FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: c9zx on July 28, 2025, 04:52:35 PM
-
I have a 428, std bore, with very good sonic numbers, going to 462. It is going to be on the aggressive side with good parts and I'd like it to stay together. I've looked at the Billet Speed Works page for cross bolt billet main caps. Are these the right people to be talking to for these parts? Also for anyone that has done this in the last few years, what was the machine work cost to install these and hone to fit? Thank You. Chuck (S)
-
My machinist quoted me $300.00 to install them [3 years ago] however after inspecting the block he was afraid the sidewalls were to thin and would weaken the block instead of strengthening it.
Therefore I decided to forgo the install and sold the adapter's.
Greg
-
I have a couple sets of factory caps if you get serious about it
-
. . . . . after inspecting the block he was afraid the sidewalls were too thin and would weaken the block instead of strengthening it.
Yes, the only blocks that I really think one might be improving upon are those castings which exhibit the internal skirting boss providing for the bolt pass-thru and spacer seating. :)
Scott.
-
Thank you for the replies everyone. I have been reading posts about using the billet speed works cross bolt conversion. As often happens, opinions on the subject varies widely. Some say not needed, others say must have at this power level (about 600 NA 98% street, no slicks just M/T street ETs). Others say it would weaken the block (C6ME, A scratch, no third web no "nubs" on the inside of the skirts). After looking at the block and a picture of them installed, it seems some of the main webbing, near the pan rail, needs to be machined away. The center 3 go all the way to the pan rail. I don't see how billet 2 bolt mains would do much, if anything. A main stud girdle seem to be a nightmare to do properly. Given what I've seen in the SBF world, it mostly means everything comes out at the same time when the block splits, I certainly could be wrong. I'd really appreciate more input on the subject so I can decide how to proceed with this block. Thanks in advance. Chuck (S)
-
I used those main caps on a 390 stroker, machined the block and installed them myself. Machining the block was a little tricky, but certainly any competent machinist could do it. I think that especially on the #2 and #4 journals, those caps are a big help. I also don't think that the walls of the block are too thin to support the crossbolts needed for those caps. I would find a different machinist if yours won't do it, and get it done.
Having said that, a good 390 block will handle 600 HP, as long as you don't drop the clutch or use slicks at the track. To me, the cross bolted caps in your application would be good insurance, but perhaps not strictly necessary.
If you do have a failure, it probably won't be like an SBF failure where the block splits. It is most likely to be a crack that develops between main and cam journals on the #2 and #4 mains, along the oil passage, that lets oil pressure leak out. That is where you would see a benefit from those cross bolted caps. A failure could also develop in one of the bores, maybe a split cylinder wall. I've never seen an FE block split in half like a small block.
-
Blair has posted before that cross bolting 2-4 is cost effective because you don't have to mess with the thrust bearing alignment like you do when doing all three and 2-4 are the ones that have trouble
-
I agree 2 and 4 are the most gain.
However I do not think that the stock blocks would be weaker with a billet cap. You are adding a path to kill harmonics and slow cap walk, supporting the pan rail in at least 2 points on each side, and the primary cap location is still the main bolts with properly fit cap registers.
That being said, as Jay said, most don’t need it if the caps fit right. I would say RPM and component weight will dictate whether you need to control cap walk
-
I also don't think that the walls of the block are too thin to support the crossbolts needed for those caps.
If only for the sake of observation, utilizing a "proper" cross-bolt block, after torquing the 1/2" main bolts, leave the side spacers out for now and hand thread the cross-bolts in for the center main, place a dial indicator so as to measure movement of the block skirts left and right relative to one another at the pan rail level and utilizing a dial meter torque wrench just start snugging up the 3/8" cross-bolts and watch the dial indicator vs. the torque meter value. :o
It can't be better with the originally non-cross-bolt intention blocks in a conversion; and with such I have witnessed cracking of the skirt about the bolt area after being put into service too!
But good steel replacement main caps, properly fitted, are definitely an improvement, particularly on the 2-bolt blocks, but also aid in the cross-bolt applications. ;)
Scott.
