Author Topic: New block source (Read 15737 times)

cammerfe · « **on:** June 03, 2020, 02:15:34 PM »

How many of you might be interested in a billet FE block? (I live in Metro Detroit and EVERYTHING in way of mechanical stuff is available if you know where to look.)

There is an outfit in a northern suburb that has the capability to take a virgin aluminum billet and carve off everything that isn't an FE block. Within reason you can specify all details.

With hairdryers, and methanol and spray, using some of Jay's components, how much power do you want to make?

KS

BattlestarGalactic · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2020, 02:32:34 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KLNJ8d8Vqc

I've watched this video a few times. Way beyond my pay grade.

1967 XR7 GT · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2020, 03:08:54 PM »

It's not an FE Block, it's more of a 385 series block, I think with cooling issues for one among other issues, and was probably why no more were ever made.

thatdarncat · « **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2020, 03:46:30 PM »

One of our forum members is already working on that. I’m guessing finding a CNC shop that can whittle out the block isn’t as hard as doing all programming involved to tell the CNC machine what to do, and come up with the $ to do it. For those that missed or forgot about the thread here’s a link to it. I haven’t seen any updates lately, maybe he or Jay will see this and comment.

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=8274.0;all

machoneman · « **Reply #4 on:** June 03, 2020, 03:57:44 PM »

Some years ago, a West Coast shop (maybe Donovan?) was making an aluminum block (not billet IIRC) that would accept a wide range of Chrysler or Ford hemi heads, had a dual-drilled bellhousing setup and used an aftermarket crank. The idea was to make a nitro capable block. Don't remember any more details and I don't believe the project went anywhere beyond a one-off sample block.

Dumpling · « **Reply #5 on:** June 03, 2020, 04:43:09 PM »

All these billet blocks seem to be whittled down to save weight.
If you're starting with a literal block of aluminum, why not just mill out 8 cylinders and other necessary passages and leave the bulk of the metal for strength and stability. I believe the Kirkham's said the initial forged block of aluminum started at under 400 pounds. Probably under 200 lbs with milling necessary to use with pistons, crank, can, oil, cooling. I'd be OK with a sub-200 lb block if it was strong, like bull

mbrunson427 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 03, 2020, 05:50:44 PM »

I would think that you could count on one hand the number of people that would go for something like this. Shelby has a nice cast aluminum offering and those aren't splurged for all that often.

Gaugster · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2020, 07:28:24 PM »

Any brand new block is of interest to me. Has anyone considered a group buy with one of the 427 block providers? Say an order was put in for 15 iron and 15 aluminum 427 blocks. Any deal to be had? Personally I'm interested in an iron block as I am most concerned about strength and longevity. I won't be using the motor in a competitive environment. However that is just my perspective. Maybe there's an opportunity here?

cammerfe · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2020, 11:36:20 PM »

General reply to all who offered a comment. 'Billet' as we are talking about it means that the original block of aluminum has been forged, not simply cast. The Kirkham project weighed about 65 pounds when completed---down from about 380 for the billet they started with.

The project is going forward for several reasons. One of the most important is that virtually ANYTHING can be specified. The engine will be fully water-jacketed---they call it their 'endurance' option. The cam tunnel will be, for all practical purposes, a solid tube---for the strength it provides. The cam tunnel will also be raised for more room in the crankcase.

There will be lugs both on the outside of the block and in the valley to be able to use additional head studs---for more complete clamping. There will be no need for motor mounts---we'll use motor plates instead.

When I told them I'd be using a combination of methanol and boost, and with the addition of a bit of nitrous oxide for additional chemical cooling, instead of running a regular intercooler, and expecting to have as much as 5K horsepower, my contact simply said, 'You'll need to be using a billet crank and the rods and pistons to go with it'---very matter-of-factly. This will be a project that'll go together during this coming winter. Covid constraints on my business and a heart attack at the end of last January have also had their input. But it's coming.

KS

winr1 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2020, 12:29:26 AM »

Darn, hope ya doin well after the attack KS and best wishes !!

Neat conversation, of course anything FE interests me

I would like an aluminum block for the weight savings

Would there be a market for a block that was for average hot rodders not trying to make max HP ??

I would like a big cube aluminum block for my 65 F100 as I am trying to get it light as possible

Iron would fine as well

Ricky.

winr1 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 04, 2020, 12:40:18 AM »

I reread the last post
............................................
General reply to all who offered a comment. 'Billet' as we are talking about it means that the original block of aluminum has been forged, not simply cast. The Kirkham project weighed about 65 pounds when completed---down from about 380 for the billet they started with..
...............................

How much does a chunk of forged aluminium that large cost I wonder ??

And what kind of forge is used ??

Ricky.

frnkeore · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2020, 01:00:37 AM »

For the Cammer guys, this seems like it would be a opportunity to up grade.

A external , timing belt drive and a 3 valve cams and combustion chamber. That would reduce weight in the valve train and overall weight of the engine. Ease of maintenance and reduced friction, would also be advantages.

wowens · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2020, 05:46:56 AM »

Quote from: frnkeore on June 04, 2020, 01:00:37 AM

For the Cammer guys, this seems like it would be a opportunity to up grade.

A external , timing belt drive and a 3 valve cams and combustion chamber. That would reduce weight in the valve train and overall weight of the engine. Ease of maintenance and reduced friction, would also be advantages.

Good point. People that can afford a cammer can afford to upgrade and should.
I can only look on in awe, if I had the $ I would be all in !

Joey120373 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 04, 2020, 04:32:23 PM »

Well I read through this thread and I didn’t see a price ( or estimation ) for such a beast, So forgive me if I missed it. My gut tells me it’s one of those “ if you have to ask you can’t afford it “ type deals.

Still, I hope it works out for you, it’s awesome to think about and I hope to see some pics when it does come together.

Dumpling · « **Reply #14 on:** June 04, 2020, 06:00:27 PM »

Wonder why Kirkham buried the project and results?
They're usually really upfront and open about things.

Did someone die during testing?

jayb · « **Reply #15 on:** June 04, 2020, 06:34:19 PM »

My friend who is getting a billet block done say it will cost him about $12K. Seems like a lot, based on the price of the other blocks that are available...

Chrisss31 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 04, 2020, 08:28:57 PM »

Would a billet block be that much stronger than a cast aluminum block or is it just in the interest of weight savings? I'm surprised no one has written a program to lighten up one of the blocks we already have available. There must be some places to shave off a few pounds here and there.

cjshaker · « **Reply #17 on:** June 04, 2020, 10:13:45 PM »

Quote from: Chrisss31 on June 04, 2020, 08:28:57 PM

Would a billet block be that much stronger than a cast aluminum block or is it just in the interest of weight savings? I'm surprised no one has written a program to lighten up one of the blocks we already have available. There must be some places to shave off a few pounds here and there.

I don't think a billet block is going to save much weight. The extra strength (and the majority of the advantage) will come from computer modeling to reinforce weak areas. Look at modular blocks and how they are cast. They have strengthening ribs all over the darn things, and they can take some heavy power. That is all done by computer modeling, and that's when they have weight factors as a critical goal. The aftermarket blocks can take huge amounts of power. This is one of the areas where modern technology really shines, in the ability, with good software, to detect stress areas and strengthen them to reduce flex and twist, and all before the first aluminum chip flies. What used to be available only to billion dollar companies like the auto manufacturers, is now available to smaller companies and individuals with some spending money. Of which, I'm not one...lol

As far as saving weight on one of the current aftermarket blocks, all that extra weight in the casting is there for a reason; centered around thicker siamesed bores, thicker decks and main webbing. Areas where you do not want to remove strength. The rest of the blocks are pretty much thinwall castings, just like factory stuff. The only non-critical area that seems thicker in the BBM blocks and the SOG block that I have is around the lifter bores, and that would require some serious work and machining....all to save maybe 5 pounds.

cammerfe · « **Reply #18 on:** June 04, 2020, 11:03:57 PM »

Quote from: Joey120373 on June 04, 2020, 04:32:23 PM

Well I read through this thread and I didn’t see a price ( or estimation ) for such a beast, So forgive me if I missed it. My gut tells me it’s one of those “ if you have to ask you can’t afford it “ type deals.

