Thanks
It's becoming clearer ... Would you tell me about those exhaust plates please ?
Regards
Philippe
The eshaust location on competition heads was raised to enhance the exhaust.
The head was machined out 1" and a CNC exhaust plate was machined out of aluming bar stock and installed in the head.
It is the forerunner of the raised exhaust on the Ford racing heads.
https://www.facebook.com/photo...l=e1619fda35&theater
The head was machined out 1" and a CNC exhaust plate was machined out of aluming bar stock and installed in the head.
It is the forerunner of the raised exhaust on the Ford racing heads.
https://www.facebook.com/photo...l=e1619fda35&theater
Attachments
Images (1)
Right,
Is there space enough in the Pantera engine area ?
Is there space enough in the Pantera engine area ?
what hp gains (if any) can i expect from changing out the stock carb and manifold with a Edelbrock 2665 Performer 351-4V and a summit racing 750 carb. all other parts stock on a 1972 pre-L . From what i read on the mustang forums http://www.7173mustangs.com/th...brock-intake-351c-4v it looks like i should just keep the stock intake any thought?
quote:Originally posted by "72 GTS:
Right,
Is there space enough in the Pantera engine area ?
I don't know. I never ran this set up. I am using Ford A3 heads with 180 degree headers.
The modification raises the header location 1". I would think that it really is an issue with using one of the stock headers with the modification.
It would move them up 1" and out 1". You might encounter difficulty with that?
Personally I think it isn't worth the effort and expense.
As George mentions, durability is going to suffer.
The aluminum bars are held in place with dowels on the bottom and extended head bolts on the top. More likely head studs.
I know that head studs on a Pantera are difficult to use because with the engine in the car and removing the head to service it, the studs make that difficult, if not impossible to do with the engine in the car.
I personally have never known anyone who has used the modification.
It was far more common to use is drag racing in 72 or 73 then Professional level road racing.
You would have to check the rules you were running under to see if it was allowed.
On a 500hp engine , I would take a guess and say it is worth about 25 to 30 hp over a certain rpm where exhaust flow is significant.
Bud Moore was the only one that was building 351c road racing engines that I can think of although probably Jack Roush was too.
I don't know if the NASCAR engines used the modification either.
I've never seen a set of modified heads from a race car being offered for sale. Chances are they would only last for one or two races and then crack.
The aluminum doesn't supply any structural support to the heads where the iron has been machined away and the angle of the cut would encourage a failure through it.
While I am on the subject of racing with the iron 4v heads, there was an issue with valve spring failure in long races like the 500 mile races NASCAR ran.
Eventually it was determined that the springs were overheating and failing.
The fix for this on the IRON heads was to spray oil on the springs to cool them.
The Ford MOTORSPORT high port aluminum heads were cast differently under the valve covers.
They were made to pool about 1-1/2" deep of oil against the valve cover, essentially submerging the springs in oil.
I don't think special iron 4v heads were ever cast like that to fix the problem. The Boss 351 production head configuration, as far as I know was the basis for the race head too?
Whereas the 289/302 Ford Windsor head had a special racing iron head cast for it incorporating changes necessary for racing the production head did not have.
At first that was just called the "heavy duty head", but shortly was changed to the "GT40 head" and had a C6FE casting number.
For a time Ford Motorsports, now called Ford Racing, offered valve covers for the Cleveland with the spray ports and nozzles built into the covers.
I have only seen them advertised once and never seen a used set offered for sale anywhere since.
Probably the NASCAR teams made their own.
I know there was a -3 or -4 exterior port to attach an exterior oil line source to. I can't find any pictures of those anywhere. Perhaps George can help on those?
I can anticipate a lot of people questioning that now but it you look at the ORIGINAL Boss 351 valve covers, inside they had sheet metal drip tabs that directed oil to the top of the rocker arms. The hydraulic cammed Clevelands didn't have that feature.
I think these were on the Boss 302 valve covers also.
To me this is a Ford acknowledgement that there was additional consideration necessary to the upper valve train for solid lifter camshafts?
Getting specific details of the Detomaso Gp4 factory race engines now is a bit difficult and sometimes the details are sketchy.
The press didn't cover those details hardly at all.
You have to presume that the engines were built to the maximization of the rules?
quote:Originally posted by ttam23:
what hp gains (if any) can i expect from changing out the stock carb and manifold with a Edelbrock 2665 Performer 351-4V and a summit racing 750 carb. all other parts stock on a 1972 pre-L . From what i read on the mustang forums http://www.7173mustangs.com/th...brock-intake-351c-4v it looks like i should just keep the stock intake any thought?
That Edelbrock is not the way to go. The Forums are correct. The stock manifold is better.
The Ford aluminum manifold is the same casting as the iron manifold. It just looses the weight of the iron, AND if you live in a climate where it gets cold and has a real winter, under about 40 degrees it starts to freeze up the carb WHILE you are driving the car.
The iron manifold doesn't have that problem.
You could pick up about 10 hp with a Holley 750 mechanical secondary carb, i.e., a "double pumper". 4779.
Be aware though that out of the box it has a heavy idle. Heavy enough to smart your eyes...and everyone else's too.
You need to go to the level of at least a Boss 351 to be able to use it.
Personally I think on a stock hydraulic cammed 4v/cj all you need is a Holley 1850, 600 cfm carb.
A 750, i.e., a 3310, won't do anything but use more gas.
quote:Originally posted by PanteraDoug:quote:Originally posted by "72 GTS:
Right,
Is there space enough in the Pantera engine area ?
I don't know. I never ran this set up. I am using Ford A3 heads with 180 degree headers.
The modification raises the header location 1". I would think that it really is an issue with using one of the stock headers with the modification.
