FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: jayb on May 22, 2016, 01:16:45 PM
-
The purpose of this post is to gauge interest in these parts. No commitment to production has been
made yet, but the designs of the parts are mostly complete, and they could be brought to production
status within a year. If you may be interested in any of these parts, please respond to the poll at
the top of the post, or if you are not a forum member, email me at jayb@fepower.net. No commitment
is required at this point, of course, we are just trying to get a feel for interest from the FE
community.
Let's talk about the block first. I have recently been discussing this with the block manufacturer.
I'm excited about some special features of this block that have not been previously available to us
FE folks. I'm also interested because I have been surprised by the recent price increases of
aluminum FE blocks. Having some experience through my intake adapter projects with foundry and
machining costs, I don't see a good reason for these price increases. Yet a Shelby block is now all
the way up to $7250, and a Pond aluminum block is $5700. Not sure what the price on a BBM aluminum
block is, but I think at least $4500 (anybody know)?
The block manufacturer is trying to get an aluminum block to market for a selling price of
$4000. This is less expensive than any aluminum FE block has ever been, as far as I know. This would be
for a standard 427 style block with replaceable sleeves, sideoiler oiling system, standard bore spacing,
with bores up to 4.35". Steel crossbolted main caps and main studs would be included. This would
basically be the same as some of the aluminum blocks that are already out there, but at a more reasonable
price.
Now here's what gets my juices flowing on this. For an additional cost of about $1000, the block would also
be available with a raised cam and spread bore spacing, to allow big cubic inches. The cam would be
raised to eliminate the interference between the rod shoulders and the cam lobes, and would allow strokes
up to 4.750", assuming a 2.200" rod journal diameter like the existing stroker cranks out there, and an
aftermarket connecting rod. Special requirements for the raised cam version would be the use of a
429/460 timing chain with the standard FE timing gears, A specially machined version of my FE timing cover
with the removable front plate (for clearance to the raised top cam gear), and also a custom distributor
gear and spacer, to raise the distributor gear on the shaft, and provide a spacer between the bottom of the
raised gear and the ledge in the block. Stock FE distributors (minus the stock gear), oil pumps and oil
pump driveshafts would be retained.
The spread bore version would allow bore spacing up to 4.800", and bores up to 4.600". I have a little
experience with this kind of thing already, because I spread the bore spacing on the Shelby block
in my big SOHC to 4.700" and use a 4.500" bore. I also was able to fit a 4.600" stroke in the SOHC,
because there are no cam lobes to get in the way of the rod shoulders. This resulted in 585 cubic inches.
With this block, using a 4.750" stroke and 4.600" bore, cubic inches would be 632! These dimensions are
the same as the very popular 632" big block Chevrolet. How does a 632" engine in your 390 Mustang or
Torino sound?
Special requirements for the spread bore version would be special head gaskets for whatever bore spacing was
used (which either I or the block manufacturer would make available, probably SCE or Cometic), custom pistons,
and in some cases custom cylinder heads. Any cylinder head with factory dimensions would work on bore spacings
up to 4.700" with a 4.500" bore, using special pistons (like what I did with my big SOHC), but going past those
dimensions would require special heads.
A tall deck version of the block is also being considered, but may be less attractive for a variety of reasons,
including tooling cost for that version. Since a 4.75" stroke and a 6.625" rod will fit with the stock FE deck
height, it doesn't seem like a tall deck offers a lot of advantages. And it does make for a lot of complications
(special sleeves, special intake, special distributor, heavier rod, etc). However, since this is an aluminum
block with sleeves, a simple spacer on top of the block deck, coupled with longer sleeves, could be used to
increase the deck height. Matching spacers would have to be used between the heads and the intake and on the
end rails of the block.
The heads and intake are my part of this project. I have been thinking about this for a long time, because
the basic FE cylinder head architecture is outdated, and is the major limiting factor in producing big
horsepower levels. But because of the complexity of the FE intake, where pushrods, water jacket,
distributor and valve cover rail all go through the intake manifold, it is difficult to change the basic
design, so we have been stuck up to now with the basic FE architecture.
When I designed my intake adapters, I did both the medium riser and high riser/tunnel port versions. The
high riser/tunnel port versions were designed as more or less a blank canvas, so that I could put the valve
cover rail and ports anywhere I wanted, to satisfy the requirements for both high risers and tunnel ports,
and any custom cylinder head that may come along (for example, an Edelbrock Pro-Port head).
My cylinder head design will work with a special version of the high riser/tunnel port intake adapter. I
don't want to say a whole lot about the heads yet, except that they will feature inline valves like a
standard FE, repositioned and radically raised intake ports, and an option for radically raised exhaust ports
(with standard exhaust port locations available for shock tower cars). They will require longer than stock
valves, custom pushrods, and a special intake rocker, but will retain the stock exhaust rockers and stock rocker
shafts. The rocker stands will be incorporated into the cylinder heads for rigidity. Stock FE valve covers
will be retained. All ports will be CNC ported, with different size valves and ports available to match the
application, from a 390 inch engine all the way up to a big cube engine. I am shooting for maximum flow numbers
in the 475-500 cfm range, using the biggest valves and ports that I am planning. But even set up with the
smaller ports and valves, the ratio of flow to port cross sectional area will be significantly better than a
stock FE port, because the radically redesigned intake port will be much more efficient than a stock-architecture
FE port.
