New Aluminum Cylinder Heads for the Hemis

[charlie westcott]

There is a 559-M2 head on the list.
Thats what I was referring to.
The Mopar alum head looks to be the best candidate to me, but I dont see any reason to use them with a 60# weight penalty.
There is no performance gain, possibly a loss by putting the same port design in an aluminum head.

[theman440]

Charlie,
Can you explain why this is?

"There is no performance gain, possibly a loss by putting the same port design in an aluminum head.[/QUOTE]

[jaythorne]

I used to be against the aluminum head....but that's when the cast iron was readily available....now that's not the case....I think the alum should be allowed now,but without a weight penalty..

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by theman440

Charlie,
Can you explain why this is?

Thermal efficiency


Stan

[theman440]

That's what i figured - thanks.

[SSDA Hemi]

Originally Posted by charlie westcott

There is a 559-M2 head on the list.
Thats what I was referring to.
The Mopar alum head looks to be the best candidate to me, but I dont see any reason to use them with a 60# weight penalty.
There is no performance gain, possibly a loss by putting the same port design in an aluminum head.

I was wondering the same thing, actually got excited thinking Mopar was casting a new iron Hemi head. After looking at the data it appears NHRA screwed up and put the cast iron "559"# with the Aluminum head "M2". There is no aluminum head casting # listed on the 68 Chrysler Tech spec sheet, and I think we all agree there is no present "M2" cast iron Hemi head.
.
I hope I'm wrong but it seems the correct casting number added should be 2531110-M2. Hopefully mopar or another source starts casting iron Hemi heads in the future. SS/AH needs parts to survive and advance.