-
That example is a test of a vector that doesn’t happen unless the machining was bad.
My opinion is a billet cap still should have a hardened spacer to prevent competition between cap register and side rails. If done right location is handled by the register, damping effects by cross bolts
I am also going to try to add pins to my own 505 Genesis like the Pond, we will see how well the CnC will cooperate
In the end I think a pinned cap has more benefit than a cross bolt in most cases based on where it helps ground the cap
-
That example is a test of a vector that doesn’t happen unless the machining was bad.
The idea wasn't an effort to demonstrate that the skirts move excessively during bolt-up (particularly with poor workmanship), rather a simple effort to display the functional rigidity of that which is being anchored to. And the plane of motion is absolutely relevant in the attempt to hold the main cap squarely as the thrust forces and resultant movement attempted to being dampened are left to right, this attempting to spread this pan rail distance and resulting in splitting the block through the main saddles. :)
Scott.
-
In the end I think a pinned cap has more benefit than a cross bolt in most cases based on where it helps ground the cap
Now there are solid "pinned" and then there are hollow "Doweled" locating mechanisms and I'm not sure which you might be contemplating? :-\
But just for thought: Of the "pinned" type, utilizing say a solid ground steel pin of something less than 3/8", such as utilized in the 385 series blocks, and 5/16" in the BOSS 302, these engine examples with 4-bolt mains, in extreme applications they just loosen up and often are found just laying in the bottom of the oil pan! :o And then the problem with the "hollow dowels" is that it is impossible for one of "seamed & rolled" material makeup to be round and as for the "solid-round & ground" type it's still a challenge for them to be "perfectly" round, so in either case flexibility is the solution for reasonable fitment possibilities and still both generally act on limited surface areas. :)
Scott.
-
Those '64 blocks with the crossbolt bosses are handy to have around
-
+1 ;D
That reminds me: Back several decades ago Jim Dove was heavily into "roundy-round" racing with the FE; and he had been utilizing those 4.05" bore cross-bolt bossed blocks for cap conversions, but then was having to sleeve them down to 4". He had heard that we had some 352 blocks with the bosses but he had never seen such, so he came down to our shop just to see if this was true. In our discussions, where we had drawn the same conclusions, he explained that it had proven that trying to utilize the non bossed blocks "didn't work" (perhaps "as well" ::) ) and therefor was searching high and low for these 352's with the cross-bolt bosses and would pay a premium price (which he did! 8) ) for them. :)
Scott.
-
Regarding cap and skirt movement... While at Ford my specialty was NVH. We were chasing improvements to engine sound quality by stiffening up the bottom end structure.
Dyno tests with accelerometers mounted to caps and side skirts were eye-opening! To say the stuff moves around, at stock power levels, is an understatement :o I couldn't believe those results. How does our stuff even stay together??
-
All of the input from everyone is great information, it's appreciated. Component weight and RPM keep being mentioned, that makes sense. The crank is a Scat 4.250 "cast steel" (60 lbs.), the rods are Molnar H beam BBC (742g), the pistons will be Mahle Power Pk (519g). Brent is doing a solid roller cam for it. Target peak power 6200-6300 RPM, Max RPM 6600. Let me know if more data change your input or advice. My machinist (Gerold, at Brand Racing Engines, OKC) is very capable. Is machining the thrust bearing cap crazy difficult?
-
We have a 428 block that's been cross-bolted with BSW caps and 2 more in the works. Bostick Racing out of Yuma Arizona did the machine work, decked, align hone, blocked filled, clearance for main caps, for around 1300$. I know of two other guys that have had their blocks done at bostick, and both run 428's in stock eliminator running north of 600 hp over 7000 rpm with a jerico 4 speed. One of them won Class at Indy in C/S a couple years ago. That's with the stock 3.98 stroke not the 4.25 you'll be using though.
