B. Goyaniuk's motor questions

Thanks George,

I have done some thinking about your advice. My engine criteria is street/race. ie. mostly street driven but at times yearly taking it to the track for timed events here at Mt Tremblent Quebec. It must fit under the engine cover and I would prefer to continue to use my Hall big bore headers and ANSA exhaust.

I talked to the Mass Flow EFI system guy and it is not clear that the Mass Flow system will fit under the Pantera Engine cover. He says he needs a 3 inch thick Air filter to allow for proper mass flow sensor clearance. My filter element on my holley 4160 with Edelbrock Performer is only 2 inches thick. I must admit I really like the look of PPCs (Dennis Q's) EFI system but I am not sure it will be trouble free.

I really think you know what you're talking about and I have been following your comments. I need to clear some things up in my own mind and I am asking for your help because my engine will need a rebuild in the not too distant future.

I would rather not adjust the valves so I like the hydraulic lifters to minimize valve adjustment. With hydraulic roller lifters what valve adjustment would I be looking at when compared to just hydraulic lifters. Which would be more durable for street/race between the two?

For a stroker crank aren't we creating more load on the main bearings. Do we need 4 bolt caps or any other bearing cap mod? What does that do for durability? Also for a stroker aren't we increasing the inertial loads on the engine at higher revs. Doesn't that also cause a problem for durability? I thought it is supposed to be better to keep the rotating mass as small as possible to minimize the engine bearing loads and to allow durable higher reving engine.

What are the technical benefits of using the CHI 4V aluminum heads versus stock 4V closed chamber heads. Looks like I am leaning towards using a Blue Thunder dual plane intake manifold and Holley 750 carb)

Thanks and standing by.

B. Goyaniuk

quote:

He says he needs a 3 inch thick Air filter to allow for proper mass flow sensor clearance. My filter element on my holley 4160 with Edelbrock Performer is only 2 inches thick.

I also have the Performer, and a Holley 670 Street Avenger. My air filter housing is a dropped Moroso unit, I use a 14"x3" filter, and have the stock (early, no solid metal but all screen) cover. It just barely fits, but it fits. Sorry, I do not know a part number for the Moroso unit.

Larry

Hi BG,

We have not talked of horsepower goals, powerband, drivability, engine building budget, etc. The answers to those questions are very important in order for me to properly advise you. I can however provide general answers to your questions.

Flat tappet or roller, both designs of hydraulic lifter are equally durable. We can achieve better performance with the roller lifter and camshaft, but it is more expensive to implement a roller cam valve train. The cam and lifters are more expensive, and the higher valve lifts require sturdier push rods, more expensive spring sets, etc. Whether or not you need a roller cam to achieve your performance goals, depends upon what those goals are.

The stroker crankshaft will not jeopardize your motor's relaibility so long as you do not exceed a stroke of 3.85". What measures must be taken to strengthen the short block will depend upon what your horsepower & powerband goals are.

The advantage of the CHI head is more average torque over a wider powerband with better throttle response, and perhaps more peak torque (and therefore horsepower) as well. These heads are new to me, I have no hands on experience to rely upon. I look at the design, and I expect them to perform better than the cast iron heads.

To set up a cast iron head for performance requires replacement of the valves with one piece stainless steel valves, bronze valve guides, higher quality valve spring retainers & keepers, machinig of the head for spring seats and adjustable valve gear. This work, including a good valve grinding job, can cost approximately $1000 USD. To achieve a power goal exceeding 400 bhp will require extensive port grinding work as well, which brings the total cost for iron heads to $1500 USD or better. The true differnce between the price of running iron heads and running alloy heads is only about $600 USD.

Instead of the Blue Thunder intake manifold & CHI 4V heads, my recommendation would be the new CHI 2 plane intake manifold and their 218cc 3V cylinder head. Although they have not announced this 2 plane intake manifold to the public, John at CHI has shared pictures of the intake with me last summer. I occasionally petition the people who manufacture Cleveland engine parts to pay attention to the Pantera market, and a low rise manifold has been one of my requests, so John was eager to share the new manifold with me once they had a prototype available for pictures. The 218cc 3V head is CHIs premium head.

Did Quality Roadsters mention they have a low profile throttle body that saves about an inch of verticle height?

Besides my earlier questions, I have a question regarding your exhaust system. What size is the collector and what size is the exhaust tubing between the collector and the Ansa? I'll need this info because exhaust system performance is critical in achieving various power goals.

your friend on the PIBB, George

Hello again George,

I am on just about to order a replacement engine.

You said I should state by horsepower goals, powerband, driveability, engine budget.

Some general ideas
For Horsepower: about 400-425 hp
Powerband: smooth gradually increasing hp curve with as wide and flat as possible torque curve.
Driveability: good idle at 600-800 rpm, redline at 6500 to 7000 rpm. smooth throttle response.
engine budget around 5 to 7K.

As I said a good street engine with enough performance for once in a while SCCA race events.

I was thinking of a stroker, 4 bolt mains, rebuild my stock 4V CChambers, hydraulic lifters, roller rockers with mininum over-bore (just enough to true out the cylinders).

What specific parts do you recommend?

eg. pistons, rings, crank, conrods, roller rockers, camshaft, head work etc.

Thanks

P.S. can I e-mail you or call you off line? andriykoisg@yahoo.ca

Hi BG,

I want you to know I've seen your post & will respond soon, I'm a bit busy at the moment & your questions will take a bit of time to answer. I need to do a bit of research for part numbers, etc.

In the mean time my e-mail address is: gp_fillmore@yahoo.com

your friend on the DTBB, George

Bohdan,

I understand you would like to retain your current intake manifold and exhaust headers. This would lead me to advise you to retain the iron closed chamber heads already installed on your motor.

However, I also understand at some point you would like to upgrade to alloy heads for both the savings in weight and the increased intake velocity they provide (i.e. improved throttle response and possibly more bhp). Unfortunately, none of the available alloy heads are a match for the Edelbrock Performer 4V intake on your motor.

To select alloy heads you will need to consider a change in intake manifold as well. Edelbrock makes a Performer 2V manifold that is physically identical to the Performer 4V, even the ports are relatively similar in volume. This manifold will work just fine with Edelbrock, CHI 2V or AFD 2V alloy heads. It can also be used with the CHI 3V heads using the spacers sold by CHI.

