What is the best cleveland block to use for a high performance engine? I'm not thinking of an aftermarket block. Any special casting number to look for? 2 bolted or 4 bolted?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
> What is the best cleveland block to use for a high performance engine? I'm
> not thinking of an aftermarket block. Any special casting number to look for?
> 2 bolted or 4 bolted?
2 or 4 bolt blocks are essentially the same, except for the main caps.
The only blocks that are substantially different are the XE-192540 casting
race blocks. Only a few hundred were made specifically to address the
problems (cracked main webs and cylinder walls) 351C blocks were experiencing
in professional racing. Often referred to as the "NASCAR" block as many were
used in NASCAR competion. Also used in Pro Stock drag racing. These blocks
carry an XE casting number prefix (e.g. XE-192540), thick, non-contoured main
bearing webs, one inch thick block skirt (pan rail), heavier, high nodular
iron four bolt main caps, and usually 0.165 inch minimum thickness cylinder
walls. These were 4 bolt main blocks with non-Siamese bores. Unlike
aftermarket race blocks, deck height, bearing sizes, bell housing bolt
pattern, oiling system, and oil pan pattern are all identical to a standard
351C block so all 351C parts can be used. Since Ford had ceased production
of the 351C in the United States, the XE race blocks were cast and machined
in Australia. The first batch were manufactured in 1975. These blocks were
available over-the-counter, if you knew enough to ask for the right part
number and had the cash. They were listed under the catalog part number
D1ZZ-6010-T and were quite expensive for the time, about $1500 in 1976.
Some people believe that they originally designed for use in Australian Ford
trucks but that is not the case (Aussie Ford trucks used plain old open
chamber 2V engines with 2 bolt main blocks). The XE blocks were specifically
designed for racing use. The blocks were completely machined, except for the
cylinder bores which were semi-finished, being rough-bored at 3.990". A
number of these blocks were shipped to Holman and Moody and Gapp and Roush.
Holman and Moody used to list these blocks under the part number D6HM-6010-1.
A second batch was cast circa 1982. They were similar to the first batch
with some minor revisions. When Ford (U.S.) decided to get back into racing
in early 1980's with the SVO parts program, they placed an order to cast and
machine a second batch of XE blocks. These were manufactured during 1982 and
1983. There were quite a few of the second batch that didn't meet minimum
specs with respect to core shift and other defects. Some of these blocks
were subsequently transferred to the standard machining production line and
were sometimes fitted with two bolt main bearing caps (depending on when they
were discovered to be defective) for use in a standard passenger car engine.
The blocks that passed inspection were originally listed in the U.S. SVO
catalog under the part number M-6015-A3.
Pictures of my second batch XE block (the one I sold to Kaase for the Engine
Masters Competition) are here:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/dan-ausclv
Note the Gapp & Roush straps on the caps were added later.
Beware of people trying to pass of standard Aussie blocks as XE blocks.
I've owned several U.S. 2 and 4 bolt main blocks, as well as Aussie 2 bolt
main blocks and a couple of the XE blocks. One my bathroom scale, the Aussie
2 bolt main blocks weigh the same as their U.S. counterparts. The XE is
considerably heavier.
Dan Jones
> not thinking of an aftermarket block. Any special casting number to look for?
> 2 bolted or 4 bolted?
2 or 4 bolt blocks are essentially the same, except for the main caps.
The only blocks that are substantially different are the XE-192540 casting
race blocks. Only a few hundred were made specifically to address the
problems (cracked main webs and cylinder walls) 351C blocks were experiencing
in professional racing. Often referred to as the "NASCAR" block as many were
used in NASCAR competion. Also used in Pro Stock drag racing. These blocks
carry an XE casting number prefix (e.g. XE-192540), thick, non-contoured main
bearing webs, one inch thick block skirt (pan rail), heavier, high nodular
iron four bolt main caps, and usually 0.165 inch minimum thickness cylinder
walls. These were 4 bolt main blocks with non-Siamese bores. Unlike
aftermarket race blocks, deck height, bearing sizes, bell housing bolt
pattern, oiling system, and oil pan pattern are all identical to a standard
351C block so all 351C parts can be used. Since Ford had ceased production
of the 351C in the United States, the XE race blocks were cast and machined
in Australia. The first batch were manufactured in 1975. These blocks were
available over-the-counter, if you knew enough to ask for the right part
number and had the cash. They were listed under the catalog part number
D1ZZ-6010-T and were quite expensive for the time, about $1500 in 1976.
Some people believe that they originally designed for use in Australian Ford
trucks but that is not the case (Aussie Ford trucks used plain old open
chamber 2V engines with 2 bolt main blocks). The XE blocks were specifically
designed for racing use. The blocks were completely machined, except for the
cylinder bores which were semi-finished, being rough-bored at 3.990". A
number of these blocks were shipped to Holman and Moody and Gapp and Roush.
