Author: Dave Williams; dlwilliams=aristotle=net
I was going to write a few pages on small block Ford tech, but laziness got in the way. Instead, here are some messages from the last few years which have some possibly-useful factoids. Enjoy - dlw
== 1992 --------------------------------------------------------------------
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 27 Dec 92
- -> > For you guys running in the 5-liter classes, an Aussie 302 crank
-> > in a 351C block could give you a huge advantage over the Windsors.
- > Would you expand on this statement? Thanks!
- Certainly! The Cleveland has a taller deck than the 302. The Aussie 302C
comes with 6.020 inch rods to start with, and you can go 6.25 easily.
You're starting with a 2:1 rod ratio! You can use the Cleveland heads, or
B&A is coming out with an intake to put Windsor heads on the Cleveland
block.
== 1993 --------------------------------------------------------------------
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 11 Jan 93
- While researching something else, I cam across the following:
- Ford Power Parts engine stuff 01/83
14504 S. Carmenita
Unit C
Norwalk CA 90560
- They sell 1-1/8 NPT internal hex drive stainless steel core plugs for
the Ford 351C. They also have the taps, though no prices were mentioned.
- Interestingly, they also sell some unusual rods. These are plain 351C
rods which have been redrilled, tapped, and rebored for 7/16x2" 427 Ford
rod capscrews. I'm not convinced capscrews are stronger than through
bolts in this application, but at least it takes care of clearances
between the bolt head and cam or cylinder wall.
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 5 Feb 93
- -> The ones I have had in my hands recently are from 2.3L SVO 4-cyl engines.
- Looks like a prime place to find a forged rod. Now I'll dodge the issue a
bit - I was speaking mainly of the 302 and 351. I don't recall that I've
ever exactly seen a rod out of a 2300.
- -> If they are cast, they are really clean castings, and I didn't think
-> they were any special rod. I will dig up a set of 302 rods I have
- Cast rods will have a parting line 1/16 to 1/8 wide, with the top of the
parting line being smooth. Forged rods will have a parting line 3/16 to 1/4
wide, with the edges gnawed-looking where they ground the flashing off.
- Cast vs. forged cranks are similar, except the parting line on a crank can
be as much as 3/4 wide.
- You have to remember this isn't nasty old gray cast iron we're talking
about. The difference between "iron" and "steel" is tenuous at best, but
Ford used to show pictures of one of their cast steel rods which they'd tied
into a knot using a hydraulic press. The sequence of photos also shows them
untying the knot, straightening, and resizing the rod, ready to re-use.
Well, if you were proving a point, anyway.
- H-O Racing Specialties makes a major production of how bad Pontiac's cast
rods are, and how you should never run a 455 past 5800 RPM or the rods will
break, etc. I've seen Pontiac rods and they make Ford rods look positively
spindly; either Pontiac made 'em out of compressed cheese or H-O is making
the hard sell for a set of their replacement forged rods.
- Buick V6 rods are all cast according to one of my Buick books. I dunno if
that includes the turbos as well.
- Small block Chevy rods are all forged as far as I know. You have to
remember the Chevy is an *old* motor, designed before high strength cast
steel technology was fully developed. GM's engineers probably figured the
forging dies have been paid for long ago, so why switch?
[note: all Ford rods are forged]
dave williams
rec.autos.tech 03-24-93
- -> two one in front one in back. What I was wondering is if anyone
-> knows what the proper torque is for the oil drain plugs.
- Though it's a rather important specification (at least to me), only one
of my references lists it. According the the 1975 Ford general engine
service manual, the torque is 15-25 ft-lb. Rather a broad range,
probably because of the soft washer.
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 4 Mar 93
- -> Your local Ford dealer can fix you right up, or Milodon, Moroso,
-> Callies, etc. Check the Address List on dixie.
- > I was under the impression these all required more tweaks to the
> motor than just the necessary mounting studs. Are any of these
> installable without putting the engine on a stand?
- Hmm... are you running a front sump pan or rear sump Fox pan? To fit things
in a Fox pan you might have to use tin snips and cut away part of one side
of the try to clear the oil pickup tube; I had to do that last time.
- -> And while I'm at it, most of the hi-volume oil pumps seem to require
-> "minor" clearancing of the oil pan. What's involved here?
- Yup, I bet you have a Fox pan. The HV pumps typically have slightly longer
rotors and this hang down a little lower; the pan damned near touches the
stock pump. Usually there's not that much of a problem; nothing a little
work with a BFH can't fix, though hammer knots on the bottom of the pan
aren't beautiful.
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 3 Apr 93
- -> The 351M and the 400M are not of the cleveland type engine, they
-> may look alike, but a cleveland is very much like a windsor, the
-> bellhousings are the same, the heads have the same bolt pattern and
-> can be swapped with a little work, or so i hear, also i do believe
-> they use the same engine mounts. The C and M do have timing chain
-> covers that look alike but the 351m/400 is susposed to be a real easy
-> swap for a 429/460. Also the M family I do believe has longer rods
-> and a higher deck height.
- The 351M and 400 (Ford doesn't call it the M) *are* Clevelands, at least
according to Ford. They're high-deck 351C-4Vs with larger main bearing
diameters. The bellhousing bolt patterns are the same as the 429/460, but
they bolt in on Cleveland mounts, the heads are exactly identical to the
Cleveland, timing chains, water pumps, oil pans, and assorted odds and ends
are all the same as the Cleveland.
- The 351M/400 actually has the same deck height as a 460. Why? Holy Baud
alone knows. Ford simply does wierd things like that.
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 3 Apr 93
- -> This is true. The Boss 302 had heads that were quite like the
-> Cleveland heads with huge valves.
- The *only* difference between the '70 BOSS 302 heads and the Cleveland 351
BOSS or HO heads is the water jacketing. The 302 had Windsor-style water
returns in the intake manifold face, the Cleveland heads had the Cleveland
block-style returns. The '69 BOSS 302 heads were fitted with 2.25/1.71
valves, which were downsized to 2.19/1.71 in '70. Ford evidently felt a
2.25/1.71 combo was a little more valve than a mere 302 could use.
- -> Also someone wrote earlier about how you could put the Cleveland heads
-> on the Windsor and not the 351M or 400 heads.
- Whoever it was is wrong, because there's absolutely no difference at all -
not even Ford part numbers - between a 351C-2V, 351M, or 400 head, other
than some of the oddball 351M heads with the potbelly exhaust port. I
happen to have a pair of 400 heads bolted on my 351W block, sitting right
there in the living room, right next to the refrigerator. (hey, it's an old
house, things are a little odd)
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 3 Apr 93
- -> I think the 302 BOSS was the 302 small block with special 351
-> cleveland heads.
- Basically, you're right. I have several magazine articles and some Ford
Muscle Parts literature from the late sixties, and best as I can tell
Mercury Division actually developed the 351C and shipped a very few in '68
cars, though it was officially a '69 motor. The BOSS 302 absolutely,
positively did not ship until '69, and rather late in the year at that.
However, Ford's Muscle Parts brochure claims the 351C was developed from the
BOSS 302, but I tend to believe that's ad hype. If it were true, then why
develop a whole new short block to make the 351C, rather than simply using
the 351W, which came out in '68?
- The BOSS 302 was also available in the Cougar Eliminator, but as an option.
I've seen half a dozen Eliminators, including several with the shaker scoop,
and all have been bog-standard 2-barrel 302 Windsors with automatic
transmissions. The Mercury parts books also show the BOSS 429 as an
optional engine, and parts breakdowns, and Mercury ads from '69-'70
sometimes list the BOSS 429 as an option, but I've never seen an Eliminator
with either BOSS.
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 5 Apr 93
- -> What modifications are required to Cleveland heads in order to
-> install them on a 351W? The reason I ask is that I have a 351C that
-> I suspect the block is trash. I figure that since I have the
-> Cleveland heads in hand, this is a perfect opportunity. However,
-> when I asked some ford mechanics, they seemed to think that the mods
-> would be so extensive and expensive that I would be better off buying
-> a set of aftermarket heads for the 351W. Maybe this would not be
-> true for someone who could do the work himself.
- You need to drill three water holes on each deck surface; you can do that
with a hand drill. The heads need to have the water returns blocked off and
a hole drilled in the intake face for the Windsor style water return; B&A
does it for $35. Then you need a B&A Street BOSS intake and some longer
pushrods.
- The Street BOSS costs $265, which sounds like a whole lot until you realize
a comparable Edelbrock 351W intake costs the same. It's a good, clean
conversion, and B&A has sold thousands of manifolds.
- -> Also, what would it take to mount the 351W up to my existing
-> transmission? I have a 72 Cougar XR7 with an FMX auto tranny.
- If the car was originally a 351C, the Windsor block will bolt right up with
no changes. And you can use your Cleveland motor mounts and starter too.
Since you already have a Cleveland your exhaust should bolt right up unless
you have a crossover pipe; if so, you'll have to either bend the pipe or
have the crossover lengthened due to the slightly taller deck on the
Windsor.
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 5 Apr 93
- -> I have heard that the 400 Ford had a poor combustion chamber
-> design that was prone to detonation. Anyone clear that up?
- Same old combustion chamber design they used from '69-up. It's an open
chamber, as opposed to the rarish 4V-closed chamber or Australian 2V heads.
I've read the "prone to detonation" thing in the magazines too, and I think
they're full of it.
- - -> I also recall that the disributor fused itself to the block
- Ford's good about that, too. Ford used an O-ring on the distributor shaft
instead of a paper gasket under the flange. The O-ring doesn't leak,
doesn't get torn when the distributor is moved or removed, and is generally
the hi-tech solution. Well, medium-tech, anyway. However, that means the
upper section of the distributor is dry instead of seeing oil splash, and it
will get condensed moisture and corrode, sealing itself to the block. LOTS
of WD-40 and gentle persuasion with a BFH are required to get it loose.
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 6 Apr 93
- -> I read last year in HRM about a company that makes small block ford
-> distributers that are GM HEI on top. No more Dura-no-spark problems.
- Hey, I did that in 1981! Hacksawed the GM top off and had it welded onto
the Ford shaft. Cleared the intake manifold (just barely) and worked
fiiiine. Now that I have a lathe I could do it again, but after listening
to John talk about triggering the HEI or Chrysler modules with points, I'll
probably just use a Dura-Suck distributor housing and pickup and a Chrysler
module. My buddy Doug is cloning a few Carter Knock Eliminator boxes for
it. If it weren't for that and I had to recurve the distributor, I'd
certainly want the GM HEI top - you can get zillions of weights, springs,
and cams to control the advance, and they're right there on the top. Fords
like to hide them underneath where you have to disassemble the distributor
to get to them.
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 21 Apr 93
- Early last year, digging through various sources, I assembled a list of
dimensions for small block Ford parts. I found that 351M rods would fit in
a 351W. The 351W rods are 5.995 inches, the 351Ms are 6.65. Bearing and
pin diameters are the same. The long rod swap requires a special piston, of
course. Arias gave me a price of $640 for eight 1.19 pin height pistons,
and that's with the pin up in the oil ring groove. When I started my 351 I
gave a figurative toss of the dice - B&A wanted $150 a set for their hyper-
eutectic (Federal-Mogul) custom pistons with 351W pin height and 351C domes,
and I already had a set of six inch Windsor rods. For an easy savings of
$500 there was no competition.
- Someone else finally figured it out. There's an article in the May Popular
Hot Rodding, which just showed up in the local supermarket. I bought it and
read it, and I'm somewhat shocked. It's by Peter Sauracker, who's the
technical guru at Circle Track. (if you look at the bylines, all these
auto-journalist types frequently wander hither and yon)
- Anyway, I've sometimes disagreed with Sauracker, but I've never caught him
in an obvious cockup. He totally blew it on this one, though. I dunno if
it's entirely his fault - the jeeter-types who put this thing together
seemed to have some pretty contradictory ideas as to what they wanted.
- "...objectives...must make tons of power and torque...in a streetable RPM
range...want the engine to be simple...maximum price of $5000 to pay for a
professionally assembled long block."
DAVE: for five grand just for the long block, I'd buy one of Lunati's
510 cube 460 strokers. $5000 seems like a hell of a lot for a
street motor - my B&A Windsor will only cost $2500 complete, and
that includes *everything*, as I had no usable parts around to
scavenge.
[looking for] "...425 ft-lbs torque and 375hp..."
DAVE: Let's open the Racer Walsh catalog here. On page 14, we find
the 351 HO marine motor rated at 285hp and 355 ft-lbs. It's a
brand new Ford motor, not rebuilt, with the GT40 heads, a marine
cam, and a point distributor. No mention of the type of intake,
but it comes with a Holley carb. All for $2295. You could
probably find 20 ft-lb of torque given the $2805 left in the
budget, wot?
"There has been a little known secret in engine technology that many
people don't understand or even know about in some cases. Employing
this secret can result in a tremendous step forward in the power
produced by most street cars, yet does not adversely affect
dirveability, fuel mileage, vacuum, idle quality, and all our other
requirements. What is it? Rod length."
DAVE: BRAAAWK. That's my bogosity meter hitting the peg. Long rods
tend to *reduce* torque at lower RPMs where this engine is
supposed to run, aggravate reversion problems due to late
intake valve closing, aggravate overlap problems, tend to make
the engine more sensitive to spark timing and detonation due to
higher peak cylinder pressures, etc. Long rods are great in
many cases, but just sliding a set in ain't gonna make granny's
Windsor a torque monster.
"...Ford 351 Windsor...9.300 deck height."
DAVE: The Cleveland is 9.200. The Windsor is 9.500. Where does
Sauracker get 9.300?
"combined with using special smaller pistons...inexpensively gain a full
.500-inch in rod length."
DAVE: SMALLER pistons? Is this guy for real, or what?
"Crane...cast iron aftermarket...64cc chamber...Fireball heads...special
JE dished pistons to get 9.5:1 CR"
DAVE: certainly going low-buck here, aren't we? What's a set of those
heads cost, about a grand? They babble about the requirement
for a dished piston to get the 9.5:1 CR with the tiny 64cc
chamber. Interestingly, the early Windsor heads were 60.5cc,
2V 302s were 64cc, and 4V 302s were 58cc. Do these people know
how to figure compression?
"...used the longer 351M/400 rod..."
DAVE: the rods are the same length - 6.65" - but the 400 rod has a
larger pin end for the special 400-size pin, which is different
from all other Ford small blocks
- There's some other stuff in the article - the high-dollar Crane heads are
mated with a 224 degree roller cam, 1.5" tube headers, and a 650 Holley, and
then one of Weiand's high-RPM dual-plane intakes. Well, I guess nobody
thought about putting a tunnel ram and a single two barrel on it. The parts
mismatch looks sorta like they put this thing together out of leftover parts
and what was on sale.
- The whole article is written in a mixture of "gee whiz" and incorrect facts.
Sauracker also has a *second* article in the same issue, recycling a Circle
Track article from last year, pictures and all. That kind of thing is
considered to be just a little tacky. He even has a third article in the
same issue, but it's just another "notes to newbies" thing.
- It ain't just Sauracker, folks. There are gross technical errors all though
the magazine. Has PHR really sunk so low since I last bought a copy? I
guess they have.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
mustangs 14 Jun 1993
- -> Last week the motor had 120K (km not miles, that would be 72k miles
-> :) ), and he was going around a corner in 2nd, accelerating but not
-> hard and the crank broke !!!
- I've heard of a number of cases of broken cranks recently. The old 289 and
302 used nodular iron, and I've never seen a broken crank in one. However,
failure seems to be, if not common, then not terribly unusual in 5.0s. Is
the 5.0 crank still nodular, or did Ford cheap out to gray cast iron?
- Where did the crank break? Rod or main journal? Which one?
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
mustangs 15 Jun 1993
- -> I read that in an old book from Ford I think. The reasoning being
-> that trucks are supposed to be under more load constantly than cars,
-> so they put stronger cranks in them. This goes back to the old 289s.
- All 289s (and presumably 260s and 221s) had cast nodular iron cranks. The
289 High Performance was also nodular, though Ford claimed it had "higher
nodularity" than the ordinary cranks. One wonders if nodularity might be
carried too far... The 302, 351W, and 351C were also nodular, except for
the BOSS 302, which was forged steel. The BOSS 351 was nodular, supposedly
"selected for extra hardness." The 400 is gray iron. I have no reference
for the 351M crank; if anyone knows whether it's gray iron or nodular iron
I'd appreciate the information. I have no idea about the 255, other than
it's hollow. I wouldn't touch a 255 with rubber gloves.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
mustangs 18 Jun 1993
- -> } B303 3300 5100 284 284 .480 .480
-> (224) (224)
-> } E303 2500 6000 282 282 .498 .498
-> (220) (220)
->
-> The lobe separation angle is the same for both - 110 degrees.
- Now *that* is interesting. Then those are either asymmetrical lobes, dual
profiles, or both.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
classic-mustangs 18 Aug 1993
- -> What caught my attention is the "351C 2V" part. From what I've read,
-> you could only order a 351C 4V in 1970; the 351 2V available was a
-> 351W. I have heard that some 351C 2Vs were made to overcome 351W
-> production shortfalls - has anyone seen such a car?
- From what I've seen - a friend has a '70 he bought new - *most* 351-4V were
351Cs, *most* 351-2V were 351Ws. Except Guy ordered a four barrel, and got
a 351 Windsor 4V. He also expected the automatic transmission to be a C4 or
C6 - he got the FMX instead.
