GT40s.com
MK-I  MK-II  MK-III  MK-IV  GULF  MIRAGE  J-CAR  LOLA
GT40s.com
Home Forum Gallery Support GT40s.com  
Register FAQ Advertisers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   GT40s.com > >

Notices

GT40 Tech - Engines/Induction/Exhaust Motors and engine related - right here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26th April 2006, 11:39 AM   #1
1074R/001
Rookie
Canada
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
GT40: Project
Posts: 38
Gurney Weslake Head performance

This is just a curiosity post. Does anyone have flowbench figures for the Gurney/Weslake or Gurney Eagle heads? I'm just curious to find out how they perform compared with modern SBF heads like the AFR 185s or equivalent.

Stew
1074R/001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2006, 12:02 PM   #2
Ron Earp's Avatar
Ron Earp
Administrator
United States
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NC, USA
GT40: None.
Posts: 6,944
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

They are eclipsed by variants like the 185s and others. And, bear in mind, there are shops that can improve the 185s with CNC porting while still keeping port velocity high. Not enough flow still - step up to 205 or 225s.

There are some figures running around on the forum on the GW heads though, showing them outflowing AFR heads. But the post didn't take into account the street/non-emissions 185 AFR heads and that things can be done to the AFR heads to improve them still further.

Fact is, you can get more flow for lower cost using a late model performance head.
Ron Earp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2006, 01:00 PM   #3
MikeDD's Avatar
MikeDD
10 tenths
United States
 
Join Date: May 2002
GT40: DRB
Posts: 1,499
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

Which is to be expected given 40 years of technology.
But for their time, the GW heads were awesome.

MikeD
MikeDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2006, 07:47 AM   #4
1074R/001
Rookie
Canada
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
GT40: Project
Posts: 38
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

I was pretty sure that many of the modern heads would outperform the original GW heads. Curiosity getting the better of me, I was wondering if anyone had some specifications so that I could compare them.

I'm also curious about the original cam grinds.

My goal is to equal the power of the '69 Gulf cars with a 331. The slight increase in displacement will allow for a slightly milder setup for the same peak power and with EFI and a good computer, the engine would be pretty friendly on the road while still being able to headbutt the horizon with enthusiasm.

Stew
1074R/001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2006, 05:58 PM   #5
1074R/001
Rookie
Canada
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
GT40: Project
Posts: 38
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

Guys,

After some surfing around the Net, I found this on the GW heads. Sounds like a completely stock, unported pair of heads.

Just in case you're interested.

Stew

*******************
The heads tested belonged to a friend and when we pulled the valves out,
it was apparent these heads were not going to live up to their potential.
It's not because of anything wrong in the basic design but rather they
didn't appear to have been finish-machined. There's a huge step at the
short side radius that's sharp enough to cut your finger on. Bob said
blending that area in would be worth a bunch of CFM and power. He guessed
the intakes wouldn't flow over 225 CFM but that, with some work, they
would pick up to 300+ CFM. The flow bench tells the tale. Same set up
as before (28" H20 pressure drop, clayed inlet radius, no pipe on the
exhaust):

Valve Gurney-Weslake SBF
Lift aluminum heads
(inch) Intake Exhaust
2.02" 1.60"

0.025 23 35
0.050 35 45
0.100 67 64
0.150 102 80
0.200 133 93
0.250 160 104
0.300 179 113
0.400 202 134
0.500 202 145
0.600 --- ---
*******************************
1074R/001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2006, 01:04 PM   #6
United States
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4
Gurney Weslake heads

> After some surfing around the Net, I found this on the GW heads. Sounds like
> a completely stock, unported pair of heads.

Those flow numbers you quoted were from me. They were indeed from a completely
stock set of heads, as purchased from Gurney. I also believe they were only
partially finished machined. That step I mentioned looks like a real flow
killer. With that removed and a good bowl porting and valve job, those heads
should do much better. I wouldn't be surprised to see them as good as the
majority of modern Windsor heads but that remains to be seen.