Holman and Moody used to list these blocks under the part number D6HM-6010-1.
A second batch was cast circa 1982. They were similar to the first batch
with some minor revisions. When Ford (U.S.) decided to get back into racing
in early 1980's with the SVO parts program, they placed an order to cast and
machine a second batch of XE blocks. These were manufactured during 1982 and
1983. There were quite a few of the second batch that didn't meet minimum
specs with respect to core shift and other defects. Some of these blocks
were subsequently transferred to the standard machining production line and
were sometimes fitted with two bolt main bearing caps (depending on when they
were discovered to be defective) for use in a standard passenger car engine.
The blocks that passed inspection were originally listed in the U.S. SVO
catalog under the part number M-6015-A3.
Pictures of my second batch XE block (the one I sold to Kaase for the Engine
Masters Competition) are here:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/dan-ausclv
Note the Gapp & Roush straps on the caps were added later.
Beware of people trying to pass of standard Aussie blocks as XE blocks.
I've owned several U.S. 2 and 4 bolt main blocks, as well as Aussie 2 bolt
main blocks and a couple of the XE blocks. One my bathroom scale, the Aussie
2 bolt main blocks weigh the same as their U.S. counterparts. The XE is
considerably heavier.
Dan Jones
> So any of these two 351c blocks would be fine?
That depends upon how you intend to use it, how much power you plan to make
(and at what RPM) and whether or not the block passes sonic test. Considering
the cost of shipping, I would certainly have the block sonic tested and magnafluxed first.
Dan Jones
That depends upon how you intend to use it, how much power you plan to make
(and at what RPM) and whether or not the block passes sonic test. Considering
the cost of shipping, I would certainly have the block sonic tested and magnafluxed first.
Dan Jones
quote:Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
That depends upon how you intend to use it, how much power you plan to make
(and at what RPM) and whether or not the block passes sonic test. Considering
the cost of shipping, I would certainly have the block sonic tested and magnafluxed first.
Dan Jones
Let’s say 500 hp and red line at 6500.
> Let's say 500 hp and red line at 6500.
Assuming they pass inspection, either of those should be okay with that sort
of RPM limit. High RPM is what tends to hurt the block. The ones I've
seen that had trouble were in the 550+ HP range but were spinning 7500 RPM.
Dan Jones
Assuming they pass inspection, either of those should be okay with that sort
of RPM limit. High RPM is what tends to hurt the block. The ones I've
seen that had trouble were in the 550+ HP range but were spinning 7500 RPM.
Dan Jones
My stock 351C block was magnafluxed. Good idea to do this.
With a stroker crank and a nice collection of HP parts, mine delivers an easy driving 522 HP @ 6000 RPM with 510 ft lb of torque and a comfortable 10.5:1 compression and uses 94 octane street gas.
With a stroker crank and a nice collection of HP parts, mine delivers an easy driving 522 HP @ 6000 RPM with 510 ft lb of torque and a comfortable 10.5:1 compression and uses 94 octane street gas.
hey i have a xe block or svo in my pantera do you have a killer combo to make it fly?
I went with the XE block since I plan to road race the car. The Boss block 4 bolt main would be my next choice.
My 2 cents ... Ive owned a couple 351C as a young guy and pushed them real hard and I cant say they blew up any easier then any other Ford Motor. Not sure I see all the Hiep on weak 351C blocks.
But I would go with Dan's advise.
Ron
My 2 cents ... Ive owned a couple 351C as a young guy and pushed them real hard and I cant say they blew up any easier then any other Ford Motor. Not sure I see all the Hiep on weak 351C blocks.
But I would go with Dan's advise.
Ron
quote:Originally posted by wayne995:
hey i have a xe block or svo in my pantera do you have a killer combo to make it fly?
Yeats heads /roller cam!!!
quote:
My 2 cents ... Ive owned a couple 351C as a young guy and pushed them real hard and I cant say they blew up any easier then any other Ford Motor. Not sure I see all the Hiep on weak 351C blocks.
But I would go with Dan's advise.
Ron
I kind of side with you. I've read ad-nauseum about the thin walls of the 351C, and I can buy that up to a point - but the stories I hear about blocks being bored .030 and running into the water jackets is just too hard for me to believe. Take some calipers and spin them out to .015 - that's how much would come off of one side of the walls on a .030 overbore. If the boring bar hits water with that small amount of metal removal, why wouldn't the friction of the rings, on a cold morning not either split the bore or cave the wall in, even on a standard bore? I'm about to put one together that I previously rebuilt at .030. It didn't have too many miles, so I'm going to hone it and stick it back together without a sonic check. I have an old friend that raced Clevelands for years and he says he bored every block they ran .060 and never had a problem with thin blocks. Says he's never heard of it. My old boss is still an auto machinist at 71 years old, and says he's never seen a Cleveland split a bore. I wonder if some of it is paranoia? I guess if I was building a 500+ hp engine I'd be very concerned. Mine will be mild, and hopefully won't prove me wrong about the thin walls....