It would move them up 1" and out 1". You might encounter difficulty with that?
Personally I think it isn't worth the effort and expense.
As George mentions, durability is going to suffer.
The aluminum bars are held in place with dowels on the bottom and extended head bolts on the top. More likely head studs.
I know that head studs on a Pantera are difficult to use because with the engine in the car and removing the head to service it, the studs make that difficult, if not impossible to do with the engine in the car.
I personally have never known anyone who has used the modification.
It was far more common to use is drag racing in 72 or 73 then Professional level road racing.
You would have to check the rules you were running under to see if it was allowed.
On a 500hp engine , I would take a guess and say it is worth about 25 to 30 hp over a certain rpm where exhaust flow is significant.
Bud Moore was the only one that was building 351c road racing engines that I can think of although probably Jack Roush was too.
I don't know if the NASCAR engines used the modification either.
I've never seen a set of modified heads from a race car being offered for sale. Chances are they would only last for one or two races and then crack.
The aluminum doesn't supply any structural support to the heads where the iron has been machined away and the angle of the cut would encourage a failure through it.
While I am on the subject of racing with the iron 4v heads, there was an issue with valve spring failure in long races like the 500 mile races NASCAR ran.
Eventually it was determined that the springs were overheating and failing.
The fix for this on the IRON heads was to spray oil on the springs to cool them.
The Ford MOTORSPORT high port aluminum heads were cast differently under the valve covers.
They were made to pool about 1-1/2" deep of oil against the valve cover, essentially submerging the springs in oil.
I don't think special iron 4v heads were ever cast like that to fix the problem. The Boss 351 production head configuration, as far as I know was the basis for the race head too?
Whereas the 289/302 Ford Windsor head had a special racing iron head cast for it incorporating changes necessary for racing the production head did not have.
At first that was just called the "heavy duty head", but shortly was changed to the "GT40 head" and had a C6FE casting number.
For a time Ford Motorsports, now called Ford Racing, offered valve covers for the Cleveland with the spray ports and nozzles built into the covers.
I have only seen them advertised once and never seen a used set offered for sale anywhere since.
Probably the NASCAR teams made their own.
I know there was a -3 or -4 exterior port to attach an exterior oil line source to. I can't find any pictures of those anywhere. Perhaps George can help on those?
I can anticipate a lot of people questioning that now but it you look at the ORIGINAL Boss 351 valve covers, inside they had sheet metal drip tabs that directed oil to the top of the rocker arms. The hydraulic cammed Clevelands didn't have that feature.
I think these were on the Boss 302 valve covers also.
To me this is a Ford acknowledgement that there was additional consideration necessary to the upper valve train for solid lifter camshafts?
Getting specific details of the Detomaso Gp4 factory race engines now is a bit difficult and sometimes the details are sketchy.
The press didn't cover those details hardly at all.
You have to presume that the engines were built to the maximization of the rules?
Doug,
these are great infos,I'll try to think about all ...
I don't need to build an exact gr4 engine, but I'll try to get the best with those "simple" parts ... I was told something like 400HP with the 238 compcam, Hope to get a little more with the 239 compcam, It's a matter of fine tuning first, what do you think ? maybe 430 HP with the GTS headers ?
Philippe
[/QUOTE]
Doug,
these are great infos,I'll try to think about all ...
I don't need to build an exact gr4 engine, but I'll try to get the best with those "simple" parts ... I was told something like 400HP with the 238 compcam, Hope to get a little more with the 239 compcam, It's a matter of fine tuning first, what do you think ? maybe 430 HP with the GTS headers ?
Philippe[/QUOTE]
I don't know. Good headers can be worth 100 hp?
You need to look at some of Dan Jones dyno testing with those headers.
As I recall they were not terrible. Dan made a remark that he thought they could be made to work with an adequate collector.
If you look at them, they really don't have one.
It certainly would be the least expensive way to go with the exhaust.
The biggest culprit in horsepower loss in the Pantera are the Ansa mufflers. Somewhere in the 50 to 75 hp range.
Doug,
these are great infos,I'll try to think about all ...
I don't need to build an exact gr4 engine, but I'll try to get the best with those "simple" parts ... I was told something like 400HP with the 238 compcam, Hope to get a little more with the 239 compcam, It's a matter of fine tuning first, what do you think ? maybe 430 HP with the GTS headers ?
Philippe[/QUOTE]
I don't know. Good headers can be worth 100 hp?
You need to look at some of Dan Jones dyno testing with those headers.
As I recall they were not terrible. Dan made a remark that he thought they could be made to work with an adequate collector.
If you look at them, they really don't have one.
It certainly would be the least expensive way to go with the exhaust.
The biggest culprit in horsepower loss in the Pantera are the Ansa mufflers. Somewhere in the 50 to 75 hp range.
[quote]:
Originally posted by ttam23:
what hp gains (if any) can i expect from changing out the stock carb and manifold with a Edelbrock 2665 Performer 351-4V and a summit racing 750 carb. all other parts stock on a 1972 pre-L . From what i read on the mustang forums http://www.7173mustangs.com/th...brock-intake-351c-4v it looks like i should just keep the stock intake any thought?[quote]
Rule of thumb: going from a Holley 600 to a Holley 750 on a 351-C will increase bhp by about 30 and decrease mileage by about 3 mpg. This is without fiddling with jetting or ignition timing- just a straight bolt-on. Various intakes can be a little better or worse but do not markedly change the above rule. And if the Summit 'racing' carb you have in mind is a double-pumper, the mileage drop will be more, since DP carbs are set up rich out of the box; you are expected to re-jet; in the meantime, you will not blow up your engine and cause warranty claims running rich.
