quote:Originally posted by Aus Ford:quote:Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
If anyone finds fault with them and is disappointed, then look within. The issue is with you.
If you want to make blanket or specific accusations of oil pump cavitation under the intended use, go right ahead. How you are going to make this case is beyond me. You can not prove something that does not exist.
I personally think the 351 Cleveland is the best thing ever to be cast out of iron.
I find no fault with it but that is not to say it can not be improved upon.
I think the stock 4v heads are perfect, but plenty of others feel grinding bits out of them here and there improves them.
I think the stock rocker pedestals are fine, but others like to machine them down, redrill them and fit 7/16" rocker studs.
I think the old flat tappet cam and lifters are fine, but others like to change all that to a roller setup.
None of these things constitute a fault with the original engine.
As you say, all of these things were fine for the "engines intended usages" but all and more are modified to "improve" them.
I see no difference with or special circumstances to exclude the lubrication system from this philosophy.quote:"You can not prove something that does not exist ?"
Proving things requires evidence.....but..
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.........
A man goes to the doctor and says:......."Doctor i'm in terrible pain and i feel really ill"
The doctor does a bunch of tests, scans, and xrays.
Then the doctor says to the man:........."I can't find any evidence of anything wrong with you, so therefore there must not be anything wrong with you"
The man says in response:................."Well regardless of that, obviously there is something wrong, i'm still in terrible pain and still feel really ill"...."just because you have not found evidence of what is wrong does not mean there is nothing wrong, all it means is you simply have not found evidence of it".
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.........
I recently pulled down a 351c and all the rod bearings were shot......i found nothing obviously wrong with the engine otherwise.......does that mean there is nothing wrong with the engine ....????
"I went to the Doctor for a check up" and the Doctor said, "you're getting a little chubby, you need to loose some weight". I said, "I'd like to get a second opinion".
He said, "OK...and you're uggly too?"
Ron is refering to systems that always seem to find the weak link.
The dry sump system has external pumps that are belt driven. The belts tend to get over stressed and fail.
In many cars the systems themselves cause a great deal of stress to the installers, mechanics, and the cars, etc, since the vehicle themselves often need to be modified in order to find room to install them.
This often can cause issue with failure or weaknesses introduced in order to install the system itself which in the case of a dry sump is quite extensive.
I love to see full comp cars and see where they have been modified to accept the modifications...get that?
I like cars that were never initially design as race cars like the Pantera. I'm not going to Lemans but like to see what engineering changes needed to be instituted to do that.
There are many differences between Ford GT40's and Panteras but one of them is the differences between the race oiling systems.
I have not seen any of the vintage factory race Panteras originally with dry sump systems. The big Aviaid pans with external oil coolers seems to be all that was needed.
I 100% agree that sleeving the lifter bores is mandatory in a race Cleveland. For a race car, that is "no biggie" at all.
There are two cars, the Pantera and the GT40 that seemingly have so many similarities. One makes a better street car than the other, and one a better race car that the other. To me, it is very interesting to see why. I like to compare the engineering differences.
In a 289 I can only think of a couple of Shelby cars that ever even ran dry sump.
Not many at all.
I think much of this has to do with rpm limitations.
If you go into the 221-260-289 Ford Indy cars of the vintage early '60s you will definitely see them but you are also talking about an engine that was turning substantially higher rpms than even the race Cobras and GT40's were.
Every engine is going to have it's ultimate limitations. The Cleveland never proved to be a good high rpm endurance engine.
The Lemans effort race Panteras had issue with crankshaft failures due to the internal balance weights being thrown out of the crankshaft.
Those were built by Hank the Crank for Holman-Moody.
(Ford actually cast aluminum 351c blocks AND HEADS in 1968 for what they referred to as an "Indy racing effort". How many of those engines have you EVER seen? Ever seen those in a Pantera Gp4 car? I'll bet that you haven't?
The cranks worked for US NASCAR engines with little issue. When you put them into a Lemans car and the engines blew up then I would think the engine was being stressed farther than the US racing ever had done?
You need engineers that can manage these issues. The GT40 427 Ford engines were limited to 6000rpm and still finished 1,2, 3, at Lemans in '66. That is management if you ask me.
I went to the Doctor again and said raising my right arm, "it hurts when I do this". The doctor pushing my arm down said, "don't so that"?
Some of you guys I think just miss the obvious? There is no issue with oiling of the 351c within it's original intended usage as a street car, in your LTD Country Squire station wagon with MAYBE a 6,000rpm limit. Everything else above that is at your own risk.
Again, the Cleveland is no worse or no better than any other production engine ever made when raced. Your imagination is what is having issues.