Still, I hope it works out for you, it’s awesome to think about and I hope to see some pics when it does come together.

The outfit that does these seems to mostly do the real mainstream stuff like BBC, SBC and same-o for Ford. They also do some of the really weird stuff (to me) such as the huge diesel stuff that's used for tractor-pulling. The first run of FE blocks (five pieces) will cost between 12K and 15K each. Please keep in mind that these are fully water-jacketed blocks, which means that some parts of the outer skin of the block will need to be welded in place. For those of you who know about him, Chris Razor does the welding. The finished block will weigh between sixty and seventy pounds.

The benefit is that any dimension can be changed and the aluminum billet is forged. This makes for a more uniform molecular-level grain structure in the billet and substantially improves strength. The billets are each a bit shy of a thousand bucks.

KS

frnkeore · « **Reply #19 on:** June 05, 2020, 01:45:59 AM »

For those that suggest cast iron blocks, this is the difference.

7075-T651. T651 temper 7075 has an ultimate tensile strength of 570 MPa (83,000 psi) and yield strength of 500 MPa (73,000 psi). It has a failure elongation of 3–9%. These properties can change depending on the form of material used.
Not weldable

2024 T4
Tensile Yield
68k 47k
Weldable

6061 T6
Tensile yield
45k 40k
Very weldable

The most commonly used aluminum casting alloy is 356. These specs are for the best grade, heat treated:
Alloy HT Tensile Yield BHN
A356    T6      40k     30k      75
356 T6 33k 24k 70
Very weldable

The Yield Strength of common gray cast iron is about 30k but, it doesn't yield much, it breaks. That's why they don't list the yield. Note, the elongation.
It does have a vibration dampening property that other materials don't have and why it's also used in machine tools.

Grey cast iron (ASTM A48)    C 3.4, Si 1.8, Mn 0.5
Yield Tensile Elongation BHN
--—      50k      0.5      260
Uses:
Engine cylinder blocks, flywheels, gearbox cases, machine-tool bases
Possible to be welded

It varies a little but, aluminum weighs about .100 per CI, and cast iron, .260 per CI.

The welded join on all aluminums goes down to 16 to 20k tensile strength (that's the annealed strength) and the surrounding areas, that reach 300F or more.

Aluminum, is to gummy to machine, in the annealed state and has to be HTed before machining. As I stated before, mil specs require roughing and re-heat treating of larger sections. The reason for that, is to stress relieve the parts. That also applies to forgings.

Chrisss31 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 05, 2020, 08:08:04 AM »

That's very interesting Frank! I noticed the Kirkham billet was 6061. I have worked with 7075 it machines much nicer that 6061. So, what you're saying is everything critical would need to be machined to a tolerance and re-machined again after all the welding was done and the block re-tempered?

428 GALAXIE · « **Reply #21 on:** June 05, 2020, 09:42:45 AM »

Quote from: cammerfe on June 03, 2020, 02:15:34 PM

How many of you might be interested in a billet FE block? (I live in Metro Detroit and EVERYTHING in way of mechanical stuff is available if you know where to look.)

There is an outfit in a northern suburb that has the capability to take a virgin aluminum billet and carve off everything that isn't an FE block. Within reason you can specify all details.

With hairdryers, and methanol and spray, using some of Jay's components, how much power do you want to make?

KS

Is the landspeed gt getting a FE powerplant instead of boss9?

WConley · « **Reply #22 on:** June 05, 2020, 10:58:32 AM »

Quote from: frnkeore on June 05, 2020, 01:45:59 AM

For those that suggest cast iron blocks, this is the difference...

There's much more to it. Stiffness is also critical in a high performance engine block. Aluminum blocks tend to move around a lot, which increases blow-by and friction (from misalignment). It's harder to seal an aluminum deck against high combustion pressures. Differential thermal expansion means you have to do different things with your bearing and valvetrain clearances.

Aluminum is great in many applications, but it's not universally better than alloyed cast iron. The newer CGI cast iron is great stuff for a block.

Heo · « **Reply #23 on:** June 05, 2020, 11:19:30 AM »

Wife's car have a full alu four cam V8 the instructions say not to rev it past 2000
before the engine is up to temp so that oilpressure is below pegged meter
don't remember but maybe 3kg/cm to take up tolerances in the engine
And when started not put it in gear
before the increased idle drops after about 30 sec when started cold

WConley · « **Reply #24 on:** June 05, 2020, 11:26:39 AM »

Quote from: Heo on June 05, 2020, 11:19:30 AM

Wife's car have a full alu four cam V8 the instructions say not to rev it past 2000
before the engine is up to temp so that oilpressure is below pegged meter
don't remember but maybe 3kg/cm to take up tolerances in the engine
And when started not put it in gear
before the increased idle drops after about 30 sec when started cold

Great to hear from you Heo!

Formula One engines with aluminum blocks can't be started when cold. They're seized solid due to the tight clearances. You have to run hot oil from an external tank into the engine until the block expands...

chilly460 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 05, 2020, 11:27:38 AM »

I understand that OEMs have budgets and technology that may allow them to build better blocks, but the high hp forced induction cars even use aluminum blocks nowadays, are they mitigating the blocks moving around somehow?

frnkeore · « **Reply #26 on:** June 05, 2020, 11:50:44 AM »

Quote from: Chrisss31 on June 05, 2020, 08:08:04 AM

That's very interesting Frank! I noticed the Kirkham billet was 6061. I have worked with 7075 it machines much nicer that 6061. So, what you're saying is everything critical would need to be machined to a tolerance and re-machined again after all the welding was done and the block re-tempered?

Basically, yes, but, it's not recommended that 7075 be welded, at all. I would create a boss to bolt what ever needed to be there, rather than consider a weld.

Yes, cast iron is ridged and as I said, has vibration damping quality's. It also expands at 3X the rate of steel and cast iron but, it weighs 2.6 times as much and is 1/2 as strong!

Modern tech has made the aluminum block a stable platform, at least in cast form. Most modern engines are made of aluminum. A good example of high HP capability, is the Modular Ford.

WConley · « **Reply #27 on:** June 05, 2020, 12:02:32 PM »

Yeah - dedicated race engines are totally optimized for the block material. Clearly aluminum can handle big power. Look at a 500 inch Top Fueler making 11,000 HP. Formula One engines make crazy power per liter.

You can manage the thermal and stiffness issues with careful design, and careful operating procedures. You also know that you have to inspect parts often. (Fatigue cracking can be a big issue with aluminum.) Those huge power engines don't live long at all. A Top Fuel engine turns about 600 revolutions at full power before it has to be torn down. Formula One engines are done after about 20 hours at race power.

No one material is universally "best" for an engine block. It all depends on what you want to do, and how long you want to do it.

cammerfe · « **Reply #28 on:** June 05, 2020, 12:52:08 PM »

Quote from: 428 GALAXIE on June 05, 2020, 09:42:45 AM

Quote from: cammerfe on June 03, 2020, 02:15:34 PM
How many of you might be interested in a billet FE block? (I live in Metro Detroit and EVERYTHING in way of mechanical stuff is available if you know where to look.)

There is an outfit in a northern suburb that has the capability to take a virgin aluminum billet and carve off everything that isn't an FE block. Within reason you can specify all details.

With hairdryers, and methanol and spray, using some of Jay's components, how much power do you want to make?

KS

Is the landspeed gt getting a FE powerplant instead of boss9?

I have been planning some variation of this project for years. One of the hangups has been what sort of transmission to use. Any mid-rear-engine car requires a transaxle and there simply isn't one that's strong enough for what I have in mind. It's only in the last few months that I imagined what could be done to 'make-do', and I was going ahead on that basis. But my heart has always been in the maximum use of the FE engine.

Jay's new heads can't be made to flow as much as a maxed-out set of 385-series heads, but I sat down to envision what might be possible...