- -> Was this just a carb change, or did these 351C 2Vs come with the 2V heads
-> instead of the 4V heads
- All 2V Clevelands have 2V heads, different pistons, and 2V intake manifolds.
It's a substantially different engine from a 4V Cleveland.
- -> and a C-4 or FMX transmission? How can I REALLY tell if it's a 351C
-> or a 351W if the VIN says it's a 351 2V?
- Simple! Pop the hood and look at where the top radiator hose goes into the
engine. If it's straight up and goes into the block, it's a Cleveland. If
it's horizontal and goes into the intake manifold, it's a Windsor.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
classic-mustangs 23 Aug 1993
- -> The 300 inline 6 uses the same bellhousing as the small block Fords
-> (289/302/351W). I know, I have a former 300 6 cyl truck with a 351 W
-> in it now, and the bellhousing and clutch bolted right up.
- Ford bolt patterns are WEIRD!
- The 240 and 300 six transmissions mate up to the later 289, 302, 255, 351W,
and 351C six bolt pattern, and vice versa. Same with the Australian 302C.
- The 144-170-200-250 six had its own unique bolt pattern, except some later
200s and 250s came with the same bolt pattern as the above. Those blocks
are preferable if you're going to try swapping stuff around.
- I'm not sure which bolt pattern is used by the Australian sixes, but the
heads interchange with the 144-250 family.
- The 221, 260, and some early 289s had a 5 bolt bellhousing pattern that
doesn't match the later engines.
- The FE series - 332-352-360-361-390-391-406-427-428 shared the same bolt
pattern.
- The old 272-292-312 Y-block motors used the same bolt pattern.
- The 2000cc German Pinto four and the 2300/2500cc Brazilian Pinto four have
the same bellhousing bolt pattern, but you have to use stepped dowels to
line them up since the dowel holes are different. There were also 1300cc
and 1600cc European versions, and a Cosworth twin cam. Note this is the OHC
motor, *not* the "Kent".
- The English Ford "Kent" pushrod engine was available in 1100, 1300, 1500,
1600, and 2000cc versions, also including a Cosworth twin cam. This engine
was used in some early Pintos and Capris, the Cortina, and the Fiesta. It
was also the basis for many of the Cosworth aluminum-block racing engines as
well as being the standard Formula Ford motor, and practically every racing
transmission builder has a special bellhousing or adapter for this engine.
- The 370, 429, and 460 have the same bolt pattern. The 400 shares this
pattern, even though it's actually a high deck Cleveland and not a true big
block. I'm not sure which bolt pattern is used on the 351M. I suspect it's
the same as the 400.
- The German 2600 and 2800 V6s (Capri, Pinto) share the same bolt pattern,
which is similar to, but not the same as, the Pinto four. The newer 2.9 and
3.0 pushrod V6s are related, but I'm not sure if they have the same bolt
pattern.
- I have no idea what the patterns are on the Ford 90 degree V 3.8, the Taurus
SHO, and the various front wheel drive cars are.
chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
hotrod 05 Oct 1993
- -> an 'oil slinger', a disk of some sort which resides behind the
-> timing chain cover, sandwiched between the harmonic dampener snout
- It's a sheet metal disc about 4" in diameter. All small blocks and FEs (I'd
bet most Ford V8s) use the same slinger, so just find one and use it.
- I wouldn't try running without the slinger - its job it to deflect oil from
the timing cover seal.
- BTW, Ford recommends using a special conical tool for seating the timing
cover on a Windsor. It looks sort of like a clutch pilot tool, slides over
the crank, and positively locates the cover when you snug it down.
Naturally, not even the dealer has one. The cheapie trick is to put the
damper on and let it position the cover, start what bolts you can, then pull
the damper off and put in the rest of the bolts.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
mustangs 31 Oct 1993
- -> Does anybody have any experience in swapping 302 heads for 351 heads
-> on a 302 motor? I have a friend whose just had a pair of 351W heads
- You need *hardened*, such as Grade 8, washers to go under the head bolts,
since the 302 uses 7/16 bolts and the 351 heads have 1/2 holes. Ford used to
sell a special bolt for this, but the washers work just as well. If you
don't use the washers, the bolts will bugger the holes and eventually the
head will not be clamped properly.
- You will need 302 end gaskets and 351W side gaskets for the intake. The
351W's extra bolt holes will leak water with 302 gaskets. 351W gaskets are
easily identified by their L-shaped water hole, as opposed to the square or
rectangular hole on the 302.
- Either the 302 or 351W head gasket will work; there are several different
gasket designs for each, and I've never found much to choose from between
them.
== 1994 --------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 07 Jan 1994
- I just called my local Ford place to get a price on a distributor drive gear
for a 351W with a roller cam. According to the parts man, Ford changed the
gear in 1980. Pre-1980 gears are still available, but 1980 and later are
not. In fact, no distributor parts are available at all -"replace as
assembly." I'm not quite sure if I believe this guy or not.
- The roller cam wasn't introduced until, what, 1985? That'd be the only gear
change I could see.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 16 Jan 1994
- -> valve covers, will roller rockers fit under them? The valve covers
-> are standard '64 260 unit. The rockers I have been considering are
- No. Furthermore, if you go too big on the cam, you'll dent the valve
covers. The low-profile 260 covers are *really* low!
- For a standard rebuild and ordinary driving, the rollers aren't really
justifiable pricewise unless your existing rockers are worn out and have to
be replaced, or some other unusual thing.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 04 Feb 1994
- -> are impatient :-). Make sure this is not a semi-finished block that
-> requires finish machining, and possibly even line boring before it
- Gakk. You also need to watch for "semi-finished lifter bores." That costs
from $500 to $750 around here, to get them finished up. I never understood
quite why they ever made the blocks like that anyway. If you want a larger-
than-stock lifter bore, you just run a reamer through.
- -> Something to watch for even with the 302 block. The ones we
-> buy from SVO have the 1/2" head bolts, not the 7/16" that the
-> stock block uses. Actually, this is a good thing, but you are not
-> going to bolt stock heads to it.
- The roughing reamer to open the holes up is under $20, but you need either a
mill or a badass drill press to do the job. Good point to consider, though
- you'd need hardened washers if you ever wanted to run them on a 7/16
block.
- -> almost get the cubes (but more importantly the power) out of a
-> bored/stroked 302 as the 351. When handling and power/weight ratio
- Are you using cut-down Cleveland cranks or the forged SVO cranks? I've
looked at the numbers on putting a 3.5" crank in a 302. The only article
I've seen on it was when Jack Roush did it to the '77 Indy Pace Car Mustang
II, though I'm sure the 5.0 magazines have covered it since.
- The only semi-standard combo I've been able to come up with has been to use
the 5.2 Pinto rods and a TRW piston designed for long-rod 350 Chevys, with
the rod being narrowed and the small end changed to the Chevy pin size. It
looks like 5.3 or so is about it for rod length unless you're seriously into
bridged rings.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 07 Feb 1994
- -> The lifter bores are finished, but the trick thing to do is get them
-> aligned. We actually "align bore" the lifter bores and install
- Yeah, I've seen photos of the gang-drill machine that does the lifter bores.
They're drilled and reamed to size on most Fords, though I have one 351W
block that looks for all the world like the lifter holes were bored with a
single-point tool. Ford typically doesn't hone the lifter bores.
- I've seen photos of the (BHJ?) lifter bore fixture, but it doesn't support
the end of the cutter very well. RHS just uses a long end mill. Okay I
guess, as long as you keep your feeds low.
- -> We use the forged SVO cranks, custom ground to somewhere around 3.15"
-> stroke for the 331, where the bores are somewhere around 4.040 to 4.080.
- Are these SVO or standard 5.0 blocks? .080 is getting on out there for the
standard Ford. Well, that's only .040 off each side, but I'm one of those
cylinder-wall-stiffness freaks.
- -> > Have you had any dealings with one of these 302/351s? Any problems
-> >with cylinder wall or piston wear due to the short rod ratio?
- -> We haven't done this yet, but if we have time........
- I've been doodling one lately. It looks like a good way to slide by the
smog visuals, keep your Fox pan and manifolding, and so forth. There'd be
some definite tradeoffs compared to a 351W block, but the extra 49 cubes
might come in handy.
- Let's see... from the original 221 inch size out to a 302/351 - 2.87 stroke
to 3.5 - that's what you call pushing it to the limit.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 20 Feb 1994
- "Everyone knows" the 221-302 distributor and 351W don't interchange since
the 351W uses a larger oil pump shaft and distributor drive gear. I
mentioned a few months ago that the 351W, 351C, 351M/400, and 429/460
distributors were all the same; only the gear is different. 351M
distributors are common as dirt, but 351W distributors are hard to find
around here.
- Now I'm looking through Crane's oval track cam catalog, and they have
distributor gears in back. Cool. They list a gear for a .500 shaft for the
302 and a .530 shaft for the 351W. I've never miked one, but I know it's
bigger. Cool. Uh... they also list a .467 shaft on the 302. Say what? As
far as I know, all 221-302 distributors are 100% interchangeable; this is
the only place I've ever seen anything about a .467 and a .500 shaft! Heck,
even the distributor companies don't say anything.
- They show the 351W and the 302 SVO as both having a .530 shaft. I could
sort of see wanting the bigger oil drive on the SVO, but that'd be a weird
bastard distributor. They show both the .500 and .530 on the 370-460!
- Have I been missing something here?
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 20 Feb 1994
- I just found some more info on SB Ford distributor shafts - Hot Rod, Dec
'93, mentions the .467 and .500 shafts. They claim the Ford SVO catalog
lists a .467 gear for the 289/302 and a .500 for the 302 SVO/351 motors.
Still no indication of which 289/302s would have had which gears, and I
don't feel like yanking the distributor out of the '74 in the shop to
measure it.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 09 Mar 1994
- Subject: C3AE-N mods
- -> said that the 11/32" bolts worked great and that the loss of metal
-> from enlarging the hole was not enough to worry about. The people
-> that thought it was bad basically said that you could not afford to
-> lose any material around the bolt, and that the person doing the work
- I've gone the 11/32 route before, in the old days, but nowadays I'd
just slap in a set of 5/16 ARP Wavelocs and keep on truckin'.
- Another alternative would be to tap the rod itself and run a 3/8"
capscrew up from the bottom like some of the Cleveland guys used to do,
but I doubt it'd be worth it.
- The small block Ford rod failures I've seen have usually been at the
bolt head cutouts on the shank. Polishing the bitch out of the area and
breaking all sharp edges will help a lot.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 19 Jun 1994
- I spent most of yesterday whittling a 351C crank with my little Atlas lathe.
With 36" between centers it's fine for gun barrels and the like, but
although it's rated at 10" diameter, it'll only turn 6" over the cross
slide. I've made brake hats and stuff, but that's faceplate work.
- A 351C crank is about 7-1/4" in diameter, so I wound up with an overhung
tool arrangement that was a good example of "don't do this" in machine work.
Ah, well
- A 302 crank is around 6" in diameter. The 351C counterweights looked like
they'd fit in a 302 block, maybe a little trimming on the cylinder skirts,
but no pan rail problems. Alas, playing with the 302 crank and piston
showed that the piston comes down to within 1/8" of the crank cheeks at BDC,
so I had to come down at least to 6". Now that the crank will rotate over
the centers I can cut it down more if required.
- I found out why crank scrapers aren't popular on Fords. A small block Chevy
crank is almost round. Forged ones are often machined round. The Ford
cranks - 302 and 351C both - have counterweights that are almost football
shaped. With it between centers on the lathe and spinning, it was the
damnedest thing I've seen in a while.
- The 351's rear seal diameter had to be turned down to match the 302. The
length was OK, the snout was OK. The next step is to crossdrill, and then
cut down an old 351W rod to 5.2 and order a piston so I can see how much I'm
going to have to gnaw off the crank cheeks for skirt clearance. I hadn't
realized how the skirts would become a problem. Fortunately, only four
counterweight sides are affected, and only in small areas, and they're quite
accessible.
- Once the major gnawing is done I'll send it out to have the journals cut
down.
- I've talked to a couple of shops who've done the conversion and they say
there's no trouble balancing it. The 351C weights are thicker and square
cornered (after they're cut, anyway) and much heavier. Chrome-A-Shaft said
they have to drill a lot of metal out. That's fine. What I'm considering is
having the thing internally balanced instead of the Detroit balance Ford
normally uses. I can de-counterweight the balancer on the lathe. You can
get a flexplate or flywheel neutral balanced without the rest of the engine.
The advantage is, there's less bearing load on a neutral balanced engine,
and it's in balance over a wider RPM range than a Detroit balance engine.
(engine balancing isn't an exact thing; you usually tune for a specific RPM
band)
- One thing I need to find out is, if the 5.0 with the one piece rear main
seal uses the same rear diameter, etc, as a regular 302 crank. The crank
assembly is being mocked up in a 302 block, but it'll probably wind up in a
5.0.
- I've also talked to the machine shop about align-boring the billet steel
main caps. They say the difference in material won't affect the bar at all,
particularly since they're using a 2 inch bar to bore a 2.5 inch journal.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 04 Jul 1994
- GM offers a heavy-duty drain plug, part number 14090908. It uses the same
1/2-20 thread as most Ford plugs, but has a Stat-O-Seal washer instead of
the usual plastic washer.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 14 Jul 1994
- -> Questions: Does anyone have any experience with the Lunati "mini-stroker"
-> balanced assembly for 302 (not boss)? They advertise 315 cubes
- You can do it by offset-grinding the crank down to the 2.3 Pinto size, using
the 5.205 rods, and cutting a set of dish-top 302 pistons down to 1.42 pin
height. It's a cheap, easy way to get a longer rod and a handful of cubes.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 15 Jul 1994
- -> Don't suppose you'd care to give more details eh? I'd be willing to
-> try one just to see how well it turns out.
- What you're going to do is have a shop offset-grind the crank from its
existing 2.123 rod journal diameter to the 2.0468 2.3 Pinto size. This will
allow you to stroke the crank about .076". The exact amount of stroke you
get depends on how worn your original crank is. This will bring you out
from 301.6 cubes to 309.2 cubes if everything matches up right. That'd be a
standard size Pinto journal - you could get more stroke by going undersize,
but I'd prefer to stay with standard and leave undersize for rebuilds.
- Next, you take a set of 2.3 Pinto rods. The big ends will have to be
narrowed, along with the rod bearings. This is really trivial if you have
the equipment. One nice thing is it lets you choose your own bearing widths
and rod side clearance - something you're pretty well stuck with on a
standard production engine. The 2.3 rods are substantially beefier than
plain old 5.0 rods, and they're even bulkier than the SVO rods. They're all
made out of cast Armasteel unless Ford has made a recent specification
change.
- Next, the small ends have to be honed just a bit to fit the V8 pistons - the
nominal pin size for the 2.3 is .911", the pin for the V8 is .913." I'd
recommend staying with pressed pins, which are stronger and more reliable
than circlip retained pins.
- Finally, you select a piston with a fairly deep dish - TRW makes some -and
you turn the rim of the dish down from 1.60 nominal to around 1.42,
depending on your stroke, deck height variation, etc. With a .030 overbore,
you're looking at 313.8 cubes. With .040, 315.4 cubes.
- The heavier rods and lighter pistons will throw the balance off, but not
enough to worry about. It shouldn't require any heavy metal to balance, any
shop should be able to do it in their sleep.
- All this grinding, honing, narrowing, and measuring may sound a little
extreme, but it's about the same stuff you'd do if you were thoroughly
blueprinting a stock 302, index-grinding the crank, zeroing the deck height,
etc.
- -> How about flycutting the pistons for valve pockets?
- Shouldn't be any trouble unless you're running a really high lift cam. Then
you'd need to check the thickness of the piston domes before you got carried
away with the cutter.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 19 Jul 1994
- -> I just joined this list and did not get the tech on the cleveland
-> stroker motor. Can someone please send me archive on this setup?
- [apologies to anyone who's seen this too many times, and for those of
you who missed it first time around, here's your chance. ]
- Take one 351C crank, chuck in a lathe, turn OD of counterweights down to
5.9", turn rear seal diameter down to 302 size. There's some hand work
required on the counterweight ends for piston skirt clearance. The oil
slinger flange in back may have to be modified depending on whether you have
a 302 or 5.0 block.
- Have crank cut down from 2.75/2.311 rods and mains to 2.25/2.045 rods and
mains. This is a wad of metal and crank shops will charge you a chunk, as
it eats up their expensive grinding wheels. Crank wheels are about 3 feet
in diameter...
- Take two sets (8) Pinto 2.3 rods. The pin ends need to be opened up to .927
Chevy size. The bearing ends need to be narrowed to fit the V8 journal
size. This is a primo chance to properly set the rod side clearance,
ordinarily there's nothing you can do about it. I recommend having the rods
sized for *pressed* pins.
- One set of eight Keith Black 350 Chevy pistons, intended for 6" rods. These
have the right pin height to match up with the Pinto rods and Cleveland
stroke. They have a large valve relief in the deck - I don't know yet how
they'll clear Ford valves. I don't expect any trouble, but it's simple to
fix if needed.
- The entire reciprocating assembly must be balanced. It's a simple no-heavy-
metal balance, no problem.
- Anyone who's paid sharp attention will notice we're cutting almost a quarter
inch of metal off the rod journals, allowing strokes from 3.25 to 3.75, with
displacements from 330-ish to 380-ish (if you were seriously crazy). Yes,
you could offset grind a Cleveland crank down to 3.25 and build a 331. No,
it's not a workable deal - the shops I've talked to want lots more money (on
the order of 3x) to offset grind a crank, than just to whittle it down. By
the time you add in reducing the OD, fixing the rear seal, etc, you're right
at the same price as the forged SVO crank. You'd be crazy to run a carved
Cleveland crank if the SVO is in the same price range.
