1931 flamingo
Well-known member
James Rogers: Is this "flaw" the reason you're selling the "new" heads on the SWAP site with the .060 "cut" ??
Paul in CT
Paul in CT
What does it matter, the studs are incorrect also. The only way to simulate Ford's original specs is to use NOS studs and mill the head to factory specs. Pouring the cast iron is not the problem, the machining is.
I can't believe that ANYONE WOULD NOT SEAT THE STUDS TIGHTLY!! That's how they were intended to be installed!!
When they're loose, they wobbble, if the stud turns while torqueing, then you're tightening with the coarse threads which equals LESS TORQUE. This way violates all the rules of common sense, proper assembly.
If any stud hole has water below it, it'll leak like a sieve up around the stud & nut.
I always use Locite to seal the threads & tighten them to 10 Ft Lbs.
Ya'll do what you want, but mine don't leak!! Bill W.
James Rogers: Is this "flaw" the reason you're selling the "new" heads on the SWAP site with the .060 "cut" ??
Paul in CT
Bubby, I agree with you on all you post except, what Purdy suggests. Using the distributor wire stud, goes against the original posters problem which, is the studs are too short because of the thickness of the head. Using the stud Purdy suggests would make the stud too long which would be as bad. In the end for judging, the studs are WRONG as are the heads WRONG. The heads are wrong in another sense as they are marked at the time they are cast and the originals are marked also. The 5.5 heads have 2 round bumps on the top on the driver side with 5 picks on each which designates them as 5.5 heads. The original heads have a dimple on the front between the water outlet mount and the pump mount which looks like a 3/16" X 1/16" bump.How in the world does a head bolt work on a model T or a modern high compression engine? It would be nearly impossible to get full threads and proper tourque on a head bolt ! I think Purdy swoft has a good idea about using the ignition clamp studs . I am well pleased with the Snyder heads preformance and a lot of other people must be too, be thankful we have them. Bubby Sharp in KY
I agree George but, as has been debated here many times, repo parts are seldom made to original specs. If they are in the beginning, they are soon modified to be off for some reason not understood by most except for the manufacturer.Let me say as a old machinist there is no reason for getting boss height wrong. It would be just as easy to get it right. Sounds like some one got the wrong dimension for the head.
Did we not have this same issue on this head a couple of years ago.
I worked in the hydraulac cylinder manufacturing for many years, we made cylinders up to 24" bore. The standard for studs, also tie rods is the stud should be screwed in the block 1-1/2 times the dia or a little over 5/8 of a inch. .655. It should also be a close fit. You do not use a standard tap to clean the threads like most model a blocks have had done at some time.
...
I just see that for judging, which is the original posters issue, the heads have more discrepancies than just the stud boss thickness. Besides that, where did he go anyway? Why is he not part of this discussion?
Just purchased a new 5,5 to 1 head and just found out that when I installed it found out it is thicker than the original by about a 1/16". I called Tom at Snyder's and he told me they had a batch that the tickness was off and would be corrected with the new batch. The top of the studs are about 3 threads shy of being flush with the top of the nut. The goseneck is worse only 1/2 of the nut catches the stud and this is with a new Snyder's outlet! This is totally unacceptable for paying this amount of money for a new part that is supposed to fit perfect. They tried telling me to back off te studs a few turns but come on really? I'm no dummy when it comes to mechanial problems as I've restored a dozen cars over the years and never had the problems of repro parts as I've had with A and T parts. I'm going to mill down the tops of the bosses to brind the dimension equal to an original head so I'll have the 1 thread exposed.
Hate to vent but tis is the 3rd head in the last year that has this problem, so much for the new batch, huh?
Bubby, I agree with you on all you post except, what Purdy suggests. Using the distributor wire stud, goes against the original posters problem which, is the studs are too short because of the thickness of the head. Using the stud Purdy suggests would make the stud too long which would be as bad. In the end for judging, the studs are WRONG as are the heads WRONG. The heads are wrong in another sense as they are marked at the time they are cast and the originals are marked also. The 5.5 heads have 2 round bumps on the top on the driver side with 5 picks on each which designates them as 5.5 heads. The original heads have a dimple on the front between the water outlet mount and the pump mount which looks like a 3/16" X 1/16" bump.
I just see that for judging, which is the original posters issue, the heads have more discrepancies than just the stud boss thickness. Besides that, where did he go anyway? Why is he not part of this discussion?
Purdy,
Purdy,
I think the long one looks good, looks substantial, I wish all mine looked like that.Aw shucks, why do I care, I got me a whole new set of CKROME acorn nut covers!
I stick them on with a dab of bubble gum, so's they can come off easy for a ree-torque. Someday, I'll be "normal" again. Bill W.