I am now re-thinking what combination will make the best sense. The latest re-do of the Cobra Daytona is EXTREMELY slippery. And there are a number of transmissions that can be used. And lots of alternative gearsets that can be put in a properly prepared 9" case. So...

We Shall see.

KS

Dumpling · « **Reply #29 on:** June 05, 2020, 01:55:37 PM »

Quote from: cammerfe on June 05, 2020, 12:52:08 PM

I have been planning some variation of this project for years. One of the hangups has been what sort of transmission to use. Any mid-rear-engine car requires a transaxle and there simply isn't one that's strong enough for what I have in mind. It's only in the last few months that I imagined what could be done to 'make-do', and I was going ahead on that basis. But my heart has always been in the maximum use of the FE engine.

KS

I was at a Koenigsegg release party. One of their configurations was a SINGLE SPEED 'transmission'.

What HP level would you be shooting for?

pbf777 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 05, 2020, 07:08:44 PM »

Quote from: BattlestarGalactic on June 03, 2020, 02:32:34 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KLNJ8d8Vqc

I've watched this video a few times. Way beyond my pay grade.

Unfortunately, since the basic architecture, is based on the original Ford FE dimensions, and it was determined to cram more "stuff" in the same space, something had to go, so bad architecture in the result of the loss of any material available joining the blocks' valley wall to the outside water-jacket wall other than at the ends is adopted, and significant strength of the block is lost. Perhaps another reason motor mounts attached to the poorly supported the exterior sides of the block were deleted? Look at the completed unit as he man-handles it about, I bet if you mount a dial indicator to the measure the movement, one could just push by hand on the walls and record indicator reading movement. The cylinder head mountings and related fasteners are what provides rigidity at this point, but this is not "good" engineering.

This result as presented is not unpracticed, particularly with the import crowd, but this doesn't make it right, and many have realized this from in service experiences. And I know....... so-and-so and the other guys are making thousands of horsepower with "no-problems", well perhaps look a little closer; the sleeves loosen, displacing material in the bottom where they were originally press-fit, the sleeves shake so much they, the gasket and the cylinder head chafe, movement of the deck structure is so that fluid seal cannot be maintained by the head gasket nor does it survive. But, for short run time instances, "it works", what else are you going to do?

If determined to have an aluminum block with sleeve insertions perhaps one possibility for consideration would be if the installed sleeves particularly at the upper flange actually interlocked instead of just butting, and this flange with say an angle, versus the flat 90° perpendicular to the vertical boring, machining to its' lower surface about it's circumference thereby creating sort of a hook that could engage the reverse in the block boring sleeve-stop relief, this providing the effect of drawing the blocks' surfaces inward as downward force is applied to the sleeve, from the seating of the cylinder head and the fasteners upward pull? Yes, more difficult to create but so what, it's not an incapable machining center, and it's not an inexpensive product when completed.

Just a thought from the peanut-gallery.

Scott.

cammerfe · « **Reply #31 on:** June 05, 2020, 07:33:09 PM »

The sort of thing you've just mentioned, Scott, is one of the reasons I post here and read what others think, also. One thing about alternative fuels and the use of significant boost is that there's a 'horsepower knob', or even more than one. How much boost do you want for this particular run? Turn the knob. And in addition, the duration of the 'spray' and the jets in use, and more than one stage of spray all feed into the equation.

I'm told that it took the M2K Racing group about 2500 HP to get to their 300.4 MPH. Maybe I need 5000, all told. Probably for a duration of round about 20 seconds We'll see.

KS

cjshaker · « **Reply #32 on:** June 05, 2020, 11:19:56 PM »

Quote from: cammerfe on June 05, 2020, 07:33:09 PM

I'm told that it took the M2K Racing group about 2500 HP to get to their 300.4 MPH.

KS

A big part of their issue is traction....all the way through 4-5th gear and 200mph. That 2500 hp doesn't come into play until they get the car to hook above 200. If they had a variable boost program that ramped up boost based on speed, and coupled that with testing to find where the optimum was (basically a form of traction control), I think they'd either be a good bit over 300, or wouldn't require that much power to get there, as the power would be better utilized at lower speeds. Every time the car breaks traction, that's a lot of speed lost in a fraction of a second.

blykins · « **Reply #33 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:41:44 AM »

Aluminum blocks are only worthwhile if:

1. You need to move weight around.
2. High horsepower and you have a higher risk of damaging/windowing the block (aluminum easier to repair).
3. You rebuild often. Sleeves are replaceable.

Otherwise, what Mr. Conley said is correct: doesn't matter the flavor of the aluminum alloy, it's still aluminum and will expand because of the heat transfer coefficient and modulus of elasticity. You will lose horsepower over a cast iron block due to loss of ring seal.

cammerfe · « **Reply #34 on:** June 06, 2020, 07:35:57 PM »

Repair---yes, as necessary
Weight---somewhat of a consideration
Making alterations such as provision for more head studs, etc---very valuable
ring seal---depends on the sleeves as well as the block support, yes?

Engine controls such as to be able to change the boost/power curve---one of the most important things
Aerodynamics to load for traction---that's what wind tunnels are for

KS

(Thank you all for your input!)

blykins · « **Reply #35 on:** June 07, 2020, 05:15:17 AM »

Quote from: cammerfe on June 06, 2020, 07:35:57 PM

Repair---yes, as necessary
Weight---somewhat of a consideration
Making alterations such as provision for more head studs, etc---very valuable
ring seal---depends on the sleeves as well as the block support, yes?

Engine controls such as to be able to change the boost/power curve---one of the most important things
Aerodynamics to load for traction---that's what wind tunnels are for

KS

(Thank you all for your input!)

The ring seal will be directly affected by the aluminum material. The strength of the sleeve doesn't really mean anything when it's sitting inside a material that moves with heat.

BTW, I'm not criticizing your choice of aluminum here. In this case, I think it's prudent, and at this power level, I don't see any other option. I would consider making it a solid block though; no water jackets. If you're going to run alcohol, it will run cool and the solidity of the block will give strength.

frnkeore · « **Reply #36 on:** June 07, 2020, 11:41:44 AM »

Quote

The ring seal will be directly affected by the aluminum material. The strength of the sleeve doesn't really mean anything when it's sitting inside a material that moves with heat.

Brent,
You'll need to explain this in more detail for me and maybe others.

Extremely high output, aluminum, block and head, engines have been around, for many years.

blykins · « **Reply #37 on:** June 07, 2020, 12:01:45 PM »

Quote from: frnkeore on June 07, 2020, 11:41:44 AM

Quote
The ring seal will be directly affected by the aluminum material. The strength of the sleeve doesn't really mean anything when it's sitting inside a material that moves with heat.

Brent,
You'll need to explain this in more detail for me and maybe others.

Extremely high output, aluminum, block and head, engines have been around, for many years.

Aluminum has a high coefficient of expansion along as a different modulus of elasticity than cast iron. It moves. It expands with heat.

An aluminum block will generally be down in horsepower in comparison to the exact same combination with a cast iron block. On a 700-750 hp FE, the difference can be about 5%.

If you want a visual proof of how much aluminum expands and moves around, take two engines, one of them cast iron with aluminum heads, and the other all-aluminum. Put a solid cam in them both. With the cast iron block and aluminum head combination, the lash will grow about .006". On the all-aluminum engine, that number goes up to .014".

The aluminum expands so greatly that a lot of the operating parameters changes dynamically. The compression ratio will also change, as the block will "grow" in the deck height, which puts the piston further down at TDC when it's hot. The main bearing clearances also grow (the same way rod bearing clearances grow on aluminum rods), so we end up setting them tighter at design-time.

When the block expands and moves around the cylinder sleeve, it can take the rigidity away from the cylinder, which will decrease ring seal.

This doesn't mean that aluminum is inherently bad, it just means that there are pros and cons of using an aluminum block and you have to know what the design parameters are for the build before you choose an engine block. Paying an extra $2500 to lose 35-40 hp may be a deal breaker to some, while others just want the novelty of owning an all-aluminum engine and are willing to pay for it.