- -> BTW will the stock "modified" engine cranks also work if turned down?
- You *could*, but you'd be cutting a 3.0 inch main down to 2.25. The oil
holes might walk clear off the journal, and the crank shop would charge you
more - remember, any old *junk* Cleveland crank will do - you're cutting it
down to *standard* 302 and Pinto bearing size, not undersize.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 05 Aug 1994
- I was just reading an old (1967) article on modifying the 289. The author
(one of the old HRM staff) claimed the flywheels and balancers were
different between the 221/260/289. Piston weight was different, sure, but
they all had the 2.87 stroke. None of my old flywheel catalogs says
anything about differences between the 260 and 289. Anyone know the story on
this?
- The article also mentions Ford had to go to external counterweighting
because the required weights wouldn't fit in the small block crankcase.
Boul-sheit, as Arnie would say.
dave williams
rec.autos.tech 08-11-94
- -> How 'bout the 289? My guess would be same as the 302/351W, but that
-> got me into trouble the last time.
- 221/260/early 289 used the 5 bolt pattern. Later 289s and all 302/351W/351C
engines used the 6 bolt pattern. They're not interchangeable.
- -> What exactly _is_ a 351M? Half breed 351C/429? Destroked 429? I
-> hear different stories every time. I always heard that the "M"
-> designation stood for "Modified", is that the case, or just
-> ford.folklore?
- A 351M is a weird duck. It's a 351C-2V with the same deck height as a 429
(which makes it as large as a 429), 351W sized main bearings, and 6.58 inch
long rods. For all practical purposes it's a bigger, heavier 351C-2V with
long rods. The 400 is the same engine, except with a 4 inch stroke instead
of 3.5 inch. Ford didn't even bother to discriminate between the 351M and
400 in some cases; even the EPA smog stickers would say "351M/400".
- I've never figured out exactly *why* the 351M existed. It was not only the
same size as the 429, but used the same bolt pattern. There could not have
been any manufacturing price difference between the 400 and 429, as they're
very similar. Same for smog stuff. And Ford even made a 370 inch big block
that was put in trucks, so it couldn't have been a matter of the 29 inch
displacement difference. Ford was very happy with the 351M/400, though, and
produced it for over ten years.
- Yes, the M is for Modified, according to Ford literature. The 400 is just
the 400, no M.
- Now for real thrills, take the 351 Windsor, which came out in 1968. Ford
made them until 1978 or so, then replaced them with the 351K, which is a
351W with a 302 head. Real 351 Windsors have 8 intake manifold bolts and L-
shaped intake water passages. 351Ks have the rectangular 302 water passages
and 6 intake bolts, the only difference between the K and a 302 being the
size of the head bolt holes - 1/2" on the 302, 9/16" on the K.
- Somewhere in the 1980s, Ford decided to rename the 351K back to 351W, but
they're all still Ks, and the heads don't directly interchange. Real 351
Windsor heads will leak water with K gaskets. And to top it off, Ford even
announced a new "BOSS 351" for 1993, available over the counter in the parts
department. Alas, the new "BOSS" is a 351K, not a Cleveland, just to
further confusion.
- Ford's engine families and nomenclature are crazy.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 01 Nov 1994
- -> they also had to machine the nose, the oil slinger and thrust
-> surface. in other words everything. we removed the caps and
- Yeah, but it's no big deal. Someone actually brought a 292 crank into
the shop that did my crank. We lifted Ken's 5.8 onto the bench (since
he's doing one too) and compared the 292 vs the cut down Cleveland.
- The 292 crank is considerably *longer* than the 302/351C! The rear
main is the worst, sticking the flywheel flange maybe 1/2" out past
where the 302 would be. You'd need block spacers or something to move
the transmission back. The 292's flywheel bolt pattern is wrong, and
there's not much metal there for correcting it. Due to a big notch in
the flange, it looks like you might only get 5 bolts instead of 6.
- The snout is too long and has to be cut off. The balancer bolt hole is
too small and shallow, and needs to be redrilled and retapped. New
keyways have to be cut.
- The OD looks basically OK.
- The Y-block is supposed to have the same 4.38 bore spacing as the 302,
but the rod journals don't quite line up in the center holes and are
visibly off at the end holes. No big deal, lots of manufacturers
(Leyland, Buick, Volvo) run offset rods. Annoying, though. And since
the crank is longer, the counterweights hit the block, and need to be
narrowed about 3/8" for the front and rear weights, which makes the
front cheek pretty thin. Only about 3/4 of the front main lines up with
the main bearing.
- At the rear, the Y-block uses a small diameter main-journal-sized rope
seal, as opposed to the flywheel-flange-sized 302/351. You will need to
build a two piece seal adaptor, which would bolt around the crank before
being installed in the block.
- The 351C, on the other hand, simply requires a grinding. You have to
take a lot more metal off than the 292, but you don't need half a
machine shop. Criminy.
- -> harmonic balancer. what kind should i use. the old one looks
-> really bad. remember this motor will mostly live in the low
-> RPM ranges. wasn't there somebody here in CA reconditioning them ?
- I've been concerned about this ever since I started the stroker. So
far, I've got literature from several balancer places, read the standard
references, looked in my engineering books, and come up with damn-all.
Unless contrary information suddenly arrives, I'm going to just use a
standard damper.
- Frank Marrone (?) found a place that would rebond dampers, but they
wanted more to rebond an old one than Ford wants for a new one. I'd
really like to find out more about bonding, as I can whip up some nice
steel outer rings on the lathe.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 25 Nov 1994
- Regarding sixto's comments on cylinder depth, here are some figures
from the stuff laying around in my shop:
- 302 Ford, E6SE casting, 5-1/8
302 Ford, D4DE casting, 5-1/8
302 Ford, 1987 vintage, 5-1/8
351W Ford, D2AE casting, 5-7/8
327 Chevy, 1963 vintage, 5-15/16
== 1995 --------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 19 Mar 1995
- -> The crank does not fit in the block. How much of the outside
-> diameter do I need to grind off the crank?
- On the order of 1-1/2". The counterweights aren't round, they're sort
of football shaped. I recommend cutting it down to almost to the rod
journals. That will help with piston clearance (bottom of piston to
crank cheeks) later.
- Your crank shop can do the counterweights in about two hours using the
crank grinder, but it'd be a lot better to find a place with a lathe
big enough to cut it with a lathe. It'd save a lot of money.
- -> The rod journal on the 400M crank measures 1.780".
- Sounds like it was either made too wide to start with, or reground too
wide. Not much you can do about the side clearance.
- -> Of the two, I like the Chrysler rod idea better, because of the
-> longer stroke and the longer rod. I really would like to have forged
-> pistons instead of hypereutectic.
- The Chrysler rod is probably stronger than the Ford one. I wouldn't
worry much about forged vs. hypereutectic. If you go Chrysler, you can
offset to 1/8" and use a common Chevrolet 1.3-ish piston. Or you could
offset the crank to 4.13 and use the 6.205" Ford 300-6 rods and KB112
pistons with the 1.21 pin height.
- -> Can anybody else give me some ideas? I've got to decide which way to
-> go before I go any farther.
- You'll need to notch the block at the oil pump boss to clear the front
counterweight. There's a ring around the front of the crank, ahead of
the front main. It has to be machined off so the lower timing sprocket
can move back in line with the upper. The keyway needs to be extended.
- Personally, I'd use the 351W rods and 302 pistons. It'd all match up
without any extra machining and save you a sizeable chunk of money.
Longer rods are better, but that'd be a very expensive eighth of an inch.
[note: the 400 rods *are* wider than the rest of the small blocks, by .100"!]
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 11 Apr 1995
- Coincident with the work on Tyrannosaurus RX, progess with the stroker 302
has been made. The cam, lifters, and assorted parts should be on their way.
- I had planned the motor for the Keith Black KB212 pistons, which are for a
350 Chevy with a 6" rod. They have the right pin height for the half inch
stroke and Pinto rods. You need a set of eight "left exhaust" pistons to
make it work.
- The last KB catalog I got listed an interesting new addition: the KB261,
listed for a 416 Windsor using a 351W block, 4.075 offset ground 400 crank,
and 300-6 rods. The pin height was 1.251, same as the Chevy, pin diameter
.9272, same as the Chevy... except the photo showed half moon valve reliefs
instead of the trough pocket of the KB212. Hot dog! It looked like the
KB212 with Ford valve reliefs. Just what I needed.
- I called KB. Turns out the pistons are not in production, and not scheduled
for production. I got hold of an 'engineer' who claimed the core for the
Ford piston would be different, and they weren't willing to put out the cash
at this time. I told him I'd planned to use the KB212s, and he
said, "yeah, every now and then someone will call us up and clean out our
entire supply of left-exhaust KB212s..." Maybe sixto is stockpiling.
Looks like I'll use the KB212s after all.
- The catalog lists a couple of other pistons that would be useful, which
supposedly *are* shipping. The KB122 is for a 6" rod 383 Chevy, and has a
pin height of 1.130. Remember when I was fussing about custom pistons to
stuff 6.65" 351M rods into a 351W? These pistons will do it, much cheaper
than $600 for customs. They also show a KB178, for a 6" rod 3.6 stroke
Chevy, with a pin height of 1.19. There are also a couple of nice 4.125
pistons that might work out nicely for my 441.
- Hey, I scoped out another parts stack yesterday, after going through that
Keith Black catalog again. KB makes a piston for a 6" rod 383 Chevy, with a
1.13 pin height. A set of those and a set of 400 Chevy rods would bolt
right nicely to a .023 under 302 crank, after you narrowed the big ends a
bit. That'd give you a set of 5.56" forged rods for dirt cheap, and you
could sneer at the guys paying for 5.4" Carrillo rods.
- Unfortunately, the only 3.0 inch Ford crank I have is perfect,
standard/standard, without a blemish. Looks like I need to cruise through
the junkyard again.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 10 May 1995
- -> I live in South Africa and have just converted a 3 litre V6 Ford
-> Courier 1 tonne Pickup (Essex motor) to a C351 4V plus a Borg Warner box.
- Hey, another engine swapper! Welcome to the club.
- -> the pushrod - next time two broke and three bent (different valves
-> than the first one). On closer inspection and advice from people in
- Ford used half a dozen different pushrod lengths on the 351C motors,
according to the Ford parts books. For some reason only one length is
commonly found in the performance catalogs. Are you absolutely certain you
don't have valve to piston contact?
- -> with his milling machine made the guideplates gap too large (about
-> 0.5 mm larger
- Nah, shouldn't hurt anything. The pushrods shouldn't even come into contact
with the guide plates unless the rocker walks off the valve stem; that
shouldn't happen unless you're floating valves. Since you say the valve
springs are pretty stout, it's not likely.
- -> just to be able to use the thing. Now I was told that problem is due
-> to the 4V rocker studs being out of alignment. My theory is that my
- The Cleveland studs cant in two different directions. I've never come up
with an easy, inexpensive way to check the inclinations, but if some goober
did a poor job of setting the heads up for screw in studs, they *could* be
off. Normally you screw a 5/16" bolt into the fulcum bolt hole, line the
head up on that, remove the bolt, and go in with the cutter. If you mess
up, you've lost the original alignment. Brr...
- A by-guess-and-by-gosh check would be to remove the studs and screw in four
foot-long pieces of 3/8 or 7/16 threaded rod, depending on what your threads
are. If any of the rods lean obviously different from the others, or they
all lean different directions, you have a problem.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fords 01 Jul 1995
- -> tight fit. It takes a great deal of pressure to push them on the
-> shaft. It is even more difficult to do this without bending the
...
-> it or not, the roll pin hole is seldom in the correct location. Go
- Criminy. No wonder the damned things seldom work right.
- Ron Iskenderian says one of the reasons for troubles with drive gear wear is
that the cam gear is too close to the bearing journal for normal hobbing
equipment to make a proper cut. OEMs use custom equipment, but the
aftermarket generally makes do, so the teeth on the camshaft itself aren't
correct to start with. Given the troubles you had with the gear, I'd wonder
if the teeth were right on that either.
- Wouldn't it have been easier to just steal the shaft and gear out of a 5.0
distributor from a roller motor?
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 01 Jul 1995
- -> No shit, now! The old rods have an oil passage from the big end to
-> the little end, and the crank bearings have corresponding oil holes.
-> The new rods do not have oil passages. The new rod bearing inserts
-> do not have oil holes.
- All of my 351W rods have a short drilling from the journal to the side of
the rod, above the bolt. This is the "squirt hole" that oils the thrust
side of the cylinder wall. Are you sure your rods are drilled end to end,
and not diagonally?
- I haven't seen anything except '60s and '70s rods, but most manufacturers
have stopped using the squirt holes due to improvements in motor oils,
rings, and so forth. As a wild guess, I'd suspect you have early rods in
your marine motor, but the replacement rods are from a late model.
- If your rods really are drilled for lubricating the small end, they should
be using floating wrist pins. The pistons will have snap rings to retain
the pin.
- As far as my references, all Ford car and truck 351Ws had the same rod and
pressed pins.
- If the marine rods are different, it won't hurt anything to mix them with
regular rods, providing the weights match up.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 17 Jul 1995
- -> installing the bloody thing. In particular, how do *you* keep the
-> end gaskets from leeking like a sieve? Also, the manual says torque
- Use the cork end gaskets. Clean the ends of the block and manifold with
alcohol or carb cleaner. Apply proper oilproof silicone sealer (not all are
oilproof!) to the gasket itself, wait until it gets skins over unless the
instructions say otherwise, and stick 'em on the block. Add intake gaskets -
a *little* sealer around the water holes will help seal, and keep the gasket
in place. Let it all dry. Apply a thin layer of silicone to the top of the
end gaskets and around the water holes. Let it skin over. Cut the heads off
two 5" long 5/16" hardware store bolts and screw one into each head to act
as a manifold guide. Carefully lower the manifold into place - there's not
much that actually locates it, and it's possible to wiggle it enough to
knock the end gaskets awry.
- "Clean" means you don't even touch a gasket surface with your fingers; sweat
is enough to cause a leak under the wrong circumstances. Murphy's Law being
what it is, that happens often.
- -> intake bolts to 15 ft-lbs. This seems pretty weak. Any comments?
- That's plenty. And if you get wild and overtorque, you can bend the
manifold down at the ends, which is guaranteed to cause heartache. Use
liquid Teflon sealer on the intake bolt threads to prevent oil leaks, and
use small diameter aircraft-type flat washers if you can find them, to keep
from scoring the manifold.
- -> temperature, retorque the bolts. This means pulling the upper
-> intake, which is a pain...
- Well, you *could* get a Victor Jr. and use a simple square piece of aluminum
with a hole in it to mount the throttle body. DFI sells the injector
mounting tubes for cheap - just drill, press, and epoxy. Not only a ton
cheaper than an EFI-style intake, but you get to avoid the weirdball
multiple kinks most of them have for the end runners.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 26 Aug 1995
- I finally got around to flipping through the June 1995 issue of Stupor Ford.
It's the one with the stroker articles.
- One of the nearly-content-free articles was on a Crawford 347. There were
enough photos to come up with some interesting data.
- There is a side-by-side shot of a Crawford 347 crank and a stock lightweight
late model 5.0 crank. The Crawford piece is not, as I had previously
suspected, a Y-block part. It's obviously a plain old Cleveland piece. The
caption mentions it uses standard 5.0 bearing sizes and has a 3.400 stroke.
Another caption mentions they use 5.4 rods, which means they have to have a
1.1" piston to make it work.
- Now that there are cheap, easily available 1.1 pistons available (for 6" rod
383 Chevys) you could match them up to a set of 2.3 HSC rods (5.45) and get
it all to work with a 3.4 stroke. This would require paying extra for
offset-grinding the crank, but with the shorter stroke and slightly longer
rod you don't have to profile the counterweights like I had to do with my
351 stroker. On the other hand, there's a big slug of heavy metal in the
Crawford's front counterweight. Hmm. When I asked Chrome-A-Shaft about
balancing mine, they said they usually had to remove a ton of metal to get
the thing to balance. We'll see, I guess.
- Crawford claims the Cleveland crank is good to 550hp or 7500 RPM.
- My own stroker is still stalled. The block and crank are slathered in oil
and sealed in plastic bags to keep swamp rot away, while the pistons are
apparently on terminal back order. Sixto probably got the last two half-
sets of KB212s around. When Summit deigns to ship the damned pistons I can
finish profiling the counterweights and take the thing down to the balance
shop.
- The Capri is back out on the road. If you recall, the engine got the full
coating treatment - bearings, distributor drive, auxiliary shaft, cam,
followers, valve stems, piston skirts, domes, combustion chambers, intake
and exhaust ports, valve faces and backs, etc. Nothing unusual in the oil
when I changed it. In a couple of months I'll yank the head off and see
what it looks like. Mostly I'm curious if the ceramic will stay on the
piston domes like it's supposed to.
- Now that the Capri is out of the shop, work on Tyrannosaurus RX will resume.
All the easy stuff is done - now it's wiring, throttle linkage, and the
like. But, hey, fall is coming - it didn't even crack 100 today!
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 10 Sep 1995
- TRX' hood closes over the stock 2V intake, carb, and EGR spacer, but there's
not much room for an air cleaner. I haven't actually measured, but sighting
over the fenders and allowing for the slight dome in the hood, I'd say the
clearance between the air horn and the underside of the hood is around an
inch.
