Looking for X Head Picture

-

Earlie A

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2023
Messages
993
Reaction score
1,417
Location
TN Hills
Can anyone post a picture of what they know is a factory valve job on an X head? I just picked up a set of 1967 production date heads that are in quite good shape, but I think they may have had 1 valve job. I have 4 angles on the intake and some non-concentricity. I believe the factory valve job would have been 3 angles, something like a 10-45-75. Pictures anyone?
 
A picture of a 58 year old cylinder head with a factory valve job? Good luck! Better be looking for a NOS casting. Hahaha
 
And I can't say this for certain, but I bet the factory didn't mess with 3 angle valve jobs.
 

What if the picture is 58 years old........... Magazine article maybe.
 
Last edited:
Here's a picture of a 1966 318 poly head. My dad bought the car new. I drove it until I took it apart in 1985. I know the engine was never taken apart before then, so the picture is a factory 3 angle valve job. Maybe we're using different terminology here, but the factory cuts are something like 10-45-75.

IMG_3674.jpg


Someone out there has an unmolested set of 58 year old heads just like my 59 year old heads.
 
A 3 angle valve job is how you center the contact area on the valve, moving the seat up or down. I am in purgatory, why would it be so important to know?
 
I suppose it's not really important, I just want to understand how they came from the factory.

I have a few sets of 587 heads and a set of 915 J heads. All of them have 3 angles and a few of them appear to be factory. I was guessing that the X heads (with a fourth angle) had been worked on at least 1 time.

What I'm calling 3 angles may be better described as a chamber cleaning cut (the 10 or 15 deg) and a bowl hogging cut (the 75 deg) with a 1 angle 45 valve job.
 
What I'm calling 3 angles may be better described as a chamber cleaning cut (the 10 or 15 deg) and a bowl hogging cut (the 75 deg) with a 1 angle 45 valve job.

That’s how I would describe the seat machining on every set of unmolested factory Mopar heads I’ve encountered.

Just like what that poly head looks like.
 
Those are machined surfaces yes
The factory had to do that to get a good clean surface free of casting residue
But. They are not a valve angle

Tommy
 
I recall the angle on the valve is 1 degree off for sealing? For example the seat is 45 degrees the valve is 46? I dunno its been years since I studied this and never worked in a machine shop as it only paid minimum wage right out of tech school etc.
 
I recall the angle on the valve is 1 degree off for sealing? For example the seat is 45 degrees the valve is 46? I dunno its been years since I studied this and never worked in a machine shop as it only paid minimum wage right out of tech school etc.
44° I believe
 
I have notes from a set of X heads I did several years ago.
First test is listed as “OE valves and OE valve job”

Lift——— I/E
.100— 54.6/48.5
.200—117.6/89.0
.300—170.4/117.1
.400—205.7/124.4
.450—216.9/128.1
.500—220.6/129.3
.550—220.6/130.5
.600—218.7/131.7
 
I have notes from a set of X heads I did several years ago.
First test is listed as “OE valves and OE valve job”

Lift——— I/E
.100— 54.6/48.5
.200—117.6/89.0
.300—170.4/117.1
.400—205.7/124.4
.450—216.9/128.1
.500—220.6/129.3
.550—220.6/130.5
.600—218.7/131.7

Man. That is impressive numbers right there
Good job

Tommy
 
Flowed it this morning. The only 2.02 3/8 valve I have is a Hughes. It has no back cut. I believe an OE valve would reduce my low and mid lift numbers and increase the numbers around 0.500. The vaporization ridge (if that's what it really is) helps the port 'hold on' a little longer before backing up.

587 head with 1.88 OE valve included as a reference.

IMG_3675.jpg
 
I have notes from a set of X heads I did several years ago.
First test is listed as “OE valves and OE valve job”

Lift——— I/E
.100— 54.6/48.5
.200—117.6/89.0
.300—170.4/117.1
.400—205.7/124.4
.450—216.9/128.1
.500—220.6/129.3
.550—220.6/130.5
.600—218.7/131.7
You must have a happy flow bench.
:rofl:
Sorry joke from another thread. I don’t think that’s out of the realm of possibility for a stock x head. Nor do I think the numbers from @Earlie A test are out of the realm of possibility. What is the margin of error on a flow bench in your opinion? Does the same head on a different day repeat fairly accurately?
 
The more relevant question in my mind would be, why would there be an expectation for two different factory castings of that vintage to flow the same as each other?

I freshened a set of 915 j heads a few years ago from a racer running in the factory stock events, that had been done by another shop.
They looked good, and decent parts in them, no porting of any kind.
The car ran decent numbers, and honestly, the heads didn’t really need freshening.

He had me flow one……….I was shocked at how good it was……215cfm.
Even taking into account the nailhead valves, it just seemed “too good”.
I scrutinized it pretty hard, saw nothing to explain it, so I flowed another port.
I don’t recall the numbers exactly, but it was very close.
More scrutiny…….more head scratching.

Then I decided to test the other head.
Tried 2 ports…..neither one broke 200.

That was a real “some castings are just better” moment.

FWIW, on both of the flow benches I’ve owned, X heads have had more flow than J heads.
 
The more relevant question in my mind would be, why would there be an expectation for two different factory castings of that vintage to flow the same as each other?
I think that’s a ridiculously fair observation.
 
I have heard the old stocker guys would buy EVERY head they could get their hands on and start testing. Some were just better, some were horrible. IIRC, they ended up which a bunch of “crappy” heads in the end not knowing what to do with them.
 
I have heard the old stocker guys would buy EVERY head they could get their hands on and start testing. Some were just better, some were horrible. IIRC, they ended up which a bunch of “crappy” heads in the end not knowing what to do with them.

I spent plenty of time measuring connecting rods back when there were no aftermarket substitutes looking for LONG ones.
 
Looking at the ports in those old heads it's amazing any of them were considered 'good'. They are all horrible by today's standards. Not really much difference between the X head port, the 915 J port or a 587 port. The X head intake port is about 5cc larger in the bowl and apex area and the 587 has the smog hump in the exhaust port. Other than that they are about the same. All are bad, some are worse.
 
It's the difference that die cast made so they are the same now. Core shift can be an issue.
 
Last edited:
-
Back
Top Bottom