In a round track/dirt racing application, the weight savings is a big pro. On a bracket race scenario, you basically break even when it comes to weight loss and horsepower loss both. However, if you're making some big horsepower or refresh the engine regularly, aluminum is easier to repair and sleeves are changeable.

Yes, extremely high output, aluminum, block and head, engines have been around, for many years. However, just because they've been around for many years doesn't take away from the inherent properties/nature of that combination.

jayb · « **Reply #38 on:** June 07, 2020, 12:14:51 PM »

Again (and I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here), I find it hard to believe that you will have anywhere near a 5% loss in power with an aluminum block over a cast iron block. I've dynoed plenty of both, probably more than anybody else on this forum, and haven't seen that kind of loss; the results I get seem to be pretty predictable, regardless of the block material. Some day I'm going to do a back to back comparison with the same engine, and all the same components except rings and block type, so that I have data to really find out what the truth on this is. In the mean time, I'm sticking with aluminum, because I think that in the vehicle the weight savings of an aluminum block trump whatever the power loss (if any) is.

blykins · « **Reply #39 on:** June 07, 2020, 12:24:17 PM »

Quote from: jayb on June 07, 2020, 12:14:51 PM

Again (and I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here), I find it hard to believe that you will have anywhere near a 5% loss in power with an aluminum block over a cast iron block. I've dynoed plenty of both, probably more than anybody else on this forum, and haven't seen that kind of loss; the results I get seem to be pretty predictable, regardless of the block material. Some day I'm going to do a back to back comparison with the same engine, and all the same components except rings and block type, so that I have data to really find out what the truth on this is. In the mean time, I'm sticking with aluminum, because I think that in the vehicle the weight savings of an aluminum block trump whatever the power loss (if any) is.

I feel like I'm kinda whoopin the dead horse as well.

Some of us have done the back to back comparison. Even if you discount my information, I know that Barry and Blair both have done back to back comparisons, as well as the Craft boys. It's a pretty standard comparison across the board with 30-40 hp being the number most stated. I believe that Lance Smith was the last one to do the test and he posted the results on Facebook, which I'm not a member of. I do believe it was a 482 against a 482 with Pond blocks and there was a 40 hp difference. Maybe someone can hop on there and locate his post. It's been a couple of years ago.

I know you tout the Shelby block over the others and that's fine. I think Blair has noted that the Shelby block doesn't lose *as much* but it still loses. Personally, I would never ask anyone to pay $7500-8000 for an engine block that doesn't dress them and cook them dinner too, so I don't have any data on that particular block combination.

FWIW, this isn't just an FE thing. It's pretty prevalent across every engine family.

jayb · « **Reply #40 on:** June 07, 2020, 01:20:54 PM »

I would be interested in seeing a back to back comparison. I believe that the Craft data was from two different engines, dressed up the same way as far as I know. But that is different than the same components in, and on, two different blocks. Still not a believer...

blykins · « **Reply #41 on:** June 07, 2020, 02:26:04 PM »

Quote from: jayb on June 07, 2020, 01:20:54 PM

I would be interested in seeing a back to back comparison. I believe that the Craft data was from two different engines, dressed up the same way as far as I know. But that is different than the same components in, and on, two different blocks. Still not a believer...

That is a valid comparison. You have to remember that a lot of guys do the same combos over and over. When you do "recipe" engines, i.e. a specific displacement, specific head, specific camshaft, specific intake, specific compression ratio, and you do it often, you know what to expect. When you see a 40 hp difference between said recipes and the only difference is the block material, that's an adequate comparison because there's a large sample.

I'm in the process of trying to find two exact builds, but not having much luck. I have many builds that are very close to each other (aluminum/cast iron being different, but the cam may vary by a degree or two between builds, etc., and I know that some may find fault with that.

It would be one thing, Jay, if I were the only one making this statement. However, I see this statement being made from many, many, others.....including FE builders, SBF builders, and Chevy builders.

Here are some interesting reads for all open, objective minds here and may help the OP on some block design for his project. I know Frank will like this since he will probably end up there anyway.

https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15355

https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9759

And specifically for the OP:

https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4890&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=block&start=30

jayb · « **Reply #42 on:** June 07, 2020, 03:03:48 PM »

Dogma doesn't cut it for me, Brent. I think back to the first intake comparo I did, when everyone said an F427 was a great manifold and the Edelbrock Streetmaster wasn't, and it turned out the opposite was true. I remember hearing over and over from multiple people how you can't run more than about 10:1 compression on pump gas, and yet I've run multiple Drag Weeks, 1000+ miles over the week with engines from 12:1 to 13:1, pump premium fuel. Those are just two examples of all the misinformation that is perpetuated because people just repeat what they've heard. When I was working as an engineer, we used to have a saying: Data, not dogma. I have yet to see back to back testing data that shows a significant advantage for a cast iron block. While the points you make about aluminum moving around are certainly true, the rings ride on a sleeve in the aluminum block that is actually better for ring seal than gray cast iron. If the sleeve is clamped properly between the deck of the block and the cylinder head, and the correct rings are used, I'd be surprised if the power in an aluminum block was down more than 2% over a cast iron block, and maybe not even that much. Block design and sleeve thickness certainly enter into that equation, and most of my experience has been with Shelby blocks and fairly thick sleeves, but getting back to the original thought of a billet block, if the design is correct I'd bet you don't give away much in terms of power.

One other thing to consider is the prevalence of aluminum blocks in OEM applications. If ring seal was a big problem there, wouldn't oil consumption also be a problem? And wouldn't that make an aluminum block very unattractive to an OEM? Yet there are hundreds of thousands of them out there. Whenever these discussions come up, that fact seems to be lost.

I'll say again that I'm not convinced a cast iron block offers any significant power advantage. JMO, of course

Joe-JDC · « **Reply #43 on:** June 07, 2020, 03:29:30 PM »

I am a bit of a skeptic here on this argument. If the water temperature is controlled with a good thermostat, radiator, and water pump, etc., then there should not be any moving around after the engine gets up to operating temperatures, and the ring seal should be stable, as well as power production. That is where I have my doubts on losing a lot of power, if any. I realize the aluminum grows, but it stabilizes, and if the clearances are all done correctly, then at operating temperature the output should be very close between the two engines if everything else is the exact same parts used, everything, down to everything but the block and rings. Bore dimensions and hot piston clearance would have to be exact, or the looser piston to wall clearance would win regardless of which block is being tested. Joe-JDC

blykins · « **Reply #44 on:** June 07, 2020, 03:36:41 PM »

Mechanical engineer here, so I like to see data myself.

There is simply too much data out there regarding the horsepower differences between aluminum and cast iron blocks. If you read through the Speedtalk links I posted, there are dozens of guys out there who shared similar data. Yes, most are SBF/SBC/BBC, but the FE is not unique here.

I've spent the past hour trying to find some dyno sheets or online posts of stuff I've done. I know there have been a couple of builds with all-aluminum engines that I've done where I saw a noticeable difference. These were engines in the 700 hp range. Most of my all-aluminum stuff was done several, several years ago, so the data is harder to locate.

I'll be more than happy to address the OEM stuff. For one, GM/Toyota/Nissan/Ford has more R&D data than Shelby, Dart, Pond, etc. Spending several million dollars in R&D to mitigate weaknesses is not out of the ordinary. Aluminum blocks are lighter, which helps fuel economy. Aluminum is also easier to cast. Is oil consumption a problem? It absolutely can be. Go check out the allowed oil consumption rates of some newer all-aluminum engines. My father-in-law's Impala is allowed a quart per thousand miles before being deemed "bad".

I'm sure Mr. Conley has some input from the auto manufacturer POV.

As an aside, go put one of your 13:1 engines on the dyno and make a loaded pull with pump gas and report back.

And just because an intake manifold made more power on one specific engine doesn't mean it will be that way with all. C'mon Jay!