I'm reminded of a mid-west Pantera owner that added a Holley Dominator to his stroker-351. He said "The Dominator looks trick and makes lots more noise but goes slower and now I get 8 mpg; want to buy a carb cheap?" A Shelby Mustang owner I know tried autocrossing: the engine had an 850 DP for drag and road-racing. As he went down in carb size, his autocross times improved; today, he still wins his class using a Holley 600.
Professional carb tuners make some 35 major & minor changes inside DP carbs to tune them for a given engine combo, usually on a dyno. With a tuner-DP, you CAN get decent mileage AND extra power. But not out of the box. My Holley tuner- 700 DP gives significantly more power AND 20 mpg in our modified 351-C. A lot of Pantera owners have found this the hard way, so don't dispose of your smaller carb. You likely will want it back some day.
Originally posted by ttam23:
what hp gains (if any) can i expect from changing out the stock carb and manifold with a Edelbrock 2665 Performer 351-4V and a summit racing 750 carb. all other parts stock on a 1972 pre-L . From what i read on the mustang forums http://www.7173mustangs.com/th...brock-intake-351c-4v it looks like i should just keep the stock intake any thought?[quote]
Rule of thumb: going from a Holley 600 to a Holley 750 on a 351-C will increase bhp by about 30 and decrease mileage by about 3 mpg. This is without fiddling with jetting or ignition timing- just a straight bolt-on. Various intakes can be a little better or worse but do not markedly change the above rule. And if the Summit 'racing' carb you have in mind is a double-pumper, the mileage drop will be more, since DP carbs are set up rich out of the box; you are expected to re-jet; in the meantime, you will not blow up your engine and cause warranty claims running rich.
I'm reminded of a mid-west Pantera owner that added a Holley Dominator to his stroker-351. He said "The Dominator looks trick and makes lots more noise but goes slower and now I get 8 mpg; want to buy a carb cheap?" A Shelby Mustang owner I know tried autocrossing: the engine had an 850 DP for drag and road-racing. As he went down in carb size, his autocross times improved; today, he still wins his class using a Holley 600.
Professional carb tuners make some 35 major & minor changes inside DP carbs to tune them for a given engine combo, usually on a dyno. With a tuner-DP, you CAN get decent mileage AND extra power. But not out of the box. My Holley tuner- 700 DP gives significantly more power AND 20 mpg in our modified 351-C. A lot of Pantera owners have found this the hard way, so don't dispose of your smaller carb. You likely will want it back some day.
quote:Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
... I don't know if the NASCAR engines used the modification either (exhaust port plates) ...
... there was an issue with valve spring failure in long races like the 500 mile races NASCAR ran ...
... Getting specific details of the Detomaso Gp4 factory race engines now is a bit difficult and sometimes the details are sketchy ...
Yes NASCAR Fords used the exhaust port plates until the rules made them illegal.
Valve spring failures were not an oil-cooling issue, folks intentionally limited the amount of oil flowing to the valve train; valve spring failure was mostly due to the choice of springs. Valve springs in the 1970s were mostly of poor quality. The Ford springs were unreliable for racing, as were Crane springs and a bunch of others. In my little part of the world folks used Vasco Jet springs. Traco is another brand of "good" spring that comes to mind. Holman Moody and Reed cams both sold springs which were choice quality stuff, they were probably sourced from Vasco Jet or Traco. It seems there's another brand I'm forgetting (my memory isn't what it used to be). But even the "good" springs from that era are junk by today's standards. Another cause of valve spring failure was the camshaft lobes. Some cam grinders had better lobes than others, lobes that put less stress on the valve train, Reed cams comes to mind as an example.
The earliest Group 4 Pantera engines are not something anyone should copy, they were unreliable; the best thing you can learn from them is what NOT to do. The original engines were supplied by Bud Moore Engineering (BME) in the US. The motors were built in late 1971 or early 1972. Bud Moore was the first US engine builder to be considered a 351 Cleveland expert ... because he had raced Boss 302 Trans Am Mustangs equipped with Cleveland cylinder heads for 3 seasons (1969, 1970 and 1971). The problem was, his experience racing the 351 Cleveland short block at that point in time was nil, his team didn't actually race a 351 Cleveland in NASCAR until the 1972 season! PLUS he had no idea what the race courses in Europe were like. The Group 4 Pantera race engines were unfortunately Bud Moore's guinea pigs!
The Panteras were dominant in their class during the 1972 and 1973 seasons, but the motors were unreliable which often prevented the Pantera race entries from finishing races. When the motors didn't fail the Panteras usually won! The motors BME delivered to DeTomaso were equipped with a single plane Ford intake manifold, Holley 1050 cfm Dominator carburetor, GTS style tri-y headers, titanium valves, 12:1 compression ratio and a wet sump style racing oil pan. These motors came in two states of tune, rated first at 470 bhp and later at 440 bhp. They failed one by one during the 1972 racing season.
Problems were pretty typical of the stuff you expect from a 351C circa 1972, cylinder wall cracking, rod bearing under-lubrication, head gasket failure and valve train component failure (springs and fulcrums). On top of that, at least one engine threw a slug of Mallory metal (that had been used to internally balance the crank) through the oil pan! Bud Moore's engine shop had drilled the holes for the Mallory metal on the edges of the crankshaft counter weights instead of through the sides of the counter weights. Then, instead of welding the Mallory metal in place, the holes in the counter weights were merely peened to hold the slugs of Mallory metal. As Homer would say, "DOH"!
Disillusioned by the experiences with the motors supplied by BME DeTomaso began developing in-house expertise for building 351 Cleveland based racing motors in 1973. In fact DeTomaso's engine shop became the only engine shop in Europe with 351C expertise. This occurred in a period of time in which DeTomaso and Ford had parted ways.
