w2 heads on 360.?????????

[ROWDY]

I've put the 588b1 on hold for some street fun.I'm looking at building a 360 with aluminium w-2's.The plan was w5's but i was told the oil galleries were'nt matching with the block(destroying valve gear)and mopar didn't want to know about the problem.
So i'm looking into w2's but nobody here has ever used them,so i'm looking for some experiences with performance of the head.The combination as such is still undecided but will be running n02 for that extra fun.
Any suggestions will be much appreciated!!!

[Christopher]

I haven't seen any aluminum W-2's from Mopar,just the ones C.J.Batten made years ago.But I 'd use a set of W-2's in a heartbeat,whether they be iron or aluminum.These are very good cylinder heads in my opinion,and I'm kind of surprised that more people don't use them.They are plentiful on the used market as well since Mopar started making them in 1976.

[MopART]

The W-2 is a great head and Christopher presented me with this option a while back so I gave it some attention. My turn-off was that I was not willing to spend the $$$ to fit the W-2 heads to a non W block. The instruction and explanations in the Mopar Engines Book is good for this fit. And not only are the heads expensive, but you have to buy a rocker set-up specific to the W-2 including pedistals if they don't come on the heads. If ya' got the $$ I say go. Aside from the Magnums the W series heads are the best flowing production Mopar head ever..

good luck

[340king]

My experience with the W-2's(cast econo) on a 360 leads me to believe what one of my dyno simulation programs predicted. The program predicted that the better heads would not significantly help the 360, but I did nearly hit the predicted HP at the predicted rpm.

The program I hit the numbers on more or less pointed out that the head flow numbers while important, were not as important as other engine combinations. The HP difference per cfm increase is lower for the 360 than the 340. I am going to go out on a limb here and give my theory why.

When we look at strokers, the big block engines always seem to work. The small block strokers seem to be more limited in success. Muscle Motors does not promote their SB strokers anymore. The computer program predicts that the increased stroke causes a rather marked increase in friction loss. The 340 has a more ideal bore to stroke ratio. The longer stroke of the 360 hurts this ideal ratio.

On big blocks, the increase in cubic inches per inch of increased stroke is higher. That gives enough more work volume to overcome the adverse affects of the increased friction.

So how does this come into play with the 360. The 360 will be in the higher HP loss rpm area before the real benefit of the W-2's is felt. Therefore, head flow is less important. If you were looking to hop up a 340, I would say knock yourself out with the aluminum W-2's.

BTW my 12.2:1 Ross pistoned 360+.060" made 500 HP at 6,000 rpm. The computer predicted 519 at 6,000 rpm and 521 at 6,500 rpm. This engine pulled about the same as my 360+.030" KB 12.5:1 pistoned, stock unported Z casting headed claimer motor. The Ross/W-2 engine had a Ultradyne tight lash cam while the KB engine had a 15 year old Reed cam. The KB engine currently resides in a '70 Duster that runs 11.75 sec @ 112 mph in the 1/4.

I know this is a long answer, but I wanted to give you my reasons for the lack of support for the W-2 360 combo. I replaced the W-2's with 360 High Swirl heads with 1.94 pro-stock valves. With minor porting these things show they will run as well as the W-2's on a 360 on the computer dyno. I haven't put the combo on the track yet. Hope this helps.

[ROWDY]

340king....i'd love to have the 340 but they are so rare out here and if you do buy a long block they're asking about $2000 australian..thanks for the advice your always good for it.I'm gonna keep my eye out for that 340 now.Thanx to all