Finally, the casting will be done so that I can machine the heads for different bore spacings, to match up with
the different bore spacings available from the block described previously.
The intake adapter will be machined to fit the pushrod and port requirements of these heads. I am working on
four potential intakes that will fit on the intake adapter used with these heads, as follows:
- Individual runner crossram style intake, EFI only, fits under stock hood
- Plenum style intake with a front facing throttle body, EFI only, fits under stock hood
- Single 4 in either 4150 or 4500 style, two piece and split down the middle for easy porting, carb or EFI, will
not fit under stock hood
- 2X4 sheet metal style intake, fully machined (not cast), carb or EFI, will not fit under stock hood.
One thing to note here is that, so far at least, I don't have a carbed version that will fit under the stock hood.
The intake ports are raised so much that the additional height of the carburetor on top of the intake makes
for a package that is difficult to fit. I may be able to come up with a design for this at some point, but it
would probably compromise performance somewhat. The EFI versions get around the hood clearance issue; no carb.
I'm shooting for pricing of about $2000 for a pair of the bare heads, plus about $500 for the longer, hollow-stem
valves and $400 for the intake rockers. This is with no valve job or hand porting done. I sell the intake
adapters for $689, and I would expect the intake manifolds to range from $500 to $1500, depending on which type.
So the complete package, with heads, valves, intake rockers, intake adapter, and intake manifold would be in the
$4100 - $5100 range.
With these new heads and intakes I think you could build an easy 700 HP 390 stroker, a big cube 900 HP streetable
FE, or an 1100 HP race engine.
On the heads and intakes, I'm about halfway between pipe dream and full production. I'm getting ready to start
3D printing copies of the head design for flow testing of the port designs, and I may try to CNC a billet version
of the heads, in two pieces that can be bolted or welded together, for some actual dyno testing before I go for
the tooling to get them made. I don't have the designs for the intakes finished yet, but I'm working on them.
I don't have any control on the block; that is totally up to the block manufacturer, and all I can do
is advise.
Again I must stress that lots of things could come up that would cause me to abandon this project (not the least
of which is the cost), and I'm sure the block manufacturer feels the same way. But I'm pretty excited
about this and really do want to bring these projects to conclusion. However, I could really use a little
feedback on how desirable you guys think these things are. So if you are interested in something like this, or
have any comments, pro or con, please post them here or let me know via email. Thanks, Jay
-
Wow!!!! Soon as I win the lotto!!! 8) very cool Jay!!!
-
it all sounds awesome to me but in my reality the standard block and standard block heads would most likely be what i could work with. i think its all a great idea.
i for sure be on the list for a block, .
cant wait to see where all this goes.
-
I'd like to see an FE Tunnel Ram made again for medium riser and/or Cobra Jet heads.
-
A set of heads that come with a template to do a final port for either truck/GT headers or CJ/early would be nice.
-
A set of heads that come with a template to do a final port for either truck/GT headers or CJ/early would be nice.
That would be pretty easy, use a universal outlet that would be hand ported to whichever exhaust port you wanted. I could also offer them either way, as a machining option.
-
If they can do an aluminum block that much cheaper than the current offerings, is there the possibility of offering a lower priced cast iron 427 block? Perhaps something that is geared towards restorations or replacement versus an all out race piece?
-
Sounds very interesting! As far as a carbureted solution that will package under a hood, I wonder if Weber side-drafts can work at those CFM?
(http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/05/GrandSportWeberIntake_1000.jpg)
As far as a 600-inch FE block, you're going to be running into some scary inertial loads combined with relatively thin load-carrying walls. At Ford we worked with Porsche Design on the first Duratec V6 engines, which were touted as the most space-efficient designs ever. Porsche was scared of the design and threatened to sue us if we produced it! Ultimately a full bottom-end girdle with cast-in nodular caps was needed to keep that bottom end together. Hopefully the designer (Todd Buttermore?) knows all of this :-X
You already know how big this project is, so you're half-way home! An FE head that can run with the big dogs may just find a fan base :) , as long as the block is up to the task.
-
If they can do an aluminum block that much cheaper than the current offerings, is there the possibility of offering a lower priced cast iron 427 block? Perhaps something that is geared towards restorations or replacement versus an all out race piece?
I haven't discussed that with the manufacturer, but I think they may do aluminum only. Both the foundries that I work with on my intake adapters do aluminum only; cast iron is a whole different animal.
-
A big cube FE block would definitely get my interest, as would a head/intake package that could flow 450+cfm. I'll keep watching this space for sure.
-
Sounds very interesting! As far as a carbureted solution that will package under a hood, I wonder if Weber side-drafts can work at those CFM?
As far as a 600-inch FE block, you're going to be running into some scary inertial loads combined with relatively thin load-carrying walls.
Bill, I think the Webers might fit, but the intake configuration would have to be specific to those carbs, and they are so expensive that I don't think it would be worth it to tool an intake just for them; my sense is that I wouldn't be able to sell enough of that manifold to justify the tooling cost. A similar EFI setup would be a lot cheaper and would be more attractive as a result, I think.
On the inertial loading, I think I've already been there with my big SOHC. The pistons in that engine are heavy, the stroke is 4.6", and the sleeves are 0.090" thick. Plus I'm spinning that engine to over 7500 RPM. I'm sure its not super rigid at those kinds of engine speeds, but it lives, and makes pretty good power...
