Sure can't, Bill. I've never laid a 258 head alongside a 4.0 head.
You can see the difference between the 88 and the newer HO with the
vehicles sitting side-by-side but I've never looked at 258 that way.
When I was looking, I had a line on a wrecked 91 XJ with under 45k on
the clock but I was too new at this to really realize the power
difference and figured it was more work than it was worth to swap
stuff around. Looking back...


On Sat, 21 May 2005 02:35:13 UTC L.W.(ßill) ------ III
<----------@***.net> wrote:

> Hi Will,
> Can you tell me if the '88 frog injection looks like it fits the
> regular 258" head where intake, and larger exhaust ports and manifolds
> are in align?
> http://web.archive.org/web/200210011...inder_head.jpg
> Rather staggered like the 4.0L:
> http://www.off-road.com/jeep/tech/en...adconv/146.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Will Honea wrote:
> >
> > The HO intake manifold is a whole lot nicer. The flow geometry is
> > nice and symetrical. Between that and the port angles they got a bunch
> > of ponies to add to the 4.0. Not that I would sneer at the umph of
> > the '88 head on a 258 block...


--
Will Honea

 

Sure can't, Bill. I've never laid a 258 head alongside a 4.0 head.
You can see the difference between the 88 and the newer HO with the
vehicles sitting side-by-side but I've never looked at 258 that way.
When I was looking, I had a line on a wrecked 91 XJ with under 45k on
the clock but I was too new at this to really realize the power
difference and figured it was more work than it was worth to swap
stuff around. Looking back...


On Sat, 21 May 2005 02:35:13 UTC L.W.(ßill) ------ III
<----------@***.net> wrote:

> Hi Will,
> Can you tell me if the '88 frog injection looks like it fits the
> regular 258" head where intake, and larger exhaust ports and manifolds
> are in align?
> http://web.archive.org/web/200210011...inder_head.jpg
> Rather staggered like the 4.0L:
> http://www.off-road.com/jeep/tech/en...adconv/146.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Will Honea wrote:
> >
> > The HO intake manifold is a whole lot nicer. The flow geometry is
> > nice and symetrical. Between that and the port angles they got a bunch
> > of ponies to add to the 4.0. Not that I would sneer at the umph of
> > the '88 head on a 258 block...


--
Will Honea

 

Sure can't, Bill. I've never laid a 258 head alongside a 4.0 head.
You can see the difference between the 88 and the newer HO with the
vehicles sitting side-by-side but I've never looked at 258 that way.
When I was looking, I had a line on a wrecked 91 XJ with under 45k on
the clock but I was too new at this to really realize the power
difference and figured it was more work than it was worth to swap
stuff around. Looking back...


On Sat, 21 May 2005 02:35:13 UTC L.W.(ßill) ------ III
<----------@***.net> wrote:

> Hi Will,
> Can you tell me if the '88 frog injection looks like it fits the
> regular 258" head where intake, and larger exhaust ports and manifolds
> are in align?
> http://web.archive.org/web/200210011...inder_head.jpg
> Rather staggered like the 4.0L:
> http://www.off-road.com/jeep/tech/en...adconv/146.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Will Honea wrote:
> >
> > The HO intake manifold is a whole lot nicer. The flow geometry is
> > nice and symetrical. Between that and the port angles they got a bunch
> > of ponies to add to the 4.0. Not that I would sneer at the umph of
> > the '88 head on a 258 block...


--
Will Honea