The Olde' Continental C-Head Swap.

E

evilscientistmoose

New member
Hi.

I'm kind of prepping another motor for my newer '96 LSC (the '94 is gone), and part of that is getting the heads redone. I've seen several older mentions of using a 2000 Continental C-head and IMRC-less plate in place of a B-head for a better all-around motor...and to be honest with you, I'm kind of annoyed with there not being an injector to keep the secondary intake valve somewhat clean in the B-head.

Since I'm getting heads redone anyway, and eventually getting this turd tuned somewhere...is this a worthwhile consideration?
 
driller

driller

El Presidente
If you're not against sheet metal intakes, you could even use Navigator heads. But if you're on a budget, even if the heads were free, the cost of the intake becomes prohibitive.
 
E

evilscientistmoose

New member
driller said:
Haters... B head haters. LOL :laugh:
Click to expand...
Well, to be entirely honest with you, it's kind of a half-assed design. It looks like Ford was really onto something with that head arrangement...and then just said 'stop' when they hit a certain dollar...mark. (Pun intended).

The bad part about this car is that I'm kind of getting to the point where I hate driving it, for all kinds of reasons. It's a great car if you're on a flat highway, but the moment I have to hit curvy mountain roads, and slow down to 45 mph, this beast's true nature comes out, where it's either lugging, or full throttle, there is no in-between. Between crappy shift programming making me wonder why in the absolute hell this thing doesn't have a 5.4 2V engine in it (there's an early 2000's 5.4 E250 van at work, the transmission shifts and behaves EXACTLY the same as the Mark, but the low-end nature of the 5.4 2V actually loves the lugging), and also wondering as to what idiot designed the three-feet-off-the-floor front seats...and then approved it for production...yeah, kinda leaning toward finding something else to drive and modify. It's pretty bad when my wife's 1999 V6 Solara has near-telepathic shift programming...and it's merely a freaking work commuter...but I find myself hopping into that car more often, simply because I don't have to fight the goddamned thing just to get it to accelerate without flooring it.

That's kind of why I'm asking about the C heads, I know that they're supposed to be a bit more lively in midrange...
 
M

mag

New member
Sell it go buy a Solara and join a Toyota forum :wave: See ya !
 
Last edited:
driller

driller

El Presidente
evilscientistmoose said:
Well, to be entirely honest with you, ...

That's kind of why I'm asking about the C heads, I know that they're supposed to be a bit more lively in midrange...
Click to expand...
4.10 gears and a 3,600 stall will tame those demons. What you say? No low end torque? No problem, just get rid of the low end part of the equation! :p
 
KStromberg

KStromberg

Vortech kicked in yo
evilscientistmoose said:
Well, to be entirely honest with you, it's kind of a half-assed design. It looks like Ford was really onto something with that head arrangement...and then just said 'stop' when they hit a certain dollar...mark. (Pun intended).

The bad part about this car is that I'm kind of getting to the point where I hate driving it, for all kinds of reasons. It's a great car if you're on a flat highway, but the moment I have to hit curvy mountain roads, and slow down to 45 mph, this beast's true nature comes out, where it's either lugging, or full throttle, there is no in-between. Between crappy shift programming making me wonder why in the absolute hell this thing doesn't have a 5.4 2V engine in it (there's an early 2000's 5.4 E250 van at work, the transmission shifts and behaves EXACTLY the same as the Mark, but the low-end nature of the 5.4 2V actually loves the lugging), and also wondering as to what idiot designed the three-feet-off-the-floor front seats...and then approved it for production...yeah, kinda leaning toward finding something else to drive and modify. It's pretty bad when my wife's 1999 V6 Solara has near-telepathic shift programming...and it's merely a freaking work commuter...but I find myself hopping into that car more often, simply because I don't have to fight the goddamned thing just to get it to accelerate without flooring it.

That's kind of why I'm asking about the C heads, I know that they're supposed to be a bit more lively in midrange...
Click to expand...
Factory tuning, highway gears, and tight converter is to blame for everything you mentioned. Change those 3 things and the car becomes an entirely better driving experience and you'll never want to drive the Toyota again. I promise.
 
C

chris2523

New member
the c heads mid range is awesome.
my car will accel at a decent clip even in 4th with the tc locked at city speeds.

no, i don't think the aviator intake will clear a hood, it is a truck intake after all.

plus the IMRCs in it are not the on off style of the marks, they are variable, and that makes them trick to control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top