There were a series of Gurney heads. There were the Gurney AAR-designed MK1
heads that were cast by Alcoa and found to have insufficient thickess
is a few spots. The Weslake-designed heads went through several revisions
resulting in MKII, MKIII, and MKIV Gurney-Weslake heads. Most were cast
at William Mills in England. The MKIII was a minor revision of the MKII
race head and the MKIV was a narrowed version made to better fit into
Mustangs and Cougars. The MKIV heads were renamed Gurney-Eagles after
Gurney took over manufacturing responsibilities. That's the version we
tested. There was also a 3 valve pushrod head developed by John Miller
at AAR. The first set suffered from coolant passage problems that allowed
steam pockets to form and were subsequently revised to fix that problem.
I don't know that much about the 3 valve heads but I don't think they were
the success the Gurney-Weslakes were. This wasn't because of anything
fundamentally wrong with the heads (they out-flowed the Weslakes) but
rather there wasn't a racing venue for them (Can Am went big block, Ford
went Boss 302 in Trans Am, Formula 1 went V-12 and Cosworth, Indy was turbo
Offy and Ford 4 cam, Ford pulled out of Endurance racing, etc.) so I don't
think they were developed or raced to any menaingful degree.

Detomaso also had a version of the the Weslake heads prototyped. Some
pictures of the Detomaso heads, along with pictures of the MK-IV heads
we flow tested, can be seen on my website at:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album18

Notice the modern chamber shape of the Gurney-Weslake heads, along with
the intake runner optimized for independent runner manifolding. BTW, my
buddy Bill had Harland Sharp prototype a set of roller rockers for his
Gurney-Weslake heads. The G-W's have a shaft mounted rockers with
different intake and exhaust rockers.

> I was pretty sure that many of the modern heads would outperform the original
> GW heads. Curiosity getting the better of me, I was wondering if anyone had
> some specifications so that I could compare them.

We're hoping to get a pair of Gurney-Weslake heads to David Vizard for
analysis and a port job. Vizard knew the guy at Weslake who was
responsible for the Gurney head development. According to Vizard, one
of the Alan Mann-prepared Falcon's was making over 500 RWHP from a 302
in the late 1960's. Pretty impressive for the time. Vizard would like to
do an article on the Gurney-Weslakes, comparing them to modern heads to
see just how far we've really come.

> Which is to be expected given 40 years of technology.
> But for their time, the GW heads were awesome.

Just because they are old, doesn't mean they can't make modern power.
I've yet to test a set of Windsor heads that betters the 25 year old Ford
Motorsport high port heads. Those old canted valve heads are still
outstanding. My small port C302B street heads flow 331 CFM intake and
228 CFM exhaust (without the aid of a pipe) at 0.6" lift on a conservative
bench. That's better than the AFR 225cc race Windsor heads in the graph
above despite having smaller port volumes (note the AFR claimed exhaust
flow numbers are quoted with the aid of a pipe, without the pipe expect
to see 20-30 CFM less).

> I'm also curious about the original cam grinds.

I think I may have some information on that in the archives.

Dan Jones
Daniel Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2006, 01:23 PM   #7
Mark Worthington's Avatar
Mark Worthington
10 tenths
United States
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Massachusetts
GT40: RF No. 36
Posts: 1,930
Nice to have you here and bringing the tech, Dan.
__________________
Regards,
Mark

RF Chassis No. 36 still under construction
347, MoTeC EFI, pin drives, leather, etc.
Mark Worthington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2006, 09:06 AM   #8
sfm6s
2 Tenths
United States
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 257
More flow figures were posted in the dyno forum.
sfm6s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2006, 11:33 AM   #9
wireflight
United States
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 4
331 Alternative

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1074R/001
I was pretty sure that many of the modern heads would outperform the original GW heads. Curiosity getting the better of me, I was wondering if anyone had some specifications so that I could compare them.

