Ahh...guys!
Where to start?
Let me say this, I don't disagree with any of you! And no, I'm not trying to straddle a fence! Most mechanics are highly opinionated, everyone else be damned type personalities. I'm no different. That kind of came through a while back Gary when I tried to talk you out of the 400 project. But your stubborness reminded me of something I learned long ago when asked to advise other people about their idea for an auto project, each project is a work of "automotive art", and is therefore something "personal" for that person. You reminded me to be supportive and keep my "opinions" to myself. Doesn't mean I wouldn't warn somebody if there is a glaring problem with their idea, sure I will. But, using Gary's situation as an example, he didn't want me to try and steer him in a different direction and abandon his vision, no, he just wanted support, the benefit of my experience in helping him to achieve
HIS vision, and create
HIS automotive work of art.
That's how I approach each person's post regarding Pantera engines on the PIBB. I'm a gear head, anything that goes fast excites me, I can appreciate each finished project as a person's expression of their creativity. It may not be "my" vision of how it should be done, but it's not supposed to be! They may build a certain engine and decide afterwards there would have been a better way to do it, but like most of us, they have to learn that for themselves, you can't tell them.
Michael, the whole issue of stroking engines has become popular because of the inexpensive castings & forgings coming from China, making the kits affordable. Before the advent of the Chinese parts, stroking an engine was for most budgets a matter of using the crank from another engine or offset grinding the oem crank. New forgings, like those sold by Hank the Crank, were too expensive for most budgets.
But even so, off set grinding the Cleveland crank (3.70"), and installing sbc rods (6.00") was popular, even in the seventies, because the extra piston speed makes the big horsepower potential of the 4V heads available at lower rpm. Some people also believe that small increase in piston speed improves the low rpm response of engines equipped with 4V heads (stemming from the "the port is too big" outlook some have). So in the case of the Cleveland, there are some very good reasons for stroking the motor. The Cleveland can be stroked to 3.75" with a 6" rod and keep the wrist pin out of the oil ring groove, still have enough room for a reliable ring package, and still have a 1.6:1 rod length to stroke ratio. With a 0.030" overbore, that gives you 383 cubic inches, which really gives the Cleveland a boost in low rpm torque and available horsepower at 6000 rpm. Piston speeds out to 6500 rpm are still reasonable.
Gary, your experience with autos is every bit as valued as mine! I don't disagree with you at all that big engines in lightweight cars makes for a lot of fun! And tickets! That was the formula when I was growing up. But folks who grew up in the 80's grew up with turbo mania, and those in the 90's grew up with blower mania and 4 cams! I was serious when I said I can build a 600 bhp small block Ford that is relaible, but notice right away I mentioned Josh needs to build that around a stronger block & crank. David, as far as the power is concerned, did you notice how much boost I specified? 18 pounds. Speed costs money. Its a matter of building an engine "beefy" enough to survive what you plan to do with it. If a car is breaking down at the drag strip, its a reflection of the mechanics experience, skill and budget; not necessarily the owners choice of engine. I'm not talking pro-stock where the limit is being pushed each pass. You can't build something strong enough to survive that, because if you increase the limit, they'll just push harder, make sense? Not every blown Mustang is breakng down either, you're not noticing the ones that don't break. I'm sure there are some guys building them right. If they all broke down, nobody would still be doing it! And your brother's success on the track has as much to do with his experience as a driver and his chassis set up as it does his choice of power. I will not argue with you that big cubes are a good formula for horsepower, but I will argue with you if you insist it is the only way. It's your passion, but it doesn't have to be Josh's. You never know, maybe some day Josh will feel the same way you do, but for now, he thinks smaller displacement super charged engines that make big power but give good gas mileage are the way to go.
My recommendation for Pantera motivation? I've written before on the PIBB, I'm a Cleveland fan, this small block Ford really shook up the racing circuits when it came on the scene, NASCAR teams were racing them against 7 liter big blocks and making competitive power, NHRA strapped Cleveland equipped cars with a weight penalty in the name of keeping the racing "competitive" for the fans, in other words, Chevys didn't have a chance! When NASCAR downsized the engines to 358 cubes, the Ford guys, all running Clevelands at the time, had to run restrictor plates for the same reason, because the poor Chevy guys couldn't keep up! LOL! Panteras with Clevelands in them made V12 Ferraris look like they were stalled on the track back in 1972! (until the oil starved wet sump motors broke that is) Have you ever read how Herbert Mueller humiliated the Porsche team with his Pantera at Hockenheim? He led the entire race start to finish, he even stopped and drank a beer, his lead had been so great he re-entered the track still in the lead. Isn't that a Bitchen story?
My recommendation for a max performance engine would be a 383C with 4V quench chamber heads, a dual pattern hydraulic roller cam with approximately 285/295 degrees advertised intake/exhaust duration (230 degrees intake duration at 0.050), or a single pattern hydraulic roller cam with approximately 290/290 degrees advertised intake/exhaust duration (236 degrees intake duration at 0.050), opening the valves approx 0.550" to 0.600" off their seats, about 62 degrees overlap, 10.0 to 1 compression ratio, a better exhaust system, a modern ignition (Ford Duraspark I, Ford EDIS-8, Electromotive, etc), the Blue Thunder intake, a 750 Holley clone with annular boosters, and a GTS exhaust. That's all the motor I think is reasonable to have in the Pantera. If it is desired to modernize the car's performance a bit, then I'd opt for a fuel injection system instead of the Blue Thunder & Holley carb. Taking no short-cuts this is potentially a 500 bhp motor, which I feel is a good "limit" to set considering the ZF's limitations, the cooling system's limitations, and the Cleveland block's reputation for cracking when pushed hard. This is a stock looking engine with a docile powerband, it fits under the engine screen, it will go when asked to go, and never embarrass you. I defy a small block chevy owner or a small block Mopar owner, running the best set of 30 year old heads they can scrounge up, to build such a motor.
But because I've made that recommendation doesn't mean I'm not enthused about Gary's 434 build up, or Josh's idea to run a blown motor, or whatever Steve & Mark decide to do. I'm there with you guys, I'll offer any support I can! My only question is, when do I get to go for a ride!?!
your friend on the PIBB, George
