Identifying (possibly) mis-matching heads

[foothilltom 33]

Hey guys.  Was surprised to see two different castings on the driver/passenger heads on my boy's 69 coupe 302 .  Wondering if you can help me determine if there's any real difference between them.

One head has "302" stamped on the valve cover side.  Turning it over, I see "C8OE" with a "J".  Research suggests this is : 

C8OE-J

68-70 302

Valves 1.78, 1.45

The other head is stamped "289" and "7A" on the valve cover side and a smaller but readable "C80E" stamped on the other side.  No letter designations that I could find.  This makes it hard for me to figure out if these heads are the same fundamentally.

The motor isn't original and the casting reveals a 1971 Torino/Fairlane origin.  I only mention that as there clearly wasn't a purist doing the engine swap back in the day.

If these have different specifications, it may explain a lot of the weird running behavior this motor has (separate thread on that).  Would love to hear any confirmation that these heads are different based on what I've reported.

God bless,

Tom

[barnett468 418]

what are the date codes?

what thread has the weird running problems?

[foothilltom 33]

I need to go get some close-up photos in the daylight tomorrow.  Will post, but thanks for responding.  Other thread:

 

[barnett468 418]

measure the intake valve sizes to see if they are the same or not.

post photos of the combustion chambers. they be different sizes

there may be 2 more numbers after the 7A

 

[foothilltom 33]

Hey guys, I took some good photos.  I hope they help identify what I have here.    In case the pictures are too difficult to see, I can say the following with confidence:

The 289 head is from Windsor Factory and only has C80E and 7A casted on the valve side.

The 302 head has the Cleveland Factory casting and has C80E as well as a J.

So clearly these heads are not "matching" but I'm not sure if they are functionally different.  They sure came from different places.

My dial caliper only goes to 1/64 inch resolution and it appears to me the valve diameter is the same for both heads.  I'm less skilled at measuring the combustion chamber, but they also appear to be the same.  Let me know if the photos aren't useful and I'll zoom in.

Valve side:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/KnApKw86hSdAZyj22

https://photos.app.goo.gl/iRN9EIMSCGdtE58T2

Rocker side:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/hBEL7WavyfwpGpxb8

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZmquHdqLRFyDcew53

[barnett468 418]

from what i can see, the combustion side looks identical on both heads. you posted the same photo twice of the valve cover side.

 

what are the date codes?

[foothilltom 33]

Updated the post with the right photos.  Where would a brother find the date codes?  I'm staring intently at the photos...maybe I need to go back out in the daylight tomorrow and look for smaller castings?  

[barnett468 418]

2 minutes ago, foothilltom said:

Updated the post with the right photos.  Where would a brother find the date codes?  I'm staring intently at the photos...maybe I need to go back out in the daylight tomorrow and look for smaller castings?  

it is under the valve cover . i can see it on the first head you posted but not clear enough to read it.

[barnett468 418]

looks like they are interchangeable.

 

if you spray carb cleaner in the ports one side at a time then look in the combustion chamber at the valve you can see if any are leaking.

 

 

[foothilltom 33]

Ok, I think I have it.  On the 289 (Windsor) head, the date code is "8B27".  

On the 302 (Cleveland), it appears to be "8B1".

Would that make sense?  If there are other codes casted in there, I'm not seeing them.

[foothilltom 33]

And thanks for the tip about testing for leaking.  I don't know if you've seen my other thread, but I'm at this cross-roads of whether I should throw my time at this 302.  If the heads are "functionally" the same, that wouldn't count as a strike against it.  

[barnett468 418]

8 minutes ago, foothilltom said:

Ok, I think I have it.  On the 289 (Windsor) head, the date code is "8B27".  

On the 302 (Cleveland), it appears to be "8B1".

Would that make sense?  If there are other codes casted in there, I'm not seeing them.

feb 27 1968 and feb 1 1968 s they are both for a 68, not a 69.

 

[barnett468 418]

7 minutes ago, foothilltom said:

And thanks for the tip about testing for leaking.  I don't know if you've seen my other thread, but I'm at this cross-roads of whether I should throw my time at this 302.  If the heads are "functionally" the same, that wouldn't count as a strike against it.  

i thought your block was .060" over.

[foothilltom 33]

It is indeed .060" over.   And it's a 1968 Torino/Fairlane block in a 69 Mustang.  That 2nd part I knew.

Regarding my  other thread, I wouldn't dream of doing any machining on this block or throwing any machine-shop money at it, but I am still toying with the notion of just trying to solve some of the complaints I had (low compression, poor idle, leaks) with a ring job, timing chain, and new gaskets.   I've probably not been super clear nor am I really super savvy on all this, but part of me wants to salvage what the boy has.  I want to get him road-worthy and the Stang out of my garage :)  If money were no object, this block would have been on craigs yesterday.  But as it is, I'm not having a ton of luck finding a quality 351w rebuild out there nor am I getting super good reports on crate motors (with the exception of certain builders that would be out of my budget).  That's what is putting me on the fence about a super low-budge operation.  Probably not smart.  Like I said, I need shoving to a different motor.

I appreciate you helping me out with these heads.  So, I guess back in whatever decade the owners did this, they just chucked on two heads that were functionally equivalent but in no way matching.  I don't know if that would indicate a sloppy rebuild or what.  I guess when you stir in the .060 over business, they probably weren't super concerned about longevity.

I should just skulk away from this motor, but other than the stuff I've reported, I don't have physical evidence that the bottom end is in bad shape.  In your opinion, would you not even drive on a .060 over?

Tom

[Midlife 814]

Cheapest solution is simply to keep running this engine until it no longer runs well or you have sufficient money to replace it.

[barnett468 418]

ok, well if it didn't run hot, which would be the first one that never did at .060". you need to have the bores measured for roundness and taper and have the pistons measured. if they are within spec and there is no ridge at the top of the bores, you can just lightly hone it and throw it back together but it will still only have around 8.5 compression so it will still not have any power to speak of.