I'm also curious about the original cam grinds.

My goal is to equal the power of the '69 Gulf cars with a 331. The slight increase in displacement will allow for a slightly milder setup for the same peak power and with EFI and a good computer, the engine would be pretty friendly on the road while still being able to headbutt the horizon with enthusiasm.

Stew
Hi, Stew.

If you haven’t already purchased your reciprocating assembly and had your block work done, please seriously consider the M-6010-BOSS302 block, punched-out to a 4.125-inch bore. With your 3.250-inch stroke, this will give you 347.47 cubic inches (5.694 liters), which is almost identical to the extremely popular “347” combination (like the M-6013-B347/C347). The latter uses a 4.030-inch bore and a 3.400-inch stroke for 346.95 cubic inches (5.685 liters).

The bigger bore provides more of a power increase than the simple increase in displacement suggests. First, it unshrouds the valves, making your heads more efficient: the better your engine breathes, the more power it makes.

And just so we’re on the same page: in the 1970s, NHRA Pro Stock racers like Bob Glidden campaigned the 351C -- using blocks that had been sleeved (rather elaborately: the process involved furnace-brazing and stress-relief) and bored to 4.080 inch. If they could have gone larger, they would have – not so much for the displacement as for the unshrouding of the valves.

The other benefit of a larger bore is a piston having greater surface area. Assuming a perfect seal between the piston and the cylinder, and a perfectly round cylinder:

Bore (inches) -- Surface Area (square inches)
4.000 -- 12.5664
4.030 -- 12.7556
4.080 -- 13.0741
4.125 -- 13.3640
4.155 -- 13.5591

If you apply 1000 psi to each (for instance, during the combustion event), the force translated by the 4.030-inch diameter piston is 12,566 pounds; the force translated by the 4.125-inch diameter piston is 13,364 pounds (nearly 8 percent more). Of course, if you’ve got the bucks, the M-6010-F302 block will shave about 70 pounds and let you go to a 4.155-inch bore!

Alternatively, the M-6010-S302 block weighs a few pounds more, but gives you an extra half inch of deck height to play with – room for a slightly longer rod and a much more “normal-looking” (and robust) piston!

There are a variety of ways to do EFI with the slightly-taller block, but the easiest is probably to use spacers between the heads and the intake; everybody seems to have his or her own idea about how to space an intake, so I’ll skip that – except I must mention this: don’t forget to add the thickness of the spacer (and gaskets) to the length of your intake runners when you’re getting a custom camshaft ground. Later in this message, I’ll get to what I mean by “custom camshaft.”

You want to use a 3-ring stack (compression, wiper, oil) on the street. Ford Racing Parts claims their M-6013-B347/C347 uses a set of 1.090-inch tall pistons, each featuring a 1/16-inch, 1/16-inch, 3/16-inch ring stack. The set of pistons is part number M-6108-C347. The distances between the rings must be incredibly thin! Even at that, it seems the top ring is going to take a severe beating from the heat.

The “assembled height” (cold) of a 3.400-inch stroke, a 5.400-inch connecting rod, and a 1.090-inch piston is 8.190 inches. Working backwards, if you limit yourself to an “assembled height” (cold) of 8.190 inches and you use a 5.400-inch connecting rod with a 3.250-inch stroke, your piston is 1.165 inches tall.

For a 3-ring stack, that’s still an awfully short piston -- imho -- however, it offers a lot more room for the rings than what Ford is selling. If you shorten the rod to 5.315 inches (a common aftermarket length for the SBF; the same length as the D0ZX-6200-A “302 Boss, 9000 rpm, competition-only” rod from Ford’s Off Highway Parts program), it gets even better: your piston is 1.250 inches tall -- which will allow the use of canted valves.