-
My interest lies in two aspects.
Cubes for a future race engine and a nice light ish weight fuel injected deal for my mustang that has a bit of engine room appeal.
-
As far as the blocks go, the price and availability are going to drive everything. Robert had QC problems with the previous foundry. He is working with another one as we speak. Shelby was out of stock for a long time and BBM is out of stock. Pricing has gone up on each block that's currently available and from what I've seen in the past with developing the new aftermarket Cleveland blocks, the "projected price" is always much lower than what they finally come out to be.
Speaking of Tod Buttermore, he contacted me last week, talking about a new block project. I expressed those same sentiments to him.
Concerning the raised cam tunnel/larger bore spacing, you start to get away from the stock appearance of an FE and I don't know how many guys would go for that. I would think that scenario would be a low volume seller.
I say go for it all, but it's not my money on the line....hahaha
-
Brent, thanks for your thoughts on this. For sure a big cube block and heads to match would not be of as much interest as the standard stuff, but that's to be expected in any endeavor like this; as you go higher in performance, your market segment shrinks. I'm hoping there are enough hard core FE bracket and street fans to justify some quantity of these parts.
As far as appearance goes, the appeal to me is that even if you went really big cube, you would still look a lot like a standard FE, with the same overall outside dimensions, same valve covers, same water pump, distributor, etc. etc. The big difference in appearance, externally, would be the intake manifold, or intake and exhaust in the case of the raised exhaust port version. I'm not sure how much that would bother people; after all there are a lot of different appearing intakes for FEs as it is. I guess if I end up in production with this stuff we will see...
-
On the raised cam tunnel version, would the rotating kit be all custom- read high dollar- or would there be a more cost effective option? I'd love to have a 632 but if the rotating kit is 6000$ plus it might be hard to justify the added cost.
-
I've mulled the looks like a duck question over to myself and come to the conclusion that I'm good with it.
Although I respect the heck out of guys that can ( like ss ) make power with mostly stock ish stuff, that ain't me.
Life got to in the way during the middle of my life and I'll never catch up.
So I'm just out to have fun.
-
Here is the problem.....
sure sure, cheaper block, cool! Bigger bore, cool! raised cam tunnel, cool!
Sadly a $20,000 engine just turned into a $50,000 engine.
From my blue collar perspective, I'd rather see that aluminum casting skill making parts for the "Every man"
Sure sure, cast aluminum 427 blocks that is neat.
But.... cast cheap usable SOHC heads, chain covers, etc as well. How many people have day dreamed about building one of those? If you could get it to where they were reasonably priced, they'd be selling like hotcakes (I know If I could score a SOHC heads/cams/intake/chain cover for $6k I'd be seriously tightening the belt and saving money, heck I'd start rationing cigarettes likes it's Moscow 1984). This could help finance the more experimental stuff that would benefit the .001% of racers.
Just my humble point of view..... either way, good luck, any FE parts is good stuff I say.
-
This sounds really ambitious. I like the idea.
On the 4.8" bore space version how would the head castings be able to accommodate both that and the stock bore space? There is not that much water jacket area to be making walls .170" thicker. Would the cam need to be a longer custom one? Main bearings spread apart needing a custom crank?
If so it'd be better to make it all 4.9" and just be able to use off the shelf 460 cranks. But by then it may make send to just go 5.0" bore space or larger and we could have 824" Cobra Jets ! ;D
I am not sure the world needs cheap Cammers, it is kind of nice to get to see them because they are sort of exclusive. Excludes paupers like me anyways. I would hate them to become a budget choice for replacing 350's.
-
Another somewhat normal block option would be welcome. It seems we have more block suppliers than at any time in FE history, yet none of them are able to consistently fill demand (that comment coming form a guy who cannot keep heads in stock should carry some real weight...). My current supplier simply cannot provide a constant supply when I need it.
The radical heads are a very cool idea - and I have gone over variations on that subject repeatedly with Marcella and a couple others. Problem there will be market volume. The Pontiac guys are a great example. They have a couple really radical alternatives that flat out scream with potential - yet the reported actual sales volumes are amazingly low - far fewer than you might suspect. I would willingly share our ideas because at this point I can promise that I am not going down that road for a very long time.
-
Barry, I had planned to get with you, and Blair, at some point before I started any head tooling. I'm not the guy building all the engines, so I'd want to make sure that the head modifications I'm planning would be something you could work with...
-
Here is the problem.....
sure sure, cheaper block, cool! Bigger bore, cool! raised cam tunnel, cool!
Sadly a $20,000 engine just turned into a $50,000 engine.
From my blue collar perspective, I'd rather see that aluminum casting skill making parts for the "Every man"
Sure sure, cast aluminum 427 blocks that is neat.
But.... cast cheap usable SOHC heads, chain covers, etc as well. How many people have day dreamed about building one of those? If you could get it to where they were reasonably priced, they'd be selling like hotcakes (I know If I could score a SOHC heads/cams/intake/chain cover for $6k I'd be seriously tightening the belt and saving money, heck I'd start rationing cigarettes likes it's Moscow 1984). This could help finance the more experimental stuff that would benefit the .001% of racers.
Just my humble point of view..... either way, good luck, any FE parts is good stuff I say.