- Removing the EGR spacer was quite useful. The spacer itself is about 1-1/8"
thick, with an insulated gasket that's a bit over 1/8" thick. That brings us
to useful hood clearance, except for a few problems. The first problem, as
I reported earlier, was the throttle linkage hitting the intake. I fixed
that with the die grinder. The next problem, and why the car idles like
crap, is that Ford changed the raised gasket pattern on the intake so it no
longer matches the carb. With a plain gasket the thing leaks air. Ford
really doesn't want you to remove the EGR spacer.
- A number of fixes for the air leak suggest themselves - building the intake
up with epoxy, fabricating a metal plate and sandwiching it between two
gaskets, or using a Holley 2bbl insulating gasket. However, this gives me a
believable excuse to order an aluminum four barrel intake.
- Most intake catalogs give "A" and "B" figures, which relate to the height of
the carb mounting pad from the block. I measured the stock intake setup and
got the following:
stock intake - "B" figure 4.125 without spacer
Motorcraft carb - 4-7/8
total height: 9" without EGR spacer, 10-1/8 with spacer (plus 1/8"
insulator gasket)
- Flipping through some catalogs, I came up with a likely candidate for an
intake, and measured a Carter AFB I had on hand:
Performer RPM - "B" figure 5.50
Carter AFB - 4-3/8
total height: 9-7/8"
- Even though the RPM is a high rise intake the AFB is so short the assembled
height falls within the workable range. The Edelbrock intake also has a
rear water crossover which will be useful for playing with rerouted coolant
flow.
- Other Edelbrock manifolds (since I have that catalog out):
Performer 289 - 4.750
Performer 302 - 5.187 (4" -ish without EGR spacer)
Performer RPM 302 - 5.0
Torker II 302 - 5.18
F-28 - 4.75
Victor Jr 302 - 5.50
- Though the Victor Jr. is listed at 5.50 I'm a bit uncertain about it. The
listing shows 5.50, 5.50, which says the carb base is parallel to the block,
instead of tilted. Normally the engine sits down at the back, so the
manifold is machined at an angle so the carb sits level. What's odd is,
though the photo in the catalog may be deceiving, it looks like it really is
parallel, or close to it.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 15 Sep 1995
- Various solvents, oven cleaner, and paint stripper failed to make much
impression on the radiator. I took it back to the shop and asked if they
had a way to remove the paint. "Sure, we'll just drop it in the vat, come
back in a couple of hours."
- That should take care of that, I guess.
- In other news, I found an extra Ford water pump in my storage shed. First
the bad news, then the good news: bad news is, the turkey weighs sixteen
pounds! I've built engines with *flywheels* lighter than that! I always
knew those Ford iron pumps were heavy, but that's getting ridiculous.
- The best price I can find on an aftermarket aluminum pump is $71 for a
Milodon part from Summit. I know Ford has used aluminum pumps off and on; I
used a 260 aluminum pump and timing cover once, and I know some of the late
models used one. Does anyone know of an aluminum pump, driver's side hose,
standard rotation, to fit a '70 and later bolt pattern? The only ones I can
find offhand are reverse rotation for serpentine drives.
- Now the good news: The infamous Ford pump leak appears to be easily solved.
There's enough room to put one or two #10 or 1/4" button head machine screws
along the relatively unsupported bottom edge, up inside the cover where the
actual pressure is held, not down at the bottom edge where the pump meets
the cover. A drill, a tap, and that should minimize the tendency to drool.
- Next thing is, you can drill and tap for a 1/8 NPT fitting for an air bleed.
In my opinion you *need* the air bleed - the entire upper half of the pump
is an air pocket with no way to bleed off trapped air. I'm going to run a
-4 line back to the header tank, but you could do OK by just screwing in a
pipe plug. I haven't seen any 1/8 NPT petcocks, or one of those would work.
You could get a 1/4 NPT in there, but you'd have to do some relief grinding
on some of the apparently purposeless knobs of cast iron in order to get it
to fit. You could then bleed the pump whenever you got the urge.
- The impeller is a bent sheet metal paddle. Not only was there no attempt at
doing a proper impeller, but the blades are bent the wrong way to help. The
impeller is 4 inches in diameter, the housing is 4-1/2, and there's .060
clearance in front, .080 clearance in back. It looks like the impeller is
pressed on to the shaft; I'm going to try pressing it up closer to the
housing, then riveting on an aluminum disc of appropriate thickness to take
up some of the clearance.
- This is an application where a plain old cast iron part would be perfect,
since you could cast it with proper blades for much better efficiency. The
sheet metal thing isn't a proper impeller at all; it looks more like a
paddle wheel. Hell, even one of the fancy "engineering resin" plastics
would probably work for this application.
- For that matter, there's no reason Ford couldn't have made the pump as a
couple of stampings and welds. It would have been cheaper and *much*
lighter.
- It looks like it would be possible to use a big block Chrysler pump with an
adapter plate. The Chrysler pump is tiny, since it's just a bearing, shaft,
and impeller. The rest of the pump is a big iron casting the impeller
cartridge bolts to. Hmm... someday maybe, but not now.
- Is there a simple way to connect the -6 line from the header tank up to the
5/8" heater hose outlet on the water pump? Both my pumps have pressed in
tubing nipples. I really don't want to have to pull the pump back off to
ream and tap for an AN fitting unless there's no other choice.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 16 Sep 1995
- -> Why not the SVO (old HiPo) cast iron curved 6 vane impeller?
-> I think you can still get them from SVO for $15 or so.
-> The 289 alloy pumps won't work?
- Er, um, I never thought to look in the SVO catalog.
- "M-8512-A302 Water Pump Impeller. Cast iron high efficiency curved vanes to
reduce coolant cavitation (partial vacuum) at high RPM. Water pumps with
rear cover and V-belt drive."
- Does this mean most Ford V8s use the same water pump impeller? Hey Millam,
you got an extra FE pump you can open up?
- There's also an aluminum pump housing, a kit of all the parts to make an
aluminum pump with the fancy impeller, or the whole thing preassembled.
Summit says they're a Motorsport dealer; I'll see what they want.
- BTW, the photos of the aluminum pump and the bare housing are interesting.
The bare housing is not drilled for two of the retaining bolts. Hmm.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics
- -> "M-8512-A302 Water Pump Impeller. Cast iron high efficiency curved
- That little hummer is a cool $32.00, or about what a water pump costs in the
first place.
- The assembled Motorsport aluminum pump is $230. The Milodon pump for $65
looks better and better.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 16 Sep 1995
- The little voice won. I'm going to pull the heads off and go a valve job.
Hell, I've got the guide borer, seat grinder, and valve grinder, so I'm
looking at, oh, maybe $15 for guides and seals, plus a pair of head gaskets.
Big whoopee.
- The rocker arms turned out to be in pretty bad shape. I had to reprofile
the stem end on 10 out of 16, grind ridges off the rocker balls on 8, and
two are galled internally. I have an old 351W head out in the shed with
some rockers on it; hopefully they'll be in better shape. A set of roller
rockers are definitely on the list for future work, but these will get me by
for a while. The left side's rockers and pushrods are cleaned up and ready
to go; the right side's are in my Lyman case tumbler for the next few hours.
Besides cleaning submachine gun brass, it has been great for cleaning small
car parts.
- In case anyone cares, a standard cast Ford rocker and ball weigh 119 grams.
A standard Chevy stamped steel rocker weighs 106 grams. A Competition Cams
full-roller stainless steel rocker weighs a whopping 214 grams. That's 3.42
kilos, or 7.7 pounds if I have my rods and furlongs right. Back when I was
a kid in elementary school in Sacramento, all they taught was metric. When
my Dad got orders to Little Rock, the "educators" decided I was a smart-ass
because I didn't know how many whozis to the whatzis, which ended with me
being expelled from school. Having decided I was putting him on, the fine
educator smacked me with a ruler. I punched him in the nose, which caused a
fine furor. I'd never heard of "corporal punishment" before, and once it
was explained to me I didn't care for the idea much. In the end a
compromise was reached - they would keep their damned hands, rulers, and
whatevers off me, and I wouldn't sock them on the nose. I also got the
stubborns and refused to learn about how many pecks to the quart, or
whatever. So to this day I have to do conversions to real measurement.
- Anyway, a set of those fancy stainless steel roller rockers is pretty heavy.
I'd love to have access to a torsional inertia meter to see what the
dynamics would be.
- By the way, you can't just bolt those Comp rollers on. The pin holding the
roller tip is, for some inexplicable reason, brass, swaged on both sides.
Where the swaging tool went in, most of them have a burr or whisker of
brass, ready to break off and slide down into the oiling system. I had to
take a dental pick to them to clean them up.
- Oh, and the reason I kludged up the stock rockers instead of using the Comps
- these aren't mine, though the little voice had a field day trying to
convince me it wouldn't hurt to borrow them for a while...
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 24 Sep 1995
- -> 351C 2V piston appeared to have the same deck height (Piston Pin
-> center to Top of Piston) as the Boss 302 piston.
- pin heights:
351C 1.645
289 1.60
BOSS 302 1.551
- Depending on your assembled height you might get away with the 351C piston.
- -> magazine article on the 'Bogus BOSS' used adapter plates and a
-> standard small block manifold.
- I have that article. Much of it makes no sense at all, particularly the
part about the adapter plates, which are plainly visible in the photos. If
you're willing to drill and tap the heads, you can simply drop the 289
manifold on, center punch through the existing bolt holes, and drill. The
four center bolts are the same anyway, so everything lines up nicely. You
don't need the plates to lift the manifold for port alignment, because the
ports are about the same height. The plates are far too thin to run bolts
into. I can't figure any justifiable reason for them to exist.
- -> Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for the manifold?
- The B&A drops in place and works. If you are building a 351W you really
don't have many options other than the B&A, but with the 289 you have a good
selection. Any of the 289/302 manifolds will do if you drill and tap the
heads.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 16 Oct 1995
- I got a Canton oil pan in today, for another project. It's for a 302 in a
Fox body. After all the stuff I've read, I'm disappointed.
- First off, the welding is pretty grotty all over. There are more seams than
are strictly necessary, and the pan was evidently not cleaned well before it
was iridited, because the color is coming off around the welds.
- The hump for the rack and crossmember are awfully large. I won't be able to
tell how much clearance exists until the engine is installed, but there
ought to be plenty.
- There's a "crank scraper" welded to the side of the pan. It won't come
within two or three inches of the crank, so it's a mystery why they welded
it in. It would have been more reasonable to just weld in a shelf and toss
in a trim-it-yourself scraper to bolt in.
- No provision for the oil sender in the pan.
- The oil pickup is annoying. It's about 5/8", but it has been drastically
kinked as it turns to go into the pump. The other end is a small box with
screen welded to it. You can see daylight through some of the welds on the
assembly.
- The baffle arrangement looks OK. The pan weighs, oh, maybe 20 pounds, or
substantially more than the original. I have an OEM pan and a scale out in
the shop; will let you know exact later.
- I'm not impressed at all. It looks like Mr. Torch and Mr. Solder will be
necessary along all the external seams. It *might* not leak as-is, but I
wouldn't put any great faith in it.
== 1996 --------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 04 Feb 1996
- Automotive Industries' October 1995 issue has a brief section on the
Explorer V8. Referred to as the "4.9" for some bizarre reason, the article
says it has an F150 block, F150 Lightning heads, GT40 intake, 70mm MAF, and
9.0:1 compression.
- The photo shows a car-type single throttle body intake, but the upper
manifold appears to be a casting similar to the Cobra part. Unmentioned in
the text, but of great interest (at least to me) is a pair of four-post
ignition coils with their attendant spark leads. There is no visible
distributor. A distributorless 5.0? Is Ford actually building this thing,
or is it one of those PR/magazine phantasms?
- I'm also curious as to what might be different between an ordinary 5.0 car
block and an F150 block, and what "F150 Lightning" heads are.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 11 Feb 1996
- Anyway, after telephonus interruptus... the 351 crank is mostly finished.
The counterweights are profiled and chamfered, the lightening holes are
drilled in the pins, the ridge on the front snout has been cut off to clear
the oil pump drive rod, and I've cut the oil lead-in grooves and radiused
them. Tomorrow I'll polish the grinder marks off the counterweights, and
hopefully it will make it to Kenny's by midweek so he can turn the mains
.010 and square up the flywheel flange.
- Laying on the bench beside the 302 crank, there's not much visible
difference. And the 302 crank has been cut down quite a bit... yeah, there
is a half inch stroke difference, but that's only a quarter inch difference
on pin overlap, and the throws are wider on the 351 crank. I've been
sweating the possibility of torsional vibration problems at track events,
but most sources claim the primary harmonic of a V8 crank is under 1000 RPM
to start with; the stroker should have a *lower* resonant point than the
302. I've decided I'm not going to worry about it.
- Back to the oil lead-in grooves... Chevy recommends them in their Power
Manual, 1/4 radius, 1/4 wide, 1/2 inch long, on the inlet side of the
journal as the crank rotates. That's probably because Chevy oilways are
drilled "backwards" at an acute angle. VW started doing this in 1970; they
probably weren't the first either.
- I had already done it to the 302 crank. Some of the lead-in grooves are
definitely golf club shaped. For some reason, Ford doesn't seem able to hit
the middle of the journal when they drill, so I had to lead the oil off to
the side where the hole was. Makes you wonder how much oil gets to the rods
sometimes. For the stroker, cutting the mains down from 2.75 to 2.25 cause
some oil hole walk, but they were in about the same places as the 302.
Hmm... naw... maybe... ??? Could Ford use the same drill fixturing for both
cranks? I'll have to flop them both out on the bench again and do some
measuring, but I bet they did! And the holes were centered on the 351C.
and the 351W crank, which is 3"
main, is off slightly to the other side. I'll be damned.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 08 Mar 1996
- While waiting for the pharmacist to fill my prescription yesterday (the doc
says it's strep throat, oh boy) I wandered over to the magazine rack. There
were a few issues of something called "5.0 Mustang Hop-Ups" which I hadn't
come across before, so I started thumbing through one.
- It's a Peterson publication, though the only mention of it is in little
teeny print on the masthead. Editor is Glen Grissom, formerly of Circle
Track, with about half the contributors being ex-Circle Trackers. Of the
editorial staff, there are two usually-male names, the rest female. I've
noticed this trend in several of the Peterson rags, but this one takes it
further than usual. Yeah, I'm a male chauvinist pig.
- Several of the articles were written by a Nancy Norton. Two of them were on
stroker motors, and are better done than what you usually see. She also has
some nice clear photos.
- One of the photos is of the innards of a Probe 5.8, or 302->351 stroker,
much like the one I have. The photo showed how Probe had to profile the
counterweights to clear the pistons at BDC, etc. I'm staring at the photo
trying to see if there are any slugs of heavy metal in the crank (apparently
not) when something about the crank in the photo looks... odd. Though
there's no sign of grinding on the crank, it lacks the rash of weird knobs
and bumps mine and Sixto's had. The text clearly states Probe uses a cut-
down 351C nodular crank... but the parting lines on the crank are visible,
and they don't look much like what was on mine. I think Probe has
implemented an idea I had some time ago, but didn't have funds to proceed
with. (I really should have had Bill Gates as an indulgent father...
) It sure looks like a custom casting to me. Just like the $300 Scat
cast strokers so many of the 383 Chevy guys use nowadays. Sure, it might be
some weirdball Australian core or something, but it's even harder to get a
Cleveland core than a 400 Chevy nowadays. I think Probe has jumped the gun
on everyone, and not bothered to send out press releases...
- The other interesting part was a description and set of photos of a Match
Port Engineering 5.7. One of the list members has one of Match Port's 331s
and emailed some questions to me about it some months ago. Basically Match
Port is using the original 302 crank, carving the rod journals more than a
quarter inch undersize, and using Ford Escort or Mazda rods with smaller rod
bearings. The Match Port cranks not only don't have any heavy metal,
they're severely drilled and milled to lighten and balance them.
- Yes, a cheap 302->331 stroker! However, the modifications to the rods are
fairly substantial. You have to open the wristpin hole up from .811 to
.927, which doesn't leave much metal around there. I've acquired one of the
core rods, done some measuring, and have been checking into how thin some
engine builders have gone on the small end. I'm confident it will work -
hell, Match Port does it - but I sure wouldn't want to use them with a
blower or nitrous.
- The particular rods Match Port uses are 5.363" long. I'm not sure exactly
which engine they're from yet. However, I found an early Escort rod that
will work in conjunction with one of the ubiquitous KB stroker pistons.
Which is what Match Port uses, by the way.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 29 May 1996
- Back in 1977 Roush was involved in building the "Monroe Handler",
a (gag) 1977 Cobra II. Gray Baskerville of Hot Rod covered the
buildup of the car's 363 cubic inch Windsor. The article was
"The Duke of Windsor" in the September 1977 issue. I finally
found my old copy while digging for something else.
- Roush used an ordinary 302 block instead of the BOSS 302 block.
No explanation why, unless he was saving them all for his Trans Am
cars. The article says the bottoms of the cylinder bores were
notched to clear the long stroke and rods. Indeed, the photo on
the next page shows the notched cylinders. This is odd, since
my rods clear by a country mile.
- The article describes the crank next - a cut down Cleveland
part, "rod journals taken down .080 inch, .125-inch taken off the
mains". This is sort of interesting, as those numbers are so
far out in left field they're funny... except those numbers would
be reasonably close for a Y-block crank. The photo, however,
shows what looks like an ordinary Cleveland part.