CK they do split, I've seen 'em, and this was back in the era before affordable stroker cranks & the prevalence of roller cams, which may have been part of the problem.
Look at it from this angle: The Cleveland heads are capable of supporting tremendous bhp, but to make eqivalent bhp with a 351 cubic inch motor reuqires the owner to run higher revs than with a 400 cubic inch stroker. Also, in the seventies, a cam with 0.600" + lift was a full race cam, again, high rpm stuff.
so folks were twisting that crank pretty fast, probably should have been using internally balanced high buck racing cranks, but the cast iron crank was so durable, most guys just ran it instead, external balance and all.
Finally I'll point out that when an engine grenades, nobody ever mentions whether or not the reciprocating assembly had been dynamically balanced, or whether or not the fuel & ignition had been dialed in on a dyno. It doesn't take much at high bhp and high rpm to shake a motor apart.
On boring cylinders, the issue isn't hitting water jacket with a 0.030" overbore, the issue is the cylinder walls getting thinner than a universally accepted minimum for a cast iron cylinder wall, which is 0.120" thickness on the thrust surfaces and 0.080" thickness on the non-thrust walls. Flexing and heat cycling of the cylinder walls is exacerbated when the walls are made thinner by boring AND by higher bhp and rpm levels.
your friend on the DTBB
Look at it from this angle: The Cleveland heads are capable of supporting tremendous bhp, but to make eqivalent bhp with a 351 cubic inch motor reuqires the owner to run higher revs than with a 400 cubic inch stroker. Also, in the seventies, a cam with 0.600" + lift was a full race cam, again, high rpm stuff.
so folks were twisting that crank pretty fast, probably should have been using internally balanced high buck racing cranks, but the cast iron crank was so durable, most guys just ran it instead, external balance and all.
Finally I'll point out that when an engine grenades, nobody ever mentions whether or not the reciprocating assembly had been dynamically balanced, or whether or not the fuel & ignition had been dialed in on a dyno. It doesn't take much at high bhp and high rpm to shake a motor apart.
On boring cylinders, the issue isn't hitting water jacket with a 0.030" overbore, the issue is the cylinder walls getting thinner than a universally accepted minimum for a cast iron cylinder wall, which is 0.120" thickness on the thrust surfaces and 0.080" thickness on the non-thrust walls. Flexing and heat cycling of the cylinder walls is exacerbated when the walls are made thinner by boring AND by higher bhp and rpm levels.
your friend on the DTBB
Not to mention the really weak area which is between the main and cam bearings. This is the weakest link in as far as being able to really crank out some decent rpms. Every small block anything should be able to spin 9500 rpm all day long with occasionjal blasts up to 12,000 rpm. Thing is none of them can do that reliable. So all small blocks, be they ford, chebbie, chrysler, they all fall short of what they really should be capable of. That is why one day I will design my own engine from scratch. New sheet of paper, cause so far, no one has got it right.
quote:
On boring cylinders, the issue isn't hitting water jacket with a 0.030" overbore, the issue is the cylinder walls getting thinner than a universally accepted minimum for a cast iron cylinder wall, which is 0.120" thickness on the thrust surfaces and 0.080" thickness on the non-thrust walls. Flexing and heat cycling of the cylinder walls is exacerbated when the walls are made thinner by boring AND by higher bhp and rpm levels.
your friend on the DTBB
I understand you there; I've read from some folks that they took their Cleveland block in to have it bored .030 and the machinist hit water. I'd have to see it. Mine ran a bit warm, but I was also running the standard style stat in it - not the one with the "flange" that directs the water from the restrictor plate up through the thermostat. I'm sure that was one big factor. Didn't realize until lately that the C engine needs a different stat than a Windsor. I'd like to have mine sonic checked, but I'm not building it to make much more than a stock 4V's horsepower, and frankly it will live a pretty comfortable life in an old convertible. I'm banking on good power to weight ratio to give me what I want, more than 7500 RPMs and 12:1 compression. A stout build and I'd definately have it at the shop getting checked. Who knows, my own paranoia might land it there anyway.
quote:Originally posted by DeTom:
Every small block anything should be able to spin 9500 rpm all day long with occasionjal blasts up to 12,000 rpm.
I would say that this would result in an explosion of a few Megatons, nothing too outrageous though.
Yeah, but what a way to go eh???
Actually I'd rather go with a couple of bimbettes
Didn't you see basic instinct???