-
thrust bearing just requires more steps and doesn't really help the bottom end like 2-4 does , my own DT2 390 block is cross bolted with Pro Gram caps
-
In the end I think a pinned cap has more benefit than a cross bolt in most cases based on where it helps ground the cap
Now there are solid "pinned" and then there are hollow "Doweled" locating mechanisms and I'm not sure which you might be contemplating? :-\
But just for thought: Of the "pinned" type, utilizing say a solid ground steel pin of something less than 3/8", such as utilized in the 385 series blocks, and 5/16" in the BOSS 302, these engine examples with 4-bolt mains, in extreme applications they just loosen up and often are found just laying in the bottom of the oil pan! :o And then the problem with the "hollow dowels" is that it is impossible for one of "seamed & rolled" material makeup to be round and as for the "solid-round & ground" type it's still a challenge for them to be "perfectly" round, so in either case flexibility is the solution for reasonable fitment possibilities and still both generally act on limited surface areas. :)
Scott.
I am talking solid dowels, and being captured no way to fall in the pan. Will have 7/16 cross bolts as well, unlike the 385s.
-
I am talking solid dowels, and being captured no way to fall in the pan.
The concern wasn't the issue of the dowels actually being in the pan, as that in itself really isn't likely to be a problem; rather it's the fact that this provides evidence that the pins are being pushed and shaken, in motion to the point that they migrate out of position, and in the instances provided literally dropping out and therefore even if retained longitudinally are not capable of providing accurate location of the cap or significant support to the block in service. :)
Scott.
-
I have a 429 CJ in the works now and all are tight, can’t argue if you’ve seen it but I’d likely blame a non skirted block with all fasteners in a single plane or more likely balance issues before I would blame the pin design, especially on the external balance versions
That being said if on a standard block you do not like pins, do not like cross bolts, all you have left is component weight, balance and a tight register to keep the caps in place. At 600 ish HP and 6500 rpm, that can show serious fretting on 2 and 4. Just the way it is
Easy to throw stones but these things can work, sone guys can break a bowling ball in a sand box, and some guys can start at theoretical paralysis by analysis but cross bolt conversions have been around for years and a combination of a pin and a cross bolt is in every Pond block and if the cap and main design allows it, only adds to stability and transfer of harmonics
-
There are X bolt bossed C5AE A blocks, too. There is one for sale, here in Oregon.
-
As Frank stated some of the C5 blocks have the cross-bolt bosses like the C4 blocks. I've got a C5 that has been cross bolted.
Richard >>> FERoadster
-
There are C5AE-A blocks that are 390's, and 427's. Last center-oiler, with the change requiring a new casting number being the 4-bolt engine mounts. This one came out of a V-drive boat, had the C4 crank, nut n bolt rods and bumper tops- which, if you look closely, they worked
-
Just an update on availability of the BSW billet main caps. I spoke with them today. He said he would be doing a run of them in about 2 weeks. He said he would contact me when they are ready. Chuck (S)
-
to wc while observing skirt/block movement --did ford test or have ideas to reenforce blocks--or dampen the movement-- better balance-over bal/under bal / weight of assy.--- were any block fills
used to change/dampen movement-- any further work on subject
when gapp/rousch built the 427 sideoilers in greatest numbers was any added inspection for blocks for their builds/work
john-oldiron thanks for any comments
-
please refer reference #25 to reference #14 comments thanks wconley-john-oldiron
-
john-oldiron
Gapp-Roush was before my time there, but I never heard about any special things they did to their lower end structure on the 427 blocks. I did get to know Ray Paquet. He didn't do anything radical to the structure of his cross-bolted 427 blocks either (aside from rod journal diameter/width and oil system detailing). The lightest possible reciprocating components and selecting for most consistent cylinder wall thickness were his focus on the block side. There was a bit of block fill if I recall correctly, but that was mainly for cylinder wall stability.
Now as for general bottom end stability, nothing beats a bed plate. That's where the caps are tied together into a massive plate structure that makes up the bottom half of the block. It's pretty much a must-have for any modern max effort engine. Deep skirts with four or six bolts + cross bolting will get you a long way as well. Those solutions will pretty much kill the bottom end wobbling that we were seeing. You also want to lighten the reciprocating assembly as much as possible, and fully internally balance the engine. We ended up building a "world class" four cylinder demonstration engine with a bed plate and all of the above tricks. It was as good or better than anything out of Japan or Germany at the time. Of course it never made it to production >:( As far as block fill, I have noticed some modern engines have shortened water jackets for improved structure.
