plenty of "J" heads for 1970 340s - just none of them during calendar year 1969 (where the changeover from "X" cast #2531894 to "JUO" cast #3418915 is the question)
Yep, and if 100% true, I have myself a conundrum when I rebuild my 340, which has J-heads. My guess is the owner had a "head rebuild" and they just used off-the-shelf J-heads. Do I invest a boatload of money in X-heads (which are not any better as long as the J heads have 2.02 valves), or just refurbish my current heads. Current engine has great compression. How important is it to see that "X" for a 1970 Challenger that was built in November '69?
How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go. I guess that's for me to answer. It doesn't make sense paying $1000 for rusted "X" heads that are not better than what I have. Ugh. At some point, the history of the car becomes more important than A66 history. The man had a head rebuild and the shop used "J" heads. That's part of the car's history, which I have documented more than A66 history. Slapping on "X" heads erases that.
My thought is that the "J" heads belong on the car, and will stay..even with a blue-printed rebuild.
Just some information on X Heads, really no big advantage of one over the other:894 heads: 1} ~ #2531894 'X-Head'................July 1967 - thru - October 1970 'Casting'
Note; Called the 'X-Head'Note; Generally considered the 'best' 340 Cylinder Head. Consistent 'Port Measurements' of 160 CC's Intake and 70 CC's Exhaust.
Note; The 'tightest' Combustion Chambers with levels between {67.0 to 69.0 CC's}.
Note; The 'X-Head' has the best Intake CFM Flow at High RPM's.
2} ~ #2531894 'X-Head'........................ October 1970 - thru - June 1971 'Casting'Note; Also with consistent 'Port Measurements' of 160 CC's Intake and 70 CC's Exhaust.
Note; These later 'X-Head' Castings will have approximately +2.0 CC greater Combustion Chamber volume, usually between {69.0 to 72.0 CC's}.
Note; When these later Castings were machined by the Factory, less material was removed from the Head Deck Surface than early Castings.
Note; This was done to lower the 340 Engine's Compression Ratio from 10.5-1 to 10.3-1 to meet the EPA's Emissions at lower RPM's.