My only caveat regarding installation of alloy heads is that none of them provide for a manifold heat crossover, and since you live in a relatively cold climate, this may have an undesirable effect on drivability. With a conversion to fuel injection this would not be an issue.

You may want to wait and combine the upgrade to alloy heads with a possible future upgrade to fuel injection. Since keeping the intake system below the engine screen is important to you, you'll want to select one of the 2V heads (Edelbrock, CHI or AFD) to minimize vertical height.

Your exhaust system will bolt up to the 2V alloy heads; however the exhaust ports in those heads are smaller than the flanges of your headers. The engine will operate just fine with this mismatch, but it will not be ideal for maximizing the performance of your motor. A set of 2V headers would be a better choice for an exhaust system.

I am going to make my recommendations based upon the assumption that you will retain the iron heads for the present time. Your modest performance goal of 400 bhp allows me to specify a flat tappet hydraulic cam; there is no need to use a roller cam at that power level.

I have learned within the last few weeks that Scat is in the process of offering a new stroker kit for the 351C, with a 4.00" stroke crankshaft. I write this to make you aware of it; I can't recommend it until I have spoken with Bob at Scat and asked how the piston's ring package has been changed to accommodate the 0.075" increased throw of the crankshaft.

Until then my recommendation is the 3.85" Scat crankshaft kit in forged steel, with their premium 4340 fordged I beam connecting rod (6.00” length) featuring a doweled cap and 7/16” cap screws, and Scat’s fordged pistons and rings. Bob at Scat told me they can dish the piston domes to mirror the shape of the combustion chamber in the iron closed chamber heads for an extra fee, I strongly advise this extra expense. You will want to have the pistons dished to adjust the compression ratio of your motor to the ratio recommended for your camshaft (more on that later). The Scat crankshafts have a crank snout diameter the same as that of the Windsor motor, so a standard 351C timing set or balancer will be a loose fit (by 0.010” I think). Rollmaster manufactures a timing set for this application, and a Windsor balancer will also be required (I recommend the Romac balancer).

Since I have recommended the expense of custom dishes on your pistons, you will need to “zero deck” your block to take advantage of the squish area of the cylinder heads. During the machining of your block, the “decks” will be surfaced to remove approximately 0.025” material so that the piston domes will sit flush with the decks at TDC. The goal is upon final assembly the clearance between the piston domes and the cylinder heads at TDC is 0.045” +/- 0.010” (Ideally the thickness of your head gasket).

For a camshaft I recommend the Comp Cams XE274H. The duration figures at 0.050” lift are 230 degrees intake & 236 degrees exhaust, the valve lift figures are 0.562” intake and 0.565” exhaust. The relatively high valve lift of this cam, combined with the increased displacement of stroker crank will do wonderful things with the throttle response of your motor. So much so that you may change your mind about needing alloy heads. With 393 cubic inches this cam will be very drivable, have great throttle response, provide a power band of approximately 1700 rpm to 5700 rpm and perform like a tiger when you need it. With good springs your motor will easily rev to 6500 rpm, so long as you have adequate carburetion (750 Holley) and exhaust (2 ½” tubing from collector to Ansa minimum, perhaps 3”). The compression ratio recommended for this camshaft was not listed on Comps web site, I can guess it will be approximately 9.0 to 1 or 9.5 to 1, but you’ll need to speak with Comp to verify their recommendation.

A must for your cylinder heads is installation of one piece stainless steel valves, good quality steel valve spring retainers & single groove style keepers, bronze valve guides, port matching, valve pocket clean up and a 5 angle valve job. I also strongly recommend porting by somebody familiar with the 351C motor. You’ll find most of the port work is in the exhaust port, some relieving in the combustion chamber and some basic clean up in the intake port. This will be necessary to allow the motor to make every ft/lb of torque possible; otherwise the head will limit the potential of this combination.

For rocker arms I recommend the Ford Racing Performance Parts (FRPP) “bolt on” rocker arms, part number M-6564-C351, no head machining necessary. The rocker arms are made of extruded aluminum, not as beefy as some of the others on the market, but I think plenty durable for this application. They bolt down to the slotted rocker pedestals of the iron head. They are attached to the head with a 3/8” cap screw, not quite as strong as the 7/16” stud of a fully adjustable push rod guided rocker system, but again I think it will be plenty durable for this application. To achieve adjustability you’ll combine the rocker arms with a set of Crane 3/8” adjustable push rods, part number 99748-1. You must specify tips & length to order those push rods.

Your first alternative choice in a rocker arm system will be to have the rocker arm pedestals cast into the heads machined & tapped for a fully adjustable push rod guided rocker system using 7/16” studs, guide plates, hardened push rods and a suitable rocker arm of either extruded aluminum (Crane 27771-16 or Crower 72815-16) or cast stainless steel (Crower 73615-16 or Comp Cams 1130-16).

A second alternative choice in a rocker arm system is the individual shaft mount rocker arms made by Yella Terra (part number YT6321) which also require the same machining of the rocker arm pedestals as the push rod guided system.

I’ll mention once again that this motor will need a Holley 750 cfm carburetor and a free flowing exhaust system. Headers are not enough, the pipes & mufflers downstream of the headers must also be of adequate size & capacity so as not to choke the motor.

Finally the carburetor & ignition will require tuning on a dynamometer. My personal preference is chassis dyno because it allows the drive train friction to load the motor during tuning, but an engine dyno is OK too. This step is essential for this combination to work properly. If all is done correctly, your motor should idle smoothly and accelerate from any rpm without any hesitation, the more you press the accelerator the HARDER the engine will pull, like an electric motor, all the way to 6000 rpm before any sign of leveling off.

Your long winded friend on the DTBB, George

THANK-YOU George.

Engineers like specifics and detail and you certainly fit the bill here. I have something concrete to work with.

After doing research and reading your advise, I have decided to up my budget to 7-8K. I will be going with the stroker you recommend. Pistons may be different depending on the over-bore and what pistons are available. I think my project bare block does not need to go 0.030 over to clean it up. I would like to keep it to no more than 0.015 over.

I will be going with roller rockers on a machined head.