Drew, there is no such thing as "Everyman" new FE parts. The problem is market size. If we were running LS engines the market would be 5,000 pairs of heads per year, so the tooling cost gets amortized over a very large number of castings, plus the unit price of a cast and machined part goes way down in volume. New engine parts for FEs are just going to be a lot more expensive because the market is just not that big.
Also, I think your math is way off; where you got $50K is beyond me. With a $5K block, a $2500 billet crank, $1500 billet rods, and $1500 custom pistons, plus rings and bearings, you'd have your 632" short block for $11K. Heads and intake as described in my original post, let's say the expensive setup at $5500. Add rocker shafts, exhaust rockers, timing cover, timing set, nice roller cam and valve train, oil pump and pan, etc., plus machine work, you'd have a $21K engine that might make 1000 HP. Sure, that's more than a 1000 HP big block Chevrolet would cost to put together, but I think that's probably a lot cheaper than making that kind of power with an FE using parts that are available now.
I think these parts would be an excellent value proposition compared to what's out there now. A cheaper block is good, right? A cylinder head with modern architecture for the same price as the ones that are available now would also be good, right? I don't get your complaints - Jay
-
This sounds really ambitious. I like the idea.
On the 4.8" bore space version how would the head castings be able to accommodate both that and the stock bore space? There is not that much water jacket area to be making walls .170" thicker. Would the cam need to be a longer custom one? Main bearings spread apart needing a custom crank?
If so it'd be better to make it all 4.9" and just be able to use off the shelf 460 cranks. But by then it may make send to just go 5.0" bore space or larger and we could have 824" Cobra Jets ! ;D
I am not sure the world needs cheap Cammers, it is kind of nice to get to see them because they are sort of exclusive. Excludes paupers like me anyways. I would hate them to become a budget choice for replacing 350's.
Tom, you have no idea how ambitious this would end up being LOL!
The head casting design I have could be machined for either stock bore spacing or the spread bore spacing. When you start doing the math, its not that big of a difference. To go to a 4.8" bore spacing, you are increasing spacing by 0.170". So, bores 2, 3, 6, and 7 each have to move towards the ends of the block by 0.085", and bores 1, 4, 5, and 8 have to move towards the ends by 0.255". So, worst case move is about a quarter inch. Not that big of a deal. Its not a problem for my head design, and the block manufacturer thinks this is no problem if the water jacket cores are designed correctly.
Cams would be stock FE cams. Lifters would be stock FE lifters. Pushrods would be custom, and some of them would be angled. As far as that goes I'm thinking so what, angled pushrods are the norm for canted valve blocks, and even inline valve engines like small block Mopars. And custom pushrods are not that expensive, maybe $300 for a set.
Cranks would use the standard FE spacing. On the outside cylinders, the center of the piston would be offset from the rod by 0.255", as compared to how they are now. That's over a 4.6" bore, and I don't think it would be a problem. It hasn't been a problem on my spread bore SOHC, although the offset at the outside cylinders is only 0.105" on that engine. A custom rod might be able to address some of that offset anyway.
Basically, most of the stock FE stuff would fit as is.
-
I just put $100 bucks in my piggy bank. Gonna start saving now..
-
Your big stroker SOHC has a billet crank and rods, which goes WAY beyond what most people would invest. I think that is the only way to get the rotating weight down enough, using scalloped counterweights, hollowed throws etc, to make a stroker that big, live a decent life. No bracket racer or street guy is going to spend that kind of cash unless he's got a no cash limit lifestyle. There are very few of those types. Just my opinion, but this sort of stuff is aimed at Pro Mod type of racing, and none of those guys would touch an FE because there are better engines to make the power. With all the specialty stuff needed for a raised deck, spread bore, raised cam tunnel block, I'd guess that it would kill the vast majority of sales.
A decently priced, stock type block that is AVAILABLE, on the other hand, would be a good seller. The fact that BBM sold out so quickly proves that. It's insanely frustrating that there are no less than FOUR FE block producers, yet no blocks are readily available. For all the promises made by BBM to support the FE community, they were available for what, a few months, then nothing? Not slamming BBM, they made a great product that is desperately needed. The key word there though is made...past tense. Now we're all back to square one with no word on future production. ::)
I do like the idea of a minimally spread bore block, one that can be used with current aftermarket heads. A set of Pro Ports could be offset machined to work with something like that, but you'd still need, at a minimum, a T&D Race system with offset rockers/lifters to work around the ports for it to be optimal and worth the effort. Still, that would have potential and be something that guys could work with without a 100% custom top end.
A radical head might be something that would sell, but also to a limited audience. A head that could have the ports raised with a better angle of entry, much like a tunnelport WITHOUT the pushrod going through the middle of the port, would be cool. It would also require a special intake though, not to mention some fancy thinking on lifter placement and cam design. I'm not even sure if that's possible given the placement of the cam bearing supports. Lots of people are removing shock towers now, so the raised exhaust port is less and less of an issue with many people.
-
OK Doug, so let's think about this a different way. Let's say you have a 390 stroker engine already, but want some more cubes. You buy the offset bore spacing block, and use the 4.7" bore spacing, and a 4.5" bore, and use your existing heads. With a 4.25" stroke crank you now have a 540" FE, picking up nearly 100 cubes. You would need the block, a 460 timing chain, a special distributor gear, different pushrods, the timing cover, and custom pistons, all of which would probably be in the neighborhood of $2500 plus the price of the block. Same heads, same valvetrain, same crank and rods, same everything else. There are lots of options for using parts you might already have to pick up a lot of cubic inches with that spread bore block.