DeTomaso's engine shop upgraded the induction and exhaust systems with individual runner induction employing Weber 48 IDA carburetors and 180 degree, bundle of snakes style headers to improve volumetric efficiency. The power increase was substantial. The compression ratio was lowered to 10.5:1 to avoid cracking cylinder walls, a dry sump lubrication system replaced the factory wet sump system to prevent oil starvation of the connecting rod bearings (I'm not sure about lifter bore bushings) and the cylinder heads were sealed to the block with O-rings to resolve head gasket failure. Crane Cams camshafts and valve train were employed instead of the stuff Bud Moore had installed. The DeTomaso engine shop's motors achieved reliability while producing 475 to 500 bhp at 7000 rpm; that was considered the motor's limit for endurance racing employing the thin wall production cylinder block casting.
Its unfortunate that the Group 4 Panteras were forced to compete with production blocks, because Bud Moore had in his possession a stock of thick wall racing blocks referred to as "366 blocks" or as "Bud Moore's blocks". The NASCAR displacement limit for the small engines was 6 liters in 1972, i.e. 366 cubic inches, hence the name 366 block. They were cast and machined in the US. They had cylinder walls that were so thick there was no gap between adjacent cylinders in the water jacket (i.e. siamesed). The thick cylinder walls allowed Bud Moore and others to bore the cylinders to 4.080" thereby achieving 366 cubic inches. The bulkheads at mains #1 and #5 were thickened on their internal sides, but left "stock appearing" on their external sides; this gave the block the external appearance of a production block. The 3 central bulkheads were thickened on both sides. It is rumored that approximately 200 "good" copies of this block had been cast between 1969 and 1972 (Bud Moore's first season in NASCAR was 1972). These blocks preceded the racing blocks cast in Australia and were available at the time Bud Moore built the racing motors for the Group 4 Panteras.
As the years went by and improved parts were made available the DeTomaso 351C endurance racing motors were equipped with heavy duty NASCAR blocks (the ones cast in Australia), steel crankshafts and Holman and Moody cams and valve train. The motors were capable of operating at higher rpm, they made more horsepower and yet they were developed to such a high state of durability they could undergo an entire season of endurance racing without failure or rebuilding. That is an outstanding accomplishment for any motor.
Great story !
I'll open the engine and will see what's needed
Thanks to Doug and George (and all ...)
Philippe
I'll open the engine and will see what's needed
Thanks to Doug and George (and all ...)
Philippe
Best of luck with your endeavor.
As far as rpm limitations on the track, here is a Youtube posted of a vintage 66 GT350 on the track at Daytonna.
The driver is clearly running the car to about 8,000 rpm in spots and isn't really even in the middle of the pack.
It is a 4 speed car, and of course the Pantera a 5 speed, so I don't know how that effects the rpm of the Pantera on the track?
In looking at the gear ratios 5th gear might only be able to be used on the big tracks that have long straightaways, like Daytonna.
It all depends on how hard the car will pull in 5th gear on the track.
On the smaller tracks, you might not even be able to get into 5th. I don't know, you will have to find that out for yourself, but I think you are going to need 8,000 rpm + capabilities to run with the pack with these guys.
The front runners are running the engine into the high 8,000's.
Here's the link to the video. The sound is great and you can hear the engine pretty clearly.
http://saacforum.com/index.php...;topicseen#msg203371
There is a question also as to whether or not you can run this hard for long with the stock production block.
George is absolutely correct in that when the factory Gp4 cars were running, the parts development for racing the 351c was really just starting.
The casting numbers on the aluminum block and heads would indicate they were cast around January of 1968, and they were termed "Indy Project".
Where exactly they were for Detomaso is apparently "unobtainable".
It would appear that Don Nicholson and Gapp& Rousch were "given" those parts by Ford and Detomaso was not in the "preferred" group of recipients for any of those parts.
Warren Toppe was an original "purchaser" of one of the original Gp4 cars and it is that car that you see pictures of in and around Dearborn in 1972.
Warren got the car through his fathers connections since he was an engineer that worked for Ford.
The car originally came supplied with a 4 bolt production block which Warren quickly sent to it's ancestors in broken parts history.
It was Poppa Toppe that was responsible for the "competition" Cleveland block creation and casting through the Ford foundry which became complicated because this was during the exact period when Ford was shipping the specific mill for the Cleveland block to Australia.
BEFORE anyone called the racing Cleveland block the NASCAR or THE AUSTRALIAN BLOCK, it was referred to as the TOPPE BLOCK, even in the official Ford documents.
I was told by a reliable source that on the Ford tag the block came with, the tag was marked Toppe.
All of that was done so much on the fly because of the move to Australia, that it is said that the first Australian blocks still had the D2AE-CA (CA for Canada) on the block and the Ford logo "mint mark" near the oil pressure sender casting. It was Ford of Canada that somehow owned the "technical" rights to the block and it was them who sent the machinery to Australia, not Dearborn technically speaking.
Gee. I thought "Cleveland" was in the US?
Randy Gillis has some of the original Ford Engineering log books of the Ford FE and XE parts. Not all of them are racing parts but many are.
He can tell you the original casting dates, the dates of the revisions, and the Engineer who signed off on them.
It is really a job to research the specific changes and "technically correct" statements about these parts and kind of an academic exercise anyway.
He talks a lot about "funding" for each part, or which program paid for the part. It get's very technical and very complicated. Overly complicated often.
He also did mention something the other day about a "metallurgical designation" for adding nickle to the cast iron. I'm trying to remember, but...memory, yea right...I think it was something like "CA"?
That simply meant Ford added 5% more nickle into the metallurgical formula for the cast iron to strengthen it.
It was not something they liked to do because it made the block harder to machine.
