Low Quality W5 Heads

[JedIEG]

I was wondering how many people have experience with, or have a set of the 'bad' low quality, porosity W5 heads?

Every time I read up on them, there is always the watchout for porosity and that they are bad, not worth the time because of the quality issues but not a lot of first hand experiance. I have never actually seen a set of the 'bad' heads for sale just a few sets where people got too greedy with thier porting.

I'm also curious if its just porosity vs core shift or other material issues or something totally different that was the root of the bad wrap on those heads.

 

[pishta]

Can't porosity be cured with a good epoxy coating? A pressure test would show any faults I suppose.

 

[B3422w5]

I have had first hand experience with them. The porosity is indeed bad. Despite what some Mopar fanatical purists might claim, both the early castings and the later supposedly “ better” blue core plug castings all suffer from what I said above.
One area in particular to pay very close attention is the area of the roof.
A set I had done by a well known at the time pro, left them so thin that my engine builder could actually poke a pencil through the spring pads.
There isn’t enough meat there.
They perform pretty well. But be advised rocker gear isn’t cheap( Erson at one time offered shaft type rockers that worked extremely well with a modest price point. I had a set. I ultimately went with a Jesel setup that was bulletproof.
TTI at one time made a very nice shelf W5 header, but they don’t any more.
Were it me, and I was debating which way to go, I wouldn’t recommend this route. I would go with Indy heads, which while still imperfect are a better solution. Or with the advent of Gen 3 aftermarket stuff, that’s another option.
If your goals are 700 horsepower or less, the BPE heads are proven to be capable of that level.
Frankly there are VERY few W5 combo’s I have seen go down a track that make any more than that. Mine did, made 708 on a dyno, which is just that, a dyno, but they went 140 mph at 3220 which is what the car weighed when that happened. No vacuum pump, etc, etc.
Anyhow, with some tweaks and better foundry (s), but that never happened.

 

[Rocket]

I had one out of a pair that failed a pressure check. This was a new head from Mopar that came with valve seats installed. I ended up using W2 heads instead.

Epoxy and line treatments can work but need to be watched and redone from time to time.

I heard that Brett Miller was thinking about making his own W5 but not sure where that stands or if he is pursuing that at this time.

I agree with B3422W5’s advice on other head options. There are also the other W series heads (7, 8 & 9) but they are pricey and require custom headers for your application.

 

[MMissile]

Porosity, isn't anything new at mopar performance. The quality of their parts, depends on who's making them for Chrysler.
My new SB, has one mopar part...and it'll probably leak. Timing cover.

 

[autoxcuda]

The MP stuff casted at “BB” for Buddy Bar has seemed to always been good

 

[273]

Just curious I get what porosity is, but exactly does do to the head ?
Leaks ? brittle ? chucks fall off ? poor surface in the ports ?

 

[B3422w5]

Just curious I get what porosity is, but exactly does do to the head ?
Leaks ? brittle ? chucks fall off ? poor surface in the ports ?

Leaks

 

[JedIEG]

What I am more interested in with the W5 is its better, cleaner port geometry than the non-offset heads (better short turn, no pushrod pintch, no head bolt boss butting in) and works with the 59° block without huge modifications like the w7,8,9. Also normal la intakes can be modified to work with the w5s but I dont think w9s can and ductile shaft rockers with bushing instead of needle bearings.

To me me w5s looks like the perfect candidate design for mildly ported high performance street head, not the all-out race head its usually aimed as. The w2/5 ports look really efficient in stock form and I would bet translate to better economy and driavability than a non offset head with a similar flow.

I think the technology to deal with porosity has improved a lot in the past 10-20 years and may make the bad W5s worth looking at again. I've dealt with porosity in castings at work and it was surprisingly cheap and straight forward to deal with. I just never see those offered.

 

[JedIEG]

Just curious I get what porosity is, but exactly does do to the head ?
Leaks ? brittle ? chucks fall off ? poor surface in the ports ?

Hers is an edelbrock rpm I sent back because of surface porosity. Similar to the shrinkage (interal) porosity in a W5. The porosity is the speckeling on the firedeck.

 

[273]

View attachment 1716427103
Hers is an edelbrock rpm I sent back because of surface porosity. Similar to the shrinkage (interal) porosity in a W5. The porosity is the speckeling on the firedeck.

So it's mainly on the gasket surfacers that's the problem ?

 

[B3422w5]

So it's mainly on the gasket surfacers that's the problem ?

No, in the bowls, ports, everywhere.

 

[B3422w5]

What I am more interested in with the W5 is its better, cleaner port geometry than the non-offset heads (better short turn, no pushrod pintch, no head bolt boss butting in) and works with the 59° block without huge modifications like the w7,8,9. Also normal la intakes can be modified to work with the w5s but I dont think w9s can and ductile shaft rockers with bushing instead of needle bearings.

To me me w5s looks like the perfect candidate design for mildly ported high performance street head, not the all-out race head its usually aimed as. The w2/5 ports look really efficient in stock form and I would bet translate to better economy and driavability than a non offset head with a similar flow.

