W2 Mopar inspection w/RAMM

-
R

RAMM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
2,456
Reaction score
3,043
Location
Ontario, Canada
Seriously though these heads are just here for a quickie inspection, touchup and back into service they go. Probably won't flow these as I already did that when I first ported them a few years ago. Story goes like this--Customer (a FABO member ) contacts me and asks to have his W2 heads ported , and I accepted the job-(there's probably a thread here somewhere). Customer bolts them to a 371 shortblock and goes 10's with a Hughes solid flat tappet cam that seems to work awesome with these. Eventually a connecting rod fails and the customer sends the heads back for inspection.

So here we are with heads that overall look really good.

The good: Guides are beautiful, no signs of valve float on the valve tips, and the valve job looks great.

The bad: 1 intake / 1 exhaust valve is bent, valve springs lost about 9-10lbs and had to mangle the valve seals removing them.

Other than that these will be getting thourghly cleaned, valves lapped and a slight resurface probably about .003"-.004". J.Rob

W2Disassemble.jpg


thumbnail_20210108_154116.jpg


W2chamberbentvalve.jpg
 
RAMM, can you try to explain why these heads make so much power? I mean W2s in general, not this particular set.
 
Last edited:
@baracus , In a nut shell, it is a large port large volume head without obstruction from the pushrods that can be shaped very nicely into a high flowing port.

When you compare a port Edelbrock head next to a W2, you can see the pushrod bulge protruding (sp?) into the iintake port. Even if you remove the pushrod pinch and port the head to match cfm rates, the W2 heads port is larger and flow the same amount of air. That just boils down to more air and fuel enteringthe cylinder. Air flow rates are nice to know but they don't mean a lot if you don't know a few things about the head itself. Items like the total cross sectional area of the port, quality of air flow, etc...

Sorry if I stole to much thunder there RAMM!!! Please take it from here....
 
rumblefish360 said:
@baracus , In a nut shell, it is a large port large volume head without obstruction from the pushrods that can be shaped very nicely into a high flowing port.

When you compare a port Edelbrock head next to a W2, you can see the pushrod bulge protruding (sp?) into the iintake port. Even if you remove the pushrod pinch and port the head to match cfm rates, the W2 heads port is larger and flow the same amount of air. That just boils down to more air and fuel enteringthe cylinder. Air flow rates are nice to know but they don't mean a lot if you don't know a few things about the head itself. Items like the total cross sectional area of the port, quality of air flow, etc...

Sorry if I stole to much thunder there RAMM!!! Please take it from here....
Click to expand...
Rumble, that's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. Why haven't anyone made an aluminum copy of the w2s?
 
RAMM would have answered it better and fuller. I'm sure if it needs to be added to, he will.

There have been by 2 companies. MoPar didn't bother and just let the other places do it for them and they were easy-ish to get. Batten and Diamond.
MoPar just kept with the cast iron since making the power with the iron material wasn't an issue. It is super durable, tough as heck vs aluminum. There were also classes at the various race tracks that demand you run an iron head. Aluminum is a great weight saver and helps time slips in drag or roundy cars, it was not legal. It has always been expensive to run a Chrysler, even though it made more sense because they were making more power than the Fords or Chevies and the Oldsmobiles and etc... Making the same head twice out of two different materials is a huge PIA and expensive twice round for Chrysler.

Runnning A iron W2 has a weight penalty of approximately 50 lbs. or maybe a slight more? IDK, I could weigh a bare W2. Some will scream it is huge amount of weight, (I really don't think it is at the "END of the WORLD" level they portray it is) what makes it even worse than just simply the weight, it is also the placement, in the worst spot, up front, up high on the engine.

Any weight saved is exactly the same as adding more power to the car engine wise. It is also the same as a better suspention and handling. All of this free HP due to the heads material and weight there of is a worth while avenue to take.
On a street engine, or where your not worried about every last tenth, an iron head is just fine. Super durable! You'll have then past your kids growing up and handing them down to there kids....if they still make gasoline...or something to run them in the future....LMAO
 
Last edited:
When did batten stop producing heads? There is not much info about them on the net. Did they make pedastel and non versions too?
 
I had a couple sets of rectangle port Battens. I loved those heads.. Paint them and they looked iron. I lost them to Ryan Johnson. Shady dell machine. Indy 's are actually the new Battens. I like the 360-1 heads. They were the closest to my Battens and no porosity.

spoiler pics 191.jpg


DSCN0189.JPG


DSCN0193.JPG
 
Very nice. That, to me, is what I look for in any engine work. Not flashy dyno readings. Making power that lasts and isn't tearing at its own flesh is where it's at.

Weight and power.....making power used to be expensive and hard. It's gotten much cheaper and much easier. Shedding weight, on the other hands, remains hard and expensive. The killer part about weight is....it's always there. Once you leave the starting line, every MPH you gain comes at the expense of each pound you carry. When you are going 100MPH, that extra 50 lbs. of cylinder head, that set of passenger seat belts, that air conditioning compressor, that radio, are all along for the ride. Then, you have to slow them down, too. If you decide to turn...they try to keep you going straight. Weight on a car is like weight on a woman....you strive to only have it where wanted but you wind up with it in lots of other places. And if you do get it only where you want it, you can't afford it!
 