I had one of those blocks as my first Cleveland build up in 1974 or 5 and when I went to pick it up from the shop the guy got all pissy and said don't ever come back here again with your "crap".
"That is some sort of special block and I had to resharpen the boring tool several times for each cylinder." That's what the shop said to me.
He then pointed to all of the x's and y's in the lifter valley. He said the other Cleveland blocks he had done did not have those.
He was wrong about those since at least all the D2AE-CA C's have them but who know's on the hardness of the block?
The Australian's claim they cast their blocks with more nickle? Who am I to disagree?
Sounds like I stumbled across one? Came out of a wrecked race Pantera too. I didn't think it was special at all.
Also on the valve springs, it doesn't really matter why the springs were failing now. The fact of the matter is that the metal used in the Cleveland springs was the same as that in other engines being raced.
If they broke in a Cleveland, but not in a Chevy or a Mopar, then I would think from an engineering standpoint, the cause might be elsewhere than the metal alloy? When I find the documentation on the oil bath solution to overheating springs in the Cleveland, I'll post it.
I didn't dream that one up. The only question in my mind is the time periods for this stuff. It really was all bad timing for Detomaso on 351c racing engine development. He was a little early to benefit from the Ford Racing program which the money was going to go into NASCAR priorities here in the 'States rather than into Europe which at that point Ford had little interest in for sports car racing.
NASCAR rules were eliminating the "Shotgun", which was the racing Boss 429 version and limiting the displacements down to slow the pace of the cars down for safety reasons.
As far as suggesting that Bud Moore being incompetent in building race engines, you are joking right? I hardly think that was the case. I personally wouldn't go there.
He has quite a good track record before this in Trans Am with the Boss 302's...among others.
That crank IS CREDITED WITH coming from "Hank the crank", and by that time he knew how to build competition internally balanced crankshafts.
Considering the internal politics of Ford at the time, I'm sure there were probably mitigating circumstances on delivering those "racing engines" to Detomaso?
I don't necessarily disagree with George's interpretation of the circumstances at all. It really is all water under the bridge but I do agree that you don't want to repeat that history with your car and spending extra money on at least a competition block and longevity modifications to the engine is going to reap immediate benefits to your long term racing program.
No one ever said it was going to be cheap to go racing at any level now.
Cobra Automotive gets $30,000 for a 600 hp 8,000rpm 292 engine now. The problem is that if you want to run at least in the MIDDLE of the pack, you need somewhere around 650 and 8,500 rpm capabilities AND...this is the killer...MORE THAN ONE ENGINE!
MANY have asked me why I don't race with those guys. Simple answer. I haven't won even one lottery yet! Some of us still need to hold down a full time job these days?
Best.
As far as rpm limitations on the track, here is a Youtube posted of a vintage 66 GT350 on the track at Daytonna.
The driver is clearly running the car to about 8,000 rpm in spots and isn't really even in the middle of the pack.
It is a 4 speed car, and of course the Pantera a 5 speed, so I don't know how that effects the rpm of the Pantera on the track?
In looking at the gear ratios 5th gear might only be able to be used on the big tracks that have long straightaways, like Daytonna.
It all depends on how hard the car will pull in 5th gear on the track.
On the smaller tracks, you might not even be able to get into 5th. I don't know, you will have to find that out for yourself, but I think you are going to need 8,000 rpm + capabilities to run with the pack with these guys.
The front runners are running the engine into the high 8,000's.
Here's the link to the video. The sound is great and you can hear the engine pretty clearly.
http://saacforum.com/index.php...;topicseen#msg203371
There is a question also as to whether or not you can run this hard for long with the stock production block.
George is absolutely correct in that when the factory Gp4 cars were running, the parts development for racing the 351c was really just starting.
The casting numbers on the aluminum block and heads would indicate they were cast around January of 1968, and they were termed "Indy Project".
Where exactly they were for Detomaso is apparently "unobtainable".
It would appear that Don Nicholson and Gapp& Rousch were "given" those parts by Ford and Detomaso was not in the "preferred" group of recipients for any of those parts.
Warren Toppe was an original "purchaser" of one of the original Gp4 cars and it is that car that you see pictures of in and around Dearborn in 1972.
Warren got the car through his fathers connections since he was an engineer that worked for Ford.
The car originally came supplied with a 4 bolt production block which Warren quickly sent to it's ancestors in broken parts history.
It was Poppa Toppe that was responsible for the "competition" Cleveland block creation and casting through the Ford foundry which became complicated because this was during the exact period when Ford was shipping the specific mill for the Cleveland block to Australia.
BEFORE anyone called the racing Cleveland block the NASCAR or THE AUSTRALIAN BLOCK, it was referred to as the TOPPE BLOCK, even in the official Ford documents.
I was told by a reliable source that on the Ford tag the block came with, the tag was marked Toppe.
All of that was done so much on the fly because of the move to Australia, that it is said that the first Australian blocks still had the D2AE-CA (CA for Canada) on the block and the Ford logo "mint mark" near the oil pressure sender casting. It was Ford of Canada that somehow owned the "technical" rights to the block and it was them who sent the machinery to Australia, not Dearborn technically speaking.
Gee. I thought "Cleveland" was in the US?
Randy Gillis has some of the original Ford Engineering log books of the Ford FE and XE parts. Not all of them are racing parts but many are.
He can tell you the original casting dates, the dates of the revisions, and the Engineer who signed off on them.
It is really a job to research the specific changes and "technically correct" statements about these parts and kind of an academic exercise anyway.
He talks a lot about "funding" for each part, or which program paid for the part. It get's very technical and very complicated. Overly complicated often.
He also did mention something the other day about a "metallurgical designation" for adding nickle to the cast iron. I'm trying to remember, but...memory, yea right...I think it was something like "CA"?