- We're told "the rear seal was resurfaced." The Cleveland seal
diameter is larger than the 302's; you have to cut it down.
Roush also cropped the oil slinger substantially, for no reason
I can figure. "The oil holes were enlarged". This is odd;
the 302's oil holes are .200". The Cleveland's are .250", which
seems to be as big as oil holes normally get. The crank in the
photo has been crossdrilled, and the main oil holes have walked
to the side as is usual when cranks are cut down half an inch.
No attempt was made to feather the oil holes back into alignment
with the feeder grooves in the main bearing shells.
- The article says extra weight was added to the front and rear
counterweights, flywheel, and damper. No photos of the flywheel
or damper, but the crank shows nine, count 'em, nine slugs of
heavy metal. You can also see grinder marks where the
counterweights have been profiled to clear the pistons at BDC.
No attempt had been made to clean up and lighten the crank like
Sixto and I have done.
- Finally, the crank in the photo has visible wear patterns on
the main and rod journals as well as that slight patina you
get on old cast iron. I have this feeling that particular
crank was kicking around Roush's shop for a while.
- The rods are very interesting - BOSS 302 T/A rods, very rare
even then, 5.315" long. Part number DOZX-6200-Z, damballah.
The rod in the photo is polished and has the proper football
shaped bolts, but the markings on the beam are C9ZE-D. Odd.
The article mentions they're longer than the stock 5.165 rods.
That's interesting too, as 302 rods are 5.090 and 289/BOSS 302
rods were 5.195. Maybe that one is a typo.
- Pistons were custom BRC flat-top forgings. The ring pack is
very tight. My rods are 5.205, his were 5.315, or .110 longer.
That calls for a 1.15 pin height. Size was 4.060. Yep, old
Cactus Jack was running a .060 over stroker.
- The cam was very mild, a flat tappet hydraulic with .470 lift,
290 degrees advertised duration, and 62 degrees of overlap.
Ford part number C9OZ-6250-C. I believe that was a late Shelby
Mustang cam. The rest of the valvetrain is straight out of the
Gapp & Roush catalog - oddly, they used titanium retainers
with the mild hydraulic cam.
- The heads were 351W D0OE, ported etc., 1.94/1.62 TRW Chevy-stem
valves, screw in studs, guide plates, and roller rockers.
- Intake was either a Cobra dual plane or a modified Edelbrock
Torker; Roush hadn't decided yet. A Holley 750 double pumper
was used.
- The article winds up by saying "the reworked stocker ignition
will reach a total of 38 degrees at 3600 and fire through a set
of Autolite BF 32s or 42s gapped at .030-inch." This is
interesting. It shows Roush thought he could pre-curve a
distributor for an rather unusual engine, and that this engine
had never been run. Finally, the article mentions the car will
have a four speed, while earlier it mentions extra weight on
the flexplate.
- Frankly, what this looks like to me is a budget motor put
together with parts laying around the shop. That's assuming
the writer didn't make any horrific mistakes I didn't catch.
Of course, all it had to do was haul a modified Mustang II
show car around, but it's an odd assortment of not-quite-
matched parts, at least in my opinion. To the best of my
knowledge no follow-up article or dyno figures were ever released.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 20 Jun 1996
- -> of mine has a '83 GT Mustang with '70 Mercruiser 302 marine engine.
...
-> He is now looking for a complete and assembled set of heads. He would
-> like to get something equivalent to what he had: D0E casting,
-> 1.84/1.6 valves, closed chambers, 100-125 lbs springs.
- Those sound like D0OE castings. They're from a 1970 351 Windsor. C9OE
castings are virtually identical. It'd probably be easier to scavenge a set
of 351W heads than Mercruiser parts.
- -> Last saturday, he blew a head gasket. After removing the heads, he
-> discovered serious damage: toasted valves, guides, seats, etc.
- Unless the heads are cracked or otherwise unrebuildable without major
investment, they're worth a small but reasonable amount as cores - $15 to
$50 each, depending on the local market.
- If you can't find replacements at a reasonable price you might consider
buying a set of the inexpensive Chevy replacement valves in 1.94/1.60.
Unless the seats are drastically pounded out there should be plenty of room
to open the damaged seats up to the larger size. You'd be looking at, oh,
maybe $100 for street type valves, plus labor.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 25 Jul 1996
- -> Well one reason may be the Cleveland's oiling design. Apparently it
-> likes to feed the lifter bores by starving the rear mains (or was
-> that the rear camshaft bearings?) You can get around it bu running
-> restrictors and
- The Cleveland "oiling problem" seems to be more myth than reality, or only
an issue at Pro Stock style RPM, say 9,000 and up like Glidden and Roush
used to turn them. Yeah, the 351C feeds the lifters first, then the mains.
So does the 429/460. So do the 351M and 400. So do Pontiacs, and many
others.
- Down in Australia the Clevelands are the dominant Ford motor since they were
locally built, as opposed to the imported Windsors. The Clevelands had no
trouble staying together at Bathurst or other long tracks with the stock
oiling systems.
- The HTC and most clone oiling kits for the 351C required extensive deep hole
drilling in the block and external oil lines. That's a lot of hassle.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 06 Aug 1996
-> something click. My friend's 351W had a sudden ~ 50% loss of oil
-> pressure right after start up. We went back to drill priming in
-> chassis and noticed a lot of oil flow under the intake.
- That's four for the crossover plug. I've never had one come out before, but
it looks like a candidate for positive retention of some sort.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 26 Aug 1996
- I could have sworn I read somewhere the lifter bores were taller on the
Ford roller blocks. I have an '87 roller and a '65 289 block side by
side on engine stands and the lifter bores are the same depth. *Are*
the bores supposed to be different on the roller motor, or what?
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 19 Oct 1996
- The cast iron water pump on TRX packed it in a few weeks ago. I decided to
try the new aluminum pump I bought last year.
- The aluminum pump weighs quite a bit less than the iron one, but the
impeller is smaller and there is no scroll cast into the housing - it just
spins out there all by its lonesome. What the heck, I can always buy
another iron pump if it starts to overheat.
- The aluminum pump's radiator hose inlet is slightly lower than the iron
one's, so I had to trim the lower hose. Instead of two 5/8" hose fittings,
it has a 1/2" and a 3/4". I had to drill and tap the top of the pump for
the -4 bleeder line I use. All the bolts were of different lengths, of
course, and the aluminum pump doesn't use as many as the iron one. The iron
pump is fairly well supported across the bottom. The aluminum pump sort of
flies in the wind. And of course the bosses I'd used for the alternator
bracket were missing, so I had to make some spacers.
- What I'd really like is the iron pump, except cast in aluminum.
- I finally learned how to tell a 351M crank from a 400. Most Ford cranks are
easy - look at the front counterweight and there's a two letter code. 1M =
289, 2M = 302, 4M = 351C, and I never can remember whether a 351W is 3M or
5M, but they're easy to spot since they look like a 1-1/2 scale 302 crank.
The M cranks have no numbers; some have no numbers period, not even casting
codes.
351M - smooth front counterweight
400 - front counterweight has a ridge on the snout-side face
351M - #2 and #5 counterweights are porkchop shaped
400 - #2 and #5 counterweights are big, maybe 90 degrees
- 351M weights are also a bit thinner, but you can't readily tell without
a 400 crank standing alongside for comparison.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 24 Nov 1996
- The question of relative weight of the 302 and 351W has come up several
times. Since I had a bunch of stuff out to work on I have weighed some of
the critical parts.
- A C5AE 289 block weighs 125# with main caps and bolts, .040 over, no
freeze or pipe plugs or cam bearings.
- A D2AE 351W block weighs 165# with main caps and bolts, .060 over, no
freeze or pipe plugs or cam bearings.
- 8 302 rods weigh ~11.5 pounds.
- 8 351W rods weigh ~12.5 pounds.
- A stock 351W cranks weighs 54 pounds.
- A 400 crank, cut down to Mopar rod journal size, extensively profiled and
lightened, weighs 57 pounds.
- A 351C crank, cut down to 302/2.3 journal sizes, extensively profiled and
lightened, all rod throws drilled, weighs 40 pounds.
- An early 302 (28 oz) crank, reduced OD, lightened, drilled, weighs 38
pounds. (!) I've evidently managed to take a *lot* of weight out of that
stroker crank.
- I didn't have any stock 302 or 5.0 cranks on hand to check. I'd guess
around 40-42 pounds.
- 302-351W weight difference:
block: 40#
crank: 12#
rods: 1#
- The pushrods are longer, the oil pump drive is bigger, the pump and pickup
themselves are bigger, so is the oil pan - SWAG it at 5#.
- Difference less intake: 58#
- I'm not counting the intakes, though I have one out in the iron pile
somewhere. A Cobra EFI intake weighs more than a cast iron 2 barrel intake
just on a 302; figure, on the average, a SWAG of 5 pounds more for a 351W
intake over a 351. Total hit comes to maybe 63 pounds assuming similar
intakes between the two motors.
- A stock iron 302-2V intake weighs 41 pounds. A Performer 289 4V weighs 15
pounds. I have an iron 351W intake and a Victor Jr 302 and Victor 351 on
hand; I'll weigh them later.
- Still, 63 pounds ain't bad. I probably gain that much every time I go to
the Thai all-the-heartburn-you-can-take buffet. Jalapenos got nothing on
Thai peppers...
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 27 Nov 1996
-> Maybe I am missing something here, but the FMS catalog lists the same
-> outside diameter for each different shaft diameter for the 302/351w.
-> Why would the block matter for shaft diameter?
- I thought the shaft was the same size all the way down. I don't have any
EFI distributors to look at right now. Hmm. You think the fat shaft
distributors neck down to go into the block?
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 28 Nov 1996
- -> was talking about. Mark at Probe was the most confident in his
-> answer. He says that the hole in the block serves as a guide, but the
-> distributor does not ride on it. If your shaft is to big to fit in
- The distributor shaft is supported at the top, in the housing, by a bronze
bushing. The bottom is supported by a close tolerance fit in the cast iron
block. Practically all of the side load from the cam gear is at this point.
Ford was concerned enough to positively oil the shaft. The #1 cam bearing is
the first thing in an SBF to see oil; the second is the distributor shaft.
- If the shaft manages to wear the block you might be able to ream and bush
the hole, but if you moved it very much doing so you'd run into lash
problems with the cam gear. The positioning and size of that hole is *very*
important, but I have no figures for either, and it's not something that
would be easy to measure, either. Yet another thing to be paranoid about...
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 03 Dec 1996
- -> Has anyone seen the latest "5.0 Mustang" mag. they have a long rod
-> 302 build up in there. They use ch*vy 400 rods, and say the crank has
-> to be groung down to fit the rods, but they don't say to what
-> diameter. can anyone tell me the diameter of both the big, and small
-> end of a ch*vy 400 rod as they might find their way into a project of
-> mine.
- Why, I just happen to have one of those right here in a box, ready to go to
the balance shop.
- Take one 302 crank, cut the rod journals down from 2.124 to 2.100, that is,
.024 under. Most shops will do this at no extra charge when they grind it.
- Take eight 400 Chevy rods, narrow the big ends to fit your rod journals. I
wound up taking something like .040 off one side, .060 off the other for
.012" side clearance.
- Try to get all your rods from the same motor. I scavenged a bunch of
assorted rods at a rebuilder's, and wound up with a set that varied in
weight by 40 grams. It takes a lot of grinding to remove 40 grams!
- Use eight 1.14" pin height pistons. The application is for a 6" rod 383
Chevy stroker. Ohio Cast makes perfectly adequate cast pistons for $110 or
so a set. Keith Black hypereutectics will run about $275. Forgings will be
customs at $600 or so a set.
- Deck height stacked up to -.025 on mine, well within the normal ballpark
figures, but I'll probably have the block decked to zero things up. If your
crank guy is amenable you could stroke the crank .015-.020 or so to adjust
the stack and get another cubic inch or so, but it's a lot of work for the
crank guy.
- Balance, and there you are. The Chevy rods fit the Chevy pistons so no
machine work is required. You *must* run pressed pins unless you have the
rods bushed. Honing the pin bores and running steel on steel doesn't work
worth crap in Dixie-cup drag motors, much less street stuff.
- Oh, yeah. The KBs use thin rings, which run about $80/set. I don't know
what the Ohio Cast use. For custom forgings they'll be happy to cut
whatever grooves you want. TRW moly rings can often be found at AutoZone or
other chain stores for $25-$30/set, a worthwhile savings.
- Probe makes a kit to put even longer rods in a 302. They're using small
diameter pins, custom pistons, custom rods, and it has a real custom price
tag.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 08 Dec 1996
- I saw something very interesting this morning. A 400 with a small block
bolt pattern on the bellhousing flange. The 351M/400s normally have the
429/460 bolt pattern. I'd never even heard of a small block pattern 400.
- This particular block carried the usual D1AE 400 casting number though it is
a *different* casting from the normal 400. The back of the block has the
standard 400 big block outline, but the bosses which are normally drilled
for the bellhousing bolts are absent. You can *not* bolt this 400 block up
to a normal 400/429 transmission. Inside this "shadow" bellhousing pattern
is a ridge carrying an ordinary 302 style outline and bosses.
- The block came from a local rebuilder's core pile. They have another one of
these weirdballs in stock, though Baud alone knows why anyone would want
one...
== 1997 --------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 09 Jan 1997
- -> 289s were thichker blocks late 302s are thinner to save weight
- Not so's you'd notice. I have quite a pile of 289, 302, and 5.0 blocks now,
and no two are alike. Same basic amount of metal in all of them though.
- -> if you take it 40 over this leaves .90 better than 5% thinner this is NOT
->insifnificant in a performance motor wehre gins are made 1-3% at
- If you're so close to the edge that .010 over will cause the block to fail,
you don't have a motor anyway. You have a Dixie Cup. Dixie Cups are okay
for drag racers, but they're not much use for street or closed circuit work.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 14 Jan 1997
- -> So what do you think that I should do? The reason for
-> wanting to change to 1/2" is because I am putting a supercharger on
-> the car and am going to be running at least 15#'s of boost. I was
-> told that the heads will move around a lot if I don't get them on the
-> block good.
- When you are installing a head or walking a block around in the garage it's
a big, heavy, unweildy item. It's easy to think of it as strong and almost
solid, but they aren't. The walls are as thin as they could be reliably
cast, and the iron is springy. You can bend a Windsor head a quarter of an
inch and it'll spring back into shape, flat as Klinton's EEG, as soon as you
release the pressure. I was astonished to find that out when I was
(mal)fixturing a head on the milling machine.
- The only things keeping the heads and block together are the bolts, but the
bolts aren't the weak spot. The block or head will spring under detonation
and reduce clamping loads, and that's finis for the head gasket.
- -> I am also going with the loc-wire head and the block
-> together. I just don't want to keep blowing head gaskets! I will
-> settle for whatever else happens if I have the car tuned improperly!
- The lockwire gaskets or O-rings don't really help the thing stay together.
What happens is, when the head and block get back together, the rings
provide a labyrinth seal. Keep hammering on it and that will fail too.
- You can't just crank the bolts tighter. The bolt columns in the heads
provide almost no support to the deck beyond the first half inch or so. The
blocks aren't much better. The iron is flexible, remember? Start socking
the bolts down and things simply start warping. Think of the block and
heads as being made of, oh, some sort of very stiff Silly Putty.
- Back in the 1960s most *serious* racing engines used dry decks. You might
have seen the way Ford did the BOSS 429 "T" motors. Most of the stuff
Holman-Moody, Shelby American, Traco, and the rest had in their front
runners was using similar technology. A V-section O-ring of spring steel
went into a groove much like a lockwire groove, and was damned near
unkillable. BRM is supposedly the first one to have done that, back in the
early '60s.
- It worked just fine. However, the seals were hard to get, assembly was
awkward (particularly at the track!) and the required machining was
expensive. About that time the gasket companies came out with gaskets that
*could* handle the power levels of the day, and dry decking faded from the
scene.
- As far as I can tell, a pressure-loaded V-ring will hold its seal as long as
the block and head are in the immediate vicinity of each other. It's the
Final Solution, gasket-wise, but neither cheap nor simple. Hell, you'd be
doing good just to find someone who could rustle up the appropriate sealing
rings.
- The Ford small block has some serious cooling deficiencies in the heads, and
many of the aftermarket heads are little better. Those can be corrected
with some creative water flow rerouting. Deck strength is the major issue.
The A4 block is the only real solution to that, but the price tag will make
your VISA card curl up in fear. So at least you can put some effort into
selecting the heads. For a serious high boost blower or nitrous engine I
wouldn't even consider aluminum heads at all. You want the thickest deck
iron head you can get; there's not enough difference in airflow to worry
about.
- Only two things will blow a gasket - flex, and detonation. By flex, I mean
joint distortion due to normal cylinder pressure. Detonation will cause
flex too, but it can be a little more dramatic when it simply bypasses the
deck joint and blows the side of the cylinder through the water jacket and
onto the street. I used to have a piece of one of those...
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 14 Jan 1997
- -> My understanding is that 351W's have more material in the deck
-> surface and the bolt bosses are sized to retain the 1/2" bolts at the
-> factory specified torque with a given factor of safety.
- All I can say, Ed, is that if you look at the deck surfaces of 289, 302,
5.0, and 351W blocks, there's not any great difference between them. The
contours vary all over the place, probably depending on what set of cores a
given foundry used at any given time.
- -> ft-lbs. I am fairly confident that you would rip the threads out of
-> the 302 block with 1/2" head bolts tightened to 105-112 ft-lbs.
