I thought it may warent it's own topic.
Gary
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Here is what I am thinking. This is the last remaining gold mine of effeciency increases for the reciprocating engine. Ask anybody why they are not redlining their Clevelands at 12,000 rpm and the first thing they will say, it would float a valve, or break a spring, it is always the valve train. Here we have heads that have such huge intakes you can stick you fist down them. Most articles on Clevelands say to not even bother polishing the intakes. Why? Cause you already have way more than you can use. You have this beutifully shaped runner and what do they do?? They stick a tree right in the middle of the flows sweet spot. Yep, the stupid valve stem is sitting right there in the way. Not only that you have this huge valve, that weighs like a ton, and you are trying to open and close it fifty eight times a second. Not only that, to make up for the fact a tree is in the way, they are trying to move it five-eiths of an inch each way. So I think the poppet valve has just got to go. Gotta come up with something that can open that port 120 times a second. Why?? To take advantage of the free flow that is the Cleveland. Now most guys do that by strokeing the motor. That is ok, but it doesn't let you rev any higher, in fact you may not be able to rev as high as before stroking. I think there is a better way. Double your redline. That has the effect of doubling your Cubic inch displacement. Plus now you can have a higher top end without changing gear ratios. If you are turning seven grand at 160 mph, imagine how fast you will be going at ten or twelve grand. In fact you will not be able to redline in top gear, probably. Look at formula one cars. Seven and eight hundred horsepower from little dinky motors without much more displacement than a four popper. How do they do it?? By burning a lot of fuel in a very short time. High RPMs.
Now as you start turning high rpms, timing events have to change because air will only flow so fast even as the suction increases. So you need to open things sooner to compensate. Add in to all this the fact that by not driving a cam, distributer, timeing gear, chain and lifters, and you have eliminated a lot of parasitic losses.
As it stands now, the car as it exists today, is about twenty percent effecient in as far as power output for given amount of fuel. These changes could get it up into the thirty to fifty percent range. What does that mean?? One fast freeking car, that's what.
Now as you start turning high rpms, timing events have to change because air will only flow so fast even as the suction increases. So you need to open things sooner to compensate. Add in to all this the fact that by not driving a cam, distributer, timeing gear, chain and lifters, and you have eliminated a lot of parasitic losses.
As it stands now, the car as it exists today, is about twenty percent effecient in as far as power output for given amount of fuel. These changes could get it up into the thirty to fifty percent range. What does that mean?? One fast freeking car, that's what.
I think open minded thinking like that is where the good stuff comes from!
Gary
Gary
DeTom,
The Cleveland can't turn 12,000 rpm even if the valve train allowed it to do so. The block & reciprocating assembly would self destruct.
However, if you can develop an electric valve actuator that can run to 18,000 rpm for the length of a race, the F1 guys will want to talk to you. You'd be set for life! All joking aside.
your friend on the PIBB, George
The Cleveland can't turn 12,000 rpm even if the valve train allowed it to do so. The block & reciprocating assembly would self destruct.
However, if you can develop an electric valve actuator that can run to 18,000 rpm for the length of a race, the F1 guys will want to talk to you. You'd be set for life! All joking aside.
your friend on the PIBB, George
I think the engine masters would be a great place for guys to introduce some new things like electronic valves and such. Some of the top guys are doing things totally against what the accepted norm has been. This has been the key benifit of the engine masters. As time goes by I hope more guys venture into untried ideas.
The Kit Plane market has long been held as where much of the small plane advancements have come from. So many things are hard to get past the FAA in production aircraft, many things are proven in the experimental classes and often years latter certified as new technology.
Gary
The Kit Plane market has long been held as where much of the small plane advancements have come from. So many things are hard to get past the FAA in production aircraft, many things are proven in the experimental classes and often years latter certified as new technology.
Gary
But George, everyone keeps telling me that 4 bolt mains are not needed in a Cleveland. That stud girdles are a waste. Surely the Cleveland coud do 10,000 RPM????
High rpm is not your friend. Even if you could make it run 10 grand you have a whole host of other issues which will cause you problems. Keep in mind formula 1 cars which run high rpm's have a very short stroke. Second, stud girdles and valve springs won't be an issue if you replace the entire valve system with something different.
