too.

 

[Saleen414]

Motor trend in 1969 ran 15.9@90. I am sure with mods the stock boss 302 can be an animal. I read all the the mags available to me on microfiche and never saw one perform.

Bias ply tires FTW. I remember back then having a 67' Mustang with what I thought was a bad ass 289 engine. I could do a one wheel burn out for blocks. Then radials came out and I was extremely disappointed when the car would not even bark the tires.