For the head rework expense we have talked about many times, I am leaning to Edelbrock or AFD 2V alloy heads built-up by them. I must admit that AFD has me confused as they claim their 4V heads will work with the Blue Thunder intake manifold - I need to get this confusion straightened out. Another option is to go with the Blue Thunder dual plane and CHI 4V as you have suggested.

George, you did mention in the "AFD" discussion string that, in your opinion, before going to aluminum heads a stroker engine first then roller hydraulic cam second. Can I also get you specific recommendation for a roller hydraulic cam? So I thought it might be wise to go stroker, roller hydraulic cam, with my machined CC heads. If I still had the bucks I would go with the Alloy heads.


Yours

Bohdan

Bohdan,

the AFD 4V head does not have full size 4V ports, the floors of the ports are raised, or filled in. To run any 4V manifold with full size 4V runners with the AFD 4V head would require filling in the manifold runners to match the AFD head's ports. All that trouble doesn't make sense to me when CHI does make a head with full size 4V ports. The AFD 4V head is a good match with the TFC & Parker manifolds that have runners which have raised floor runners as cast, no extra work needed.

I know you are interested in possible future fuel injection system, which influenced my recommendation to you to purchase 2V alloy heads, the Trick Flow company is supposed to be developing a fuel injection manifold for Cleveland 2V heads.

Cylinder overbores are made in increments of 0.010"; i.e. 0.010", 0.020", 0.030" etc, etc.

Speaking in the case of the Cleveland engine ONLY, the heads are NOT the weak link in making power, so in my opinion the logical order for modifying the engine is stroker crankshaft, roller cam & then modern heads. In fact, the increased displacement & higher valve lift actually improve the drivability of the 4V iron heads! The 4V iron heads are being used successfully to make 750 bhp at 7300 rpm on 7 liter engines. They are not a weak link in making power.

I want to point out two things to be aware of regarding cleveland camshafts: First, they were developed by the cam grinders to work with the cast iron heads. The modern alloy heads, with their higher velocity intake ports, warrant the use of a cam custom ground for optimization with the flow characteristics of the alloy heads. Not that you can't use an off the shelf cam, you can, but an "optimized" cam would be better.

Second: the retro fit hydraulic roller cams are available from Comp Cams & Crane Cams, these two companies take two different approaches. Comp takes the less expensive approach using Ford style roller lifters & dog bone bars for orientation. The lifters are less expensive, not as durable and have less rpm potential compared to the lifters developed by Crane Cams. Comp Cams hydraulic roller cams are ground on iron cores with a reduced base circle lobe design to allow the Ford style lifter to sit in the lifter bore properly. Crane Cams uses the more expensive roller lifters that are joined in pairs with tie bars. This lifter is designed specifically for the retro-fit application, so the cam does not require a reduced base circle for the lobe design. The Crane cams are ground on billet steel cores. Neither camshaft system is inexpensive, but Crane is the more expensive of the two, in this case you get what you pay for. Do you really need the greater durability of the Crane roller cam & lifters? Most likely not for purely street applications, but in a motor that will be run hard, even in amateur competition, it's nice to have a margin of safety. Caveat emptor.

For your requirements I would recommend the Crane hydraulic roller cam part number 529551 or the Comp Cams 290HR hydraulic roller cam part number 32-541-8.

your friend on the DTBB, George

George,

Can I have your opinion about the pros and cons of a DART Aluminum Block when compared to a Cleveland Iron Block. eg. What are the weight savings (ie. Difference with a 250lb iron block) What are the build up differences? What about durability? Are the cylinder sleves the same size as the iron block? anything you can add?

Thanks

Bohdan,

The 9.5" deck height alloy Dart block is about 77 pounds lighter than the 351C iron block and can sustain much more abuse. It can take crankshafts up to 4.25" stroke. It comes in either 4.00 bore or 4.125 bore. With a 0.030" overbore, bringing the max bore & stroke to 4.155" x 4.25", that brings you to about 460 cubic inches! Even with that much overbore, the cylinders will have a UNIFORM thickness of about 0.070". The cleveland cylinder walls are never uniform in thickness. It is without a doubt a very good piece of equipment. Either the Dart iron block or the alloy block would be a wise investment for somebody who is going to shoot for very big horsepower numbers or somebody who plans to hammer his engine hard in competition.

Either as a Clevor or pure Windsor, this is a much more costly engine to build, the block is very expensive, none of your cleveland parts will interchange, and you will need conversion pieces to adapt the block into your Pantera chassis.

Here is a link to the Dart website page for this block:

http://www.dartheads.com/fordaluminum.aspx

Is saving 77 pounds worth $4000 USD? Such an expense is not justified by the level of build up you are proposing or the type of use you are planning.

A 450 bhp motor does not require this block. Period.

SJ Performance of Australia is supposed to release their alloy Cleveland block this winter.

your friend on the DTBB, George

George, I must say I am really enjoying reading (and learning from) your posts regarding Bohdan's engine plans. I also know he really appreciates your insights too. I just wish he'd hurry up and decide which route so I can watch him build it!

There are so many options these days, it can be quite overwhelming for someone to know which choices to make. So much has been written on the DTBB in the recent past about the Cleveland block's weaknesses, which, are overblown to a degree. It's really boils down to informed & intelligent engine building, not about the block itself. We throw numbers around like 500 bhp & 500 ft/lbs of torque like thay are nothing! Damn, that is more power than any show room musclecar from the '60s ever made! No other Ford small block could approach that kind of performance, so the weakness of of a "thinwall" cast block was never understood until the Cleveland came along. The production 351W block that the 427 Windsor strokers are based on are thinwall castings too and are not any stronger than the Cleveland.

The FE motor was Ford's newest big block motor when Ford initiated the total performance era, so it got a lot of development for high performance usage. The Cleveland was to be Ford's newest mid size performance engine, but it came along as corporate Ford abandoned the total performance era. In the case of the FE motor, good timing; in the case of the Cleveland, bad timing.

An advantage of today's inexpensive stroker crankshafts is that we can make those big torque & bhp numbers without resorting to as many RPMs or as much valve lift, which is easier on the motor & valvetrain.