By the way, I think your concern about reciprocating assembly weight is misplaced. The 4.60" crank in my 585" SOHC weighs 68 pounds; it is HEAVY. The rods aren't lightweight either, and the pistons are pretty heavy due to the dome. I was running 7700 RPM through the traps at Drag Week last year, and with all the abuse that crank has taken over the years, it is still rock solid. On the other hand, one engine explosion with my 46 pound 4.500" Scat billet crank, with all the lightening and scalloping done to that one, and it is cracked and now junk. I won't ever get a crank lightened like that again...
-
Beyond whatever cost increases there are in building bigger engines with more power, where I see a problem is the cost associated in building a car to take it. As it is, warmed-over OEM-style engines already exceed the ability of the classic chassis to put the grunt to the asphalt, even with typical traction aids and frame stiffeners. Antiquated is the operating term here. All-new custom chassis are going be necessary, and at that point you are creating a different segment of the hobby. There's no point to look "stock appearing" if everything else is totally tubular, dude.
The only piece on the list I'm even remotely interested is a cost-effective, lightweight block. With that, I'd stick a stock 3.78 crank in it and build a winder that hopefully won't jettison me off the road every time I tickle the throttle.
-
On the raised cam tunnel version, would the rotating kit be all custom- read high dollar- or would there be a more cost effective option? I'd love to have a 632 but if the rotating kit is 6000$ plus it might be hard to justify the added cost.
If you wanted to take advantage of the raised cam tunnel I think you would have to go full custom. But, if you went for example with the spread bore block and used a 4.375" stroke crank and rods that were already available, the only significant cost would be the custom pistons. 4.50" bore and 4.375" stroke is 556 cubic inches, and 4.60" bore with 4.375" stroke is 582 cubic inches. Also maybe if the block became available Scat or somebody might make a less expensive 4.75" crank available at some point. One can always hope ;D
-
OK Doug, so let's think about this a different way. Let's say you have a 390 stroker engine already, but want some more cubes. You buy the offset bore spacing block, and use the 4.7" bore spacing, and a 4.5" bore, and use your existing heads. With a 4.25" stroke crank you now have a 540" FE, picking up nearly 100 cubes. You would need the block, a 460 timing chain, a special distributor gear, different pushrods, the timing cover, and custom pistons, all of which would probably be in the neighborhood of $2500 plus the price of the block. Same heads, same valvetrain, same crank and rods, same everything else. There are lots of options for using parts you might already have to pick up a lot of cubic inches with that spread bore block.
A 4.25 crank will fit a stock type block. Why would a raised cam tunnel be needed for this combo? This is the reason I thought a spread bore block might be viable with existing heads; less custom parts equals less cost. To me anyway, if you're going to buy an aftermarket block, taking advantage of a redesigned one with offset bores could gain you a lot of cubic inches while being able to utilize all the available aftermarket and stock stuff that is still around, and that is a win/win situation. However, I do see the argument that at this point, on a max effort build, the extra cash outlay for the needed pieces required for the raised cam would be negligible, but it eliminates being able to use stuff that the average racer/street guy already has.
By the way, I think your concern about reciprocating assembly weight is misplaced. The 4.60" crank in my 585" SOHC weighs 68 pounds; it is HEAVY. The rods aren't lightweight either, and the pistons are pretty heavy due to the dome. I was running 7700 RPM through the traps at Drag Week last year, and with all the abuse that crank has taken over the years, it is still rock solid. On the other hand, one engine explosion with my 46 pound 4.500" Scat billet crank, with all the lightening and scalloping done to that one, and it is cracked and now junk. I won't ever get a crank lightened like that again...
Just my feelings, but if I were going billet, Scat would not be my first choice. Still, it's hard to blame the crank when it wasn't the piece that failed.
My stock 3.78" steel crank weighs about 7 pounds more than your 4.60" crank, so I would consider your SOHC crank fairly light. However, adding another .150" to your crank would make it heavier, and weight/long stroke does not like high RPMs. Not to mention the increased side loading. I think trying to turn those RPMs with the increased stroke would lead to lots of reliability and maintenance issues unless serious work were given to the entire reciprocating assembly as well as the bottom end of the block. Thick main webbing and special caps may allow 4 down bolts, or splayed bolts, which would be much better than the 2 in the FE design. The Shelby block overcomes this shortcoming with the 4 crossbolts. Even then, regular tear downs, inspections and mag or X-rays are the norm for people pushing strokes and RPMs to the limits that are being discussed here. I'm only talking about max effort builds because anybody that's building an FE for the street would likely not be interested in this sort of thing unless they had buckets of cash to throw around.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for seeing extreme FE builds of any kind, but we're talking about viability for sales, and I just don't think it's there for the extreme end of this. I wouldn't mind being wrong about that though :)
-
It has been about 10 years since Barry R built the Hot Rod mag Genesis FE.
How many blocks have been cast since that time?
I'm sure some people would be surprised at how many have actually been cast.
The regular stuff will sell out in no time.
