Already planning next engine build

[Omie01]

So I plan on rebuilding my last motor after my new one is done, but I plan to use the short-block as is, as it only has about 1000 miles on it. For those that don't know one of my heads went bad this last year. Its a 2 bolt Cleveland block with stock rods and KB flat top pistons. This time I have a set of CC heads I want to put on the short block, here are my questions. My harmonic balancer is new, but its the stock Cleveland balancer, will it hold up to a 6000 rpm "Boss" style build? Its the one that was balanced to this short block rotating assembly. Also, for the sake of being "Boss" like, I would like to run a mechanical flat tappet cam, any recommendations for a Boss 351 spec cam? I plan to use a Performer Intake, and a Holley 750cfm carb. My goal is to get about 350-375hp out of this engine and use it more as a cruiser after my "King-Kong" Cleveland burns up. Hopefully it will be a few years, but hey, its never to early to plan the next build!!

 

[c9zx]

This on the shelf grind should work well for what you have described as the build and make good power. http://schneidercams.com/256-64F_351Csolid.aspx If you feel it may be just a hair too aggressive have them grind it with 114 degree lobe separation. Obviously, if you talk to the right cam guy, a semi-custom cam may yield better results. Before you finalize a selection, do an accurate dynamic compression ratio calculation (7.6-8.1 range) as a sanity check for compatibility with pump gas. If you want to turn 6000 RPM and still be making good power, pick another dual plane intake manifold. The Performer typically signs off at about 5400 RPM.

The balancer should be checked closely for outer ring slippage (degree it) and see if the elastomeric bond is in good shape, not badly cracked with pieces missing. If all that is good, the damper should be good to 6000. I have had stock 4V dampers fail, outer ring fractured and disappeared. However, that engine was being shifted at 7200 RPM.

Best of Luck,

Chuck

 

[Paul of MO]

With those KB flattops and closed chamber heads you will be at least 10.5 to one compression - even higher if your blocked was decked when you built it the first time. If you can get 93 octane where you are at it will be marginally OK but you may need to add some octane booster to get the most out of it. That can get old fast and expensive over time.

If you are truly planning on never going above 6,000 rpm then a modestly aggressive hyd cam will serve you better - better vacuum - better idle - better low end performance - less maintenance.

The performance difference between a mech cam and an hyd cam below 6K is non existent.

Your damper and everything else you described is fine for a sub 6K engine.

300 to 350 hp is what you will have with your setup and a hyd cam.

300 to 350 hp is what you will have with your setup and a mech cam.

Old timer trick would be to double up the head gaskets - drops your compression to 8.5 to 9 with CC heads, you can run any pump gas, you can get more aggressive with your distributor advance for more seat of the pants grunt, you can run a basic 100hp NO2 setup for the few times your might enjoy more power. - all good and fun things.

I have traded out many mech cams for hyd cams because the driver got fed up with the maintenance and low end drivability issues.

Good luck and most of all have fun!

- Paul of MO

 

[barnett468]

ok, at 6000 rpm, you may strip the stock rod nuts so i would install ARP nuts.

i would also remove the oil pump bypass spring and install a high pressure one.

a solid lifter cam will definitely provide more performance everywhere over a hydraulic and if you have 3.50 gears or numerically higher, below is a very good cam for your app.

http://schneidercams.com/264-74F_351Csolid.aspx

you really, really, really need to have a knowledgeable clevelend cyl head porter do some mild bowl blending and grinding on the short turn radius of those heads . . this should take around 2 to three hours at the very most . . also have the intake valve back cut or use undercut stem stainless va;ves with hard tips or lash caps . . alexes parts has them cheap.

a stock boss 351 cam is quite decent but there are others that will be similar but perform better overall.

you can absolutely run 10.5 compression with mo prob whatsoever if you have proper timing, gear ratio, car jetting. squish/quench clearance and 91 octane or above gas or E85.

your car will run like a big fat pig with a boss type cam and lw compression.

you can get close to, or exactly at the right squish clearance buy putting a pistin at tdc then measuring how far down the piston is then use a thinner Cometic brand gasket of the proper thickness to make this clearance between .034 and .043".

for solid lifters, i use howards cam oiler lifters . . $120.00

definitely get another damper then get it match balanced to your oil one.

if you want mid and top end power and an ultra cool look, buy a blue thunder intake . . it will stomp the eddy performer in the power department.

here it is in all its magnificient glory.

