Welcome to Club Hot Rod!  The premier site for everything to do with Hot Rod, Customs, Low Riders, Rat Rods, and more. 

  •  » Members from all over the US and the world!
  •  » Help from all over the world for your questions
  •  » Build logs for you and all members
  •  » Blogs
  •  » Image Gallery
  •  » Many thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of posts! 

YES! I want to register an account for free right now!  p.s.: For registered members this ad will NOT show

 

Thread: Double hump head ID
          
   
   

Reply To Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Nomad Mike is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    fountain valley
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1956 Chevy Nomad
    Posts
    32

    Double hump head ID

     



    In 1962, Chevy came out with the double hump heads with 1.94/1.50 valves. Then in 64, they increased the valve size to 2.020/1.600.

    Can anyone tell me how to tell the difference between the two without pulling the heads? Are the humps shapped differently?

    Thanks for any help
    OlChvyRacr

  2. #2
    HOTRODPAINT's Avatar
    HOTRODPAINT is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    tucson
    Posts
    3,043

    Chevy continued to use 1.94 heads on many mid level engines, even after the lager valves were added on the high horsepower options. In the late '60s they would have tapped holes in the ends of the heads. I don't remember any way to tell from the outside, and I suspect they used the same castings for both valve sizes.

    I built some really good running engines with the 1.94 heads, and I doubt you would see much improvement, unless you were building a radical motor.

    As a side note, I think the biggest difference was actually in the exhaust valves.
    Last edited by HOTRODPAINT; 12-26-2005 at 02:23 PM.

  3. #3
    MI2600 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N. Muskegon
    Car Year, Make, Model: 67 Chevy, 72 El Camino, 86 El Camino
    Posts
    138

    I agree with Hotrod. Everyone wants 2.02s, but the reality is they're not that much better. Plus, I understand that many of the 2.02s out there were just opened up 1.94s and the intake valves were never unshrouded.
    I intend to live forever; so far, so good.

  4. #4
    erik erikson's Avatar
    erik erikson is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    clive
    Car Year, Make, Model: BLOWN 540 57 CHEVY
    Posts
    2,878

    Originally posted by MI2600
    I agree with Hotrod. Everyone wants 2.02s, but the reality is they're not that much better. Plus, I understand that many of the 2.02s out there were just opened up 1.94s and the intake valves were never unshrouded.
    When people talk about un-shrouding a valve that refers to work done to the combustion chamber not in the seat or bowl area.

  5. #5
    chevydrivin is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    mccomb
    Car Year, Make, Model: 55 belair: 68 Camaro: 69 F100: 51 M37's
    Posts
    287

    If you had a 2.02 valve with a 450 lift on the cam could'nt you get as much flow using a 1.94 valve with a bigger lift like 500 or so? Guess you could figure it with the correct formulas.

  6. #6
    Matt167's Avatar
    Matt167 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Prattsville
    Car Year, Make, Model: '51 Chevy Fleetline and a Ratrod project
    Posts
    4,990

    Originally posted by chevydrivin
    If you had a 2.02 valve with a 450 lift on the cam could'nt you get as much flow using a 1.94 valve with a bigger lift like 500 or so? Guess you could figure it with the correct formulas.
    a head with bigger port's/ valves will not flow as good as a smaller 1 at street RPM's, so in a lot of cases actully, smaller is better
    You don't know what you've got til it's gone

    Matt's 1951 Chevy Fleetline- Driver

    1967 Ford Falcon- Sold

    1930's styled hand built ratrod project

    1974 Volkswagen Super Beetle Wolfsburg Edition- sold

  7. #7
    erik erikson's Avatar
    erik erikson is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    clive
    Car Year, Make, Model: BLOWN 540 57 CHEVY
    Posts
    2,878

    Originally posted by Matt167
    a head with bigger port's/ valves will not flow as good as a smaller 1 at street RPM's, so in a lot of cases actully, smaller is better
    Matt167,you are right about one thing.Sometimes smaller is better for most aftermarket cylinder this holds true.In other words you can't put a 200 cc head on a 350 with a cam that is done at 5,500 r.p.m.s. Most performance SBC can use more cylinder head than a stock head.

  8. #8
    4dr 57 is offline Registered User Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kerrville
    Car Year, Make, Model: 4drht57
    Posts
    1

    It's possible the casting number could point you to a certain vehicle application which may give you a ballpark idea. But specifically, no.
    Camel hump heads came with a variety of combustion chamber sizes and I don't know that all of the larger chambered ones had 2.02"s. I would also suggest that the intake/exhaust port volume was larger in a number of models .
    I have heard it said that care should be taken when enlarging for a bigger valve spring on the end that is near the water passage.

  9. #9
    erik erikson's Avatar
    erik erikson is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    clive
    Car Year, Make, Model: BLOWN 540 57 CHEVY
    Posts
    2,878

    Originally posted by 4dr 57
    It's possible the casting number could point you to a certain vehicle application which may give you a ballpark idea. But specifically, no.
    Camel hump heads came with a variety of combustion chamber sizes and I don't know that all of the larger chambered ones had 2.02"s. I would also suggest that the intake/exhaust port volume was larger in a number of models .
    I have heard it said that care should be taken when enlarging for a bigger valve spring on the end that is near the water passage.
    The problem is the double hump heads are 40 yrs. old and by the time you put a few seats in them,surface them and replace the guides and do a valve job,put in screw-in studs,enlarge the spring pockets and what you still have is a set of 40 year old heads that don't flow as well as the new ones and are prone to cracks.

  10. #10
    R Pope is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eston
    Posts
    2,270

    2.02 and 1.60 valves are great for saving worn out 1.94 and 1.50 heads. Other than that, I've never seen any difference in power on a street engine.

  11. #11
    DONNIE G's Avatar
    DONNIE G is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    sparwood
    Car Year, Make, Model: 29 plymouth,28 stude dictator,37 chev
    Posts
    145

    hi guys you're right in just about eveything you're saying about the 2.02 heads, if memory serves me right mine are #462 castings
    i've had mine rebuilt,stainless inserts to handle unleaded fuel,ported polished,etc etc...long story short 1000 bucks(can)
    i was bolting them back on. for about the same price aftermarket is the way to go and lots lighter too!

Reply To Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Links monetized by VigLink