Cylinder head port volume

[LoneWolf66]

I was wondering if anyone knows what the intake port volume is on a set of 333882 small block cylinder heads. im aware that they arent performance heads, but i would atleast like to know what im working with. cant seem to find much info on the non performance cylinder heads. any info would be greatly appreciated thank you.

[silicon212]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf66

I was wondering if anyone knows what the intake port volume is on a set of 333882 small block cylinder heads. im aware that they arent performance heads, but i would atleast like to know what im working with. cant seem to find much info on the non performance cylinder heads. any info would be greatly appreciated thank you.

Now it's been about 18 years since I've had a set of these to play with, but if memory serves correctly, it is in the ~160cc range. Good for low-end torque, not good for high-RPM performance. It is possible to work a set of these to get another 8-10 cc's, but that's still not good for high-RPM (but it's better than stock).

They do make good low-end to midrange torque, and are well suited for a large car such as a Caprice or Impala. Just make sure you're using flat top pistons so that the 76cc volume doesn't lower the CR too much. They were stock on 350s and 400s from about '71 or '72 through '77. The '72 Impala I had eons ago had these heads stock, as did my '75 Caprice Classic.

[corning_d3]

I found this from a very reliable source:

"882" – 333882. These heads were found on early-late 70's 350 and 400 engines. They had 76CC combustion chambers, 1.94/13.50" valves, DO have accessory holes, intake port volume is 160CC's, exhaust port volume is 60CC's. These heads are made of thinner castings and are prone to cracking as well. The 882 intake port is very close to that of the 624, the exhaust side is where the 882 is weaker.

[silicon212]

Originally Posted by corning_d3

I found this from a very reliable source:

"882" – 333882. These heads were found on early-late 70's 350 and 400 engines. They had 76CC combustion chambers, 1.94/13.50" valves, DO have accessory holes, intake port volume is 160CC's, exhaust port volume is 60CC's. These heads are made of thinner castings and are prone to cracking as well. The 882 intake port is very close to that of the 624, the exhaust side is where the 882 is weaker.

From what I remember, the 882 was a stout head, it wasn't of the lightweight, thin-casting design. It was the post '77 lightweight casting head that was most susceptible to the cracking, usually between valves.

[corning_d3]

Ah, your right.. The post '77's had the ugly casting boogers in the ports n such right? I've heard they also had some mis-matching intake? ports... I do believe they are tougher than TBI or Vortech heads.. Just get 'em magnafluxed and don't get them too hot!

[LoneWolf66]

Originally Posted by silicon212

Now it's been about 18 years since I've had a set of these to play with, but if memory serves correctly, it is in the ~160cc range. Good for low-end torque, not good for high-RPM performance. It is possible to work a set of these to get another 8-10 cc's, but that's still not good for high-RPM (but it's better than stock).

They do make good low-end to midrange torque, and are well suited for a large car such as a Caprice or Impala. Just make sure you're using flat top pistons so that the 76cc volume doesn't lower the CR too much. They were stock on 350s and 400s from about '71 or '72 through '77. The '72 Impala I had eons ago had these heads stock, as did my '75 Caprice Classic.

Thank you all very much for your help! 160cc is better than i thought they would be. maybe ill keep them around for a while. like you said, good for a heavy car, and that i have! theyre currently on a 72 monte carlo, the door tag says 4950 pounds, thats a lot of beef to move. and yes it does have flat top pistons in it. not sure on the exact specs, or brand. but im guessing most common is around .100 pop up i think right? so on the intake ports, do you really think the 8-10 cc will make a noticeable difference? possibly if i port the exhaust along with it? the heads are in dire need of a rebuild, so as long as i have them off i might as well do a little tinkering. But im not planning on revving it much over 6000 anyway. thank you all for you help, very much appreciated for your time.

[silicon212]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf66

Thank you all very much for your help! 160cc is better than i thought they would be. maybe ill keep them around for a while. like you said, good for a heavy car, and that i have! theyre currently on a 72 monte carlo, the door tag says 4950 pounds, thats a lot of beef to move. and yes it does have flat top pistons in it. not sure on the exact specs, or brand. but im guessing most common is around .100 pop up i think right? so on the intake ports, do you really think the 8-10 cc will make a noticeable difference? possibly if i port the exhaust along with it? the heads are in dire need of a rebuild, so as long as i have them off i might as well do a little tinkering. But im not planning on revving it much over 6000 anyway. thank you all for you help, very much appreciated for your time.

I would just maybe worry about port-matching the heads with the intake gaskets you plan on running (such as Fel-Pro Blue Stripe), and do the same with the intake. Blend the runners well, but don't overdo it. Do a little bowl-blending under the intake valves. If the heads have 1.94/1.5 valves on them (which they should), don't worry too much about unshrouding the intake valves in the chamber (this isn't really necessary with 1.94s on a street engine). Whatever you do, don't polish the ports afterward, leave them rough. Remember that the valve cover bolts on these heads drop down into the area between the intake ports on the top of them, so don't go crazy with port-matching these as you could expose the bolt. You can smooth this area out a little. Use a Dremel with a routing bit kit and don't try to cut too much or be too hasty as you can render these heads unusable. Use some automatic transmission fluid as a cutting coolant so you don't burn up expensive Dremel router bits. Try to match all of the runners in terms of CC - you can do this with an intake valve, some Vaseline, a piece of Plexiglass and a graduated cylinder (think of combustion-chamber matching, or "CCing"). The aim is to see to it that all 8 runners fill up with the same amount of water.

Have a NASCAR valve job performed (this is the three-angle job) afterward.

Edit: 4950 lbs? Wow, my Caprice (the car in the sig) is 3600 lbs dry!

[Blue Bowtie]

Personally, I wouldn't bother putting a lot of effort into '882 castings. Of course, you perhaps can't go by what I say because I HAVE ported and refit valves in both '882 and '993 heads, screwed studs, guide plates, bowl porting and blending - the whole boat - so it's apparent I didn't know any better, either.

The flow numbers just aren't there, and there are a lot of much better factory castings sitting in junk yards just waiting to find a home on a running engine. I think with flat-tops (with valve reliefs) on a 350 you'll get better flow and certainly better compression with '083 heads. They are 64cc chambers but have the newer style 72º center bolt holes for the intake, but a little trimming on the intake can usually solve that. They are also the centerbolt rocker cover design. They usually net about 9.5:1 static CR.

If you want more compression and to keep the old style intake pattern, '416s can be set up with 1.94/1.50 valves, and after a little necessary unshrouding can still yield 60cc or smaller chambers. On a 350 with flat-tops and 6cc worth of valve relief, that usually nets around 10:1, which is still not out of the realm of "reasonable" for a street engine. I'm running 10.8:1 on an LT1 with pump gas, no problems.