With a 3.250-inch stroke, the 5.400-inch rod will give you a rod:stroke ratio of 1.6615:1; the 5.315-inch rod will give you a rod:stroke ratio of 1.6354:1. For comparison, the 351C (including the Boss 351) has a rod:stroke ratio of 1.6514; the 350 SBC has a rod:stroke ratio of 1.6379:1. The 410 and 428 FE big blocks from Ford each has a rod:stroke ratio of 1.6304:1, and the 400 SBC has a rod:stroke ratio of 1.4840:1.

Any one of the foregoing engines can be configured to provide both a reasonably smooth idle and a broad powerband that is easily accessible.

To give you an idea of the potential of a small-bore 347 that has the wrong camshaft, check out http://popularhotrodding.com/enginem...ck/0506em_347/ but remember that’s an engine purpose-built to make good power numbers on pump gas during only a few pulls on a dynamometer. One look at the lift indicates the cam isn’t intended for street use -- and the insane valve spring pressures simply confirm this.

On the other hand, it says you can make 93.2 horsepower per liter using racing gasoline or E85, with a 10.6:1 compression ratio.

For something a lot more streetable -- and featuring EFI -- check out http://www.trickflow.com/articles/st...t_st_4_347.asp. The power curve looks a little strange, but you’re looking at a pretty mild, generic small-bore 347 that will probably run all day on 87PON petroleum gasoline (though you might have to retune for crappy gas), and crank out 70.9 horsepower per liter.

Holley gets almost the exact same power density from a 5.0 EFI engine while using a smaller cam; see the details at http://www.strokerengine.com/HolleySystemsFord.html.

But of you want to see something REALLY impressive, you’ll have to go to http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...book/index.php, where a small-bore 347 having 10:1 compression produces 421 RWHP (rear wheel horsepower) at only 6000 rpm in a 1991 Mustang GT.

For what it’s worth, that translates to well over 500 horsepower at the flywheel. That engine uses the 5.315-inch connecting rod with a 3.400-inch stroke, giving it a rod:stroke ratio of 1.5623:1 -- and though the camshaft will produce a significant lope, it is streetable.

Oh, here’s another link: http://truckinweb.com/brandpages/for...med/index.html. The engine is another small-bore 347, and it makes “only” 380 horsepower -- at only 4600 rpm! It’s carbureted, but still: pretty freaking impressive for pump gas and natural aspiration. Oh, and none of the above figures included laughing gas: “Ride too slow? Add a little N20 -- and away you go!”

http://www.jegs.com/ offers carbureted and EFI versions of the small-bore 347, in 9.5:1 compression with horsepowers to 435, and torques to 425 lbf.

But if you want to get the best output, I think the 4.125 x 3.250 combination is the way to go -- especially with the 5.315-inch connecting rod. And if you need even more punch, boost the stroke to 3.400 inches for 363.5 cubic inches (5.957 liters)! Vrooom!

Jesse
wireflight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2007, 12:47 AM   #10
United States
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6
Re: Gurney Weslake heads

Dan,

Referencing your May 2006 input do Gurney Eagle Mk IV heads have only one combustion chamber shape, the shape shown in the images you provided?

Ed Demas
emdemas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2007, 08:35 AM   #11
Ron Earp's Avatar
Ron Earp
Administrator
United States
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NC, USA
GT40: None.
Posts: 6,944
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

If you have a look at a user's profile it'll tell you when they last logged on. Dan was last here over a year ago and might not be following this thread any longer.

Ron
__________________
Ron Earp

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Ron Earp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2007, 05:59 PM   #12
United States
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

That's the only combustion chamber shape I've seen and is the one shown in the magazine articles of the day. It was a revision to the MKII design but I don't know if there were any later revisions. Also, it's not uncommon for heads to have their chambers altered for domed pistons.