(I still love you.)

blykins · « **Reply #45 on:** June 07, 2020, 03:47:06 PM »

Quote from: Joe-JDC on June 07, 2020, 03:29:30 PM

I am a bit of a skeptic here on this argument. If the water temperature is controlled with a good thermostat, radiator, and water pump, etc., then there should not be any moving around after the engine gets up to operating temperatures, and the ring seal should be stable, as well as power production. That is where I have my doubts on losing a lot of power, if any. I realize the aluminum grows, but it stabilizes, and if the clearances are all done correctly, then at operating temperature the output should be very close between the two engines if everything else is the exact same parts used, everything, down to everything but the block and rings. Bore dimensions and hot piston clearance would have to be exact, or the looser piston to wall clearance would win regardless of which block is being tested. Joe-JDC

Joe, hop over to Speedtalk and read some of the threads that I referenced.

The difference between a cold block and a hot block is extensive, and obviously we don't hone with the blocks at operating temperature. If lash grows by .015" when hot, cam bearings need to be pinned/Loctited in, and main clearances are adjusted with aluminum blocks, think about what is happening to the material behind the sleeve because of material expansion. Aluminum can have almost 3X the heat expansion coefficient as cast iron.

1968galaxie · « **Reply #46 on:** June 07, 2020, 04:09:00 PM »

There are several examples of aluminum blocks with thick walled steel liners - One example: Darton sleeves.
There is water jacket around the Darton sleeves - sleeves are located at top and bottom.
Interesting information: https://www.dartonsleeves.com/tech_ctr.html

Thin wall sleeved aluminum blocks certainly may distort and cause issues with ring sealing.
It depends on the total design.

Porsche 911 cylinders are aluminum allow with nickel based coated cylinder walls. These engines are dinosaurs by today's technology - but made incredible reliable power in NA and turbo applications for endurance racing - 24 hrs of Lemans and many other international racing organizations. Porsche 917 (Can -Am), 935's, 906, 908, etc... all used aluminum or magnesium blocks with Nikasil/aluminum cylinders.

CaptCobrajet · « **Reply #47 on:** June 07, 2020, 05:37:07 PM »

I'm going to have to chime in here. Jay, I SERIOUSLY doubt that you have dynoed more FE engines over the last 25 years than I have. There is merit to all of you fellers with engineering degrees. I'm pretty good at complex math, and took some of your engineering classes when I needed electives to fill a category. None of that can prove or disprove trends seen in results over a long period of time. I'll go ahead and safely say that at this point, I have a PhD in FE Ford engines, given that folks obtain those fancy letters by educating themselves and proving there data. I have made several thousands (no bull there) dyno pulls on FE engines, and I am 100% certain that iron will make more power, no matter what you do to try to adjust and compensate for the block expansion. I think it might be 40 hp at the 1000 hp level. I think it might be more like 20 at the 500 hp level. I believe it is linear like that with everything else a constant. The quality of the iron block is also a factor. A paper thin OE sideoiler is not going to seal as well as a new, thick, siamesed BBM iron piece. The Shelby is hands down the best aluminum block. The BBM iron has given me the best numbers, so a comparison in my mind should include those two examples. I would add that the cylinders in the Pond aluminum blocks are very stable compared to the Shelby, and his newer blocks with heavier main webbing should be an equal to the Shelby. I have some of these in process currently.

I believe that with more compression, it exacerbates the problem, and I believe with less compression it diminishes somewhat. Most of these.....not all.....OE aluminium engines are lower compression, lower hp engines. Most higher hp ones have turbos or superchargers that more than cancel the loss. Many have vacuum pumps of some kind or another.

Dry sumps pulling crankcase vacuum and vacuum pumps on wet sump engines WILL definitely help.

Just like everyone else, these are my opinions based on years of data. I have built the "same exact" engines, and my results are very repeatable.

cjshaker · « **Reply #48 on:** June 07, 2020, 07:27:30 PM »

Quote from: jayb on June 07, 2020, 03:03:48 PM

I remember hearing over and over from multiple people how you can't run more than about 10:1 compression on pump gas, and yet I've run multiple Drag Weeks, 1000+ miles over the week with engines from 12:1 to 13:1, pump premium fuel.

Quote from: blykins on June 07, 2020, 03:36:41 PM

As an aside, go put one of your 13:1 engines on the dyno and make a loaded pull with pump gas and report back.

Jay, I can't believe you even made that statement. Did you ever race the car with premium pump gas? No, you switch to 110 or better octane. You, of all people, know that mild street driving is a FAR cry from wide open throttle racing.

Not trying to be an ass, but I think you're wrong about the "more than anyone on this forum" statement also. Comparing a hundred intakes on 2 or 3 engines (or whatever the count is) is certainly not the same as dynoing a hundred different engines, and certainly doesn't add any to your argument.

When every major performance engine builder, no matter the make, states the same thing, and they all do, I'd tend to believe them, regardless of my 'intuition'.

cammerfe · « **Reply #49 on:** June 07, 2020, 08:01:22 PM »

I have succeeded beyond my greatest imaginings in creating a thread that'll call forth the best thinking of this most excellent group. The comments here have been civilized, erudite, have come from different viewpoints and helped immensely in my quest for a clearer path in developing some of the aspects of my intended project.

One of the benefits of working with my intended manufacturing company is that they have the attitude that, "Of course we can". They have a very extensive background in doing performance versions of a wide variety of internal combustion engines. I believe that most of them are solid blocks with no water jackets. But I also know that it's a "Ho-Hum" for them to do what they call 'endurance' engines which DO have water jackets. Since it's my intention to actually use at least one of these engines on the street, (With the boost turned down to almost nothing, so as to simply assure 100% volumetric efficiency) I'll have to have enough water jacket to make this possible, but that can very likely be done on the outer sides of the block, with the scalloped cylinder surfaces receiving the coolant bath. The four-cam Jaguar-design engine in my ECTA car has water jackets that only extend down the cylinder sides to about the point of the bottom ring land with the piston at TDC. Most of the block solidly supports the sleeves, which are cast in place. Does this schematic suggest a degree of guidance? I think so, even with replaceable sleeves. A solid cam tunnel will also do well to offer rigidity.

When looking at power loss, the combination of variable boost, provided by the control system, and the ability to simply add more methanol as necessary will make getting the power level I need to get to my self-imposed speed goal a reality. Trying to go much richer using any sort of gasoline reaches a cut-off point at about 12.5/1. With methanol, the more you give the engine, right down to somewhere in the high 3/1 area, the more power you make. in fact, one must be careful because hydraulic lock is a distinct possibility if you aren't careful. In the end, I can overcome any power deficiency by simply 'tipping the can' a bit more or turning the 'horsepower knob' a bit and upping the boost.

There is also ample research that suggests using straight propylene glycol as a coolant. It has a superior ability to carry away heat, when compared to water or water/ethylene glycol as is usually used in cars. Propylene glycol does take a singular-design radiator and pump speed/capacity to match in order to make proper use of it.

Luckily, we aren't going to start to put the components together in the next few days. The final configuration will make use of all the truly learned I can get input from. I thank all of you for yours.

KS

jayb · « **Reply #50 on:** June 07, 2020, 08:02:48 PM »

Blair, I have records for 127 engines that I've dynoed on my dyno since I set it up in 2005. Different engines, not just intake changes. There's a few 385 engines in there, but the rest are FEs. That doesn't count the 5 or 6 that I had dynoed prior to getting my own dyno. I find it hard to believe that a guy who hasn't got a dyno in his own shop has done that many. I would not claim to have built anywhere near as many engines as you, but I'd stack my dyno experience up against yours anytime.

And Doug, what makes you think I haven't gone down the track on pump gas? I haven't done it with my SOHC cars, but the 511" FE in my Mach 1 Drag Week car has gone down the track on pump fuel. It was only 12:1 of course, and on Drag Week I did run race gas. But that engine ran fine on pump fuel, no matter the venue. In fact, best pass ever on that car was a 10.45, on 92 octane 10% ethanol pump fuel. I can't believe you made the statement that I haven't done that. How would you know??