- Normal machine design spec is thread depth to a minimum of 1.5 diameters.
In practice it's not unusual to see less. Of course, if you believe the
design handbooks, a car engine would disintegrate immediately after
starting.
- -> Removing material from the smaller 302 bolt bosses to use the 1/2"
-> bolts is weakening the block.
- Again, I don't see that they're any smaller. Heck, some of the 302s don't
even *have* bosses - they're just drilled right through the deck.
- -> I stand by my statement that the move to 1/2" bolts or studs in a 302
-> block is not a good idea to improve gasket sealing performance.
- Despite our differences I agree with you there. The diameter of the bolt is
not the problem. The relative flexibility of the surfaces you're trying to
seal is the problem. Hell, if it was all REALLY rigid, one bolt would be
plenty...
[name deleted to protect the guilty]
fordnatics 16 Jan 1997
- I hate to see dis-information being posted, so I thought I'd pipe up to
correct some lost souls who are spreading some.
- >-> 289s were thichker blocks late 302s are thinner to save weight
- > Not so's you'd notice. I have quite a pile of 289, 302, and 5.0 blocks
>now, and no two are alike. Same basic amount of metal in all of them
>though.
- There are *significant* differences between the early 289/302 blocks and
late model "5.0" engine blocks. The early blocks are much much stronger in
the main web area, have a higher nodular iron content, and have considerably
thicker main caps and also a thicker deck.
- A trained eye (just about anyone if pointed out) can see the differences
with the blocks right next to each other. In fact, the early blocks and the
later lightweight castings even weight about 10 lbs different.
- >-> A '70 351W block is 9.2", right? No good for a stroker, although I'd
- > Windsors are 9.5", except for the early ones which were a fraction
>shorter, not enough to matter. 9.2" is the 351C.
- Actually it *is* enough to matter. 9.500" versus 9.480. That is twenty
thousandths of an INCH. .020. Maybe if things like details and compression
aren't important to you. In fact, not only is the earlier 9.480" block
shorter, it *also* has thicker mains and a thicker deck.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 16 Jan 1997
- -> I hate to see dis-information being posted, so I thought I'd pipe up
-> to correct some lost souls who are spreading some.
- Well, since you appear to have mistaken Ben-Gay for your Preparation H, I
feel obligated to reply. So let's continue on...
- -> There are *significant* differences between the early 289/302 blocks
-> and late model "5.0" engine blocks. The early blocks are much much
-> stronger in the main web area, have a higher nodular iron content,
-> and have considerably thicker main caps and also a thicker deck.
- Perhaps you've read too many car magazines. I have a fair collection of
blocks sitting around; they show none of the characteristics you claim.
Unless you're going to claim space aliens planted those blocks as a joke,
you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
- -> A trained eye (just about anyone if pointed out) can see the
-> differences with the blocks right next to each other.
- Oh, there are plenty of differences. You'll hardly see two blocks alike.
Ford must've used dozens of core sets when casting the things. However,
these differences don't correspond to your claims.
- -> Actually it *is* enough to matter. 9.500" versus 9.480. That is
-> twenty thousandths of an INCH. .020. Maybe if things like details and
-> compression aren't important to you. In fact, not only is the earlier
-> 9.480" block shorter, it *also* has thicker mains and a thicker deck.
- My, my. We're starting to drop a little foam on the keyboard here, aren't
we? I could say something like *Ford* didn't care about .020 difference in
deck height (or more than that in the 2.0 and 429 over the years), but in
reality I don't care what the deck height is. When you're doing a stroker
.020 is virtually dead nuts - you can slice a little off the top of the
block, adjust the stroke while offsetting the crank, offset bore the pin
ends while opening them up or bushing them down, or simply reach into the
parts supply for a more compatible stack.
- -> * Custom Camshafts * CNC Ported Heads
-> * Stroker Kits * Short-Blocks
-> * Fuel-Injection * Carburation
- Stroker kits, eh? Short blocks? Caveat emptor, and all that.
- Come back again, and I will taunt you a second time.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 11 Feb 1997
- -> Now you have me really interested! :) If the 351M was born of the
-> 400, where did the 400 come from?
- The 400 is to the 351C as the 351W is to the 302. Since there was no
manufacturing cost difference between a 400 and a 429, I surmise it was
purely a marketing scheme.
- Now, as to why we had both a 351W and a 351C in 1969... the Windsor was
Ford's project, the Cleveland was Mercury's. Looks like the result of one
of those internal power struggles. All the very early documentation I have
on the two motors lists them as "Ford" and "Mercury", though they apparently
were available in both bodies from the very beginning.
- By the time Ford finally tapdanced out of the performance car market in the
early '70s the average Mercury product was close to the weight of the Exxon
Valdez and damned near as big; a short stroke, big valve small block really
didn't fit the lineup. I expect that's the reason it mutated into the 400.
Then the Arabs turned off the oil supply and smaller engines were in vogue,
so the 400 got destroked back down to a 351. That's my theory, anyway.
- Ford Division, in the meantime, had neutered the 351W by slapping 302 heads
on it in 1976, making the 351K. Again, contemporary references refer to the
engine as the 351K, not 351W. Later Ford began referring to it as the 351W
again, which sometimes confuses people. Ford also referred to the 351K as
the "BOSS 351" in one of the early SVO catalogs, which surely confused
people.
- A real Windsor has L-shaped water passages on the intake manifold face and 8
intake manifold bolts; a K has square or rectangular water passages and 6
intake manifold bolts. Iffen it ain't got the L-shaped water passages it's a
K, sorry y'all. Ks have the little weenie ports and valves.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 17 Feb 1997
- -> Well, I went to prime the oil pump on my 390 and the hexagonal shaft
-> that conencts to the distributor and the oil primer shaft fell down
-> through the distributor hole.
- I've done that *three times*. It probably removed years from my lifespan.
Once I managed to recover the shaft with one of those telescoping pencil
magnets. The other times, off came the oil pan.
- Some Fords had a spring washer-thing pressed onto the shaft to keep it from
lifting out of the oil pump. Most don't. The gonzo thing to do would be to
press something onto the shaft to do the same thing. I never seem to think
of it when I have an engine apart.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 19 Feb 1997
- -> It comes up about 3/4", but no further. I have rotated the crank to
-> no avail. I have tried prying up under the distributor, but am leary
-> of breaking something.
- Keep on prying. The SBF distributor is a tight fit in the block, and is
prone to develop nasty crusty deposits which desperately resist removal of
the distributor. Since you have managed to lift it some, liberal
application of Gunk or other crud buster in the gap will help. The one in
TRX required leverage with a couple of 2x4s while beating the snot out of
the underside with a dead-blow hammer, and there ain't much room to swing a
hammer under the distributor.
- In extreme cases you can break the distributor housing during removal.
- Once you get the distributor out, clean the hole with a solvent-soaked swab,
clean the distributor, and use a liberal amount of grease or antiseize when
reinserting.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 26 Feb 1997
- -> I heard that too. But how cheap are they?
- You can buy a real Ford windage tray for $50-$60 by mail order.
Unfortunately the four special bolts required to install it are separately
priced at $56/set. Ouch!
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 27 Feb 1997
- -> of 650 HP Trans-AM 302's (among other things). They feel the rods
-> and block are the weak link in a stock 302 and the cast crank is not
-> nearly such a concern.
- I've been keeping an eye out for reports of broken or cracked 302 cranks.
So far all the reports have been for the 50 oz-in skeletonized "5.0" cranks.
I still haven't come across a report of a broken 28 oz crank. There's
considerably less metal in the 50 oz crank, some of it removed in places
where it probably wasn't a real good idea.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 04 Apr 1997
- I finally got around to sitting a 302 pan on a 351. The rail outlines are
identical. The major difference appears to be at the rear main, where the
wider 351 main cap hits a standard 302 pan. The wider mains also move the
two inmost bolts at each end out a bit. All the other bolt holes will line
up.
- I always knew the pans didn't interchange, but I didn't realize how similar
they were.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 11 Jul 1997
- -> Geez, way to go. Now half of the list is going to stay up nights
-> worrying about this....
- Nah, the pumps are way bigger than they need to be; they can keep good
pressure even if you are bleeding oil at the joint.
- -> Aren't they two machined surfaces? If so, couldn't one get away with
-> using neither a gasket nor sealant?
- Yes. I've done that too, though it pains my sense of rightness.
- -> The idea of that paper gasket has bugged me in the past,
- The thing I don't like about the paper gasket is that it can theoretically
allow the pump to move around a bit, possibly to loosen on its bolts. I've
never seen it happen, but that's the kind of thing *I* worry about late at
night. It's also possible to crack a mounting ear on the pump. I've done
it, and blamed it on the paper gasket. It can't give much, but the pump is
brittle.
- The real problem is the top, where the bolts go through to hold the pump.
You're cranking down on raw casting, not a nice machined surface. I've been
wondering what to do about that, but the best I've thought of is to use
spherical machine tool washers there.
- -> What do you consider good hot idle oil pressure (at the usual port in
-> the block, that is)?
- A hot pressure of 20psi is adequate. 15 is liveable, though I'd be annoyed.
I'd be happy to see over 30.
- You have to remember, the pump is still putting out plenty of volume at hot
idle; the oil is just leaking away before it can build much pressure. The
engine is still being lubricated just fine.
- -> While I have your ear (eye), why is there a cap covering part of the
-> pickup tube's intake? What would happen if I removed the cap?
- I'm not real sure, though I've seen claims it was to reduce turbulence in
the pickup. You can get out the tin snips and remove it if you want with no
trouble. The cap is usually crimped in the same roll as the screen, and if
you try to uncrimp it to remove it it's a righteous bugger to get back
together.
- There's usually a hole in the screen, hidden by the cap. Solder a plug of
some sort - a piece of that cover you just snipped off will do -over the
hole. The hole is theoretically so people who don't change their oil until
it turns to Jell-O will still be able to suck something through the pickup.
- -> I've heard of people restricting certain oil passages when building
-> race engines (still Winsdor design). Why does the Windsor design need
- You don't really need to restrict any of the passages in the Windsor. It's a
carryover from Chevy and Cleveland practice.
- -> this? Is it because of having a solid cam (and if so, doesn't the
-> hole in the rocker's pushrod cup limit flow anyway)?
- The matching/unmatching of the pushrod and rocker holes is supposed to meter
oil. Probably does, with all stock Ford parts. I wouldn't depend on it
with aftermarket stuff.
- Drag racer types like to restrict oil to the valve covers. Street and track
cars shouldn't, as that oil is desperately needed by the valve springs for
cooling. Running restrictors in a track motor will kill the valve springs
quickly.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 13 Jul 1997
- -> Dave thanks for the advice, if I read you right you are saying: Use
-> the 69 block and crank. Would a 69 302 have a 28 oz crank or How do I
-> recognize a 28oz crank??
- You can have the machine shop cut the rear seal area of the early crank down
to fit in a 5.0 block if you want. But since you already have the '69
stuff, it'd be reasonable just to use it all.
- All 221-302 engines were 28 oz, and the earliest "5.0"s. Somewhere in there
- '82? '84? - the "5.0" got a lighter crank to reduce weight, and probably
save thirty cents in cast iron. They took a *bunch* of metal out. I call
'em 'porkchop' cranks - two of the inner counterweights were reduced from 90
degree segments down to little tabs the size of match boxes. All the others
are smaller, but not to that degree. Since the rod and piston weight didn't
change any they had to add more weight to the damper and flywheel. These
cranks appear to hold up fine for drag racing, blowers, and nitrous, but
they definitely do *not* like extended high RPM. The SCCA A Sedan guys go
through a lot of them even at their restricted power levels. Given a choice
I'd avoid the late model cranks.
- -> I guess a steel or aluminum girdle would be good insurance any comments?
- It can't hurt, but I have never seen main cap trouble on the small Fords.
You're looking at the price of the girdle, machining the caps, and then
likely a line hone afterward.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 13 Jul 1997
- -> Dave how do you recommend cleaning out the oil galleries, I had the
-> 66 I am building hot tanked or vatted? is that enough, I also note
- You need two, two foot steel rods, one 1/4" diameter, one 3/8". You might
be able to find the metal at a hardware store. All-thread will work if you
can't find rods.
- You need to remove the screwed-in oil gallery plugs at the back of the
block. These are usually solidly stuck in place; about 3/4 of the time I
wind up drilling them out. Then stick the rods in the back and use them to
knock out the oil gallery plugs in the front, which are normally small
pressed-in cup plugs. A few engines use screw-in plugs all around, some use
a mix of screw-ins and cups. Then you can use the rods like rifle brushes
(or real rifle brushes, which are under $20 for a set at Wal-Mart, and have
many uses in rebuilding engines) and remove the crud built up in the dead
areas of the oil galleries.
- Use silicone sealer or pipe dope to put screw-in plugs back in. It will
make it much easier to remove the plugs next time. Driving the little cup
plugs back in can be done with a 3/8" ratchet extension, or you can use a
piece of 1/2" steel rod with one end ground down to fit the inside of the
cup.
- -> that there is still some crud in one of the water passages but it
-> appears really hard and crusted??
- You now have nice clean scale after the block came out of the vat. Caustic
dip doesn't do much to scale.
- Oven cleaner works reasonably well. Hose it into every opening, let it sit
overnight to work, and take it down to the car wash. The water will blast
big chunks of the stuff out.
- Most shops aren't going to bother with this kind of stuff. The scale is a
good insulator after it has dried hard, which is one reason why rebuilt
engines sometimes run hot.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 15 Jul 1997
- -> That bugs me as well. I don't like the bolt heads on that rough,
-> uneven casting. I'd like a flat surface there. You could come in
-> from the side and mill it flat.
- Hmm. Hey, I always wondered when that angle plate for the mill was going to
be useful! I even have some radius-end cutters. Ay tank Ay will do dat.
Chucko's motor will be a suitable guinea pig.
- -> It is not! Pumping and scavenging extra oil aerates it, heats it and
-> causes minor power losses.
- Agreed.
- -> The factory rockers need a lot of oil. Good needle bearing
-> rockers do not.
- Agreed.
- -> As you increase the RPM well past the factory
-> range you get a Bunch of oil up there.
- When/if I manage to pump enough oil up into the valve covers to suck the pan
dry I'll consider restricting the flow. I've never had it happen, and
frankly I don't expect to. I'm running 10w30 in a warmed up motor (the oil
temp guage is mounted and wired, I don't have the sender hooked up because I
haven't finished the oil cooler stuff). The drag guys, who seem to be the
big fans of restricting the flow upstairs, are normally running 50 or 60 wt
sludge cold. I know from experience you can fill the valve cover up just
trying to add 5 quarts of that stuff on an oil change.
- Hmm. This is where some of those clear plastic valve covers would be very
useful on the dyno. Of course, I have to fix the dang thing first...
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
detomaso 25 Jul 1997
- -> goes away. I have a 400 crank and a 351W block, and w/out rods I can
-> turn it over, but I expect trouble @ the base of the cylinders when
-> the 351W rods are bolted on.
- With a 4.187" stroke and Chrysler rods you have to just kiss the bottoms of
the bores with the grinder to get sufficient clearance for the rod nuts. If
the 351W rods require more clearance, no problem. You can go all the way up
until you get close to an oil ring or water.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 30 Jul 1997
- There are some photos of various Ford racing engines in the first chapter of
Ganahl's "Ford Performance" book.
- Photo 4: "after driving a rockerarm small block in the '63 Indy race, Dan
Gurney built the Gurney-Weslake heads and added slide-valve injectors to
crank out 600 horses."
- The engine shown has the Gurney heads plus a very thick - maybe 2-1/2 inches
- timing cover with a mechanical injection pump driven off the front,
Hilborn drag racer style. The harmonic balancer looks like a stock Ford
cast hub with a very thin rubber-mounted inertia ring, maybe 1/4 to 3/8".
The water pump is apparently underneath, with lines coming up to feed the
block and heads separately.
- Photo 5: "another Gurney project, the rare Gurney-Eagle has three valves per
cylinder (two intake, one exhaust) and was designed by John Miller of All
American Racers."
- This engine has the intakes on the outside and the exhaust in the valley,
front cover setup looks similar to the one above, except the port where the
injection pump was in the previous photo is blocked off.
- Photo 7: "and, an even rarer Weslake head conversion intended for DeTomaso
Mangustas and Panteras (the engine below the heads and Weber carbs is a
production Ford 302)
- The photo is very strange. It shows the engine in some sort of street rod
type chassis, with a shortened C4 and what might be a Jag IRS. Lots of
stuff is chromed or polished aluminum. The timing cover is edge-on, and
there is no water pump. There's some sort of blockoff plate barely visible.
The heads look very much like Gurney-Weslake heads except for the vertical
exhaust port bolt pattern. The headers are *tiny* - they look like one inch
tubes.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 31 Jul 1997
- -> Clue me in, Why can't you swap types of waterpumps and covers? I was
-> told this about the covers and pumps on the early cars and the late
-> models. I couldn't detect any difference that would matter.
- The 221, 260, and early 289s had aluminum pumps with a sorta diamond shaped
bolt pattern. Later 289s through the 5.0 had an iron pump with a different
bolt pattern.
- The early aluminum pump and cover go together, and don't interchange with
the 302 stuff. The 302 timing cover has more bolt holes than its matching
water pump for no reason I can see. Typical Ford. The 5.0 water pump has a
different bolt pattern, but it'll still bolt onto the extra holes on the 302
cover, and vice versa.
