Motor avaialble to me Locally your opinions please

George? I'm goingto stop by there this morning and take some pictures. If the black has already had its machine work done I wouldnt need to touch that right? So I would have to get that crank omy nitrided crank machined and I'd need stroker rods. is there any machining necessary to drop on a solid lifter camshaft? Thanks.

Ryan,

I'm going to spend a minute writing about power goals. Unless you are racing competively for trophies, money, championship, etc, how much power the engine makes is relatively a non-issue, so long as when you push the gas pedal to the floor it puts a smile on your face. The seat of your pants is more sensitive to improvements in throttle response than it is at determining how much horsepower your motor is making. Even a stock 300 bhp Cleveland can break a 335 section rear tire loose, so tremendous amounts of horsepower just aren't required to have fun. On the street, the car with the best throttle response and low rpm powerband will accelerate fastest from a stoplight. If you are spinning tires, burning rubber, you aren't accelerating, and the more power you make beyond the grip limits of the tires, the harder it is to control wheel spin. The proper way to engineer a drastic increase in power (like going from 300 to 500 bhp) is to raise the rear axle gear ratio. With our Panteras that would mean swapping the 4.22:1 gears for 3.77:1. With higher gearing the motor has less mechanical advantage in low gear, and tire spin will be easier to control.

Having written all that, since money is an issue, the least expensive route to take would be to make the cam change, button it up and run it as is.

Buy your cam from MME and let him spec it out to achieve your powerband goals. Let the horsepower fall where it will.

You won't need stud girdles, don't waste your money. A solid roller cam will require adjustable valve train with the usual beefed up components (studs, guide plates, heavy wall push rods, etc).I prefer the Yella Terra rocker arms from Australia, but thay are more $$$. Mark McKeown can provide all the compatible valve train hardware you'll need, his prices are competitive, and you'll have an engineered system.

You don't need to nitride the crank either, if you want to spend money usefully on the reciprocating assembly, have it dynamically balanced. The con-rods need the heavy duty rod bolts too (SPS, ARP).

I'll make these comments about your head choices. Having the iron 4V heads ported would be cheaper than springing for the cost of alloy heads. They will need some work to get into the 500 bhp league. For better throttle response, I would prefer to see you hooked up with some 2V heads, but you must decide how much budget you have. There is a business in Orange County California called Power Heads. They sell fully prepped Australian iron 2V heads (302C heads) for $1000, and for $500 more they'll port them to support a claimed 500 bhp. That is a little bit cheaper than springing for the price of alloy heads, about the same price as having your 4V heads prepared with the same work.

Head choice with a Cleveland is often dictated by intake manifold choice or vice versa, I would like to mention there are some excellent manifold choices to accompany the 2V heads: the Edelbrock Performer, the Edelbrock Performer RPM Air Gap, the Weiand X-cellerator and the Parker Funnelweb 2V. You might have noticed the group buy taking place for a Weber IR 48IDF intake for the 2V heads too. A well rounded selection of manifolds. With iron heads capable of 500 bhp, and alloy heads capable of 600 bhp, the selection of 2V heads is also well rounded. Either choice in 2V heads provides an impressive improvement in throttle response and lowers the rpm at which the motor "comes on the cam".

If this is a stock displacement motor, it would require 1000 more rpm to achieve the same bhp numbers as the MME stroker. I'm sure you realize, the faster you spin the motor, the more prep work and expensive parts have to go into it.

The stock carburetor from a '70 - '71 Cleveland flows about 600 dry cfm (Holley measurement), its too small for a Cleveland, the revs flatten out around 5500 rpm. You'll need to upgrade to a 750 cfm Holley or 650 cfm BG Demon. If the motor is sporting the 30 year old crankshaft dampener plan on either having it rebuilt or buying a replacement. Now is the time to install an electronic ignition, if the motor is not already equipped with one.

cowboy from hell

Don't nitride the crank. The process warps the crank. You will need someone with a crank press to straighten it(good luck on that one).
You don't even need a steel crank. A stock crank is fine for 500hp.

A 500hp Cleveland isn't hard to build. It's going to make it at around 6500rpm though.
I think it is a fun engine that way.

It's also safer for the Pantera chassis then a 427.

No one warned me and I was in my Shelby when I crinkled the roof. Both sides. I didn't know what the noise was until I got out.