Dan Jones
Daniel Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2007, 11:55 AM   #13
knighty
United States
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 2
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

I'm not a GT40 nut, but have an interest in the Gurney-Weslake heads and their down-draught configuration, while googling around I noticed Knight Race engines also do a re-make of this legendary head......looks like they have done a good job to me, see the pics and info in the attached link.......nothing to do with me by the way, I can assure you I'm in no way related!

Knight Racing Services

I would be interested to know what sort of power anyone is are now making on a 305 (5 litre) block fitted with GW heads, last I heard was 520bhp???......which is over 100bhp per litre, which is pretty impressive, even today!.......

please forgive my ignorance, whats the bore and stroke of a 305 block?........also - whats the valve angle of the GW heads?

Last edited by knighty; 11th September 2007 at 12:01 PM.
knighty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2007, 12:03 PM   #14
Bill D's Avatar
Bill D
I Have No Life
United States
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,512
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

A 305 would have a bore of 4.020 and a stroke of 3.000 (304.6 ci). A std 302 block with a 4.000 bore bored +.020 would work
Bill D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2007, 10:45 AM   #15
knighty
United States
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 2
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

Can anyone tell me the valve angles these GW heads were set at…….it looks quite minimal, I'm guessing around the 12 degree region?
knighty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2007, 11:41 AM   #16
JIMMYMAC's Avatar
JIMMYMAC
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hampshire, GB
GT40: Monocoque
Posts: 2,035
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

Jay Cushman might be able to help you.
__________________
James
Festina Lente

GT40 Monocoque, Original MKI Engine & Drivetrain
JIMMYMAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2012, 09:02 PM   #17
Jim
ranger jim
Rookie
United States
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: montana,usa
Posts: 41
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

Gurney/Westlake were of course on the right track with their cylinder heads. The only deficiencies the had was they went with 2 valves instead of 4. The standard 80 degree V8 head cannot compare with GW heads. The only way to improve on the GW head is to go Cosworth. Replacement aftermarket heads offer only minor improvement. ranger jim
ranger jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2012, 10:02 PM   #18
kazoom
CURRENTLY BANNED
Canada
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: calgary AB CND
Posts: 42
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

Hi, an interesting note is Gurney and Weslake did make multi 3-4 valve pushrod heads for the sbf+sbc engines that made some very good power #'s.




I have heard but not been able to confirm Weslake did make a test 4v sbf pushrod version baised off there sbc design also. Many dont know it but the 32 valve Dominion and Arao version heads are modeled after the old weslake design, just with there own take on using stock type int and exh setups.


Weslake link...
Just for interest's sake - Weslake SB Chevy 4-valve heads • Speed Talk

kazoom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2012, 08:38 AM   #19
MikeP's Avatar
MikeP
Gold Supporter
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oldham
GT40: GTD
Posts: 1,400
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

Here are a few pics of GW bits which may be of interest.
Cheers
Mike
Attached Thumbnails
Gurney Weslake Head performance-gurney-weslake-cylinder-head-2w-jpg   Gurney Weslake Head performance-gurney-weslake-cylinder-head-3w-jpg   Gurney Weslake Head performance-gurney-weslake-cylinder-head-jpg   Gurney Weslake Head performance-gw-chambersw-jpg   Gurney Weslake Head performance-gw-head-exw-jpg  

Gurney Weslake Head performance-gw-head-w-jpg   Gurney Weslake Head performance-gw-head-int-topw-jpg   Gurney Weslake Head performance-dusty-treasure-shelf-w-jpg  
Attached Images
File Type: bmp Gurney Weslake cylinder head 2W.bmp (900.1 KB, 2767 views)
MikeP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2012, 08:43 AM   #20
MikeP's Avatar
MikeP
Gold Supporter
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oldham
GT40: GTD
Posts: 1,400
Re: Gurney Weslake Head performance

This may be a bit rare - a Holley manifold for GW.
Cheers
Mike
Attached Thumbnails
Gurney Weslake Head performance-gurney-weslake-holley-inlet-manifoldw-jpg  
MikeP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:09 AM.