- I've also seen commentary from "experts" claiming the 302 and 351W timing
covers are different, but I'll be damned if I can see anything different. I
put a late 5.0 cover on a 351W recently and everything fit just fine.
- This deal about the SN95 short pump not bolting to the early cover is
something I'm going to reserve judgement on until I actually have pieces in
hand.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 31 Jul 1997
- -> First, the SN-95 water pump doesn't use a backing plate. The two
-> lower bolts go straight into the cover. The water pump gaskets for
- Ah! We have data!
- I never figured out why they had the stupid backing plate anyway. Would've
been simpler and cheaper to make the pump and cover fit together properly
without it.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 31 Jul 1997
- -> Hmmm. I'm curious too. I bought a water pump for my clevor motor that
-> has a passenger side water inlet instead of the usual
-> driver side inlet. I have compared the two, and both pumps
-> look like they have identical bolt holes, etc.
- -> As near as I can figure, they bolt up just fine(this is on a
-> '78 302 block BTW).
- Yes. Ford has had both left and right models of most of its water pumps.
The odd ones are usually truck applications, but they're quite handy for
some things.
- I've located offhand pumps by digging through the boxes at the parts store.
I've never seen a list.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 01 Aug 1997
- -> Well, Dave I am sure you know that the first small blocks (221's,
-> 260, and 289's up until about late 64) had water pumps of that
-> configuration.
- They DID? I found a 260 front cover in the shed the other day, but the last
time I actually looked at a pump was in '81, when I matched a 221 cover and
289 pump onto a 302 I built. It's been so long ago I don't remember a thing
about it.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
asedan 27 Aug 1997
- -> From the research I have done so far, by talking to various
-> machinist, is the steel crank is not going to solve motor failures.
-> The crank will survive but the small cast two bolt main block will not.
- I suspect it's a result of the 50oz external balance in the 5.0 cranks. Back
in the glory days the Shelby works cars were running unobtainium four bolt
289 blocks and steel 2.87, 3.0, and 3.25" cranks. Reliability wasn't a
problem. On the other hand, the privateers were running plain old 289 and
302 stuff and didn't have problems either. And they were making a lot more
power than an ASedan.
- It would be nice if $200 worth of junkyard 302 parts could solve the crank
problem. You'd need the crank, damper, and a pre'5.0 Fox flywheel. The
bobweight is the same between the 302 and 5.0 so the engine would not need
rebalanced. Would it be legal under ASedan rules to try this?
- There's also the possibility the later 5.0 firing order could be a
contributing factor. Ford supposedly changed the firing order "to reduce
loads on the crank," but they may have merely shifted a problem from one RPM
band to another.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
asedan 27 Aug 1997
- -> mains. Oddly enough, when my crank broke, it was right at the #5
-> rod. I think this is a common place for the 302, everyone I have
- Most of the reports I've heard agree. The front journal is fairly heavily
loaded due to the extra weight of the 50oz damper and the reduced #3
counterweight.
- I've never seen an official explanation from Ford, but I suspect the change
from 28 to 50 oz was a cost saving. The 50 oz crank is considerably lighter
at the expense of a minor amount of added bobweight. Even cast iron costs
money.
- The failures of the 5.0 cranks are almost certainly fatigue. The drag boys
run blowers, nitrous, and sometimes both on stock cranks and make ridiculous
amounts of horsepower without blowing the crank out the bottom of the block.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
asedan 27 Aug 1997
- -> Every 302 motor I've torn down...the front mains had the worst
-> bearings...with a windsor firing order.
- This is also fairly common with the old firing order. I think at least part
of it has to do with aeration of the oil and subsequent cavitation in the
bearings, as the pattern is more of a pitting or spalling than straight
wear.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
detomaso 30 Aug 1997
- -> > > Well, if you take a 351C out to 427, I'd guess you could expect
-> it to > > grenade fairly reliably.
- > Dave Williams, What's your take on this subject?
- I don't forsee any problems. You simply don't hear much about stroked
Clevelands because stroking pretty much died out by the late '60s, as
manufacturers punched their wares out to ever-larger displacements. Cheaper
to simply visit the junkyard and pick up the latest thing.
- The 351C was pretty wimpy compared to the 429, 460, and the (not produced)
510 big blocks. But smog and fuel economy killed the giants, and a 351 is
considered pretty big nowadays. If you want something larger, particularly
in an exotic like a Pantera, stroking looks much better than custom ZF
adapter plates and other hassles. Strokers are very popular nowadays in
that they let people slide a bigger engine past the smog Nazis in states
that enforce that sort of stuff, or sometimes allow more displacement in a
lighter weight motor, which is important in front-engined cars.
- In competition, most sanctioning bodies cut off displacement at 360 to 366
cubic inches (to let the 360 Mopar and AMC run), so there was no great
interest in opening up the Cleveland back when it was actively raced.
Indeed, the NHRA's terror of the Cleveland in the old Pro Stock rules forced
many racers to *de*stroke the Clevelands to avoid prohibitive weight
handicaps against the Chevys.
- I wouldn't want to run a really big - over 410 inch - Cleveland over 6000 to
6500 for extended periods of time (say, the Silver State) without using some
premium parts in the buildup, but for ordinary track events and street
driving a big stroker should be at least as reliable as the original motor.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 18 Sep 1997
- Ford claimed the Windsors couldn't meet OBD-II type smog certification. The
October 1997 issue of Super Ford has an article on the '97 Saleen S351
engine. It's quite interesting. Saleen hired Cosworth to do the
development, got dyno time from McLaren, and then got their engine builder,
AER Manufacturing of Carrollton, TX, to do the engines.
- Recipe:
1 Lighting 351W engine assembly
2 Trick Flow Twisted Wedge heads, cut for Fel-Pro Loc-Wire gaskets
1 Ford EEC-V computer, Saleen reprogrammed, 5750 RPM redline
16 Roush pushrods for the Wedgies
8 Wiseco dish top forged pistons, stock weight and ring package, 8.3:1
1 set file-fit rings
1 Centerforce flywheel
1 pair Saleen shorty headers
1 Comp Cams roller cam, 215/220 @ .020(sic), .545/.547 lift, 112 LC
1 SN95 5.0 water pump
1 Explorer 5.0 timing cover with OBD magnetic pickup
1 Vortech S-trim supercharger @ 8 psi
1 Cobra 351 intake, Extrude honed
1 65mm Motorsport throttle body
8 38 pound injectors
1 pair Saleen/Vortech fuel rails
1 Motorsport windage tray
1 Crown Vic oil pan
- Each engine takes about two days with two men to rebuild. There is no EGR.
(?!) Pistons are fitted at .0035-.0038.
- Except for the blower, Ford has a very similar selection of parts in the
Motorsport bins. Instead the Mustang got the Mod motor. Too bad.
- No mention of what it cost for the EPA certification. Back in '79 it was
about $3K, but that was a whole different bucket of snakes back then.
- And yes, since I've been critical of Super Ford and its articles in the
past, this one was pretty good. The author was Steve Statham.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 18 Sep 1997
- The same (October) issue of Super Ford also has a review of the Holley
SysteMax II kit for the 5.0. Unfortunately it's nowhere near as detailed as
the Saleen article.
- The SysteMax II kit consists of two heads, a roller cam, and upper and lower
intake, roller timing chain, pushrods, and minor bits. You have to kick in
a set of pedestal mount rockers, 30# injectors, mass air conversion if
needed, 70mm throttle body, gaskets, and 1-5/8" headers. It's supposed to
give you 350hp @ 5800 RPM... but it's not smoggable at all, no EOs, nothing,
and the article says Holley isn't planning to, either.
- Price is $2K suggested retail. That's about what you'd pay for an average
set of aftermarket parts of similar configuration.
- The Holley lower looks a whole lot like a Ford truck lower. The heads are
ringers for Edelbrocks, though they have "Holley" cast outside. They're
supposed to have a revised valve angle of 17 degrees instead of 20, .400
raised exhaust ports. The exhaust ports flow 179 CFM @ .509" and 67cc
volume. SF doesn't tell us the pressure drop the port was flowed at. The
intakes were 225 CFM @ .509", 190cc. They don't say what the combustion
chamber size is. The heads have EGR and Thermactor ports though they're not
smog-legal. You'll need pedestal mount rockers. Valves are 1.94/1.60s.
- The cam is an inverted-flank profile on 107 degree lobe centers, .509/.508
lift, 276/280 degree advertised duration.
- Other than the cam looking a bit iffy for the sniffer, I don't see any good
reason why Holley chose not to EO the package. They do it for their
carburetors and intakes, and they could piggyback off whoever did the heads.
The people in the smog Gestapo areas are one of your larger demographic
market groups for aftermarket parts. But then, I've proven time and again I
don't have a grasp of either marketing or economics...
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 06 Nov 1997
- -> In every case I checked the ring gaps were too small for the application.
-> I didn't realize factory engines came with gaps that small.
- I have a KB hypereutectic piston from an SBC. I picked it out of the scrap
barrel at a reputable local shop. It looks *exactly* like the "this is what
will happen if you don't gap the top ring like we tell you to" photo in the
catalog and packed with every set of KB pistons shipped. The guy noticed my
interest and started in on a typical "hyper pistons are junk" routine. I
noted the top ring didn't look like it had been gapped. "Oh no, rings all
come pre-gapped now, you don't have to do that any more."
- KB might as well save the effort of including directions, nobody seems to
read them...
- -> other than detonation related failures. Plus, those SRPs are just too
-> cheap to pass up these days....
- Yes. I've seen those and the price is right.
- -> Speaking of quality parts, and I've been really afraid to mention
-> this due to causing a run on them (but I'm stocked up now so it's
-> ok), Scat has cast steel stroker cranks for 8.2" deck Windsors now.
-> 3.4" stroke in either Ford or Chevy rod pin size.
- Finally! I wondered if they were *ever* going to ship the damned things.
No more cutting down Cleveland cranks for me!
== 1998 --------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 07 Feb 1998
- -> 1) Upon reassembling a motor, how can I be sure the flywheel is in
-> the right location radially? It seems easy to have it off by 1 or
-> more holes on the crank.
- The 6-bolt pattern is actually staggered by, oh, maybe 1/8 inch. The
flywheel will only line up all six holes one way. There is a seventh "dowel
pin" hole, but I've never seen it used, and I've never seen a flywheel
drilled to match it. I suspect that, unlike the dowel hole on some other
brands, the hole in the Ford is probably a locating hole for indexing the
crank throws while machining.
- -> 2) You mentioned before that replacing a harmonic damper with a
-> bigger unit is OK as long as the bob-weight is the same. Is there
-> usually a stamp on it to show how much the bob-weight is in ounces?
- *If* the original and replacement damper are both the same, no problem. For
the 302/5.0 it's simple, 28 or 50 oz. For the Cleveland... mpcoluv and I
have been collecting some data on that. We've found several sources
claiming 30, 31, or 33oz for the 351C, but several manufacturers sell
replacements to fit both the 351C and 351W with the same part number.
That's another reason why building that damper bobweight checker is high on
my list.
- There is very little design information on dampers, and what little I have
is mostly contradictory. Basic pattern seems to be bigger, heavier dampers
are more effective at low RPM, and seem to be preferred for extended high
RPM use. Road race dampers tend to be lighter, and drag race dampers
lighter yet. Detroit has gone progressively heavier with V8 dampers over
the years. The flathead Ford had no damper at all, just a pulley. 221s,
260s, most 289s, and early 302s had a small damper. The 289 HP and later
302s went to a much heavier - probably 4x heavier inertia ring - damper.
Crank distress didn't seem to be a problem with the light damper. I suspect
one reason for the heavy dampers is to reduce NVH (Ford-ese for Noise,
Vibration, and Harshness) at low speeds.
- Anyway, if you're swapping the damper from another 351C, it should work
fine. Though sources disagree on the actual bobweight, none of them
indicate there was more than one bobweight.
- Jeez, I'd really, really like to slap a nice angular position sensor on each
end of the crank, hook them up to a PC DAC board, and do some dyno pulls...
I am positive Detroit and most big racing teams do this as a matter of
course, but published data approaches zero.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 27 Feb 1998
- -> Since we've got a thread on 351C stuff, I'd like to add a little
-> twist. I've heard it told that 351C cylinder walls were very thin and
-> overboring even .030" could weaken them significantly.
- Gapp & Roush, Mario Rossi, and others ran them in NASCAR and Pro Stock with
standard Detroit blocks and cast cranks.
- A .030 overbore is .015 per side. .015 isn't much - whipping out my
Starrett digital caliper, it's about the thickness of one of my business
cards. My feeling is, if it's so thin .015 is gonna make a noticeable
difference in reliability, you already have trouble, Bud.
- I'm still waiting for a defunct Cleveland block to fall into my hands so I
can saw it up. The weight figures I have for a 351W and a 351C are very
close, this despite the 351W having longer, heavier rods, a wider, heavier
intake, a larger diameter, heavier crank, lower pin height heavier pistons,
and a .3" taller block deck than the 351C. Since the Cleveland and Windsor
heads don't weigh much different, this *implies* the Cleveland would have
more meat in the block than the Windsor, which is a pretty beefy part
already.
- *If* this is true, there should be plenty of metal in the Cleveland. Does
anyone care to drop a Cleveland block on their bathroom scale? I weighed a
Windsor block and posted the results to the list last year. I also wrecked
my back and will have to have surgery for it later this year. Hint: if it
starts to slip, let the goddamned thing go. Bathroom scales are only $15.
And even toes are relatively unimportant compared to what can happen to your
back. Trust me.
- Anyway, given Ford's widely-vaunted "advanced technology casting
techniques", I'm wondering if the problem is not so much the Cleveland being
thin as being prone to core shift, or perhaps just being a shitty internal
design to start with.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
detomaso 06 Apr 1998
- -> There were a couple of stroker engine builders displaying there
-> stuff. One had a 438 inch 351C package consisting of a modified 400
-> crank, aftermarket rods, and 0.040" over custom pistons. He claims
-> the whole thing will fit in a 351C block.
- Wow. That takes a 4.275 stroke, which would take something on the order of
a 2.0" small journal Chevy rod, .030 undersize. That's about as far as you
can go without a custom or welded crank.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 23 Apr 1998
- -> D'OH...I've gotten my Cleveland and Windsor stuff mixed up I think.
-> I've got several harmonic dampeners and I can't remember which ones
-> came off what. Are they the same? If not, how can I sort them out?
- The Cleveland damper has a shorter tail than the Windsor. Stick a ruler in
each to find out which is which.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 09 May 1998
- I have discovered something interesting about 351 Cleveland cranks. There
are at least two different castings, and they're machined differently to
boot.
- The variant I have encountered most has blind tapped flywheel bolt holes.
When cut down to 302 main/Pinto rod size to build a 302 stroker, the oil
holes walk slightly to the sides. I've seen photos of other cranks in
magazines, apparently identical to the one in chucko's motor. Since I
normally grind lead-in grooves for the mains, I simply 'hooked' them over to
line up with the groove in the upper main bearing. No problemo.
- The other day I balanced a Cleveland crank from a 347 stroker, also
302/Pinto journal sizes. The rod journal holes were right up against the
crank cheeks, and the main oil holes were completely off the main bearing
oil groove. The entire casting is different in minor but numerous details
from the ones I was familiar with. The flywheel bolt holes were drilled and
tapped all the way through. This might be an easy way to identify the
crank. Chucko's took one slug of heavy metal to balance. This one, with
the same rod and piston package, but with a .050" shorter stroke, took two
slugs and a sizeable welded/bolted counterweight extension to acheive
balance.
- I hope the flywheel bolt holes are a reliable way to tell them apart. Even
with one of each on hand, the differences in the castings aren't enough to
be able to remember for long after seeing one. I don't like the oil hole
walk at all, and it would ordinarily cost $50-$200 more to balance one.
- Another factoid of possible interest: when balancing a Cleveland crank for a
302 stroker, the front requires heavy metal. The rear may not require
anything. Ah doan know wah.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 13 Jul 1998
- The main distinguishing characteristic of the "5.0" vs. the "302" is the
50oz vs 28oz imbalance on the crank. 5.0 cranks have severely bobbed
counterweights and make up for the difference by hanging more weight out
past the ends on the damper and flywheel.
- Ford never gave any reason for this change that I ever heard. My theory was
that Ford did it to save some weight and rotating mass, since even cast iron
costs money, plus the nod toward the ever-threatening CAFE.
- In general the 50oz vs 28oz change didn't make much difference to street and
drag race types. The stock cast iron cranks, 302 or 5.0, seem able to
handle the punishment of blowers and nitrous or both. Indeed, from most
reports, the block will disintegrate before crankshaft problems appear.
Except for the A Sedan guys.
- A Sedan people run in a restricted class - stock except for cam, carburetor,
and intake manifold. Power levels are modest, but they run at full speed
for extended periods of time. The A Sedan people claim crank breakage is a
problem. I don't know for sure; the subject occupies a fair amount of
bandwidth on the A Sedan mailing list, but despite my standing offer to pay
the shipping for dead parts and email to some of the more vocal types, I've
been unable to actually lay hands on one of these cranks to analyze.
Somehow I can't believe the breakage problem is real and as severe as they
say when nobody can come up with any broken parts.
- The other day I was digging through a friend's core pile and found an
interesting item - a 255 crank. That's the 3-inch-stroke part with the
hollow main journals and the cut-down counterweights. The interesting part
is, other than the 5.0 cranks not being hollow, the 255 crank looks a whole
lot like the later 5.0 cranks, just some minor differences in the
counterweights.