Bohdan is an engineer, he needs info so he can make an informed decision for himself. He's asking a lot of questions & doing his best to be informed & base his decision on reason rather than emotion. He'll get there eventually & when he does he'll be sure he's made the right choices. I'm glad to help anyway I can.

George

Hey, Thanks Guys.

George, Mark lives 3 minutes from me. A great DeTomaso guy. I know where he is coming from. I trust that we can continue to help each other out.

I have decided on the general overall build. As George said in his Balancing and Blueprinting post there are a hell of a lot more details to go. Also, as technology improves and other parts are offered there may be adjustments to make.

I will share with you that I had a block lined up (sorry for the pun) that was supposed to be a standard seasoned block (4.0 plus a few thou. ie. honable). Was to buy it Friday Nov. 11 after a block check that day. We took it to a Ford guy and found it was over 30 with number 5 mangled on the ridge reem so bad #5 had to go at least 40. So .... junk.

George is a very knowledgable guy that I have read on the Cleveland forum (Net 54 I think). It is great to get his opinions and share them with everyone on this forum.

Bohdan,

I see Cleveland blocks on ebay all the time. I have a standard bore D2AE-CA 2 bolt block in my garage that I paid $50 for, had to drive to San Diego to pick it up (8 hour round trip). The fuel cost more than the block! lol.............

You may also want to check the classifieds on the Cleveland forum from time to time. That's how I found this block.

shopping tips from your friend on the DTBB, George

Bohdan,

here's a 351C block on e-bay, cheap!

located in Wisconsin, but seller can get it as far as Philadelphia for you to pick up.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/351c-four-bolt-main-bloc...QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

George

Thanks for the advice George. I will look at the Cleveland forum more regularly.

I saw the Wisconsin Block a few days ago and put it on my Watch List. I have sent the seller some questions about it.

To be honest, there are quite a few blocks I have followed. I want a block that will need to go 10 to 15 thou over max to clean it up. Some of the prices are a little much. For example, there was an engine (4bolt) on EBay in MD where the seller wanted $750 US plus $50 to take it to a shipper (ie. $800). He initially claimed the block was the best, almost new, and was better than NOS. After I pressed him for the bore measures he pulled the block off Ebay. The block is reposted with the bore measures but he is asking the same $$$.

You take your chances on EBay. If I do not get a block locally, or one that I can trust to be good, I think I will go with AusFordParts. Philip Newell says they have Blocks available that would meet my needs. When I buy the AFD 2V heads I may go with the block at that time.

Which leads me to the next discussion item....

There is a local Ford rebuilder, Larry Aflagsen, West Carleton Automotive. He knows Fords and has quite a good reputation here in Canada and in the States. He builds the full spectrum, including race engines. He has been at it for 42 years. His engines are successful and he turns work away. (He is not hungry). He therefore, can afford to be very particular about the engines he wants to put his name to. I bounced your specs off him. Everything you recommended was followed with - "wise choice". After our discussion, he invited me to look at his shop.

There were 2 comments he did make that I would like to bounce off you. Here they are:

1) Larry did not recommend reusing or reinvesting in the stock 4V heads. He said that they were 35 to 40 year old technology and for about the same money he said to buy the latest technology with one of the three aluminum heads on the market (Edelbrock, AFD or CHI). He strongly advised me to go this route - for all the reasons that have been already talked about on this forum. Quite apart from flow, weight et al. he also mentioned the higher CRs and lower operating temps offered by aluminum heads. When buying Aluminum heads, one can buy them bare or built up. On the built up side you get Edelbrock/AFD standing behind their build. On the other hand, if you buy a bare head you can build it to suit the Cam and taylor it for the engine. What is your recommendation? Also, the AFD 2V and Edelbrock 2V heads are initially sized for 2.05 and 1.65 valves. Do you recommend going for 2.19 and 1.71 (ie. 4V valve sizes) for my engine? AFD says that their 2V heads are sized to accomodate this.

2) Larry also mentioned that a truely reliable/durable 351C block should have its cylinder bores indexed. The block, also built/cast during the older technology days, may not have the same square spacing between the cylinders. After accoustically checking the block for bore and block thicknessess(he has the machinery) then line boring, decking, guide plates, 90/90 ing the block etc.etc., he recommended truing up and indexing the cylinders. In his experience you need to go 30 or 40 over to get this with a "honable" low wear standard bore block. This made sense but was the first time I heard of such a thing - Your comments please. Do I really need to do this and why/why not.

Gratefully Standing by ....

Bohdan

Bohdan,

Good afternoon!

I am enjoying my Friday off, the weather here in So Cal is warm, with our "Santana" winds blowing air from the desert, the skies are clear & blue, it's the reason So Cal is so wonderful this time of year. I can see smoke from a brush fire rising from the mountains in the distance, that unfortunately is also a usual occurence when the Santana winds blow.

To get to your questions, I'll answer the 2nd question first as it is the easiest to answer. I'll refer you to my recent post to DeTom regarding blueprinting an engine, wherein I mentioned part of blue printing is having the machine shop make the bores perpendicular to the crankshaft, that is what indexing is. Of course its not needed, the motor will operate without this proceedure, but to blue print an engine assembly it is necessary. If a bore is not perpendicular to the crankshaft there will be extra friction & thrust forces on the rotating assembly & cylinder walls.

Consider this, I know you are concerned with the thin cylinder walls of the 351C block, hence your desire to only bore the cylinders 0.010" to 0.015". You want the walls thick enough to survive the thrust forces applied during operation. By indexing the bores you are significantly reducing the thrust forces that concern you.

We can stiffen those cylinder walls by the way by applying a half fill of "hard block" in the water jackets, a subject we should cover at a later time.

One thing I question is your chosen mechanics experience with the 351C motor. To a degree the 351C is a different assembly requiring different handling than other motors. It is best to use somebody completely familiar with this assembly. A Cleveland mechanic knows the cylinder walls can be thin & that you always shoot for a 0.030" over bore, never 0.040". I've never experienced a standard bore block needing more than 0.030" to true up the bores. So his comment about needing a possible 0.040" overbore to index the bores gives me reason to warn you to be cautious. This by no means implies he's not a great mechanic & engine builder, just brings his experience with the 351C into question. Of course, maybe I just got lucky to have never needed to go 0.040" over. But I never heard the engine shops I used quote anything but 0.030" over for a Cleveland.