That simply meant Ford added 5% more nickle into the metallurgical formula for the cast iron to strengthen it.
It was not something they liked to do because it made the block harder to machine.
I had one of those blocks as my first Cleveland build up in 1974 or 5 and when I went to pick it up from the shop the guy got all pissy and said don't ever come back here again with your "crap".
"That is some sort of special block and I had to resharpen the boring tool several times for each cylinder." That's what the shop said to me.
He then pointed to all of the x's and y's in the lifter valley. He said the other Cleveland blocks he had done did not have those.
He was wrong about those since at least all the D2AE-CA C's have them but who know's on the hardness of the block?
The Australian's claim they cast their blocks with more nickle? Who am I to disagree?
Sounds like I stumbled across one? Came out of a wrecked race Pantera too. I didn't think it was special at all.
Also on the valve springs, it doesn't really matter why the springs were failing now. The fact of the matter is that the metal used in the Cleveland springs was the same as that in other engines being raced.
If they broke in a Cleveland, but not in a Chevy or a Mopar, then I would think from an engineering standpoint, the cause might be elsewhere than the metal alloy? When I find the documentation on the oil bath solution to overheating springs in the Cleveland, I'll post it.
I didn't dream that one up. The only question in my mind is the time periods for this stuff. It really was all bad timing for Detomaso on 351c racing engine development. He was a little early to benefit from the Ford Racing program which the money was going to go into NASCAR priorities here in the 'States rather than into Europe which at that point Ford had little interest in for sports car racing.
NASCAR rules were eliminating the "Shotgun", which was the racing Boss 429 version and limiting the displacements down to slow the pace of the cars down for safety reasons.
As far as suggesting that Bud Moore being incompetent in building race engines, you are joking right? I hardly think that was the case. I personally wouldn't go there.
He has quite a good track record before this in Trans Am with the Boss 302's...among others.
That crank IS CREDITED WITH coming from "Hank the crank", and by that time he knew how to build competition internally balanced crankshafts.
Considering the internal politics of Ford at the time, I'm sure there were probably mitigating circumstances on delivering those "racing engines" to Detomaso?
I don't necessarily disagree with George's interpretation of the circumstances at all. It really is all water under the bridge but I do agree that you don't want to repeat that history with your car and spending extra money on at least a competition block and longevity modifications to the engine is going to reap immediate benefits to your long term racing program.
No one ever said it was going to be cheap to go racing at any level now.
Cobra Automotive gets $30,000 for a 600 hp 8,000rpm 292 engine now. The problem is that if you want to run at least in the MIDDLE of the pack, you need somewhere around 650 and 8,500 rpm capabilities AND...this is the killer...MORE THAN ONE ENGINE!
MANY have asked me why I don't race with those guys. Simple answer. I haven't won even one lottery yet! Some of us still need to hold down a full time job these days?
Best.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
That simply meant Ford added 5% more nickle into the metallurgical formula for the cast iron to strengthen it.
It was not something they liked to do because it made the block harder to machine.
I had one of those blocks as my first Cleveland build up in 1974 or 5 and when I went to pick it up from the shop the guy got all pissy and said don't ever come back here again with your "crap".
That is some sort of special block and I had to resharpen the boring tool several times for each cylinder.
He then pointed to all of the x's and y's in the lifter valley.
He was wrong about those since all the C's have them but who know's on the hardness of the block.
The Australian's claim they cast the block with more nickle? Who am I to disagree?
Sounds like I stumbled across one? Came out of a wrecked race Pantera too.
[QUOTE]
That's not entirely true. The block that is in my '71 Pantera (I built it in 2000) has NO Xs or Ys cast into the lifter valley at all. It did NOT come from a Pantera.Years ago I had a close friend who's Father drag raced a Cleveland powered Mustang. He was best friends with his engine builder and he told me that when he bores a Cleveland block with the X's and Y's you can actually hear the difference in tone from when he bores one without the X's and Y's. He attributed it to the higher nickel content in the casting.
Ron
That simply meant Ford added 5% more nickle into the metallurgical formula for the cast iron to strengthen it.
It was not something they liked to do because it made the block harder to machine.
I had one of those blocks as my first Cleveland build up in 1974 or 5 and when I went to pick it up from the shop the guy got all pissy and said don't ever come back here again with your "crap".
That is some sort of special block and I had to resharpen the boring tool several times for each cylinder.
He then pointed to all of the x's and y's in the lifter valley.
He was wrong about those since all the C's have them but who know's on the hardness of the block.
The Australian's claim they cast the block with more nickle? Who am I to disagree?
Sounds like I stumbled across one? Came out of a wrecked race Pantera too.
[QUOTE]
That's not entirely true. The block that is in my '71 Pantera (I built it in 2000) has NO Xs or Ys cast into the lifter valley at all. It did NOT come from a Pantera.Years ago I had a close friend who's Father drag raced a Cleveland powered Mustang. He was best friends with his engine builder and he told me that when he bores a Cleveland block with the X's and Y's you can actually hear the difference in tone from when he bores one without the X's and Y's. He attributed it to the higher nickel content in the casting.
Ron
quote:
That's not entirely true. The block that is in my '71 Pantera (I built it in 2000) has NO Xs or Ys cast into the lifter valley at all. It did NOT come from a Pantera.Years ago I had a close friend who's Father drag raced a Cleveland powered Mustang. He was best friends with his engine builder and he told me that when he bores a Cleveland block with the X's and Y's you can actually hear the difference in tone from when he bores one without the X's and Y's. He attributed it to the higher nickel content in the casting.
Ron
Interesting.
I think the difference is in the series of the casting numbers?
I think it is the D2AE-CA blocks that have the X's and y's and the D0AE does not?