I doubt you'd find a modern Formula One engine without a bed plate. There are several production engines out there now that use them, especially if turbocharged. At Ford, the Ecoboost V-6 Engine in the latest Ford GT, along with some Ecoboost four cylinders got bed plates.
-
I don't know what a bed plate is...
So I did a search and found this...
Ford PowerStroke diesel.
Also....
Apparently bed plates are common in marine engines.
-
Yup - That's a good example on a block that wasn't originally designed for one. A bed plate ties all of the main caps and pan rails together with a stiff structure. Of course if you design the block from the get-go for a bed plate, it will end up cleaner and lower profile.
Here's one on a Honda K-Series four cylinder:
(https://i.ibb.co/20zYtF3g/Capture.png)
-
Non-skirted blocks lend themselves better to "bed-plate" conversions; and there have been a few made for the Small & Big Block Chevies over the years and even for the Small Block Ford.
Unfortunately most "conversion" executions aren't able to provide to the level that an original intention execution can, as most often the location and fastening to the block pan rails of the converted blocks tends to suffer. One also would want to utilize like materials (can't say for sure if the FE photo is of aluminum?) and avoid those long fasteners as presented in the FE conversion, as these begin to act with excessive elasticity vs. a shorter fastener; again part of the problem with conversion efforts. :)
Scott.
-
There Are Many Ways To Skin A Cat...Since You Are Using A Decent Block To Begin With, Why Not Do It In A Proven Way? Yes, One Of These Girdles Is A Bunch Of Work, But It Was Proven To Hold 761 HP On A Factory "S" Scratch 428 Block. (Yes, We Converted It To Screw In Core Plugs As Well, Just A Bit Stiffer, And Cooler, Than Brass) Not Everyone Has The Luxury Of Having A Factory Cast 428 Block Like Mine Was Either, And, While We Could Have Used A Set Of Aftermarket Caps, I Decided To Go The Extra Mile And Go With A Girdle. The Results Spoke For Themselves. Your Block Will Thank You For It, Your Machinist, Will Likely Come Up With A Dozen Reasons As To Why, "It Cant Be Done"... Every Bit As Important, Is The Precision Balancing Of The Rotating Assembly. You Will See In The Photo That We Did A "No Holes Balance" On My Build, Which Had Many Benefits As Well. As I Said, There Are Many Ways To Skin A Cat, But You Only Get To Do So Once, Be Sure And Do It Right.
-
This 4.0 litre V8 BMW design is purdy (444 bhp @ 7,500 rpm / M3 GTR race car):
-
And then, there is the air cooled VW or the Porsche flat six. Bedplates are also common on diesel engines like the earlier Ford Power Stroke.
-
"Bed Plate" engineering actually derived from antique stationary engines before they became transportable (this long before the automobile was invented ::) ) and they were huge monstrosities where a 10" bore would not have been considered large at all, and they were built-up in place starting with the foundation or "bed-plate" where the crankshaft was laid and then everything else was of pieces & parts assembled over it. :)
More recently, this engineering is still known in large stationary engines and the large marine diesel and steam engines. See: https://marineprogress.com/marine-engine-bed-plate/
Scott.
-
Interesting Scott! I did not know this ;D
-
And now for something completely different! This isn't really a bed plate. It's more of a die cast aluminum "cocoon" that ties into those long spindly main caps. This is the Ford 2.7L Ecoboost out of the F-150 and Bronco. Strange!!
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs5b3074/Capture.png)
-
A local machine shop/hardware store took one of those early 4.1 V8 Cadilac engines apart in mid late 80's and took that bolt-in Valley saddle (or whatever you call it) in the lifter valley and that block moved several inches as soon as the last bolt was removed and popped the valley saddle out of the block, regardless of trying they never could get the block square enough to get that valley saddle back in and the block back together
-
And now for something completely different!
Oh no! Don't look! You'll just suffer from nightmares, if you try to follow along with the logic of this engineering and the explanation for it's acceptance! :o
But, leave it to the "Promotional Dept". to try and make everyone want one! ::)
Yep, you said it:
Strange!!