Sheesh

CaptCobrajet · « **Reply #51 on:** June 07, 2020, 09:14:07 PM »

Wow Jay, 127 engines? That's about four years here. There have been years, several years in a row, that we do thirty complete FEs in a year. Probably at least ten of the last twenty five years. We dyno just about everything that leaves here, with few exceptions. Thanks for all the kind words. What you find hard to believe doesn't really matter to me. I should have kept my trap shut.

Autoholic · « **Reply #52 on:** June 07, 2020, 10:33:55 PM »

Quote from: CaptCobrajet

I think it might be 40 hp at the 1000 hp level. I think it might be more like 20 at the 500 hp level. I believe it is linear like that with everything else a constant.

The math on that, would mean an iron block makes 4% more power over an aluminum block. Considering aluminum expands more than iron when heated up, that could be a reasonable approximation. A tad more blow by due to aluminum having roughly twice the thermal expansion coefficient. A 4% difference in power when you're running carbs is somewhat negligible. It would be more noticeable on EFI builds. If you really wanted to prove this, don't just look at the dyno numbers. Connect a pressure gauge to a PCV system on two almost identical engines. Or maybe a MAF sensor would be better than a pressure gauge? I'm sure you all get the idea. If aluminum blocks make less power, it would be due to more blow by. This would eliminate the need to have identical spec engines, just two that are close enough.

My 0.00002 cents on the CR issue, the static CR is mostly meaningless when looking at pump gas or race gas, because that number doesn't take the cam or altitude or boost into account. It's the dynamic CR and dynamic cylinder pressures that will matter. I'm not nearly as experienced with engines as some of the guys on here, but I know the static CR is not what really matters. You could have a 10.5:1 CR but the wrong cam could turn that into a dynamic CR of 8.7. Similarly, you could have an 11:1 CR but wind up with a dynamic CR of 7.8. Heck, the static could be 9:1 but running a lot of boost could require race gas regardless of what even the dynamic CR shows. Even a little reading on dynamic CR will bring up roughly 8.5 is around the upper limit of pump gas, for N/A.

Barry_R · « **Reply #53 on:** June 07, 2020, 10:57:18 PM »

I suppose I should add my opinion into the ruckus....just because.

We have run a fair number of FE engines on dyno as well (seems like its between 40 and 50 customer engines each year, plus whatever personal stuff I have played with). We have dome several that were fairly similar combinations in aluminum and iron. Without chasing down examples I would say that most of the aluminum ones do come in a bit light compared to iron examples - maybe 3 to 5%. Without OEM level testing equipment all I can do is to guess at the reasons. There are likely a few candidates for the difference - bore integrity and deck clearance variation are the best bets.

Bore variation would not be just the roundness (I bet a good quality and thick sleeve would hold diameter fairly well) but also the relative position of the sleeve in a block that will move quite a bit with heat. A lot of OEM stuff uses really odd sleeve outside diameter contours so that they can be poured in place - little spines, knobs, and such are all used to maintain position. Aluminum growth and movement was the motivation behind the adoption of MLS head gaskets and o-ring seals around the engine. Growth will be non-linear, being greater in areas of larger mass - same situation that applies to pistons where they actually build up tilt into rig grooves to compensate for thermal growth variation. Another impact item on power differential would be the additional +/-.008 in growth we measure based on lash variability - which would directly impact both quench and true operating compression ratio. Compensation for both of these characteristics can be "built into the mix" when assembling.

One of the local machine shops specialized in highly developed oval track small blocks - dozens of functionally identical engines. They are very tightly regulated as to the parts they can use, measured compression at cold engine temperatures, cam lift, carb, intake and several other items. Although vehicle weight was specified, how they reached that target was fairly open and aluminum blocks were both legal and tempting because they allowed weight to be strategically relocated. They said that they were about 20 horsepower off with the alloy block and they could not get an offsetting advantage that justified the move - they went back to iron. This mirrors the behavior of a great number of professional race programs that go to CGI thin wall castings at great expense in order to get the weight savings and keep the power. I believe that the difference is real, but depending on the combination it may be small compared to other variables, and could easily be buried in other gains or losses of greater magnitude.

On the pump gas side note - a very good head and a well refined package seems to be pretty darn forgiving on fuel. The engine in my car is an old EMC piece that has compression over 11:1, and goes 7500 RPM with power numbers over 700. I usually run race gas as a safety item and I like the way it smells.

. But I have run it many times on local 93 octane and it seems to do just fine with no noticeable change in performance.

That dynamic stuff kinda scares me. If you have a 12:1 compression engine, somewhere around torque peak you are going to have a 12:1 compression engine no matter what the DCR math is telling you. If that engine has for example a
BT head with a heart shape chamber and a tight quench along with a flat or dish piston you will have reduced timing requirement and it'll probably be just fine. If you have a big old dome piston and an old boot heel 427 chamber you might need 40 degrees to run right, and you might not be so fine...

Autoholic · « **Reply #54 on:** June 07, 2020, 11:15:22 PM »

Quote from: Barry_R on June 07, 2020, 10:57:18 PM

That dynamic stuff kinda scares me. If you have a 12:1 compression engine, somewhere around torque peak you are going to have a 12:1 compression engine no matter what the DCR math is telling you.

That's why you also need to consider a "boost" compression ratio, even on a naturally aspired engine because the VE could exceed 1 at peak torque, and definitely will on an engine built for performance.

Rory428 · « **Reply #55 on:** June 07, 2020, 11:28:05 PM »

Chances are that I will never own an aluminum FE block, but my macinest/dyno owner buddy had a customer who brought in a new supposed "1000 HP" all aluminum 520 ish inch BB MoPar. On his dyno, it maxxed at 940 HP. After a couple years of racing, the owner had him freshen up the engine, using all the same components, but in a iron "Indy Max" block. No other changes, still didn`t hit 1000 HP, but did improve to 980.

cjshaker · « **Reply #56 on:** June 07, 2020, 11:35:47 PM »

Quote from: jayb on June 07, 2020, 08:02:48 PM

And Doug, what makes you think I haven't gone down the track on pump gas? I haven't done it with my SOHC cars, but the 511" FE in my Mach 1 Drag Week car has gone down the track on pump fuel. It was only 12:1 of course, and on Drag Week I did run race gas. But that engine ran fine on pump fuel, no matter the venue. In fact, best pass ever on that car was a 10.45, on 92 octane 10% ethanol pump fuel. I can't believe you made the statement that I haven't done that. How would you know??

Sheesh

I made an assumption and apparently I was wrong. But it seems stupid to buy race fuel for a car that obviously didn't need it, doesn't it?

Mr. Kaase has built hundreds and hundreds (probably more like thousands) of "recipe" engines, as Brent calls them, over the years, and in several iterations. I'd venture to say that he has more experience with a single engine design than just about anyone alive. That means he has a tremendous amount of experience in the variances of subtle changes to that engine design, and especially in iron vs. aluminum in similar/same builds. That man is more open about engine building "secrets" than anyone alive, and has decades of experience to back it up. And that's all after his hugely successful racing career as an engine builder. He says the same thing about iron vs. aluminum. But what the hell does he know?

WConley · « **Reply #57 on:** June 08, 2020, 12:38:03 AM »

I've been out of the OEM world for quite awhile, so I don't have the magic answers on OEM aluminum blocks.

I will say that aluminum does move A LOT with temperature. I did head gaskets for several years on iron block / aluminum head engines. We'd tear down a test engine after 200 deep thermal cycles on the dyno, and the coating would be scrubbed right off the head gaskets. The original 3.8L V6 was designed to be all-aluminum. The blocks just would not stay together at sustained max torque though. In some cases they literally fell in half on the dyno! The desperation fix was to pour cast iron into the same block tooling. Funny - Cadillac had the opposite problem with their Ht-4100 V8. It was supposed to be all-aluminum, but they couldn't get the heads to stop cracking. They ended up putting iron heads on the aluminum block. I was around for the first 2V and 4V Modulars. The early aluminum 4V engines had terrible cap walk issues- so much so that the cross-bolt jack screws would eat into the side skirts. Goes to show that even the smart guys at the OEM's sometimes get it wrong.