 

[Omie01]

As much as I would like a Blue Thunder, they are terrible expensive and hard to get. I was assured that a port matched performer can hit 6000rpm. I can't change balancer if I don't disassemble my short block, which I don't want to do. Its already a .030 overbore and was just machined less than a thousand miles ago. As far as head work, I know there are advantages to the bowl work stuff, but I prefer not to grind up classic iron, especially when a Cleveland 4v is capable of making this hp range without it, I will mill for screw-in studs, and my rods already have ARP bolts and nuts. I do have access to 98 octane here where I live if I need it. Thanks for the cam info, I will look into this one!! But keep the cam suggestions coming!!! Thanks gents!!

 

[c9zx]

I was once assured that basic training would be enjoyable. Turns out, no so much. Good luck. Chuck

 

[Stanglover]

Interesting, interesting, interesting. Gives me all sorts of ideas for my upcoming re-build. That's why I love this forum and guys who know their stuff. Really appreciate the knowledge here.

Geoff.

 

[barnett468]

As much as I would like a Blue Thunder, they are terrible expensive

Good parts aren't cheap and neither is building a high perf engine . . They are $455.00.

and hard to get.

No they're not, the site below has them and can ship within 24 hours.

http://www.dscmotorsport.com/asp/Products/popup_PartDetails.asp?PartID=733

I was assured that a port matched performer can hit 6000rpm.

That's totally irrelevant when building a high perf engine because the Blue Thunder will provide far more average torque and hp than the wimpy performer intake will, plus it doesn't look dorky.

I can't change balancer if I don't disassemble my short block' date='[/quote']
That makes no sense unless you welded it to the crankshaft . . There is a bolt on the front of the crank that holds it onto the crank . . Simply remove the bolt then remove the damper with a puller.

As far as head work' date=' I know there are advantages to the bowl work stuff, but I prefer not to grind up classic iron, especially when a Cleveland 4v is capable of making this hp range without it,[/quote']
intentionally running heads with casting flaws in the ports when one is wanting a high hp engine is simply illogical . . it will make more power easier if you simply correct the flaws in the ports created by the casting process which means you can then run a SMALLER cam to get the same power.

I will mill for screw-in studs' date='[/quote']
No real need for that for your app . . its more of a "convenience" than an upgrade.

my rods already have ARP bolts and nuts.

xlnt1

I do have access to 98 octane here where I live if I need it.

you will need it if you want to get the max perf out of your engine.

Thanks for the cam info' date=' I will look into this one!![/quote']
no prob and that is an xlnt cam for your app . . unfortunately there are very, very few choices for that engine in solid flat tappet lifter type . . howards has a nice single pattern one but you should have a better percentage of ex to in flow in your heads to make use of that one plus it will have a narrower power band than the schneiders.

.

 

[Paul of MO]

351C closed chamber heads do not need any port work unless you just want to ruin them. Even the odd little rough patch in the intake runner serves a purpose.

ALL performance modifications for 351C 4V heads consist off making the runners smaller whether it be hi-port exhaust plates or epoxy in the intake runners.

These are not Chevrolet - They are already big enough to ventilate a coal mine - do not make them even bigger!

The designers from Ford and Bud Moore created something magical. It was the first time computer aided fluid dynamic modeling was used extensively from the very beginning of a new head design - the Boss 302 Head design (Cleveland). They got it right.

I have built and dyno'd hundereds of Cleveland engines starting in 1972 when I built pro-stock engines for some of the biggest names in racing at the time. Massive modifications to make the intake and exhaust runners smaller!

For street engines and engines that where not allowed to have head modifications:

I have never gained a single HP from any head porting on a 351C 4V - it always slowed them down. Even just "smoothing" everything down did nothing but hurt.

The computer models of the fuel charge moving toward the intake valve are a thing of beauty - every radius, rough surface, and turn has the effect of creating the most efficient flow of any engine ever created to date - not surpassed until EFI made head design much less critical.

Even the final turn toward the valve has the shape of an airfoil - causing a low pressure area that pulls the fuel charge down toward the outer edge of the intake valve and away from the valve stem. This drops the most dense and coolest fuel air charge exactly where it needs to be in the quenched chamber.

There was one person on here a while back that just destroyed a set of 4V heads with his dremal tool. Do not be that guy.

- Paul of MO

 

[barnett468]

351C closed chamber heads do not need any port work unless you just want to ruin them.

Sorry, but this is not my experience or the experience of many others.

The designers from Ford and Bud Moore created something magical.
ALL performance modifications for 351C 4V heads consist off making the runners smaller whether it be hi-port exhaust plates or epoxy in the intake runners.