I sure wish I wouldn’t have bought and worked with a set of Econo W2 heads that were prone to cranking. They flow over 300 cfm so easy it isn’t funny with a 2.02 valve. Up the valve size and 320-330 is well within reach. I gotta do some real work to hit 320 with and edelbrock head and it’s still lacks volume. Kinda curious to see how moving the pushrod over on these edelbrocks pays off. They sure have volume now.
 
pittsburghracer said:
I sure wish I wouldn’t have bought and worked with a set of Econo W2 heads that were prone to cranking. They flow over 300 cfm so easy it isn’t funny with a 2.02 valve. Up the valve size and 320-330 is well within reach. I gotta do some real work to hit 320 with and edelbrock head and it’s still lacks volume. Kinda curious to see how moving the pushrod over on these edelbrocks pays off. They sure have volume now.
Click to expand...


Chrysler should have continued the W5 and fixed the crap castings and used .200 longer valves.

That head would have been better than the W2 for these long stroke builds.

Of course...one could argue that would have been a W7 casting and it would be close. So maybe just kill the W2 and W5 and keep the W7.

But...that didn’t happen.
 
"Uhhhhh, no the W5 is NOT an aluminum W2. Not even close. Neither is a W7 which isn’t a W5."

I think it was just a tongue-in-cheek comment...but telling nonetheless. I bought W7's specifically to avoid the tales of leak issues with W5's. For what it's worth, I've been told the W7/8/9 are all very similar and are sort of in a family by themselves. The W7's that I have look like W9's with a lot less material removed (or cast).
 
I was always told the Indy 360-2 head was as close to a W2 head as you could get. I had one set of Batten heads on my flowbench years ago that a buddy of mine was interested in. Man if I remember right they hit 330 cfm but had well over 1/4 inch (probably 3/8 - 7/16 lol) of cracked epoxy in them. He couldn’t repair them and I didn’t want to repair them.
 
This is my W7'swith Chapman's CNC port work. This is the second highest flow level they offer(ed).

flow.jpg
 
Oldmanmopar said:
I had a couple sets of rectangle port Battens. I loved those heads.. Paint them and they looked iron. I lost them to Ryan Johnson. Shady dell machine. Indy's are actually the new Battens. I like the 360-1 heads. They were the closest to my Battens and no porosity.
Click to expand...

Sorry to read of the Batten loss. A horrible thing.

gregcon said:
Very nice. That, to me, is what I look for in any engine work. Not flashy dyno readings. Making power that lasts and isn't tearing at its own flesh is where it's at.

Weight and power.....making power used to be expensive and hard. It's gotten much cheaper and much easier. Shedding weight, on the other hands, remains hard and expensive. The killer part about weight is....it's always there. Once you leave the starting line, every MPH you gain comes at the expense of each pound you carry. When you are going 100MPH, that extra 50 lbs. of cylinder head, that set of passenger seat belts, that air conditioning compressor, that radio, are all along for the ride. Then, you have to slow them down, too. If you decide to turn...they try to keep you going straight. Weight on a car is like weight on a woman....you strive to only have it where wanted but you wind up with it in lots of other places. And if you do get it only where you want it, you can't afford it!
Click to expand...

Love it!

Krooser said:
W5 were an aluminum W2....
Click to expand...

With rectangle ports... I think that is how most people see it.

yellow rose said:
Uhhhhh, no the W5 is NOT an aluminum W2. Not even close. Neither is a W7 which isn’t a W5.
Click to expand...

Most people will say the W5 is a rectangle aluminum version of the W2.

yellow rose said:
Chrysler should have continued the W5 and fixed the crap castings and used .200 longer valves.

That head would have been better than the W2 for these long stroke builds.

Of course...one could argue that would have been a W7 casting and it would be close. So maybe just kill the W2 and W5 and keep the W7.

But...that didn’t happen.
Click to expand...

IMO, A factory hp/light race head in aluminum and iron are the W2-5 set. As cast they more a good bit more air than a stock head.
The W-7-8-9 are race heads. Extra bolt bosses are a key. There own family if you wish to see it that way.
 
baracus said:
RAMM, can you try to explain why these heads make so much power? I mean W2s in general, not this particular set.
Click to expand...

Rumble did do a fine job of explaining but maybe I can distill it down even further. I know I'm gonna catch some flack for this but here goes.

The major keys to the W2's success in power potential/production is not really what is staring you in the face. I will start with what isn't as important about the W2. What I mean by that is the large port design and mostly removed pushrod pinch. It is the shape and the deep bowls which require a long valve which then allows the fantastic tall short side these heads possess. By shape I am referring to the ovality of the port runner--As we all know small radius sharp corners don't really do much for flow or even valuable cross section. But really it is the deep deep round bowls that you can shape into a venturi--ish shape if you know how to do it. The exhaust ports are also valuable players here and the W2 features an almost straight up and out shot with again an absolutely amazing short side radius. The short side design is by far what allows this head to attain excellent low-mid lift flow rates (which is tied directly to velocity) AND hang on to excellent upper lift flow rates.

In my mind in order of importance for the W2's attributes would be:
1: Shortside radius shape and height--(It's actually too tall but you have a ton to work with to get it right)
2: Bowl depth and shape
3: Exhaust shortside radius
4: Intake port shape (oval)
5: Chamber shape (Closed or open chamber- both work excellent)

It is NOT the large intake opening and awful pushrod angle or the mega offset intake rocker required that makes this head work. In fact I hate the massive side loaded rocker required, but there is no getting around it. That's it in a nutshell and I can share a story that corroborates what I said with something I tried 15-16 years ago. Hope this helps someone. J.Rob
 
W2 heads remind me of a set of Chevy cast iron Dart Platinum heads i ported for a friend. The short side is so high and easily widened. You can port a head like that to match your planned valve lift so easily it isn’t funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top