Scott.
-
The Ford 2.7 is a bit of an odd duck. I hope the "unconventional" design proves to be durable. I have one in a 2020 Edge ST. So far so good at 40K miles. Chuck (S)
-
There Are Many Ways To Skin A Cat...Since You Are Using A Decent Block To Begin With, Why Not Do It In A Proven Way? Yes, One Of These Girdles Is A Bunch Of Work, But It Was Proven To Hold 761 HP On A Factory "S" Scratch 428 Block. (Yes, We Converted It To Screw In Core Plugs As Well, Just A Bit Stiffer, And Cooler, Than Brass) Not Everyone Has The Luxury Of Having A Factory Cast 428 Block Like Mine Was Either, And, We Could Have Used A Set Of Aftermarkey Caps, But I Decided To Go The Extra Mile And Go With The Girdle. The Results Spoke For Themselves. Your Block Will Thank You For It, Your Machinist, Will Likely Come Up With A Dozen Reasons As To Why, "It Cant Be Done"... Every Bit As Important, Is The Precision Balancing Of The Rotating Assembly. You Will See In The Photo That We Did A "No Holes Balance" On My Build, Which Had Many Benefits As Well. As I Said, There Are Many Ways To Skin A Cat, But You Only Get To Do So Once, Be Sure And Do It Right.
would there be any benefit to dowelling the girdle to the pan rail at several points around it?
neil.
-
would there be any benefit to dowelling the girdle to the pan rail at several points around it?
The entire challenge is the attempt to make whatever it might be that your trying to incorporate into the original structure "to be as one" with it. The problem becomes with the physical invasion into the original structure not engineered for such and the redirecting of stress loads to areas not intended for such, in the attempt to accomplish this; so in reality this effort often results in only weakening it. And then often the add-on structure still isn't sufficiently integrated anyway; as here for example, do you really think that the fastening intended for the retention of the oil pan are truly sufficient in their new responsibility of trying to arrest movement that has overcome other more significant engineering? :-\
So the next thought might be: Where were you planning to remove metal from the block in the effort to make it stronger? ???
Scott.
-
I pinned the girdle on my 445fe. Just two pins on each side. More so to keep it located. Maybe it was for shits and giggles but it made me feel better about it. Also did the program cross bolt caps as well and also the 1 and 5 billet caps. It's the only FE I have pinned the girdle on. The other 4 (2 mud bog FE's and 2 bracket FE's) were not pinned. Both mud bog engines are still alive and well although I have freshend both up . Can't say about the bracket engines, lost touch with those over the years.
As mentioned, To properly install the girdle does require some work. On the 445 I squared every surface off the crankshaft center line. Even the front and rear. You would be suprised just how outa square some of these old iron blocks are. I elected to do a line bore after getting the caps installed like I wanted and filling the block then square the pan rails for the girdle. Once the girdle was installed a touch up line hone was done.
Was this the perfect way to do it ? FM, I don't know but I felt warm and fuzzy about it. 154 1/8 mile passes and 16 1/4 mile passes. Best et of 5.41 (1/8) .
I will say I did rod bearings once but never touched the mains. Engine is out now setting in the corner ready for a winter tear down if I can manage to get to it. All my stuff has been in a holding pattern for the past 9 months. Should be getting back after it soon though. Atleast hoping. Life throws some strange shit at you sometimes. It's all about perseverance...
-
It can be amazing how far out of square the pan rail can be with the main caps. Took a bit of a cutting get it squared up to begin fitting the girdle, And I also cut about .030 off the girdle where it matches up with the front cover, as the cover hangs down below the newly trimmed pan rail. I just filled the gap with RTV so the front cover could float and center itself off the seal- worked out well. And when you think about it, there are about 20 of those 5/16 pan mounting holes, and the good girdle kit comes with studs and nuts, so it is tied together pretty well if it's installed with care- and if you also used a windage tray, that's another layer of shear. Ask one of your carpenter buddies about the capabilities of "shear"
-
Forgot I had a couple pics