Gary
Gary
As RPM increases, the loads that the bottom end endures becomes exponentially higher. Meaning if at 6,000 RPM the bottom end withstands 2x, at 7000 it may be 4x, and at 8000 it may be 8x and so on.
I don't know off the top of my head what the pressure measurement is, or what the number value is, but that's what happens.
Michael
I don't know off the top of my head what the pressure measurement is, or what the number value is, but that's what happens.
Michael
I read an article about an engine with a rotary valve configuration. The valvetrain looked like a camshaft with holes in for intake and exhaust. It was chain driven and the guy made a running motor with it. That was a few years ago in Popular Mechanics or some other magazine. Never heard anything more about that design.--But that could turn as fast as you needed with no springs, valves, camshaft or pushrods and have free flow through the "Holes".
The bottom part of the motor was a chevy V-8!
The bottom part of the motor was a chevy V-8!
Variable valve timing works very well. Our stock BMW 740IL is equipped VVT or VANOS the BMW name. The car weigh is more than 4,200 pounds and will do 0 to 60 in 6.8 seconds!!!! If it wasn’t equipped with the US spec speed limiter it would easily do 180 MPH with power to spare!!
quote:Originally posted by comp2:
High rpm is not your friend. Even if you could make it run 10 grand you have a whole host of other issues which will cause you problems. Keep in mind formula 1 cars which run high rpm's have a very short stroke. Second, stud girdles and valve springs won't be an issue if you replace the entire valve system with something different.
Oh Garry, the stud girdles i was refering to ties the main bearing caps together to minimize flexing. Main cap girdle.
Gary
quote:Originally posted by pantera7367:
I read an article about an engine with a rotary valve configuration. The valvetrain looked like a camshaft with holes in for intake and exhaust. It was chain driven and the guy made a running motor with it. That was a few years ago in Popular Mechanics or some other magazine. Never heard anything more about that design.--But that could turn as fast as you needed with no springs, valves, camshaft or pushrods and have free flow through the "Holes".
The bottom part of the motor was a chevy V-8!
There you go. Rotary motion is more friendly to high rpm than reciprocation. Wankles wind out real tight too. And turbines, no problem turning high rpms there.
DeTom, the standard Cleveland block, when pushed to 8000 rpm will eventually crack in the bulkheads above the main bearing saddles. Period. Some times a cylinder wall will give away also. The standard Cleveland block doesn't like revs above 8,000 rpm or power above 600 bhp. I think some Cleveland die hards are making big power with their Cleveland's water jackets filled with hard block, but most racers will choose to run a heavy duty Windsor block like those sold by Ford Racing or Dart rather than gamble with the Cleveland block. Impose a redline at 7000 rpm and keep the power in the 550 bhp range, and the Cleveland block will last a long time.
Pantera 7367 the rotary valves you refer to are the Coates system that LPB mentioned in the previous thread. The problem that plagued that system was exhaust heat, there was no provision to cool the rotating exhaust valve. Technology has now moved beyond the need for a Coates type valve system. Formula 1 racing is running 18,000 rpm using pneumatic valve actuators (no springs). And BMW has developed a method to actuate valves electrically, without camshafts. This is where IC engine technology is headed at the moment. Computerized valve control, allowing valve phasing, duration & lift to be continuously varied & optimized with rpm and engine load.
Mike the system BMW is using in the Rolls is a whole new ball game compared to the VANOS system in your 740IL. There are no cams! And there is no throttle valve (butterfly)! Engine speed is controlled by computer manipulation of the valve timing events & lift. This is accomplished with electric actuators on each valve.
Everyone have a great evening! I'm off work tomorrow and possibly headed out of town, if I'm 100% over the cold I've had all week.
your friend on the PIBB, George
Pantera 7367 the rotary valves you refer to are the Coates system that LPB mentioned in the previous thread. The problem that plagued that system was exhaust heat, there was no provision to cool the rotating exhaust valve. Technology has now moved beyond the need for a Coates type valve system. Formula 1 racing is running 18,000 rpm using pneumatic valve actuators (no springs). And BMW has developed a method to actuate valves electrically, without camshafts. This is where IC engine technology is headed at the moment. Computerized valve control, allowing valve phasing, duration & lift to be continuously varied & optimized with rpm and engine load.
