882 heads

[Ilike 72"s]

My blown 350 had these #882 heads on it. I decided to go with another set of heads and not use these because they might be damaged. I built and completed my other engine build and decided to remove the heads off the blown engine and found that there 202's. Are these good power heads after all. Should I have used them?

[FIVE 0]

No good at all. Mail them to me and Ill throw them away for you.

They are great heads, Looks like they may need a little love but would be good heads to run for performance. Should be able to sell them for some good cash.

[Ilike 72"s]

These are the heads I did use. Are the chambers the same? Just the valves differant?

[FIVE 0]

Id say they are the same. Looks like the same casting number so they should be the same. Im thinking that they are factory 194 valves and your old ones cut to 202. You could check the casting number at Mortec.com and see what valves and chamber cc they started at from GM.

[Ilike 72"s]

the guy I bought the pickup from said the heads had alot of money into them. So I'm thinking they were made into 202's.

[FIVE 0]

Im sure thats what he did. I just checked and 882's are 74-80 heads. You may even have 172 valves in your new set you could measure them or check reciept if they were just put together. I went from 202's to 194's in a Camino and did'nt notice the diff until I was on it hard. Should be a better on fuel

[Ilike 72"s]

I'll take them to a machinist tomorrow and have him take a look also.

[BurnoutNova]

882's are not noramally known for being performance heads. they were put on just about everything in the mid to late 70's.

ive never seen any with factory 2.02 valves, probobly becasue by the time these heads were being used factory performance engines were a thing of the past.

and about the modifiacation thats been done... if all you do to a set of heads is increase from a 1.72" or 1.94" and 1.5" valve combo, you stand to gain very little becasue the head is still flowing the same amount of air throught the intake runners and exaust ports. sometimes you will actully hinder the performance and restrict flow beacause of "valve shrouding" the intake valve actully becomes close to the cylinder wall, decreasing the room for air and fuel to flow around the valve.

its a pretty complicated question to give a simple answer on, so i'll say no there not really any better than the ones your using. i'd use the set thats in the best condition, and call it good.

[Billla]

882's aren't bad heads; the flow numbers are relatively good. It looks like that first set had some whoppin' valves but there probably wasn't a lot of gain there as the heads are flow-restricted. The combustion chamber shape (D-shape) of these "smog" heads is poor for combustion efficiency and these heads will always make 20-30 less HP than a "small chamber" head.

I wouldn't sweat a bunch over using the other heads; clearly need more information on the cam, engine, gears, etc....

[71tahoe]

I had a set of 882s on a 350. They had a slight amount of polishing in the intake runners and 1.94 valves. Flat top pistons brought up the compression ratio and it had a Lunati 292 cam. By no means was it a beast but it ran real strong. It was a real scary ride at top speed.

[hvychve]

I will read to ya , exactly how its written in this book on interchange numbers:
In 1975 , a lighter cast head was released sporting 1.94I and 1.50E valves: the casting number was 333882. the 882 heads were installed on the 350 ci. and 400 ci engines(400 heads had steam holes). The 882 castings had a double heat-riser passage and were prone to cracking beacuse they ran so hot. If you have these on your engine, get rid of them.

That is straight from a Book by David Lewis. on Chevrolet small-block interchange manual... I remember I also had a set of those heads and until I did some research, I was gonna build em, I would tie a rope around em and use em for anchors for your boat......

[hvychve]

1975-1977 was the year they used casting #333882 and they only came with 1.94I , 1.50E, used on Intermediate performance engines, only used on 350 and 400 ci.

[Ilike 72"s]

Maybe i'll tie them and the blown engine onto the foot of the guy I bought them from , then throw them off the boat.

[71tahoe]

Originally Posted by hvychve

...I would tie a rope around em and use em for anchors for your boat......

They also work good for keeping dogs from digging under a fence. The didn't crack but a poor valve job ruined them.

[short-t]

Originally Posted by Ilike 72"s

My blown 350 had these #882 heads on it. I decided to go with another set of heads and not use these because they might be damaged. I built and completed my other engine build and decided to remove the heads off the blown engine and found that there 202's. Are these good power heads after all. Should I have used them?

Are you sure you have a 350? The reason I ask is because the heads in the first picture you posted have the steam holes drilled for a 400!

[VetteVet]

They were actually used between 1970 and 1980 according to the nasty z28 head identifing site. I have a set on my 1974 vette and never had any problems. I found out that the pre 75 years were thicker castings and less prone to cracking.
Here is some more on them.
http://www.chevytalk.org/fusionbb/sh...p?pid/1346927/

[BurnoutNova]

Originally Posted by Billla

882's aren't bad heads; the flow numbers are relatively good. It looks like that first set had some whoppin' valves but as noted by BurnoutNova there probably wasn't a lot of gain there. The combustion chamber shape (D-shape) of these "smog" heads is poor for combustion efficiency and these heads will always make 20-30 less HP than a "small chamber" head.