It seems odd that you say the ports are something magical but then say you need to modify them to improve performance . . That doesn't sound like a very "magical port to me.

I have never gained a single HP from any head porting on a 351C 4V

Then you apparently didn't do it correctly because it has been proven many times that proper porting does increase horsepower.

 

[4Vforever]

351C closed chamber heads do not need any port work unless you just want to ruin them.

Sorry, but this is not my experience or the experience of many others.

^^^ Have to agree as well, even minor work in the bowls and short side will make these heads really pick up, let alone professional head guys (use to work for one of the best Cleveland head guys in the country) that can get these things to really perform, so much so they give the aftermarket alloys a run for their money. Even the exhaust side isn't as bad as its been made out to be over the years, maybe not as good when compared to a 2V exhaust port, but with a bit of minor work and these things are fairly good. The intake port itself though needs nothing done to it unless it's turned into a high port design, but these are totally different kettle of fish again. Even the chambers can do with some reworking to make them perform better too, but in standard guise they're a pretty decent thing. I've seen some 4V's (and heaps of other heads) absolutely ruined by people not knowing what to do with them, so much so that they were basically throw aways.

 

[Omie01]

As far as the balancer goes its not a matter of taking the bolt out and removing it, its that this short block rotating assembly was balanced with it. I do have an STI approved balancer, but was wondering if I can just swap them out without re-balancing the rotating assembly. To be clear, I do NOT want to remove the crank and pistons from this block because the whole block was just rebuilt less than 1000 miles ago. And yes, the heads may flow better if reworked, but my point is that a 4v head can make 350-375hp without the work, and in true "Boss" trim they wouldn't be. As far as intakes, they are easy to change, so if my performer won't do it, some day down the road I "could" change it. I would really like a true "Boss" intake but right now its not in the budget. Please understand, I'm not looking to maximize HP, I'm looking to build a good "Boss" clone engine for my "Boss" clone car.:whistling:

 

[mustang7173]

Omie01,

Lots good information here. You are right about the Balancer. I would not remove it due to the balance of the assembly.

Cam and Valve Train area.

Technology is a wonderful thing. Look at this article on where they compared Hydraulic Roller and Solid Roller lifters. It states that the Hydraulic rollers have made up a lot ground with the solid lifters of the by gone era.

Need to Read Article-

http://www.stangtv.com/tech-stories/engine/dyno-shootout-solid-roller-vs-hydraulic-roller/

Competition Cams

http://www.compperformancegroupstores.com/store/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CC&Product_Code=840-16&Category_Code=ClevelandLifters

Crane Cams – Mechanical Roller Camshafts

http://www.cranecams.com/236-237.pdf

Cylinder heads –

Paul of MO is right with his response. I have seen and read many articles on where engine builders have milled 4V cylinder exhaust head ports to add redirected and smaller port size to increase efficiency.

Here is an example:

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43417&start=75

Or you could do this -

Port Plates: http://www.mpgheads.com/port_plates_a.php

Or you could do this-

Aussie 2V Closed Chamber Ford 351 Cleveland ALUMINUM heads

http://www.ausfordparts.com/afd2v.html

1 pair (2 Heads) of Aussie 2V Closed Chamber Ford 351 Cleveland heads

http://www.ausfordparts.com/ausheads.html

Keep us posted-

mustang7173 :bravo:

 

[Paul of MO]

351C closed chamber heads do not need any port work unless you just want to ruin them.

Sorry, but this is not my experience or the experience of many others.

-------------

Gee - how many "others" have built high dollar full race Clevelands - baseline dyno them - pull the heads and port them - and re-dyno them? I have done this more than 20 times on MY dyno in MY engine shop. I did it for a living for over 25 years and made good money at it. Got the repeat business from many of the biggest names in racing during the 70's. Ended my career building engines for the Pantera crowd and the kit Cobra folks.

-------------

The designers from Ford and Bud Moore created something magical.
ALL performance modifications for 351C 4V heads consist off making the runners smaller whether it be hi-port exhaust plates or epoxy in the intake runners.

It seems odd that you say the ports are something magical but then say you need to modify them to improve performance . . That doesn't sound like a very "magical port to me.

---------------

If you can not tell the difference between a street driven engine and a full on prostock engine I can't help you. The performance modification discussed were to get the engine to flow at 10,000 rpm not at 4500.




---------------

I have never gained a single HP from any head porting on a 351C 4V

Then you apparently didn't do it correctly because it has been proven many times that proper porting does increase horsepower.