I don't know if that block was unique or special at all Ron. I just know that shop won't do any more work for me.
He said that I knew it was special and that I intentionally screwed him on the price? He was the one that quoted me. I didn't twist his arm. He built a lot of Chevy race engines (this is Chevy territory, Ford guys here are rogues). The GM blocks are definitely softer cast iron.
At the time I was just a kid and knew nothing of what he was talking about.
I DO remember one thing. The block came from Carter Gette who at the time was THE guy to buy a 427 SC Cobra from. ($8500).
My parts guy told me about the block and also mentioned that he had a listing for the special racing block in his parts book.
I want to say it was $850 for the racing block and something like $350 for a new CJ 4 bolt block.
I got the entire short block out of the Pantera for $250 AND Carter delivered it to me. Can't beat that? The only thing is Carter wouldn't include or even show me the balancer so I can't say what was on it? I think I asked and he said in a stern voice, no way?
As a result, that's where I bought my first new, Ford Service Parts "Boss" balancer. Actually an HO with the D2ZZ casting number in the ring. It was expensive then. List for $125. Cost $75. I think they figure the price on it by the weight and sell it to you by the pound. It's heavy.
Personally I was under the impression that all of the D2AE-CA blocks were higher nickle blocks, and they have the yyyyxxxx and the D0AE block does not The late 427 side oiler service block I believe is a high nickle block too? The cast iron in them definitely looks to be a different color than the 390 blocks?
Might have been a Pantera that Bob Grossman wrecked and Carter bought the "remains" of. It was not going into a Pantera, so I didn't ask for the ZF or do anything with any intelligent insight. Except for the Cobras, at the time, there was no indication that ANY car would ever be desirable as a "collector" car back then?
I actually had just bought a pair of Boss 351 service heads and wanted the 4 bolt Boss bloxk too, but the original part was superseded by the D2AE-CA block.
As it turns out, the original Boss 4 bolt block was just a modified production 2v block, with 4 bolts caps added and was only installed into the original Boss351's on the assembly line. It's my impression it was NEVER serviced separately, but as with all Ford service parts, depends on when and where?
As an aside, my engine builder, well actually my machiner and advisor, Joe LaPine at Danbury Competition, ADVISED that there are two Clevelands to build. The dividing line in his opinion is 7,000 rpm. Under it you don't need the lifter bushings, race block, but once you go over, you need them plus "a whole bunch of other stuff" that he never embellished on.
Still have a set of titanium valves for it sitting in the "valve drawer" along with titanium retainers. Never got the opportunity to use them.
Next time I have a D0AE and D2AE-CA together I'll do the ping test. I'm curious too if I could hear the differences?
I think you just started something though? Everyone is going to run out and ping on a bare block if they have one?
Thanks for pointing that out?
quote:
Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
... There is a question also as to whether or not you can run this hard for long with the stock production block ...
... It was Poppa Toppe that was responsible for the "competition" Cleveland block creation and casting through the Ford foundry ...
... the first Australian blocks still had the D2AE-CA
... (CA for Canada) ...
... As far as suggesting that Bud Moore being incompetent in building race engines, you are joking right ...
The production 351C was never intended for high rpm racing (8000+ rpm) but that didn't stop people from doing so. When the production engine (excepting the connecting rods) is set-up for racing it will withstand those sort of engine speeds (and higher) for a while before something breaks. The 351C was duty-cycle-tested up to 7000 rpm which was a high rpm duty cycle for an engine intended for mass production circa 1968. Based on my experience, and being conservative, I'd say the production block, crank, connecting rods and cylinder heads are good for many years of racing if engine speed is limited to about 7000 rpm; even the 2 bolt main caps resist "walking" at 7000 rpm! However, I don't recommend spending money to prepare the production connecting rods for racing. There are two caveats regarding the production engine block: the lubrication system and the thin cylinder walls require steps taken to amend their shortcomings. In the end, the durability of a 351C racing motor shall hinge upon the supporting parts that are selected and the time, money and detail invested in preparing it. If you scroll all the way down to part 4 of Sticky #3 I believe I've covered the subject fairly well there.
To clarify, Don Tope was responsible for having the first production run of racing blocks cast in Australia (1974 - 1975). He was not responsible for the earlier racing blocks known as the 366 blocks. Ford rejected a proposal to cast more 366 blocks in 1973. Bud Moore was working with Don & Warren Tope, helping them with their Trans Am Mustang circa 1973 or 1974. He mentioned to Don Tope that his supply of 366 blocks was almost exhausted and wondered if there was anything Don Tope could do to get some more blocks cast. US Ford ceased manufacturing the 351C in mid-1974. So Don Tope approached Australian Ford for help which they gladly provided. The 351C was already being manufactured in Australia, production there had begun in March 1972.
I have been under the assumption that ALL Australian blocks have the American D2AE-CA casting number!
CA does not indicate the blocks were cast in Canada. It simply means revision level "CA".
If that comment about Bud Moore's incompetency was directed at me, I didn't write that, I wrote the Group 4 motors were Bud Moore's guinea pigs. He was on the steep part of the learning curve in regards to building 351C racing motors, in fact the Group 4 Pantera motors may have been his FIRST 351C racing motors! He also had no idea what the tracks in Europe were like.
quote:Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
That simply meant Ford added 5% more nickle into the metallurgical formula for the cast iron to strengthen it.
It was not something they liked to do because it made the block harder to machine.
I had one of those blocks as my first Cleveland build up in 1974 or 5 and when I went to pick it up from the shop the guy got all pissy and said don't ever come back here again with your "crap".
"That is some sort of special block and I had to resharpen the boring tool several times for each cylinder." That's what the shop said to me.