- Unfortunately I've never paid much attention to the 255, though I vaguely
remember it was balanced different than the 302. Does anyone have any data
on this?
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 27 Jul 1998
- re: discussion of the truck intake having larger, shorter runners than the
car intake, and being separated into two four cylinder engines all the way
out to the air filter housing:
- I found this tidbit in David Vizard's "How To Build Horsepower, Volume 2".
(thanks to Robert Harris)
- "To be effective, a Helmholtz resonator intended to boost power just below
the RPM that the tuned intake runner length comes in can only be coupled to
a limited number of cylinders. Although it can be made to work in a limited
fashion on a V8 with all cylinders drawing through it, the RPM range at
which it occurs is too low for a high performance or race engine. The
amount of power boost is also limited. To be effective, a maximum of four
evenly firing cylinders should be coupled to a single plenum..."
- So the truck intake *is* tuned for a higher RPM, but they're using the
plenum as a Helmholtz resonator to boost the lower end. The car intake
appears to run as eight separate tuned columns. So a the truck and car
intakes aren't directly comparable to each other, though they look similar.
- Now for the question: has anyone simply swapped their car intake for the
truck version to see what happened? It would require some fangleage with
the hoses and cables since the truck intake has things in different spots,
plus I've heard it's too tall to fit under a Mustang hood.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 15 Nov 1998
- For those keeping an eye out for the 'short dress' front cover and water
pump from the '94 Fox4 5.0, the setup apparently came from the '90 up
Thunderbird 5.0, which first got the 1.8" shorter assembly. T-birds are a
lot easier to find in the junkyards than 5.0 Fox4s!
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 01 Dec 1998
- Most distributors, the breaker plate is concentric to the distributor shaft.
For example, the pickup plate on a 302 Duraspark distributor is concentric.
However, an point type 302 distributor is *not* concentric - it pivots off
one side, a bizarre factoid I'd apparently managed to miss last time I had
one apart. This means a Ford point type distributor changes the point gap
as the plate moves. The advance also changes slightly too, though it's
changing anyway since the plate is moving.
== 1999 --------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 10 May 1999
- How heavy is the 4.6 Modular? I still haven't managed to weigh one of mine,
but I just noticed this interesting tidbit in the March '98 issue of Car
Craft (page 63):
- 221-302W - 460#
BOSS 302 - 500#
351W - 525#
351C - 550#
351M-400 - 575#
FE - 625#
429-460 - 720#
BOSS 429 - 635#
4.6 SOHC - 600# (Mustang)
4.6 DOHC - 576# (Mustang)
- The weight *differences* between a 302, 351W, and FE seem correct. If the
base numbers are true, the Mod is heavier than even I thought. Hmm, add an
aluminum intake, and an FE would be a nice lightweight upgrade to an SN95
Mustang...
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 17 Jun 1999
- -> As you said, no one has verified the tales of higher nickel content
-> so I don't rely on that myself.
-
While we're talking about unverifiables, a friend of mine in the scrap
iron business insists that Chevrolet went to four bolt blocks for heavy
duty purposes after seriously reducing the nickel content of the iron as
a cost-saving measure. This would apply to production blocks, not
Bowtie stuff.
- I can't tell the nickel content, of course, but I *can* tell you the iron in
a Chevy block is dramatically softer than what Ford uses - I can take a .060
bite out of a 350 Chevy, but .020 is as far as I can go on a Ford before the
belts in my boring bar start to slip. The difference is also noticeable
when honing.
- -> don't rely on that myself. The Mexican block has thicker main caps
-> just like the old 289 Hipo blocks did.
- When I start breaking main caps I'll worry about that.
- -> The Chevy guys detest the Mexican parts because they had a lot more
-> problems with core shift on their stuff than Ford did. Even the US
- Mexican Chevy blocks are readily distinguishable when cleaned up. The iron
is a different color, and liberally encrusted with sand. They actually
glitter. They're also known for cracking in the lifter valley.
- -> made small block Chevy has core shift that is readily apparent by
-> looking at the front face of the block. Look at the area around the
-> cam journal bores and you'll see its not even all around. The Chevy
-> Mexican blocks are supposedly even worse in this regard.
- Some core shift seems to be common with all small block Chevys. Some blocks
have dramatic core shift. It doesn't seem to be a problem with Fords,
either due to better cores or better location of the block when machining.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 11 Oct 1999
- -> they swap to a 302. The Ford Dealership here told me that it was
-> identical except for the block itself but I really hate to trust info
- The 255 had a number of unique parts:
the small-bore block (won't interchange with anything else)
the hollow-throw crank (will fit a 302, but the balance will be hosed)
the harmonic balancer (ditto)
the intake manifold gasket (it's a big pan gasket like a Cleveland)
the intake manifold (open like a Pontiac; without the special gasket
you can look in there and see and cam and lifters)
the small-port heads (oval ports instead of rectangular)
plus the special pistons, etc.
- The crankshaft is a nice piece; I pick them up whenever I find them. They're
nice for making low-rotating-weight 302 and 315 engines. The rest of the
engine is basically scrap iron.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 23 Nov 1999
- -> The early 351W heads require a different intake manifold gasket
- Ford's Muscle Parts book says that, so that's what I used to do. The water
passage holes at the ends are different, and there are the extra bolt holes.
However, no water will leak if a 302 gasket is used.
- Best as I can figure, circa 1970 221/302 gaskets had port cutouts sized for
those heads and 351W gaskets had slightly larger port cutouts.
- Most modern Windsor gaskets, regardless of whether they're 221-302 or 351W,
have port cutouts larger than any stock Windsor and probably larger than
many aftermarket Windsor heads. As long as your gasket doesn't lap over
into the port opening you should be okay.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 10 Dec 1999
- The stock "Power By Ford" steel valve covers won't fit over the stud girdles
on TRX' new heads. The covers are 3.5" high. Unfortunately, most of the
aftermarket valve covers are also 3.5" high. I need another 3/3 inch or so
of clearance. The girdles will clear the Ford Motorsport valve covers, but
so far those are the only ones I've found.
- Are there any other tall covers out there? And does anyone know where I
might snag a set of the old B&B 1" valve cover spacers?
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 27 Dec 1999
- -> 289 crank with the 5.0L rods and piston give me a pretty low
-> compression ratio. I believe this to be of considerable benefit in a
-> turbocharged
- That would leave you with a very large clearance volume. Volumes over .080"
tend to be prone to detonation from trapped end gasses. Your volume might
be enough to avoid that - you'd be looking at somewhere over .200 depending
on the gasket - but there's a more elegant solution. Destroke your 289 crank
down to 2.75 inches, 2.00 diameter rod journals. Use 5.7" small journal
Chevy rods and flat top 1.14" pistons for a 6" rod 383 Chevy. Keith Black
makes a very nice hyper "claimer" piston for $150 a set, including the light
thinwall pins they charge $125 extra for with the more expensive pistons,
for some mysterious reason. The usual suspects also carry off-the-shelf
forgings with this pin height.
- With a .030 overbore you now have 281 cubic inches (4.6L), 5/8 inch longer
rods, and a very nice 2.07 rod ratio. I just finished a 281 rotating
assembly a few weeks ago. Even after turning the crank OD down to 5 inches
for less rotating mass it was still easy to balance to 28oz.
- The small displacement gives you relatively low compression even with the
flat tops. The one I'm doing now is using closed chamber 289 heads which
will get me somewhere between 9.5 and 10:1 after I'm done porting. The flat
tops give full benefit of the quench areas of the head for turbulence in the
chambers.
- In your case: 4.030 x 2.75 = 35 CID = 575cc/cyl
- '75-up 351W heads are nominally 69cc. Add 4.5cc for an average head gasket
thickness, assume zero deck clearance (mine was), 4cc for the valve notches,
total clearance volume 77.5cc. Your CR would be 7.4, right in line for a
high output turbo motor. Plunge cutting the sides of the chambers to
relieve the flow path alongside the valves will take another couple of cc
and boost flow too. It's simple to do while you're doing the valve job.
- Stock valve sizes are 1.87/1.54 for the Windsors. Ford cuts the seats way
back on the inside edge of the valves, so you can drop in 1.50 diameter
Chevy exhaust valves with no trouble. All the shop has to do is run a
reamer through to open the guides to 3/8 inch and you can use the 3/8" stem,
sodium filled Chevy truck exhaust valves, which are ideal for turbo motors.
I don't know how much they cost new; I've been buying good used ones for a
few bucks each for my turbo motors.
- - Dave "destrokers have their place too" Williams
== 2000 --------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 20 Jan 2000
- -> Since none of the photos on that page were of a Stewart Warner pump,
-> I thought I'd describe it here.
- Kemper's Howard Stewart pump looks just like the Taiwan 5.0 pump
pictured on my web page.
- -> a single, large chamber. The impeller is centered inside this
-> chamber however, unlike the ones pictured. (Not sure how that was done.)
- Ford apparently has more than one shaft centerline height on the 5.0 style
pumps. Not to mention a half-dozen slightly different snout lengths. I'd
really like to know which goes with what, just for peace of mind...
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 29 Jan 2000
- -> Does anyone make a pre-bent and pre-flattened oil pump pick up tube
-> that will fit with a main girdle. I am trying to bend and flatten
-> mine but it is not looking promising. It is stock pick up and stock
-> pan. Any help is appreciated
- I've hassled with some of those tubes too. I *really* don't like flattening
the tube; the poor pump is already sucking as hard as it can.
- Next time I'm going to fabricate a bracket to hold the pickup in the proper
position and run -10 AN line from the pickup to the pump. I had considered
using rigid AN line, but it's almost as expensive to go that route as it is
to use the flexible stuff.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 02 Feb 2000
- -> Crap. I *hate* stripping Windsors down to the timing gears! And
-> fishing all those nylon teeth out of the crank-case is going to be a
-> blast.
- Fortunately (?) most of them will be in the oil pump pickup. If you loosen
the pan you can get the pickup loose, and while you're in there you can wipe
the rest of the flak out of the bottom of the pan.
- At least your hands will be numb from working outside in 30 degree weather;
jamming your arm past all the sharp edges into the bowels of the engine
won't hurt a bit.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 07 Jul 2000
- I got to weigh a standard bore BOSS 351 block on my scale this morning. It
weighs 177#, vs 175# for a D2AE 351W or 175# for an ordinary passenger car
390FE.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 21 Aug 2000
- -> 'course, the other side says the 351M is a 'M'odifed 400, and thus
-> the 'M'.
- My 1971 Ford Muscle Parts guide refers to "351-400 Cleveland" on page 7.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 27 Aug 2000
- -> Bolted to the back of the pump though, there is a steel back plate.
-> That steel back plate has round holes in it on late model pumps.
- Right. I have several on hand. And all of them have D-shaped ports.
- Sounds like maybe the builders have standardized on one plate for use on
both left and right hand pumps. Looking at the effort Ford put into making
smooth curves in the junction between the pump housing and front cover, it
makes me wonder how much those round-port backing plates will hose water
flow.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 06 Sep 2000
- -> The 86 heads are about the worst that ever came on a small
-> block ford for power... except for the 255 units.
- For power, probably. For fuel economy, I'd suspect they'd do quite well. I
rebuilt a pair a year or two ago. The ports are actually fairly nice;
larger than the 289 ports, decent shortside radii, etc.
- The valves are heavily shrouded by the chamber. This was done to mask part
of the port at low lift to create swirl. Between this and the relatively
compact chamber an engine with the '86 heads should need less spark advance
and get better fuel economy than one with other heads.
- For a daily driver car they're not a bad choice. For performance work, all
the factory heads are so lame it doesn't make much difference.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 04 Oct 2000
- -> My pocketbook for the time being does not allow for aftermarket
-> heads, so what is involved in the use of 1.94/1.60 valves in an E7
-> head. Will I be able to keep me new $100 springs that have 20min. on
-> them?
- You can probably keep the springs. The E7s use oddball valve keeper groove
heights, the Chevy valves use the same height as the majority of the older
289-5.0 valves.
- Since you're concerned about a $100 set of springs, I'm assuming you're
planning to use Chevy valves, which are less than half the price of "Ford"
valves. The main difference is the length of the stem above the keeper
groove; Ford valves are longer there. You really need to use lash caps to
extend the Chevy valve tips closer to Ford length to keep the geometry
right, but almost nobody does it and it seems to work okay for them.
- Just opening the seats to 1.94/1.60 and dropping the valves in will *reduce*
flow substantially by moving the edges of the valves almost in contact with
the sides of the chambers. You need to move the chamber walls back at least
to the gasket line to unshroud the valves. This will add a few cc to the
chamber volume and lower CR slightly, but power will go up. Unshrouding the
valves is easiest if you do it as part of the seat grinding operation.
Since your machinist is going to have to remove a bunch of metal to open the
seats up you might see how much more he wants to plunge-cut the chambers
too.
- I'm not sure the valves are the limiting factor on the E7 heads and without
flow bench data I'd still be concerned with shrouding. Last ones I did, I
used 1.84/1.50 valves from a 305 Chevy. The 1.87/1.54 valves used in the
early 351 Windsors would be nice, but good used valves are hard to find and
replacements in that size cost just as much as decent performance valves.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 07 Oct 2000
- I finally got a price sheet in from Price Motorsport Engineering. Their
intake adapter plates (302 intake on 351W, etc) run from $235 to close to
$300 per set. And I thought the Weiand spacers at $100 were a bit high...
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 12 Nov 2000
- -> One more thing, if you overtorqued this bolt how do you know you
-> didn't overtorque the others. If those ther bolts were overtorqued
- If an SBF looks like it has *ever* been apart by someone else, I always
replace the bolts. You can stretch them with a speed wrench if you're not
careful, and I've seen enough people use air tools for assembly that I'm
paranoid.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
Ford 23 Nov 2000
- I had someone who wanted a 5.0 flywheel rebalanced to 28oz so he could put a
five speed up against his 302. No problem, I had a 302 to balance anyway,
so I figured I'd balance it, the match-balance the 5.0 flywheel to the rest
of the rotating assembly.
- While I was at it, I decided to take some pictures and measurements to put
on my Windsor web page, so I could show people the difference between a 28oz
302 flywheel and a 50oz 5.0 flywheel.
- So I'm measuring an E1ZR flywheel from an '84 Mustang with a T5, and a C3OE
flywheel from a '68 289 three speed... uh... hmm... WTF?
- They're the SAME wheel? Well, other than the bobweight...
- Careful inspection showed the only other difference is the starter ring
gear. They're both 13-1/4" OD, but the early gear has 160 teeth and the
later gear has 157 teeth, spaced slightly wider apart.
- But they use the *same* starter?
- I don't see any reason why you couldn't slap that 289 flywheel on and bolt
up the rest of a T5 setup to it.
- Okay, so that's flywheels... I dug out some flexplates. A 1974 351W, 28oz -
the one for TRX, in fact. And an E1-something 5.0 50oz flexplate. Both
have 164 teeth and are 14-1/4" in diameter, one inch more than the
flywheels... and the teeth are even wider apart! The offset is the same,
the torque convertor mounting holes are the same, they're completely
interchangeable other than the balance.
- Right now I'm still digging through the shed for more stuff to check, but it
looks like I've collected a lot of Ford flywheel/flexplate misinformation
over the years...
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fangle 30 Nov 2000
- -> Do you have a std bore Clev. block in your pile of parts?
- I have bits of Cleveland block from Matt and Sean. Sean's engine was
standard bore; all the bits are .170-.210 thick. Matt's was a bit thinner,
with one piece .130 thick. I don't know what the bore was.
- So far, the Clevelands don't look particularly thin to me; no thinner than a
350 Chevy, anyway. And both these blocks failed because the engine dropped
a valve first.
- The reports of Cleveland failures are possibly due to core shift, though
that is rare on most Fords, or a different iron alloy being used in the
casting. The Cleveland's unsupported bore length is about 1/2" longer than
the 351W, even though the 351W has a taller deck. The Cleveland's water
jacket goes all the way down to the bottom of the bore, while the Windsor
stops higher up and the naked cylinder hangs down into the crankcase a ways.
- The 400M I just had sonic checked was 3/8 inch thick in spots. Now I know
where much of that extra 25 pounds is.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 30 Nov 2000
- -> The Ford engine, at least up through 302ci form, is by far the
-> smallest and lightest of the Detroit "smallblock" V8s, and that's a
-> tremendously good thing in itself. All you can say was that the
-> small external package limited its expansion capability.
- [nit pick] The short-lived Buick 215 V8 was lighter than the SBF, but
substantially larger externally.
- Ford expanded the 221 to 302, which was 81 cubic inches; about average for
Detroit. The only V8 Ford opened up more than that was the FE, from 332 to
428, 96 cubic inches. The flathead, Y-block, MEL, 385-series big block, and
Mod don't even come close.
- When Ford wanted to open the 302 up some more, they jacked up the deck and
made the 351W, which was still only an average-size small block.
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics 10 Dec 2000
- -> I say put screw in freeze plugs into a 289/302 block then use your
-> Aussie heads along with the B&A intake to build a "Bogus Boss 302" :)
- The Roush "Bogus BOSS" in that old issue of Hot Rod used spacer plates
between the intake and the heads. I didn't understand why, since the intake
fits just fine. A couple of months ago I tried sitting a Windsor intake
down on a 302 with some 2V heads. The Cleveland ports are higher up in the
head faces and would leak air, as well as having a major port mismatch. It
looks like a couple of pieces of 1/4" flat stock would be sufficient to jack
the intake up for things to match better.
== 2001 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-EOF-