Mike the system BMW is using in the Rolls is a whole new ball game compared to the VANOS system in your 740IL. There are no cams! And there is no throttle valve (butterfly)! Engine speed is controlled by computer manipulation of the valve timing events & lift. This is accomplished with electric actuators on each valve.
Everyone have a great evening! I'm off work tomorrow and possibly headed out of town, if I'm 100% over the cold I've had all week.
your friend on the PIBB, George
Awww shucks George. That is real diasappointing. I had no idea the Cleveland was such a weenie. It looks strong but it is a weakling. Heck my everyday driver focus has a 7200 RPM redline. FEs had 7500 RPM redline. I guess Ford was thinking about truck motors when they made the Cleveland.
Hmm, maybe I should start with a four popper. Honda is starting to look like a serious option for future Pantera power.
Hmm, maybe I should start with a four popper. Honda is starting to look like a serious option for future Pantera power.
DeTom,
If you put at least two of those four poppers together!
Michael
If you put at least two of those four poppers together!
Michael
The Cleveland is a fairly light block. This makes it a good lightweight choice for 500hp applications. It does what it was designed for very well. Not many "heavy" big block type engines will do well at 10-15K rpm either. That is not what they are designed for.
As far as the 4 Bangers, the guy at the dyno shop said "it is so nice to hear a real muscle car, I am so tired of hearing these ricers! Thay all sound like "angry sewing machines!" And I own one!"
LOL
I don't think you would take a Indy car engine and set it up as a truck engine and I don't think there is any real reason to take a Cleveland and try to make it turn 10+k rpm.
Gary
As far as the 4 Bangers, the guy at the dyno shop said "it is so nice to hear a real muscle car, I am so tired of hearing these ricers! Thay all sound like "angry sewing machines!" And I own one!"
LOL
I don't think you would take a Indy car engine and set it up as a truck engine and I don't think there is any real reason to take a Cleveland and try to make it turn 10+k rpm.
Gary
I don't know Gary. I bet a Chevy small block would turn those kinds of RPM all day with no ill effect. Probably even a windsor would. From now on we should all call it the 351 Weakland. Or maybe the 351 Crappyblock. What was Ford thinking when they made such a weenie of a motor? The 302 Winsor using these heads was a little screamer that was real succesful racing. To take these heads and put it on a defectively weak block is almost crimminal. No wonder Ford has lost so much market share. They cost reduced good engines down to marginal ones. Thank goodness they have seen the light and are now making motors that redline at over seven grand from the factory. How embarrasing for a Pantera owner. It would have been better to use the old Y block or even Flathead.
My brother runs his big bloc Cobra at tracks from time to time. I know I have said this before. He routeenly smokes the guys with 302's wound out. Rarely do the wound out 302's make it to the end of the weekend. Drag racers wind out all sorts of engines including the cleveland and 400. They run them till they break like everything else and do it again. No mater which engine it is, there are consequences to the high rpms. I know guys with 800hp small blocks that have lasted a long time but they "cruise them". They don't run them. There is a difference.
Gary
Gary
quote:Originally posted by DeTom:
I don't know Gary. I bet a Chevy small block would turn those kinds of RPM all day with no ill effect.
And that would be a no.
Gary
DeTom,
Ford made the Cleveland lightweight with gigantic ports just to go racing. Weight savings equals more power per pound equals faster times.
Michael
Ford made the Cleveland lightweight with gigantic ports just to go racing. Weight savings equals more power per pound equals faster times.