He then pointed to all of the x's and y's in the lifter valley. He said the other Cleveland blocks he had done did not have those.
He was wrong about those since at least all the D2AE-CA C's have them but who know's on the hardness of the block?
The Australian's claim they cast their blocks with more nickle? Who am I to disagree?
I think the guy that complained about resharpening the boring tools needs to get a life and some tungsten carbide tooling.
All the 351c and 302cs here are the blocks with the x's and y's except for some US imports and even the most crap machine shop can bore them without any big deal.
Sounds like he was using high speed steel and was used to having it easy and boring out soft as butter Chevy blocks.
Telling you not to come back to his shop was probably the best thing he did as i would advise to stay away from any shop that couldn't bore a D2AE-CA.
My point is not to get into a battle of history. The Confederacy lost at Gettsburg. The US forces didn't pursue the retreat. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Lincoln got assassinated. End of chapter, turn the page.
What I am suggesting is that running any "Vintage" racing isn't this great romantic endeavor it would appear to be on the surface to outsiders.
Very simply put, it is hardass.
These cars are running harder than they ever did when they were new "nickle" racers way back.
No one races in them on a whim and just goes out on the track just cruisin' around. If you do, you are going to get freakin' killed.
The problem with running a Cleveland NOW is that there really is no adequate CLEVELAND block to run UNDER THESE CONDITIONS.
Maybe Buttmore's block will do, if he ever really makes enough of them available, AND THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A SUBSTITUTE within the rules? Even so, NO ONE has tested one under the duress of flat out, all out racing. At least to my knowledge.
Everything else in the engine can pretty much be adaptable to the conditions.
It would be nice if there was an allowable modern substitution for the original iron heads. That you should check the rules on.
500 hp isn't enough to run with these guys.
You are going to need a real 650hp engine with AT LEAST 8,200 rpm capabilities.
I get criticized all the time for repeating what I've been shown, told, taught or observed. I AM NOT going to get involved in a battle of expert witnesses here.
This is supposed to be a friendly casual discussion among friends and others of like minds?
That is my thinking in how I participate here. I don't tell people what they should and should not do or can or can not do.
The Ford 289/302 engine series is more ancient by far than the Cleveland is.
The modern version of that engine currently running in "Vintage racing" is quite capable of running, from what I have observed often to about 8,600 or 8,700 rpm.
That's where the Cleveland is going to need to run, not necessarily to win, but to be reasonably in the hunt.
Many of the current drivers are very, very talented. Certainly well past what personally I can or are willing to do.
These are the considerations one, anyone must make to make it not a total waste of time, effort, money and hope to even make the effort worthwhile.
Just my opinion...offered in a friendly casual discussion over morning coffee. Pass the sugar please?
Best...everyone. Happy Thanksgiving.
What I am suggesting is that running any "Vintage" racing isn't this great romantic endeavor it would appear to be on the surface to outsiders.
Very simply put, it is hardass.
These cars are running harder than they ever did when they were new "nickle" racers way back.
No one races in them on a whim and just goes out on the track just cruisin' around. If you do, you are going to get freakin' killed.
The problem with running a Cleveland NOW is that there really is no adequate CLEVELAND block to run UNDER THESE CONDITIONS.
Maybe Buttmore's block will do, if he ever really makes enough of them available, AND THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A SUBSTITUTE within the rules? Even so, NO ONE has tested one under the duress of flat out, all out racing. At least to my knowledge.
Everything else in the engine can pretty much be adaptable to the conditions.
It would be nice if there was an allowable modern substitution for the original iron heads. That you should check the rules on.
500 hp isn't enough to run with these guys.
You are going to need a real 650hp engine with AT LEAST 8,200 rpm capabilities.
I get criticized all the time for repeating what I've been shown, told, taught or observed. I AM NOT going to get involved in a battle of expert witnesses here.
This is supposed to be a friendly casual discussion among friends and others of like minds?
That is my thinking in how I participate here. I don't tell people what they should and should not do or can or can not do.
The Ford 289/302 engine series is more ancient by far than the Cleveland is.
The modern version of that engine currently running in "Vintage racing" is quite capable of running, from what I have observed often to about 8,600 or 8,700 rpm.
That's where the Cleveland is going to need to run, not necessarily to win, but to be reasonably in the hunt.
Many of the current drivers are very, very talented. Certainly well past what personally I can or are willing to do.
These are the considerations one, anyone must make to make it not a total waste of time, effort, money and hope to even make the effort worthwhile.
Just my opinion...offered in a friendly casual discussion over morning coffee. Pass the sugar please?
Best...everyone. Happy Thanksgiving.
I'll second you !
I'm not going to build a monster engine,
I would be happy with 450HP with my setup, I'm not a professional driver, my passion is to build the car alone, but I don't know the Cleveland engine, I ask the experts ...
Let's talk about flat6 engine if you want
best regards
Philippe
I'm not going to build a monster engine,
I would be happy with 450HP with my setup, I'm not a professional driver, my passion is to build the car alone, but I don't know the Cleveland engine, I ask the experts ...
Let's talk about flat6 engine if you want
best regards
Philippe
quote:I'm not going to build a monster engine....
But you must!
No amount of your own money is too much for us to spend!
(Said jokingly, in a jocular manner)
Happy Thanksgiving, all! - I am enjoying reading this thread. There is a lot of good information here!
Rocky
quote:Originally posted by Rocky:quote:I'm not going to build a monster engine....
But you must!
No amount of your own money is too much for us to spend!
(Said jokingly, in a jocular manner)
Happy Thanksgiving, all! - I am enjoying reading this thread. There is a lot of good information here!
Rocky
I had to look up the meaning of jocular. I thought it meant I need to wear a cup with my athletic supporter?