---------------

See comments added above:

lollerz rofl:chin::thankyouyellow::whistling:

In general yes - 351C 4V CC heads - not.

So many people build an engine with a new and aggressive cam, new intake and carb, raise the compression, add headers, and other mods and then claim the HP gain is from the port and chamber work they did on the heads - LOL.

Do any of you own a extrusion porting machine? I sold mine when I retired but I can give you the name of the company that bought it - maybe they will let you use it.

Do you have a wet flow bench - mine is out in the shed under a cover. To old - no one wanted it because it was analog not digital. Could not bring myself to toss it.

Sadly ended up selling my lathes, hones, and mills for the price of scrap. Like me - to old and heavy.

How many 1500hp at the flywheel small block engines have you built? Do tell. I still have one hanging on a stand in my shop.

Mustang7173 is correct on modern tech - I have tried to keep up. If I jumped back in today I would build a full roller, EFI, twin turbo, propane injected, all aluminum, variable valve timing super small block about 230 cubic inches and shoot for 12,000 rpm, make 2,000hp and probably get 15 miles to the gallon. I may be off a bit on the mileage.

The original poster wants to build a Boss clone - just telling him what needs to be done and what does not. If he wants to send you his heads and have you go to town on them then have fun. Do a before and after dyno and post up your results.

Paul of Mo

 

[barnett468]

Gee - how many "others" have built high dollar full race Clevelands - baseline dyno them - pull the heads and port them - and re-dyno them?

If you have stock unported heads, then it is not a full race engine.

If you can not tell the difference between a street driven engine and a full on prostock engine I can't help you.

Well this isn't relevant to my point, and since I do know the difference between a moderate street engine and all out race engine, I don't need your help but thanks for not offering any.

The performance modification discussed were to get the engine to flow at 10' date='000 rpm not at 4500.[/quote']
ummm...first you say they are magical heads, then you say these magical heads need to be ported to make horsepower, now you say these magical heads only flow enough air to rev an engine to 4500 rpm...well that all definitely sounds pretty "magical' to me.

So many people build an engine with a new and aggressive cam' date=' new intake and carb, raise the compression, add headers, and other mods and then claim the HP gain is from the port and chamber work they did on the heads - LOL.[/quote']
My comments were based on head porting alone, LOL

Do any of you own a extrusion porting machine?

If you are referring to a "putty porting/Extrude Hone machine, those have been around for ages and we had some cylinders on the factory Works MX bikes done using this process when I was a project engineer and ran part of the R and D department for Kawasaki Motors Corporation.

Do you have a wet flow bench

No, but if I did I would dry it off, besides, I don't need ant flow bench because my friends Bob Mckray and Mike Hayden both have access to one and Mike is listed 44th all time fastest in NHRA history in his class driving his own car with an engine he built and also has his own drag strip in his back yard so he can do testing . . Do ya got one of those?

http://www.draglist.com/lists/pstq32.txt

How many 1500hp at the flywheel small block engines have you built?

Not a single one, however that is irrelevant because it has absolutely nothing to do with the FACT that properly porting a 4V Cleveland head will increase an engines horsepower.

I still have one hanging on a stand in my shop.

If it were me, I would fix whatever you did wrong that is preventing it from being used and get it out of the garage.

.



OMIE

As far as the balancer goes its not a matter of taking the bolt out and removing it, its that this short block rotating assembly was balanced with it.

You can remove the balancer then take both it and the new balancer to any balance shop and have it matched balanced . . I have had parts matched balanced many times . . Might cost around $100.00.

I do have an STI approved balancer' date=' but was wondering if I can just swap them out without re-balancing the rotating assembly.[/quote']
More than likely because in my experience, material s rarely removed from a balancer during balancing, but it would be safer to have the balance checked on both first as i mentioned above.

And yes' date=' the heads may flow better if reworked, but my point is that a 4v head can make 350-375hp without the work, and in true "Boss" trim they wouldn't be.[/quote']
Yes they can but you missed my point, so just leave them the way they are, but as I mentioned, it will be a little harder and get the power that way, which means you will have to use a cam that is a little bigger than you otherwise would to do it, but since your hp goals are fairly moderate, you will really be ok just leaving them.

As far as intakes, they are easy to change, so if my performer won't do it, some day down the road I "could" change it. I would really like a true "Boss" intake but right now its not in the budget. Please understand, I'm not looking to maximize HP, I'm looking to build a good "Boss" clone engine for my "Boss" clone car.:whistling:

I can not impress upon you just how much you are defeating your purpose by using that pathetically wimpy intake on there, and the Blue Thunder is more similar to a real Boss intake than that one is, but at least you now have the info for future reference if needed . . I just really hate to see you leave all that additional power on the table, that's all.