The odd ball stuff, well lots of odd ball stuff still sitting on shelves. ;)
I'm still saving up for the water pump adapters. ::)
-
What about..... Tunnel Port stuff!? I know the market would be small for stuff like that. But no one has made that stuff in some time now. Have you given that a thought Jay? I'm sure you have and I know it would be PITA to manufacture that. Just a thought ::)
But other than that. I would like to see some of this trick stuff built. May not be for me but very cool and really put a FE on the map for sure! I like the 460 timing chain set up. Some off the shelf goods are a nice add to a custom block. You really got me thinking about all this.
-
A 4.25 crank will fit a stock type block. Why would a raised cam tunnel be needed for this combo? This is the reason I thought a spread bore block might be viable with existing heads; less custom parts equals less cost. To me anyway, if you're going to buy an aftermarket block, taking advantage of a redesigned one with offset bores could gain you a lot of cubic inches while being able to utilize all the available aftermarket and stock stuff that is still around, and that is a win/win situation. However, I do see the argument that at this point, on a max effort build, the extra cash outlay for the needed pieces required for the raised cam would be negligible, but it eliminates being able to use stuff that the average racer/street guy already has.
A raised cam tunnel would definitely not be needed in this case. But I've made the assumption that there would be basically two casting options for the blocks, the standard version, and the spread bore / raised cam version. If there were to be a spread bore only, or a raised cam only version, I think that special tooling would be required in each case. Then the tooling cost starts to get prohibitively expensive, the price of the blocks goes up, etc. etc. I'm not 100% sure about this; I will have to check with the block manufacturer to see if it would be possible to machine a spread bore block for either the raised cam or standard cam version. If that would be possible, then the only additional cost would be for additional machining programs. But I don't know if that would work. Frankly, I would like the idea of a spread bore, standard cam location block from the perspective of the SOHC, because raising the cam tunnel pretty much rules out an SOHC build. But I'm just happy that the manufacturer is even willing to consider something like this. It opens up a whole range of possibilities that aren't currently available for us FE guys...
-
What about..... Tunnel Port stuff!? I know the market would be small for stuff like that. But no one has made that stuff in some time now. Have you given that a thought Jay? I'm sure you have and I know it would be PITA to manufacture that. Just a thought ::)
But other than that. I would like to see some of this trick stuff built. May not be for me but very cool and really put a FE on the map for sure! I like the 460 timing chain set up. Some off the shelf goods are a nice add to a custom block. You really got me thinking about all this.
Hey Wes, you may recall that we talked about this several years ago, and you were the one who suggested to me to spread the bore spacing on an FE block to get more cubic inches. Look how this has ended up LOL!
On the tunnel port stuff, I have thought about it, but in order to justify tooling and machining costs for a set of heads, I think I need to be convinced that I could sell 100 sets. I'm not sure that market is there for the tunnel port heads. Of course, I'm not sure if it is there for the heads I've described here either, which of course is the reason for the post...
-
I will take a guess.
Including my block, less than 500 in 10 years.
-
On the tunnel port heads, I believe Dennis at Dsc was was talking of doing a run of a hundred on the other fe forum a little while ago.
-
Wow Jay! I'm impressed like all get out at this ambitious project which is a natural extension of your previous work and parts that you designed, built and sold. Thumbs up and best of luck on this wonderful set of ideas!
-
I guess I don't understand the need for special tooling on a spread bore block. Nothing has changed except the need to move the boring bar slightly more for each boring operation. But I'm not a machinist or an engineer, so maybe that's wrong. Or maybe this is a high tech operation with all 8 bores, or 4 at a time, done at once like the big auto manufacturers do?
I really like the idea of a spread bore aluminum block with replaceable liners. The Shelby block is just too damned expensive for my tastes.
One question; what is an "angled" pushrod?
-
Just to give you an example, when I remachined the bore centers on my Shelby block and moved the bores, I broke through the aluminum bore and into the water jacket area on three of the eight cylinders. This caused me a lot of trouble. What you would like is to have sufficient wall thickness on the block to allow the offset boring without breaking into the water jacket.
As described to me by the block manufacturer, in order to ensure this the casting patterns for the cores at the ends of the block would have to be changed, to allow room for the bores to be spread and still have sufficient water jacket at each end of the block. This would bulge the water jackets out a little at the front and rear of the block. All mounting surfaces would remain the same though, as I understand it, so the overall length of the block from the bellhousing mounting surface to the water pump and timing cover mounting surface would remain the same.
All I mean by angled pushrod is that the pushrod would be at an angle coming up from the lifter to the rocker, instead of coming straight up like they do on a standard FE.
-
I will take a guess.
Including my block, less than 500 in 10 years.
I'd be surprised if that many sold; I think selling 20-25 per year would be a reasonable number to shoot for.
I set up the costs and pricing on my FE intake adapter so that if I could sell 100 of them, I could break even on the tooling and manufacturing costs. Turned out it took me closer to 130 to break even, but I have sold more than that now, so at least I haven't gotten screwed on that deal ;D
I would try to set the heads up so that I could break even at 50 pairs (100 heads).
-
What about..... Tunnel Port stuff!? I know the market would be small for stuff like that. But no one has made that stuff in some time now. Have you given that a thought Jay? I'm sure you have and I know it would be PITA to manufacture that. Just a thought ::)
But other than that. I would like to see some of this trick stuff built. May not be for me but very cool and really put a FE on the map for sure! I like the 460 timing chain set up. Some off the shelf goods are a nice add to a custom block. You really got me thinking about all this.