To answer your question about valve sizes, I can only provide guidance rather than hard numbers. I have no experience with AFD & CHI heads. In general, the smaller port, higher velocity cylinder heads tend to run smaller valve sizes. For instance the C302 heads used 2.15" & 1.65" valves. The Yates heads currently run in NASCAR use 2.10" & 1.60" valves. My best advice would be to consult Dave at AFD, tell him what displacement your motor shall be and ask his advice on what valve sizes to run. And for porting, it is always best to find somebody already experienced with the head, they will know what work to do to achieve the desired results. Somebody new to the head will be experimenting with your cylinder heads, make sense? I believe AFD offers porting of their heads. Camshaft profiles & timing are then selected to compliment the characteristics of the head. Porting a head to compliment a cam would be putting the cart before the horse. Again, AFD is advertising that they will be offering a line of camshafts to compliment their cylinder heads.

One last comment about cylinder heads while I'm on the subject. What your engine builder said is true, modern heads have higher velocity ports, higher turbulence combustion chambers & more centrally located spark plugs, therefore it stands to reason they should make more torque than the older cast iron heads. But the Cleveland heads are not that bad, the combustion chambers are actually quite effective.

As a cylinder head design improves, the amount of ignition advance required decreases, an engine that only requires 30 degrees total advance is assumed to be more thermally efficient than an engine that requires 40 degrees of total ignition advance.

My experience is that a naturally aspirated Cleveland with cast iron heads requires 34 to 42 degrees of total ignition advance, depending upon the specifics of the motor. I have heard that the new alloy heads require 30 degrees or a bit less, so I have assumed they are more thermally efficient. However, earlier this year some Cleveland owners on the Cleveland Forum informed me thay are only running about 32 degrees total ignition advance on their motors with cast iron heads. These settings were arrived at with dyno testing. This is less than I've ever experienced, but I think it is safe to assume that todays fuels & camshaft grinds are different than they were when I was building motors, and this would explain the less total advance required today by Clevelands with iron heads.

So here's my point, if a 351C running 35 year old iron heads only needs 32 degrees timing advance running modern fuel & camshaft grinds, and the alloy heads are requiring 30 degrees running the same fuel & camshaft grinds, just how much more efficient are the new allow heads?

Only back to back testing on a dyno will reveal the differences, which I am sure are subtle. The differences will not be night and day, they will not be large. This brings us back to what I have written over and over, the 351C iron heads are not a week link. For a 35 year old head, they are pretty damn bitchen, which is why Chevy guys have always feared Cleveland equipped autos. Which is also why the current small block Chevy motors running in the new Corvette have canted valve heads very similar to Cleveland heads!

If I have time next week, I thought I would stir the pot a bit & write a post on the DTBB about the Cleveland oiling system. This will be info those who are building motors will find useful. I'll provide the cold hard facts, just like you appreciate my engineer friend! I'm thinking next Friday would be a good day to do it since I'll have the day off.

take care

your friend on the DTBB, George

George,

In light of your other post on Australian blocks - Are you saying that it would be less hastle for me to get a North American Cleveland rather than an Australian Cleveland from AusFord?

Bohdan & Ron,

I went searching the 'net this evening regarding the NASCAR block, what I found is that a NOS NASCAR block, never used, sold for $2500 USD 3 years ago. Used versions go for $1000 USD.

If you're paying anything more than that, you're paying too much.

Bohdan, the standard version Australian block is identical to the American block, nothing to be gained by purchasing an identical block for more money. Keep in mind the Aussie block's distributor hole may be non-compatible with American distributors. Another headache to deal with.

If you are being offered a pillow block, or a truck block, something that is being represented as heavier duty than the blocks available in the US, then visually inspect it & ask for a sonic check of the cylinder wall thickness. Keep in mind used versions of the NASCAR block go for $1000 USD. You shouldn't pay any more than that for any used Clevleand block.

I have included a picture below of a NASCAR block on the left & my D2AE-CA block on the right. In the upper right hand corner of the pictures you can see the casting numbers, my block reads D2AE-CA, although hard to read, the other block reads XE 192540. The NASCAR block's bulkheads are the thickness of the bearing saddle all the way up to the top, the other blocks bulkheads are scalloped for reduced weight (hard to see because the oily block is black & shiny). Finally the oil pan rails of the NASCAR block are the thickness of the gasket surface all the way up to the bottom of the cylinders, the other block's oil pan rails are visibly scalloped for reduced weight.

Personally I'll use the inexpensive block in the right picture, blue print it, run a main cap girdle, half fill the water jackets with hard block, prepare the oiling system properly, use a fordged steel crank & good fordged steel rods with dowled caps & 7/16" cap screws, balance the reciprocating assembly & I'll have no worries running it at 500 ft/lbs of torque, 500 bhp, 7200 rpm. I see no reason to stress out over what block I'm using. Too much emphasis has been given to the block's supposed weaknesses. Sure if I could get my hands on a NASCAR block for a fair price I would use it, but I don't feel I "need" it. I've seen plenty of Clevelands run at 7000+ rpm without problems, so my experience puts this issue in a different perspective for me.

George

George I agree with you with the use of my 4 bolt D2AE-CA block but if I can invest in a stringer block to protect the investment of 2k for heads,3k for crank rods and pictons, 1k oilpan girdle caps and pump, then 1k cam lifters pushrods and so on I think a block is worth the investment when the smoke clears after 7k in parts and 3, 4, 5, in labor 2, 3 ,4 may not be such a waste. Not that I have this money to throw away. So lets put our feelers out for some good blocks. Our vendors dont see it suitable to pick up some of these blocks and stock them. I guess there may be a market here in the US.

Hello, George.

Well I got my bare block.

I have been following the forum and the latest from AFD and CHI. I noticed that you personally would go for the CHI 4V heads. We were talking about the AFD 2V heads.

I must admit that I like the idea of using the CHI 4V heads because of all the stock intake options that are available for the 4V. I can use my current intake system and exhaust and then upgrade to something better later.

What would be the performance compromise if I go with the CHI 4V rather than the AFD 2V.