I don't ever want to hear that noise in the Pantera. It's sort of like a giant oil can noise. It definately sounds like lots of money.

Oh and I forgot about tearing out the spring pirches too. I think the Pantera would just twist and probably tear the roof hinges out.

I wonder if it would stay twisted or return...oh sorry that's of no matter to you.

Stay 357.

Great insight! I think there's a lot of merit to the theory that basically torque can break alot of components, even properly driven. I had pondered the question once before, stroke or not to stroke? I have spoke with MME, great people, and they are putting together specs for a fun engine, chi heads, hydraulic roller etc. Currently based on a 377 stroker, in your opinion....3.75 stroke a good compromise? My concern, if at all I suppose, is a 357 high reving, engine life span, etc. compared to a 377 lower rpm' to net the same seat of your pants acceleration. Or does the stroke affectively wash out the low rpm engine life advantage because of it's nature...stroked.
any thoughts? or am I way over thinking this just to go faster?
Daniel

Personally, I always expect a high performance engine to wind up, scream if you know what I mean.
Regardless which way you go, you are talking about 5.7 liters...wow, that's a lot of beer...oh sorry.

One of my Ford friends told me that the Cleveland was originally designed as a 370ci engine. I know, I know. It's refered to as a 335 series engine.
Why?

I guess Ford is like GM. It's just an eternal struggle between the great and the goofy in the company.

377 is a really nice engine. Go for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel #9191:
...am I way over thinking this just to go faster...

Yes, you are putting too much mental energy into it. Build the type of engine you want and enjoy it. There are many paths to the same end.

The 3.75" stroke is a good sane stroke for the dimensions of the Cleveland motor. More cubic inches would help the motor run better with 4V heads, but since you're running CHI heads, that's not an issue.

High revs are touger on components than large cubic inches.

Horsepower = (torque x rpm)/5252

Based on that equation, to make the same horsepower at a lower rpm requires more torque, one way to achieve more torque is via more cubic inches. Adding 50 cubic inches lowers the powerband approximately 1000 rpm.

Its wrong to think of torque or horsepower as two separate things, they are inseparable. So its wrong to think torque is more damaging than horsepower.

In my mind, when I am visualizing the performance of a motor, I see the torque curve spread out over the powerband in rpm. The combination of torque & rpm gives you a value we call horsepower. Regardless of how you refer to a motor's output, that output alone does not break components, that output combined with traction breaks components. You are more likely to break components with racing tires than with street tires, street tires are more likely to spin and save the components (or in Doug's case, crumpled sheet metal).

So what kind of powerband works best? In my opinion, for street performance, and for certain types of track racing, a powerband of 2000 to 6000 rpm is ideal. On the other hand, some people, Johnny Woods for example, like high winding motors. Like I wrote earlier, there is more than one path to the same end. Personally, I've had motors with high rpm powerbands, lopey cams and abrupt response, in my opinion motors like that are no fun to drive on the street, not the open road, and especially not in traffic or stop light to stop light. The abruptness of the motor makes finding traction much harder. I admit it, I'm an old fart, I prefer a mellow motor.

If I were to race a car at the 24 hours of LeMans, and I were given the choice of two 500 bhp motors, one a high winding 5 liter motor, the other a mellow 7 liter, I would choose the 7 liter motor, because during the course of the race the 7 liter would be easier to drive fast and tire me out less.

Same thing goes on the street. At a stop light race, you don't rev the motor to 4000 rpm & dump the clutch like you would at a drag race, you leave the stop light at just above idle, motor away a few feet to prevent wheel spin, then nail it. The car that climbs into its powerband fastest from that point will accelerate faster, as long as the power is controllable enough to prevent wheelspin. So the car with the powerband that kicks in at lower rpm has a distinct advantage at a stoplight race. To make more power with a low rpm poweband brings us back to more cubic inches.

cowboy from hell

Yup, 6200rpm to be exact. That's what the Mark II's (427 GT40's) were limited to at LeManns.
Rear ratios were something like 2.00:1.

The chase plane couldn't keep up with Gurney down the strait.

George is right. Big cubes, put it in D and turn on the cruise.

The biggest problem was that the drivers couldn't hear the stereo because of the racing helmet and you couldn't feel the air conditioning because of the fire suit, bummer.