Hey Wes, you may recall that we talked about this several years ago, and you were the one who suggested to me to spread the bore spacing on an FE block to get more cubic inches. Look how this has ended up LOL!
On the tunnel port stuff, I have thought about it, but in order to justify tooling and machining costs for a set of heads, I think I need to be convinced that I could sell 100 sets. I'm not sure that market is there for the tunnel port heads. Of course, I'm not sure if it is there for the heads I've described here either, which of course is the reason for the post...
I do remember that convo years ago! Like if it was yesterday Jay. Glad a guy like yourself is actually able to do some cool stuff like that. A 1/4" is nothing really but adds a lot of CI. I really hope to see this happen.
I understand the TP situation for sure. Might be a tough sell for sure. It would be neat to see happen as well. Times are tough and not getting better to do these kinds of things.
I'm waiting to see your heads here....
-
Let's say you have a 390 stroker engine already, but want some more cubes. You buy the offset bore spacing block, and use the 4.7" bore spacing, and a 4.5" bore, and use your existing heads. With a 4.25" stroke crank you now have a 540" FE, picking up nearly 100 cubes. You would need the block, a 460 timing chain, a special distributor gear, different pushrods, the timing cover, and custom pistons, all of which would probably be in the neighborhood of $2500 plus the price of the block. Same heads, same valvetrain, same crank and rods, same everything else. There are lots of options for using parts you might already have to pick up a lot of cubic inches with that spread bore block.
OK, when it comes to an affordable upgrade for someone that's already running a 390 stroker, this is an interesting proposition. Of course, "affordable" is a loaded term but in my view this is reasonable.
-
Just to give you an example, when I remachined the bore centers on my Shelby block and moved the bores, I broke through the aluminum bore and into the water jacket area on three of the eight cylinders. This caused me a lot of trouble. What you would like is to have sufficient wall thickness on the block to allow the offset boring without breaking into the water jacket.
As described to me by the block manufacturer, in order to ensure this the casting patterns for the cores at the ends of the block would have to be changed, to allow room for the bores to be spread and still have sufficient water jacket at each end of the block. This would bulge the water jackets out a little at the front and rear of the block. All mounting surfaces would remain the same though, as I understand it, so the overall length of the block from the bellhousing mounting surface to the water pump and timing cover mounting surface would remain the same.
All I mean by angled pushrod is that the pushrod would be at an angle coming up from the lifter to the rocker, instead of coming straight up like they do on a standard FE.
I se no problem to machine a block with standard bore centers out of a block cast for the bigger bore centers. If the cylinders are siamesed. you just end upp with thicker front and rear cylinderwalls on the outer cylinders on a std bc block maby you end up with some more maching boring out the cylinders for the lining.
What im saying is i see no need for casting a special block for standard borecenter just a high or low cam block
-
You may be right, but these are complex designs and there are often things that you and I wouldn't understand about it. In any case, though, I agree that if one casting could be used to machine a standard block and a spread bore / raised cam block, it would be very attractive.
-
Yes it have to do with how they indicate the casting for machining and things
like that for serial production. But teoreticaly it would be possible just leave
some more material in the cylinders.
More wasted material and maby an extra pass per cylinder boring them out
but for a few hundred blocks.....
I can understand if you make tens or hundred of thousands of blocks that
you cut costs with different castings with minor changes. And if its a big
foundry they probably think in those volumes.
Or maby im completly wrong
-
As much as I want an Aluminum block and basically everything else new, I'm finding it harder to justify with age. We can make all the power a sane person needs with the current FE pieces that are available. Certainly, more options and cheaper are attractive but I don't see many young guys falling over themselves to buy FE stuff. The market is going to continue to get smaller IMO and the exotic stuff will be a tough seller.
That said, I applaud your creativity and willingness to take on a lot of challenging projects then share with the FE world. I'd be interested in a std Aluminum block if it was available next week however a year or so down the road, finances and life issues may dictate otherwise. This will be an interesting thread to follow.
-
So when you say "tooling", you're referring to the casting cores? I was picturing the machining tools. The guys who make the casting cores are the true artists here.
My iron SOG block has siamesed cylinders with thick walls, and the water jacket at the ends gets a little narrow. If it were simply offset bored at the numbers discussed here, the outer walls would start to get thin on the end cylinders, so I can see the need for special cores and bulging the ends of the block. You also have to leave enough bore wall to support the liner and avoid the water issue. On an iron block it wouldn't be as much of an issue, but a replaceable liner aluminum block would be different.
Does the Pond block have replaceable liners? I think they have to be bored out if I'm not mistaken.
-
We can make all the power a sane person needs with the current FE pieces that are available.
Sane? When did sanity enter into this equation? Might as well chuck the whole idea if that's the criteria.
Everyone here who is sane, let's see a show of hands...
*crickets*
That's what I thought :)
-
So when you say "tooling", you're referring to the casting cores? I was picturing the machining tools. The guys who make the casting cores are the true artists here.
Does the Pond block have replaceable liners? I think they have to be bored out if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, sorry I was imprecise, I was referring to the foundry tooling. These are the forms that make the sand cores that the aluminum is poured into. The foundries refer to them as tooling. The CNC guys refer to their cutters as tooling. I'm used to switching contexts mid-stream now, but I used to be pretty confused by the same terminology for different "tools" also.
