Thread: 0630 vs 0331
View Single Post
  #2  
Old September 25th, 2006, 10:09
MogifiedXJ's Avatar
MogifiedXJ MogifiedXJ is offline
NAXJA Forum User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tellico, TN
Posts: 1,047
Re: 0630 vs 0331

HO head #7120 & #0630

Valve lift (in)... 0.1 ... 0.2 ... 0.3 ... 0.4 ... 0.5 ... 0.6
Intake flow.... 66.0 128.0 179.0 206.0 209.0 209.0
Exhaust flow. 55.0 100.0 120.0 136.0 141.0 141.2

HO head #0331

Valve lift (in)..... 0.2 ... 0.3 ... 0.4 ... 0.5 ... 0.6
Intake flow.... 114.0 165.0 194.0 199.0 205.0
Exhaust flow....94.0 117.0 126.0 130.0 133.0

Ported big valve 2.02/1.60 HO head

Valve lift (in)... 0.1 ... 0.2 ... 0.3 ... 0.4 ... 0.5
Intake flow.... 73.9 142.4 197.8 229.8 247.0
Exhaust flow. 65.3 114.0 135.9 146.3 157.1

The early '87-'90 non-HO heads have low intake ports that flow rather poorly. The later HO heads have higher intake ports that flow more air by allowing a straighter shot into the cylinders. The '91-'95 HO heads with casting no.7120 have the highest intake and exhaust port airflows, especially at lower valve lifts where it is most important, and are the best for performance. The '96-'98 0630 heads are almost identical except that they don't have a port for the coolant temp. gauge sending unit. The '99 and later HO heads with casting no.0331 have smaller exhaust ports to produce a faster warm-up of the catalytic converter and improve emissions, but performance also suffers because the ports don't flow as well as those of the 7120 and 0630 castings.
The exhaust ports flow relatively poorly compared to the intake ports on all the 4.0 heads so this engine would perform better with a dual pattern cam that has more exhaust valve opening duration and lift than the intake. Jeep recognised this and increased the exhaust valve opening duration on the '99 and later cam to compensate for the poorer exhaust port flow of the 0331 head.

Last edited by MogifiedXJ; September 25th, 2006 at 10:46.
Reply With Quote