Recall my engine will be a Cleveland 393 stroker, Crane hydraulic roller lifters with CAM 529551 (you recommended), roller rockers etc.

What do you think George?

quote:

Originally posted by andriyko:
...What would be the performance compromise if I go with the CHI 4V rather than the AFD 2V...

Hi Bohdan, it's been a while since we've heard from you. I've wondered where you were at with the motor.

There is NO performance compromise in selecting the CHI 4V head over the AFD 2V head. The CHI 4V head is based upon CHI's 3V head, with the intake port enlarged to 4V size & location. The 3V head is in turn CHI's premium head. It will perform well as a "street" head for your 393 stroker.

I will not comment on the 2 plane 3V intake manifold available for CHI 3V heads, since you mentioned wanting the flexibility of using existing 4V intake manifolds.

Based on comments from Dan Jones, the Ferea valves used in the CHI street package have dropped a head or two, so I would recommend the additional expense for the race package, which uses a better grade of Ferea valve. Or else purchase the heads bare and equip them yourself.

take care my friend, George

George,

Well, things are and are not moving along. I have paid for looking at 2 bare blocks. Each has been found unsuitable for my needs. One of those blocks is OK but my engine builder says there is one cylinder that will be only 110 thou after going 20 over. He feels that is too thin for a stroker.

Anyway, I was in LA last week. Spent some time at Wilkinson's. I saw his 4.6 cammer installation and it gave me pause.

What do you think - any and all opinions - of going with the 4.6 Liter DOHC engine in my car?
350HP 330ish lbft Torque, fuel injected, aluminum, 170 lbs lighter etc. rather than a 351C stroker with CHI 4V heads etc.

Love to hear your opinion.

Bohdan

I saw the pictures of it. It is much more then nice.
I only objected to the lack of fancy valve covers.
I can be so superficial it gets ridiculous!
The stoker is a BB, no matter what you want to call it.
The 4.6 has got oats but is more of a SB cammer with that cammer whine.
Two completely different animals.
To me the 351c feels more BB then SB, a medium block.
It has characteristics of both.
I think that is what spurs the debates.
I do think that the reality is the 4.6 would be more of a drivers car rather then a Saturdaynight Special like the strokers are.

ANDDRIYKO .... call this guy he is in TEXAS and has some stick 351 C blocks standard bore 4 V and dosent know the value make this guy an offer and you got what you need 979-596-1578 Walter Steggman ... I called him and he gave me casting #'s . Hurry it was psoted on 335 forum.

Ron

I have to add .... there is too much hiep in how weak the 335 series is ... last week I was with a bunch of my old high school buddies and we were remisising .... the reminded me of a 70 351C 4V I had that they say ... didthe longest posi hole shot they have ever seen ... I had a 70 Mach 1 that was a FREAK ... it was real fast. Anyway I was moaning about how I was building a new motor with a 351C and I was worried .. they told me to shut up and work the B$%%s out of it ... they asked me if I forgot how durable and fast that car was with the 351C ... I agree with PANTERA DOUG some motors either stay together or they blow up some seem like you can never kill them ... are we ready for a new THREAD ... I said it was a matter of WHO built the engine ???????????? are you thinking about this ???

Ron

This is the last you will hear from me on the subject. I have no axes to grind.
Everyone has thier own experiences and thier own opinions. Everyone is intitled to thier own.
I will not accept another's opinion as a substitute for my own. It may seem shocking to hear but I don't have opinions on absolutely everything.
If I see a person hitting themself in the head with a hammer I just have the natural tendancy to say "I don't think that is too good for you".
Should I mind my own business? Sure, but that's the kind of person I am.
If Gary Hall and Denis Quella both tell me something that is 180 degrees opposite, all I said was I need to consider thier positions.
They could in fact both be right, or wrong, and they were both just trying to help.
By the same token if Elmer Fud tells me something contrary to everyone else and I ignore him and he is right, it is only a reflection on me, not Elmer. "Has anyone seen a wabbit?"
One is not likely to find a Premier Engine Builder on a chat line giving away thier secrets.
If anything they would, chuckle, about it.
There are some new approaches to building now yes, but one can not change the laws of physics, at least not in this place and time and not in this dimension.
With an engine, it isn't as much who built it as how it was built. It is likely that if you build cheap, all you get is cheap. Crap in, crap out.
I make no claims as to the fragilaty of either the FE or the 335's.
To me neither is particulary fragile at all. Where this 351-c block "witch hunt" came frome is beyond me. I suspect that it may simply have to do with the commoness of the current "stroker" engines.
Everyone who says, yea they will break, how many did you break, not just your "buddy"?
I have never blown up any engines although in retrospect I certainly seemed to have tried.
I have never found a 4 bolt D2AE-CA block for sale that had a crack through the webbing and into the cylinder bore as Jack Rousch had shown in his August 1976 article, "Progecting the 351c for the street". That's the only one I have ever seen. However, I do not doubt him.
I have never had an engine builder able to show me one in person.
I have seen broken or repaired XE blocks for sale, granted just a few.
I have seen dozens upon dozens of broken 427 side oiler blocks almost exclusivly injured in the area of #7 and #8.
The logical conclusion is that there may be an issue there.
In fact, I had one cracked just like the "351c failure" cracked severly through the #4 web and into the bore.
I didn't do it. I don't know how it happened.
My point on the D2AE-CA blocks is simply that people are throwing away a more then adequate blocks simply because they read it on a chat line, when in fact that may have little more signifigance then reading it on the walls of the mens room. "For a good time call..."
Newsweek always runs a cartoon with a person carrying a sign saying that the "world will end today". One of them eventually will be right, "dam I should have listened to him".

Doug my point is most people that are worried about the potential of a 351C will probably never bring a 351C to its potential or failure point on the street.

Usually WHO goes hand and hand with HOW at least in my business. MY co's WHO is WHO we are because of HOW we work or do a job.

Ronnie

Well I agree with the first part. I would add also that a Cleveland built with factory HP parts is good for at least moderate racing useage, if not better.
Let's be fair. Flat out racing requires special parts for special situations.
Expecting parts designed for "production" to survive under competition is very presumptuous.
In addition what is adequate for flat out racing today may and probably will be inadequate tomorrow.
I don't think that there are a very large number of drivers qualified to drive that engine to it's full potential. It is a very potent conglameration. Harnessed into a car like a Pantera you need to be a very talented driver with maybe more of a death wish then anything else to drive it to 100% potential. The air starts to get a little thin over 150 mph.