The aluminum alloys have gotten a LOT better, as has the casting and block design technology. OEM aluminum engines pass ridiculous emissions standards and provide excellent fuel economy. They save weight and can be easier to cast / machine than iron blocks. Many aluminum blocks are even die cast today . Sometimes there are durability issues (reference the Fusion Sport thread in non-FE Discussion), but for the most part they run pretty well.

It's just not as easy to design aluminum engines. As Barry alluded, you have to watch where you put material. You're always chasing fatigue and thermal cracking / loss of heat treat. It's harder to make the holes stay round and to keep fluids separated, but with enough work you get there. It took 15 years for the Modular V8's to start getting really good. Now you can make HP levels approaching ten times what the original designers envisioned!

frnkeore · « **Reply #58 on:** June 08, 2020, 01:15:51 AM »

If there is a difference in power output, between aluminum and cast iron blocks, it almost has to be because thermo differences, between the two.

First there is the cylinder head. I don't know if Blair's resulting differences are with cast iron or cast aluminum. I think everyone will agree that cast iron heads retain more heat, in the combustion chamber. Heat IS power. So, all things equal, the cast aluminum head, will loose more heat, just because it transfers heat faster. But, I know of no one, that is willing to give up there aluminum heads or intake, for that matter. Just those two items amount to over 100lb on a FE and acceleration amounts to Wt/HP. Hard to over look in anything but, maximum attainable speed, read LSR or dyno, read here EMC but, just HP, can't win a auto race if it can't be competitive with weight, also.

That's one type of thermo lose but, therm o-exspansion is another, increasing deck height and decreasing compression. The aluminum head, also grows at the same rate and remember, expansion causes growth, in ALL directions. The block and head both become longer and taller. alum to iron, by a rate of at least two to one.

The cast iron cylinder block and the cast iron cylinder liner, expand and loose heat, at the same rate, steel is also very close to that same rate. The aluminum block and head, looses heat at a faster rate but, you have some control over that.

So, let me suggest a couple of things.

1. Use long head studs, that anchor into the crank case and seal with a copper or gas filled O-ring. That gives the same basic expansion from the block to the bottom of the head, excluding the crank case area, with less expansion worries to the top of the head.

2. Locate the block to head with with four or five, 1/2" dowel pins. Seal the head to block, with o-rings (water transfer) and a flexible perimeter gasket.

With that arrangement and a machined 7075 block, you get at least 1.5 stronger and stiffer block. More than that, because the walls will be what ever thickness you want and a even section, w/o any problems that core shift would cause. As well as somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 the weight of a cast iron block.

Another option would be to also, counter bore the head, to fit over the cylinder liner, for added support.

blykins · « **Reply #59 on:** June 08, 2020, 05:15:52 AM »

Quote from: Rory428 on June 07, 2020, 11:28:05 PM

Chances are that I will never own an aluminum FE block, but my macinest/dyno owner buddy had a customer who brought in a new supposed "1000 HP" all aluminum 520 ish inch BB MoPar. On his dyno, it maxxed at 940 HP. After a couple years of racing, the owner had him freshen up the engine, using all the same components, but in a iron "Indy Max" block. No other changes, still didn`t hit 1000 HP, but did improve to 980.

I've heard Darin Morgan speak of that as well. The blocks seem to settle over frequent freshen-ups.

On a separate note, I appreciate Blair and Barry speaking up. I ain't never wrote no book or won an EMC, but every complete engine that has left here has been on a dyno, with zero exceptions. I'm not a 50 engine per year guy, or even a 30 engine per year guy, but I would venture to say that even my little 1-man operation has put more than 127 engines on the dyno over the past 17 years. I do have 2 engines on the island of Malta if that counts for anything.....

But across the different engine platforms that I have experience with, I have always noticed a dip in horsepower with aluminum blocks. It is what it is.

For some reason, this is a very sore subject and I don't understand why. The data is there to back up the power loss statements, but every time I do make mention of it, people come at me like I just shot their dog. I feel like the differences are substantial enough that it should play a role in choosing parts for a specific application.

Gaugster · « **Reply #60 on:** June 08, 2020, 09:53:10 AM »

Well, I'm basically the "dumb blond" around here but there is a valve aspect to all of this for some. I believe Aluminum blocks use to cost substantial more than it's iron counterparts. That cost delta seems to have moderated over the years for the popular engine platforms. But if a substantial premium did exist AND the aluminum engine underperformed on the Dyno/street...it could explain why the topic gets debated so thoroughly from time to time.

blykins · « **Reply #61 on:** June 08, 2020, 05:55:54 PM »

Quote from: Gaugster on June 08, 2020, 09:53:10 AM

Well, I'm basically the "dumb blond" around here but there is a valve aspect to all of this for some. I believe Aluminum blocks use to cost substantial more than it's iron counterparts. That cost delta seems to have moderated over the years for the popular engine platforms. But if a substantial premium did exist AND the aluminum engine underperformed on the Dyno/street...it could explain why the topic gets debated so thoroughly from time to time.

Depending on the manufacturer there could be as much as $2500-3000 difference between a cast iron block and an aluminum block. That would about be the scenario between a BBM cast iron and a Shelby aluminum.

Posi67 · « **Reply #62 on:** June 08, 2020, 11:21:32 PM »

I bought an Aluminum BBM some time ago for my "dream" build. Will it make less power than an Iron block?? Don't care if it does because I want the weight savings off the nose of my car. Will it make all the power I need or can use? Don't see why not because I'll put all the Cam, Compression and RPM into it that makes the HP question moot.

Other situations would obviously dictate a different route so build for what you are doing. My friend's SBF Comp Eliminator engine is an iron block/steel rod deal because that makes the most power. He did build a billet Aluminum SBF for a guy a few years back that was for a nitrous combo and it made 998 HP without the nitrous. More cubes than his iron block, smaller cam but similar HP. Bottom line is do you need max HP or just have a sane goal in mind.

cjshaker · « **Reply #63 on:** June 10, 2020, 08:03:24 AM »

Quote from: Posi67 on June 08, 2020, 11:21:32 PM

I bought an Aluminum BBM some time ago for my "dream" build. Will it make less power than an Iron block?? Don't care if it does because I want the weight savings off the nose of my car. Will it make all the power I need or can use? Don't see why not because I'll put all the Cam, Compression and RPM into it that makes the HP question moot.

Not directed at you, Dale, but nobody was saying that aluminum is bad, just has a trade-off, like all things. Just from what I've gathered from reading (so take it for what it's worth), the weight savings pretty much levels out the power loss, or even gains you some. "They" say that losing 100lbs typically equals a drop in ET of a tenth? I don't know how accurate that is, but I'd assume that pretty much offsets any loss in power that may come with aluminum. My SOG block was 50lbs heavier than a factory 427 block, so that's a lot of extra weight on the front. I'm not sure how much a BBM aluminum weighs, but I'd guess it's at least a hundred pounds less than the BBM iron.

I certainly could use the weight savings on my car. I just couldn't afford an aluminum block.

Autoholic · « **Reply #64 on:** June 10, 2020, 02:49:24 PM »

BBM lists their iron FE blocks as weighing ~250 lbs and their aluminum FE blocks as weighing ~125 lbs. So half the weight.

cammerfe · « **Reply #65 on:** June 10, 2020, 10:37:31 PM »

Quote from: Autoholic on June 10, 2020, 02:49:24 PM

BBM lists their iron FE blocks as weighing ~250 lbs and their aluminum FE blocks as weighing ~125 lbs. So half the weight.

And you'll notice that the Kirkham block, bare---no sleeves---is quoted as weighing 65 pounds, is it not?

KS

frnkeore · « **Reply #66 on:** June 11, 2020, 01:28:21 AM »

The video, says 64lb but, that's w/o sleeves, main caps and bolts, for the caps.

I would add ~25lb for sleeves and another ~10lb for the caps and bolts or, ~100lb.