Cylinder heads –

Paul of MO is right with his response. I have seen and read many articles on where engine builders have milled 4V cylinder exhaust head ports to add redirected and smaller port size to increase efficiency.

He's right because you read it on the internet so it must be true?

Did you somehow miss all the posts stating that porting 4V Cleveland heads increases power?

.

 

[barnett468]

lollerz rofl:chin::thankyouyellow::whistling:

Asking numerous questions and making analogies that are completely unrelated to the subject are not productive or helpful to anyone, nor is being sarcastic and condescending to people whom are simply trying to help another or posting dancing emoticons or ones with laughing faces in a feeble, childish, and unsuccessful attempt to make fun of others by trying to show that you got the better of them and/or are superior to them in some way.

I am on this site because it is one of the very few I have seen that doesn't have people that do the things you do, and my guess is that everyone here prefers it that way, therefore, I suggest that if you want to continue acting this way, you join a site where this sort of thing is not only condoned, but also encouraged like the VMF.

.

Need to Read Article-

http://www.stangtv.com/tech-stories/engine/dyno-shootout-solid-roller-vs-hydraulic-roller/

Despite your welcome good intentions, that "article is unfortunately a joke, and is a a perfect example of why inexperienced people should ALWAYS take magazine results with a pound of salt and try to find other sources that achieved similar results.

1. That "article" was written in 2011 but touts anti pump up lifter technology as a recent development even though it's been around for decades.

2. They do not give the LSA of either camshaft.

3. They do not give the advertised duration of either camshaft.

4. They do not give the duration at .200" of valve lift of either camshaft.

5. They do not state whether it is a standard type hydraulic lifter or a limited travel one which actually becomes SOLID after a limited amount of travel.

6. They start the dyno test at a ridiculously high rpm of FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED, which means the reader has absolutely no idea how these two cams perform over the other SEVENTY PERCENT OF THE RPM RANGE . . As far as I can remember, I typically take off from a stop lite at around 900 to 1200 rpm and NOT FOR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED RPM and I rarely rev it that high.

.

 

[jpaz]

I tried to buy the Blue Thunder Intake yesterday from dscmotorsport & they put me on a 5 week waiting list. I'm not in any real hurry, still winter here. Just thought I'd let you guys know.

 

[Paul of MO]

Sorry to offend.

Glad you have a friend has a fast car and you build motorcycles - makes you a Cleveland expert.

Have fun arguing with a web article from 2011 about twin cams ???

Yes actually, My shop was adjacent to Moroso in West Palm and I had keys - that was back when Joe owned it.

(someone on this site has figured out who I am but I swore them to silence!)

We called the first extrusion porting machine we built a "wet abrasive press" - it was pretty cool for 1977

Omie wants to build a boss clone engine - not all that hard and none of what you are suggesting is needed other than to raise his cost.

At 93 years old I keep things for nostalgia - that was the last pro-stock engine I built but due to a rule change it could not be used. It was run in other classes for a few years and set some class records before it made it back to me. It is sitting next to my 534 cubic inch fuel injected SOHC engine.

I have built 71 - 73 Mustangs for many years because they came with Clevelands and until recently no one liked them. I bought one new in 71 and think they are the best looking Mustang ever made.

and lastly - on a street driven - sub 6000 rpm engine - porting a 351 Cleveland 4V quench chamber head will do nothing that can actually be felt or even measured. 6000 to 7500 porting helps a little on the exhaust side. 7500 and up you have to cut up the head and do all the wacky port stuff we discussed.

I know this to be true because I read it on the internet.

- Paul of MO

 

[Stanglover]

Ok enough guys. This is turning into a pissing match and no help to the original poster, Omie01, me or anyone else. There are some very good points made, if one can follow them, but to me as a relatively new member, I am starting to wonder just who can I trust for the information I need. I have similar questions about my re-build, which is starting next week and have been favored with lots of useful tips in that regard from both of the "contestants" (and many others) about said build.

I joined 7173Mustangs.com because, as a relatively un-experienced owner of a 351C 4V, I had hoped for better things and the information I need. Clean it up guys and lets stick to relevant facts that us less knowledgeable members are seeking. Yes, I too have been guilty of getting 'off track' somewhat in my posts, it's all to easy to do as we're all enthusiastic and passionate about our hobby and that's OK to a point, but..................!

Geoff.