I wouldn't sweat a bunch over using the other heads; clearly need more information on the cam, engine, gears, etc....

i wasnt making a refrence they were bad and maybe you didnt mean i was, just that there no 462 or 187 head... there great for most applicatons as long as there in good shape.

[Billla]

Originally Posted by BurnoutNova

i wasnt making a refrence they were bad and maybe you didnt mean i was, just that there no 462 or 187 head... there great for most applicatons as long as there in good shape.

No, I was just agreeing with you that the bigger valves probably won't help due to the basic flow restrictions of the head - but I'll go back and edit my post so there's no misundertanding.

[67_C-30]

Just FYI, the 882's were available from 73-80 with factory 2.02"/1.60's on on L82 Corvette engines. Below is a flow chart of the 882's and they actually outflow the double humps up to .400" lift. on the intake sigificantly outflow all the 60's heads on the exhaust side. 2.02/1.60 do not hinder flow on the these due to large combustion chambers. In fact, they flow better than double humps when both heads have 2.02/1.60's. These heads perform well on a 383/400 and are capable of around 500 HP with some bowl work and gasket matching of the intake ports. I had a set of these on a .060" over 350, ported with 2.02/1.60's running a set of .125 (typically 9.6 - 9.8 : 1 CR with 76cc chamber) domes and a COMP Xtreme Energy cam in a 1982 Z28 and I ran consistant 12.40's on motor and went 11.80's with a small plate system. These heads are victims of coming on smog era engines with dished pistons, choked down carbs, and overly conservative cam profiles. They really aren't that bad if you have the right combination. The 624's, 993's, 487's, 441's and no other head made into the 80's (including the L98's) perform as well as these do.

[67_C-30]

As others have said, the pre-1975 are the better castings BTW.

[Billla]

The '882's I've worked with have relatively small runners and little or no meat to open them up to match a performance intake gasket - I might have been working with the "bad" castings. . I agree that any head, including the 882's can benefit from some bowl and runner work, but I can't see the flow meeting the needs of a bigger engine. And the chamber shape still sucks Again, not a BAD head - but would you spend the $$$ to get these in shape vs. buying a modern head?

Comparing them to other era performance heads is interesting - but as noted in your pic posting (very cool, btw - I saved that ) - virtually all of the modern entry level heads outflow them right out of the boxl.

[67_C-30]

Originally Posted by Billla

The '882's I've worked with have relatively small runners and little or no meat to open them up to match a performance intake gasket - I might have been working with the "bad" castings. . I agree that any head, including the 882's can benefit from some bowl and runner work, but I can't see the flow meeting the needs of a bigger engine. And the chamber shape still sucks Again, not a BAD head - but would you spend the $$$ to get these in shape vs. buying a modern head?

Comparing them to other era performance heads is interesting - but as noted in your pic posting (very cool, btw - I saved that ) - virtually all of the modern entry level heads outflow them right out of the boxl.

No doubt they are a limited head, but if a guy on a tight budget is thumbing through a stack of old factory open chamber heads, these are one of the best. That's all I'm saying. I haven't run a factory head (besides a Vortec) on performance engine for myself in 10 years. But back in the day when I was a broke college kid and hitting the strip every Fri night, I made do with what I could find, and I've built several strong engines with these boat anchors in the past!

[Billla]

Originally Posted by 67_C-30

No doubt they are a limited head, but if a guy on a tight budget is thumbing through a stack of old factory open chamber heads, these are one of the best. That's all I'm saying. I haven't run a factory head (besides a Vortec) on performance engine for myself in 10 years. But back in the day when I was a broke college kid and hitting the strip every Fri night, I made do with what I could find, and I've built several strong engines with these boat anchors in the past!

I hear you and I've been there - I imagine we were expoxying in larger accelerator pumps into Q-Jets and learning to port iron heads at about the same time ;-)

But today for those 882's by the time you get 'em tanked, valve job, guides, springs, etc....you've spent more than a brand new set of Vortecs.

[1969stepside]

they knida look like the chevy x head from the early 70's waht is the cast symbol on the front of the head

[Ilike 72"s]

Originally Posted by 1969stepside

they knida look like the chevy x head from the early 70's waht is the cast symbol on the front of the head

My machinest said pretty much the same as you guys. The 882 heads do flow better than some in the smog era and the 202's will help some, but not worth spending the money on today. Cautioned useing them knowing that the piston came off and banged around.