Michael
I dunno guys. If George says it is a whimpy block, I tend to believe him. He has had lots and lots of experiance to back that up. Come to think of it my personal experiance backs up his claim. I blew up my original Celveland about this time last year. The mechanic said he had never seen a motor so broken up in his thirty years of experiance. I only threw a rod and was under 4000 RPM when she let loose. It messed up a bunch of stuff but the Block was unsalvageable, it broke the cam bearing mounts and everything, just like George said it would. I thought buying a motor with four bolt mains and vanadium h-beam rods would make it all ok, so that is what I had put in. Now I am beginning to think I did a stupid thing. I shoulda asked George before I I bought a brand new motor, but I didn't know him or post here back then. Oh man, what a numbnuts I am. I went and put a weakland back in my car. Thank God I have a three year warrenty. When this one breaks, I am gonna insist on a Honda.
You crack me up my friend! weakland!
All Ford small blocks were thinwall castings, I don't think the engineers on the Cleveland project understood what the limits of their block were. I am sure they knew the engine would rev freely, unlike a Windsor or small block Chevy or any other small to mid displacement V8. I am also sure they knew the engine would be capable of making power in the neighborhood of 500 bhp. The Trans Am 302's (Boss 302) were making about 450 bhp. In the late 60's making 500 bhp was quite a big deal. Ford had produced a special heavy duty block for the Trans Am Mustangs.
The Cleveland "was" Ford's new performance engine, but one objective of the design was keeping the cost of manufacturing down. So they didn't do the things they should have done to make the engine a real "race" engine. I personaly have never understood this. I'll bet there were insiders at Ford that were furious. It's as though none of the lessons learned by the racing teams were applied to the Cleveland short block.
Eventually Ford had a batch of heavy duty blocks cast for the Cleveland, and they were carefully ditributed to the Ford supported race teams. These blocks were cast in Australia, were known as the NASCAR blocks, and have a casting number of XE192540.
DeTom, it's not fair to say any FE motor could rev to 7500 rpm, they couldn't, only the 427 was built to do that, and that engine was expensive to produce, that engine was the example the Ford accountants pointed at and said "look, we don't want another one of those!".
The '65 to '67 427 side oiler short blocks had cross bolted mains, an elaborate oiling system that made oil to the main bearings a priority, and had a relief valve in the back of the block, instead of in the pump, it had a steel crank and very "beefy" connecting rods with 7/16 cap screws. That dude was built for racing. Why are none of these features found on the Cleveland?
Speed cost money, how fast do you want to go? The Ford accountants answer was "75 mph will do thank you".
your friend on the PIBB, George
All Ford small blocks were thinwall castings, I don't think the engineers on the Cleveland project understood what the limits of their block were. I am sure they knew the engine would rev freely, unlike a Windsor or small block Chevy or any other small to mid displacement V8. I am also sure they knew the engine would be capable of making power in the neighborhood of 500 bhp. The Trans Am 302's (Boss 302) were making about 450 bhp. In the late 60's making 500 bhp was quite a big deal. Ford had produced a special heavy duty block for the Trans Am Mustangs.
The Cleveland "was" Ford's new performance engine, but one objective of the design was keeping the cost of manufacturing down. So they didn't do the things they should have done to make the engine a real "race" engine. I personaly have never understood this. I'll bet there were insiders at Ford that were furious. It's as though none of the lessons learned by the racing teams were applied to the Cleveland short block.
Eventually Ford had a batch of heavy duty blocks cast for the Cleveland, and they were carefully ditributed to the Ford supported race teams. These blocks were cast in Australia, were known as the NASCAR blocks, and have a casting number of XE192540.
DeTom, it's not fair to say any FE motor could rev to 7500 rpm, they couldn't, only the 427 was built to do that, and that engine was expensive to produce, that engine was the example the Ford accountants pointed at and said "look, we don't want another one of those!".
The '65 to '67 427 side oiler short blocks had cross bolted mains, an elaborate oiling system that made oil to the main bearings a priority, and had a relief valve in the back of the block, instead of in the pump, it had a steel crank and very "beefy" connecting rods with 7/16 cap screws. That dude was built for racing. Why are none of these features found on the Cleveland?
Speed cost money, how fast do you want to go? The Ford accountants answer was "75 mph will do thank you".
your friend on the PIBB, George
Thanks George. I hate accountants, they have run the American automotive business into the ground. I think if my 351 Weakland breaks before the warrenty is up, I will insist it be replaced with a 427 sideoiler.