As far as having to be a "Who" to do a professional job? I don't agree. Take for example Indy car racing. It is seemingly next to impossible for an independent team to be competative none the less win against the likes of Penski or Rousch.
It wasn't so long ago (maybe it was to long ago) that Gapp & Rousch attempted to do just that.
They were nobodies too. Personally I think that is what makes Jack Rousch tick.

What you suggest is more of social status. What you are saying is that IBM would never have hired me to design thier then new World Headquarters because I don't have the "credentials" of I.M.Pei. I agree with that. I don't agree that I don't have the skill. I just don't have the stature.

It doesn't mean that mine wouldn't have been better. The same can be said for engines.

Ahhh....Bodan,

You were wanting to retain stock parts such as intake & exhausts, & now you are contemplating a mod motor. You don't mind if I bang my head a bit do you? He, he, he ...

I believe the mod motor is the future for Pantera swaps. The motor's response will be different than that of a 351 to 427 push rod V8, but different is not necessarily better or worse, its just different. The price of these motors has come down, which makes this swap more attractive now. There is also a 4 barrel carburetor intake for the motor, which simplifies the swap for those who don't want to fuss with fuel injection. A 5 liter mod motor making around 500 bhp, would be very sweet.

Keep in mind, it is inevitable, how close your car is to "stock" will someday make a tremendous difference in its value. This may be important to you or not.

The mod motor is "tall", you'll have an induction system in your rear view mirror. But you can have a flat firewall because the overall length is shorter.

On the subject of Cleveland blocks, if you can patiently wait until later in the year, there should be some good news regarding the availability of a new heavy duty Cleveland block hitting the market.

So sleep on it, make your decision, and go for it. There is no wrong decision, just different.

your friend on the DTBB

quote:

On the subject of Cleveland blocks, if you can patiently wait until later in the year, there should be some good news regarding the availability of a new heavy duty Cleveland block hitting the market.

Yea George,that is interesting.I,for one, am interested.It's not always what you do,but how you do it.A heavy duty cleveland block in a pantera with 427ci would be a "thumper".A.. Kicker.But the block would have to be done "right".One of a kind cleveland block.Lets go for it.

George,
Can you give us an update on the forthcomming cleveland you mentioned in May.
Mark

I was just asked that question a day or two ago in another topic, here's the link:

http://pantera.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6250045562/m/7320005864/p/2

take care

It seems like 7 years ago quit a few people had engines Dynoed of different typs. I think it was published in Profils but it might have been in PI. At the time I was rebuilding my motor and talked to allot of people. I decided to build a 377 stroker, Scat Crank, 6.125 Eagle rods, Solid lifter, Ross pistons, Manley heavy duty Stainless valves, MPG intake plates, MPG stinger exhaust plates, Crower roller rockers and push rods. I decided to rev limit to 6,500 RPM to save the bottom end. I dynoed the engine with 4 different intakes and 3 carbs. With this combination using the old edl 351 dual plane you get 445 torque and 450 hp at 6,200RPM. After 6 years and 5 or more track events the engine runs perfect. The Blue Thunder intake makes more power over 6,200 RPM but less torque at 3,000RPM. I think you can make more HP and Torque but it will cost and reduce durability. Dennis at Pantera Performance has built many similar engines and had great success. The benifits are reduced cost and everything fits under the cover.

Jack,

I think I may have been the guy that provided the Blue Thunder intake
for your test. If you're the guy I'm thinking of, you ran an Offy
360 intake that had the lower portion of the ports filled with epoxy.
A piece broke off, destroying the engine which led to your new (at the
time) 377. IIRC, your compression was in the 10.5:1 range, the cam
was a solid lifter flat tappet of around 0.6" lift with 108 lobe centers.
I forget the duration. Was it in the 240 degree range? I recall you
testing one a 650 Holley and a Willy's modified 950 HP carb, along with
Blue Thunder, Offy 360 and Edelbrock Performer intakes. What was the
other intake?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you ran all the tests with the MPG
intake port plates in place. The smaller ports of the Edelbrock Performer
intake match up better with the port plates than the other intakes with 4V
sized ports so that probably affected the results. As I recall the Offy
did quite poorly, down maybe 40 or 50 HP to the Blue Thunder. The Edelbrock
was surprisingly close to the Blue Thunder. The Blue Thunder did best but
the margin between it and the Performer wasn't as large as expected. My
guess at the time was this was mainly due to the presence of port plates
which helped the Edelbrock but hurt the Blue Thunder, relatively speaking.
The 650 carb was too small for the engine and switching the Willys 950HP
was worth a bunch of power (as much as or more than the difference between
the worst and best intake manifolds).

We just finished up a dyno test of a 408 cubic inch Cleveland using that
very same Blue Thunder intake. Surprisingly it faired poorly and was the
worst intake tested. Going into the test, I would have guessed it would
have been the best match of the three intakes we tested. The engine is
a street motor with a mild hydraulic roller cam (232/236 deg @ 0.050",
0.609"/0.621", 108 LSA). Glen wanted to retain the Ford low rise dual
plane intake which we suspected would hurt power. The flow bench backed
up our suspicions as the heads alone peaked at 322 CFM @ 0.6" but with
the intake in place, some of the runners were down in the 258 CFM range.
The engine builder spent some time bringing up the worst flowing runners
to match the best (in the 275 CFM range) and that seemed to help a bunch.
Surprisingly, the ported Ford intake (with 1" spacer) bested the Blue
Thunder by a bunch. Running through mufflers, on Mobil 93 octane premium,
the best pulls came with 28 degrees timing. With a 1" spacer, the reworked
Ford aluminum intake and dyno carb (950 Holley HP) made 468 horsepower at
5500 rpm and 486 lbs/ft at 4500. It was a cool day and the air density
ratio was very good, 98.17% for a 1.0238 correction factor. Air temp was
56 Degrees F, humidity 36% and abs baro 29.26 in Hg. Very good conditions
for the 1100 ft altitude. BTW, Dave's dyno was tested against a DTS and
is about 4% conservative. Our dyno pulls were from 3000 to 6000 RPM and
the engine made 440 or more lbs/ft from 3100 to about 5600rpm. After that,
the engine drops off (probably needs more cam duration). The unported
Blue Thunder made 437 horsepower and 463 ft-lbs torque, at 5500 and 3900
rpm respectively. Adding a 1" open spacer to the Blue Thunder helped the
torque about 6 ft-lbs but horsepower stayed the same. The builder thought
the Blue Thunder would do better if it was ported like he did with the
Ford but we tried a Holley Strip Dominator single plane, instead. It
picked up about 15 HP with similar torque. The HP peak rpm moved up only
slightly, maybe 100 RPM and the torque curve with the Strip Dominator was
smoother, likely due to the Boss dual plane going into and out of tune.
The engine builder eyeballed the Strip Dominator and thought it would
benefit from some plenum entry work. Cammed for more RPM, the Strip
Dominator would likely do even better. We also tested a Torker and it
did pretty well, giving up only a few HP to the Strip Dominator. A 750
DP carb lost about 10 HP to the dyno carb.

