D0AE-J block versus D0AE-L block (Cleveland)

[Stanglover]

I'm just more curious than anything, but does anyone know the real difference and reason for the engineering change from a "J" block to the later "L" block? I'm asking because I just sold a J block which has 2 rear oil drain holes, to a guy who was all over it. I also had an L block as a spare for my 71 M code, but he wanted the J.

What's the difference and why??

Geoff.

 

[Carolina_Mountain_Mustangs]

I just went to the reference I use but it does not give a "J" code in the list. I shows the DOAE-L as a 70 Torino / Mustang, two bolt main, depending on casting date code would also be a 71 Boss block and 4 bolt main.

http://mustangtek.com/block/Block.html

Was it maybe a service block with no VIN stamped in the block? Interesting to know.

David

 

[Don C]

It appears that the two drain holes at the rear of the valley is the main difference. Maybe Ford determined that the two drain holes weakened the block or they could save a few pennies per block with just one drain hole.

My guess is that the production date is what he was interested in for a numbers match.

 

[Stanglover]

It appears that the two drain holes at the rear of the valley is the main difference. Maybe Ford determined that the two drain holes weakened the block or they could save a few pennies per block with just one drain hole.

My guess is that the production date is what he was interested in for a numbers match.

Hi, to reply to you all, I used MustangTek for a lot of my reference as well and yes it does not list the "J" block, likely because no-one submitted that info. The block I had was a Dec. 69 date code and was 2 bolt main. The guy I sold it to wanted to build a stroker drag engine, so my guess is that when this engine gets launched and the front comes up, oil can still get back to the sump. That makes sense and also for a car in hard cornering situations. SO, if that was thought to be a good idea, why did they change it other than as mentioned, to save a few pennies. Begs the question; should those holes be re-drilled in other blocks?? If it weakened the block, then no, not a good idea.

Any more thoughts?

Geoff.

 

[Don C]

Apparently those drain holes did not drain directly into the crankcase but were angled back towards the rear main. I remember reading that there was concern about those holes connecting with the drain holes from the heads, keeping the heads from draining, but this was never confirmed, nor could I find out for sure where they drained to.

I put together some casting numbers from various sources and did find the DOAE-J and included it:

http://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-casting-numbers-and-engine-codes

 

[Stanglover]

Apparently those drain holes did not drain directly into the crankcase but were angled back towards the rear main. I remember reading that there was concern about those holes connecting with the drain holes from the heads, keeping the heads from draining, but this was never confirmed, nor could I find out for sure where they drained to.

I put together some casting numbers from various sources and did find the DOAE-J and included it:

http://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-casting-numbers-and-engine-codes

Good stuff, thanks. Funny thing is, when I had that block just sitting in the shed, I never ACTUALLY look that close to see where the holes drained to. I guess I just assumed they went back to the pan. However, I can't see how they would affect the heads draining.

I just took a look at the "L" block I have and assuming the casting is the same, then those holes probably went back to the lifter oil gallery, which I think would then go back to the rear main, so you could be right. Still doesn't explain why it was removed in the next engineering level. Perhaps we will never know........... just another Ford mystery!!