I think the technology to deal with porosity has improved a lot in the past 10-20 years and may make the bad W5s worth looking at again. I've dealt with porosity in castings at work and it was surprisingly cheap and straight forward to deal with. I just never see those offered.

You seem to be forgetting the availability of the Indy heads. And BTW, the W5 as cast is a dog. Think they go 250-260 stock. Have 3/8 guides and 2.02 valve.
They need a lot of money and effort to be whipped into shape. At the end of the day, they are still a “ small “ head for a stroker deal.

 

[JedIEG]

I'm a bit neurotic. There is a small chance that the surface porosity would line up with the sealing land and cause a combustion leak. Since it was a brand new part I called Edelbrock and they agreed to exchange them.
The W5s fail pressure check due to internal porosity creating a leak path between the waterjacket and the port, especially when they are heavily ported.
Here's some quick reading if that discribes it a bit better.
Video: When Should I Impregnate a Casting - Godfrey ï¼ Wing

 

[rumblefish360]

I was wondering how many people have experience with, or have a set of the 'bad' low quality, porosity W5 heads?

Every time I read up on them, there is always the watchout for porosity and that they are bad, not worth the time because of the quality issues but not a lot of first hand experiance. I have never actually seen a set of the 'bad' heads for sale just a few sets where people got too greedy with thier porting.

I'm also curious if its just porosity vs core shift or other material issues or something totally different that was the root of the bad wrap on those heads.

I have a set of W5 well ported. One head gave up in the intake port. The porter was Brett Miller. He told me the port was bad enough that this was as far as he could go with it and used an epoxy, brand unknown to me.

The previously mentioned BPE head is every last bit as good as the W5 if not a hair better. Use that head.

If, IF! The W5 head ports out to its fullest, reports have been seen 335 cfm with one fella reporting 350 plus.
If you get it to 320/330, call it maxed out and good. 300cfm is in theory for 600 and then a little more HP ——-

DEPENDING ON HOW YOUR GOING ABOUT BUILDING YOUR ENGINE! No sissy *** **** “I wanna run pump gas & be king of the world delusional crap!”

Hit it like a crazy hot chick while you’re watching a ICBM fall from the sky. Last chance to be a star boy! Hit it good!


The valve train for the W5 has been called expensive here. I disagree to a degree. First off, it costs the same as a W2 and that’s still cheaper than when the Chevy guys make their conversion and upgrade to a better valve train for the mouse motor. Don’t be fooled! Do your price checking. On everything!

Jesel or TD are your vendors.
Older sets of MP/Crane rockers float around but are not as excellent as the other two companies.

The only place I seen anything exhaust wise for the W5 makes flanges and snub tube flanges (I forget their name, sorry) which means, your making the exhaust from the flange, stub or not installed. If you have t made headers before, you’re ok going to more than likely invent new curse words and rename your car to a word(s) that the public usually frowns on. Might get you slapped by a women.


Below are pictures of the W5 flange for the do it yourselfer and the flow rates on a as cast and Brett Miller W5 head.

 

[rumblefish360]

W5 report from Brett on a 4.125 bore
Then the
W5 report from. Charlie Servedio’s on a 4.03 bore

I don’t like to race and not pick flow benches, debate what system, program, days temp, how high up or close to the water I am. I just don’t give a flying ****. Argue among yourselves.

The before and after are the important numbers and hopefully from the same bench which keeps things more in line since the same bench is reporting.

 

[rumblefish360]

Pictured descriptions in order…

The port that gave up epoxy work.

W5 top end candy shot

Comparing port heights, W5 left, Edelbrock right. Exhaust first, intake last.

Enjoy

 

[TurboGLH]

I'm a bit neurotic. There is a small chance that the surface porosity would line up with the sealing land and cause a combustion leak. Since it was a brand new part I called Edelbrock and they agreed to exchange them.
The W5s fail pressure check due to internal porosity creating a leak path between the waterjacket and the port, especially when they are heavily ported.
Here's some quick reading if that discribes it a bit better.
Video: When Should I Impregnate a Casting - Godfrey ï¼ Wing

We used vacuum impregnation on all our dyno castings at my last position, it really does wonders. Godfrey/Wing has a place in Rhode Island and there used to be a place in West Hartford, CT as well, but it looks like they've gone under.

Long and the short, if I had a casting I was worried about, the very first thing I'd do is have this done.

 

[Les Gibson]

While I'm no head guru and won't pretend to be, I've had very good luck with the W5 heads on my 422 stroker small block. They are the 'blue plug' version. They've been CNC ported, and yes do have some epoxy in a couple of ports. I haven't detected any leaks anywhere in these heads. I don't have any flow numbers for these heads. I run Harland Sharp rockers on these heads and they work well, and are far less expensive than the T&D and Jesel set ups. As for headers, yes a custom set had to be built, but not just because of the heads, also because of the Alston chassis. I had W2s on by previous car and they worked well also. If anything were to happen to damage these W5s I'd probably go with the Indy heads if I couldn't find another set of W5s. These W5s are good enough to blast my Arrow to 9.teen time slips at 146 mph in the 1/4. Just my experience and two cents worth.