We baselined the engine using a borrowed set of Hooker Competition headers
(probably part number HOK-6920HKR) with 1 3/4" diameter by 27" long
primaries, 3" diameter by 8" long collector with 12 inch long collector
extensions and 3" inlet/outler Magnaflow stainless steel mufflers.
They were tested against a set of Euro GTS mufflers and matching GTS
headers from the Pantera Performance Center in olorado. The GTS headers
are often refered to as tri-y's but are, in fact, 4-into-1 headers with
short tri-y collectors. Like most under-car Pantera headers, the primaries
are very short. The collector is also quite short and relatively small in
diameter, though the primaries are large (2" diameter) and matched the port
better than the Mustang headers. They also don't bend down at the head
port exit like the Mustang headers. The GTS headers did pretty well.
Compared to the Mustang long tubes, the GTS headers with a collector
extension was a near match. Without the extension, they gave up some
torque but were close on HP. The GTS mufflers, on the other hand, were
terrible and lost something like 50 HP compared to the 3" inlet/outlet
MagnaFlows. Though the body of the GTS mufflers is short the tips are
very long so the overall length was a bit more than the much less
restrictive MagnaFlows. It looks like the MagnaFlow muffler will fit
under a Pantera and they make a version with 3" inlet and dual 2.5" outlets
which would retain the quad tip Pantera look. Given that the diameter of
GTS collector outlet (looked like 2 1/4" or 2 1/2" ID, I forget to measure
it) is much less than the 3" pipes we used, it's possible a set of 2 1/2"
pipes might not lose any power compared to the 3" pipes. Something to
test on a future dyno session, perhaps. Glen likes the look of the GTS
mufflers and plans to gut them to get backsome of the lost power.

Dan Jones

Dan, I am the person you loaned the intake to. The other manifold was the Eld. Torker. It did poorly. You have done alot of work and the community should thank you for the info. I ran Halls big bore Headers that I cut off the collector that were way to small and redid them to accomidate a 2.5 inch pipe. I order mufflers from Stebro in Canada and attached new Ansa tips. The Stebro unites are 2.5 inlet and dual 2.5 outlet. They are estentially empty with only an inner wrapping of sound deading material held in place with stainless mesh. They are load but not outragious. When I dynoed my engine the Bluethunder intake HP curve was still going up at 6,500 RPM. Dennis at Pantera Performance said the Bluethunder intake will continue to make power up to 7,500 RPM. I decided that engine life at 7,500 was short and to Limit RPM to 6,200 as a result the 351 F was less money and a better fit. I was never able to get a HYD cam to work well and last year I installed a mechanical oil pressure gauge in the engine compartment. At idle 1,000 RPM my oil pressure is 80 PSI cold, 60 hot and that is running Redline 10-40. The gauge in the car says 45 cold and 30 hot.

I have not done much with the car for the last 6 years because I wanted to spend more time with my kids. This year we took the car to Pocano (rained out) very disapointing and Skip Barber in November. The Skip Barber event was put on by Porsche and BMW and was agreat event. The only problem I had was soft brakes. My project for the winter.

I have posted some brake related questions on this site but to date not allot of feedback. Do you know how I could get in contact with other Pantera owners that run their cars on the track?

Thank you for you input.

> The other manifold was the Eld. Torker. It did poorly.

Just goes to show nothing beats testing. The Torker did
surprisingly well on the 408C but on other engines does poorly.

> You have done alot of work and the community should thank you for
> the info.

Thanks!

> I ran Halls big bore Headers that I cut off the collector that were
> way to small and redid them to accomidate a 2.5 inch pipe. I order
> mufflers from Stebro in Canada and attached new Ansa tips. The Stebro
> unites are 2.5 inlet and dual 2.5 outlet. They are estentially empty
> with only an inner wrapping of sound deading material held in place
> with stainless mesh. They are load but not outragious.

Sounds like a good set-up.

> When I dynoed my engine the Bluethunder intake HP curve was still
> going up at 6,500 RPM. Dennis at Pantera Performance said the
> Bluethunder intake will continue to make power up to 7,500 RPM.

Ours had flattened out but that was due to the mild cam timing,
I think.

> I decided that engine life at 7,500 was short and to Limit RPM to
> 6,200 as a result the 351 F was less money and a better fit.

A smart move.

> I was never able to get a HYD cam to work well

Solids are certainly more dependable when the duration goes up.
We're experimenting with another hydraulic roller on the engine
going together now. Hopefully it will work out.

> and last year I installed a mechanical oil pressure gauge in
> the engine compartment. At idle 1,000 RPM my oil pressure is
> 80 PSI cold, 60 hot and that is running Redline 10-40. The
> gauge in the car says 45 cold and 30 hot.

Wow, I knew the stock guage was inaccurate but that's a bunch.

> I have posted some brake related questions on this site but to date
> not allot of feedback. Do you know how I could get in contact with
> other Pantera owners that run their cars on the track?

You might try contacting Team Pantera Racing or ask on the
Detomaso email forum: http://panteraplace.com/Page91.htm

Dan Jones

Thank you Dan. I will keep you posted.