A good weight saving for a all out race engine but, also very expensive per lb.

I would say that for those that don't have to ask prices, it is a very good upgrade. Other good upgrades would be titanium headers and magnesium intakes. Titanium rods are 1/2 the weight and reduce rotating loads, too.

As weight reduction goes, cast magnesium is the same strength as cast aluminum but, is 1/3 lighter. So, mag timing covers, valve covers, oil pans, water pumps (mag doesn't do well with water tho) and bell housings. As well as light weight, neutral balanced crank shafts.

While magnesium isn't used much today, in the '70's, it was used a lot in top classes.

The old saying,

Quote

"take care of the ounces and the pounds, will take care of themselves"

has always applied to racing and will never change.

Dumpling · « **Reply #67 on:** June 11, 2020, 08:56:34 AM »

Why magnesium? Has all kinds of issues. Nowadays, go for carbon fiber. I've seen a carbon fiber intake and valve covers for the FE. Timing cover, oil pan shouldn't be too hard. I imagine a carbon fiber water pump would just be a matter of money

cammerfe · « **Reply #68 on:** June 11, 2020, 11:23:44 AM »

Just out of curiosity, do you have a source for the carbon fiber valve covers?

KS

frnkeore · « **Reply #69 on:** June 11, 2020, 12:35:44 PM »

I have absolutely nothing against carbon fiber! I was just trying to show, that you can loose 1/3 of the weight of typical cast aluminum parts by going to magnesium and not have to deal with any new tech.

But, my main point was that you can loose a lot of weight w/o going to a aluminum block or in addition to the aluminum block.

The thing is, all other things equal, who will get to the 1320ft mark, or finish line first. The engine adorned in Aluminum, Carbon fiber, Magnesium and titanium or the engine that has a lot of cast iron, left on it?

How many people have said that they would NEVER buy something because it's to expensive, only to whine up with it on their car at some future date?

I am not in the income bracket that doesn't have to ask what something costs, I actually way below it but, there are people on this forum at are in that bracket or very near it and for the subject at hand, they can lead the way.

Posi67 · « **Reply #70 on:** June 12, 2020, 12:52:44 AM »

If I was wanting or needing a 900 plus HP engine I would have bought an Iron block because even though I'm stubborn I sometimes listen to people smarter than me. I could also go big Cube, aluminum rad, electric water pump, gut the interior blah blah to go faster but I have a tire limited car that most think is pretty cool as is. I have a HP goal in mind that is reasonably sane and will turn up the RPM as needed. Up to this point everything I've run has been a compromise of good and bad parts so it's time to do this right. My distributor hold down will be a Ford piece however.

machoneman · « **Reply #71 on:** June 12, 2020, 08:00:08 AM »

Like pretty much everything automotive, there are trade-offs to consider for sure. A harsh ride used to equal a fast cornering car yet with modern electric shocks, one can easily switch from a near-luxury ride to a corner carver in newer cars. Point is, when it comes to aluminum engine components versus cast iron, at least these days one has many options to choose from. Yet, these FE engine parts don't lend themselves to hitting a switch on your dashboard to make it go faster or ride more smoothly or get better mileage.

I also like the idea of an aluminum blocked anything these days as the auto makers have perfected making all kinds of engines in all-aluminum trim. Yet, an FE, 385 series or SBF is different as they were not designed, so to speak, in aluminum trim. Today's modern engines were extensively tested by the engineers on dynos, in-car operation and more. Not quite the case with an aluminum blocked FE, eh?

We therefore must rely upon our noted aftermarket FE builders (and those of other makes) to learn of the benefits and pitfalls of running aftermarket aluminum blocks. The shortcomings have been pretty well explained here and in many past posts on this site and other Ford-oriented sites. I'll finish by saying that one's intended use (full race, street, occasional drags) and one's desire to avoid or welcome routine maintenance has as big a bearing on the iron versus aluminum question as does the big price difference.

cjshaker · « **Reply #72 on:** June 12, 2020, 12:22:25 PM »

Quote from: machoneman on June 12, 2020, 08:00:08 AM

I'll finish by saying that one's intended use (full race, street, occasional drags) and one's desire to avoid or welcome routine maintenance has as big a bearing on the iron versus aluminum question as does the big price difference.

Just a reminder that the Millers use an aluminum block in their Drag Week Cougar. A thousand street miles in one week, raced every day....and beats some pretty hefty competition. All with pretty much zero issues, except for a couple of wore out rockers one year. It's a Shelby block, so not your 'average' aluminum block, but still aluminum. I believe they go a couple years between refreshs. It'd be hard to make up that extra .1-.15 they would likely lose in ET when adding another 100-150 lbs to the car.

Anyone know how much horsepower would be needed to gain a tenth, under same conditions?

cammerfe · « **Reply #73 on:** June 12, 2020, 12:39:21 PM »

It's often said that a hundred pounds is worth a tenth. If all that weight comes off the front half of the car, it might even be worth more than that. So long as I can be assured of enough strength, I'll deal with all perceived negatives of going with aluminum. I'll be able to tell you more in coming months.

KS

blykins · « **Reply #74 on:** June 12, 2020, 01:04:57 PM »

A tenth is about 25-30 hp.

shady · « **Reply #75 on:** June 12, 2020, 01:11:52 PM »

According to Wallace at 700 hp in a 3700# car, it takes 20hp. also a 100# is worth a tenth as per his calculators. FWIW.

Dumpling · « **Reply #76 on:** June 12, 2020, 01:33:29 PM »

Quote from: cammerfe on June 11, 2020, 11:23:44 AM

Just out of curiosity, do you have a source for the carbon fiber valve covers?

KS

Sorry, saw them, noted them, but don't know where they came from.

May be ignorance talking, but I would think Jay Brown could lay some matting and resin in the molds he uses for his clear plastic valve covers.

jayb · « **Reply #77 on:** June 12, 2020, 02:18:51 PM »

The molds for my clear valve covers are actually positive; the plastic is formed over the molds. For valve covers you would need negative molds, so that the carbon fiber and resin laid up from the insdie. Otherwise the outside surface would not be smooth.

frnkeore · « **Reply #78 on:** June 12, 2020, 04:07:37 PM »

Female molds are fairly easy to make. Although I haven't done any carbon fiber, I've made a few fiberglass molds.

All it takes is a ridge "plug", here we can use a valve cover. With mold release, sprayed onto it, you layup the valve cover, using gel-coat, polyester resin and fiberglass mat.

After curing, you have your mold.

funsummer · « **Reply #79 on:** June 15, 2020, 10:18:02 AM »

just a thought.
If aluminum blocks expand a lot, then surely that means the quench gap will expand and subsequent compression will be lowered, as the crank center to head face should lengthen.
Now on a low comp engine this would not have a large effect, but on a 15.1 engine where tolerances are really close then the extra expansion would cause the cylinder to lengthen, hence lowering compression.
It was mentioned that you need to run larger tappet clearances with a solid tappet to assure you keep clearance.
Would those with these measurements be able to do the math on a 15.1 comp ratio and see what it would be reduced to?
Thanks
Joel

blykins · « **Reply #80 on:** June 15, 2020, 10:44:27 AM »

If you don’t allow for it at design time, you could lose about .2 of a point if the block grows up around .009-.010”.

machoneman · « **Reply #81 on:** June 15, 2020, 01:33:44 PM »

Quote from: blykins on June 15, 2020, 10:44:27 AM

If you don’t allow for it at design time, you could lose about .2 of a point if the block grows up around .009-.010”.

Which IIRC is why the F-1 engines are heated up with a coolant transfer cart (piping, heated water, a pump, quick disconnect fittings) well before starting to avoid crank bearing seizure and other nasty things.

cammerfe · « **Reply #82 on:** June 15, 2020, 08:32:15 PM »

Another thing to remember is that when an aluminum part 'grows', it grows in ALL directions. All that needs to be taken into consideration.

KS

News:

Author Topic: New block source (Read 15737 times)

winr1

winr1