The Pond aluminum block does have replaceable liners; as far as I know all aluminum blocks do. To remove the liners you put the block in an oven at 300 degrees F and they pop right out; no boring required. Press fit at room temperature is only about 0.001". As far as I'm concerned, having an aluminum block with replaceable liners is a huge advantage over a cast iron block. Of course, maybe I wouldn't feel that way if I didn't wreck so much stuff ;D ;D
-
Pond block has replaceable sleeves.
I think that if Jay's Fe power blocks are similar in strength and quality as a pond block ,then he will have no troubles selling 25+ a year. Infact I think that once it's determined to be a nice quality piece that the first 40 or 50 would move pretty quick. I'd for sure be on the list and I bet a few engine builders would have more than one or two with there names on them.
JMO.
I do like the idea of one block that could be used as a standard FE or as a monster cube..
-
I'll use anyone that has quality stuff....in stock.
Right now I have 5 FE builds in queue....2 of them the customer requested new aluminum blocks. Pond and Shelby are the only two you can buy new aluminum FE blocks from right now. Last time I checked, both were out of stock and I really wouldn't advise my customers to pay $7500 for a Shelby block anyway....
Between blocks being out of stock and having to wait on Scat to make cranks, it's a wonder anything leaves here at all.
-
Being the kind of guy that I am...a giver...I will be willing to complete the "other" end of Jay's manufacturing deal.
For all you guys nationwide (and Canucks too) that upgrade to this new fancy stuff, I'll come and haul away your Pond, Shelby, Genesis, and BBM blocks so you don't have to. At the same time I'll try to make room for your Edelbrock, BBM, Survival, and Blue Thunder heads...if I still have room on my truck.
All this at no charge to you, my FE brethren.
-
We can make all the power a sane person needs with the current FE pieces that are available.
Sane? When did sanity enter into this equation? Might as well chuck the whole idea if that's the criteria.
Everyone here who is sane, let's see a show of hands...
*crickets*
That's what I thought :)
And even more insanity... What astronomic figure spent on valvetrain components that can feed a 600+- inch engine? One-inch lifts there, people. That stuff doesn't exist now, does it? That 50k figure Dougie threw out is not that far out. I think big inchers are better served by the 385 camp. And for the record, I'd much rather have TP heads and new intake(s). But then again, my drinking partner is a toad named Shaman...
-
Being the kind of guy that I am...a giver...I will be willing to complete the "other" end of Jay's manufacturing deal.
For all you guys nationwide (and Canucks too) that upgrade to this new fancy stuff, I'll come and haul away your Pond, Shelby, Genesis, and BBM blocks so you don't have to. At the same time I'll try to make room for your Edelbrock, BBM, Survival, and Blue Thunder heads...if I still have room on my truck.
All this at no charge to you, my FE brethren.
I don't care what every two-bit train-hopping hobo from here to Joisey says about you, Tommy, you're a swell guy.
-
We can make all the power a sane person needs with the current FE pieces that are available.
Sane? When did sanity enter into this equation? Might as well chuck the whole idea if that's the criteria.
Everyone here who is sane, let's see a show of hands...
*crickets*
That's what I thought :)
And even more insanity... What astronomic figure spent on valvetrain components that can feed a 600+- inch engine? One-inch lifts there, people. That stuff doesn't exist now, does it? That 50k figure Dougie threw out is not that far out. I think big inchers are better served by the 385 camp. And for the record, I'd much rather have TP heads and new intake(s). But then again, my drinking partner is a toad named Shaman...
FElony, you can use the same .500-.550" hydraulic roller cam in a 600+ inch engine that you use in a 428 (or 390....or 427....or 482...) inch engine. You just bump the duration up a tad. ;)
I have 600 inch BBF (385 series) packages that will idle at 800 rpm and are very easy on the valvetrain with moderate lift.
-
FElony, you can use the same .500-.550" hydraulic roller cam in a 600+ inch engine that you use in a 428 (or 390....or 427....or 482...) inch engine. You just bump the duration up a tad. ;)
I have 600 inch BBF (385 series) packages that will idle at 800 rpm and are very easy on the valvetrain with moderate lift.
Personally, having mentioned chassis limitations, I wouldn't spend the money on an engine that big without putting it in a race car. Nothing like battling against the 632 Chevys with a .550-lift cam.
-
Well, lift generally doesn't dictate how much horsepower you make. A 600 inch BBF with good heads (TFS, P-51, etc.) and a .550-.600" hydraulic roller will make around 800 hp at around 6000 rpm. You will actually find that a really good cylinder head with a lot of cylinder pulling hard on it will require less camshaft than what you would think. Last Boss 9 I built was 529 inches and used a "little" 246 @ .050" duration camshaft, .620" lift, 112 LSA. 740 hp.
-
Well, lift generally doesn't dictate how much horsepower you make. A 600 inch BBF with good heads (TFS, P-51, etc.) and a .550-.600" hydraulic roller will make around 800 hp at around 6000 rpm. You will actually find that a really good cylinder head with a lot of cylinder pulling hard on it will require less camshaft than what you would think. Last Boss 9 I built was 529 inches and used a "little" 246 @ .050" duration camshaft, .620" lift, 112 LSA. 740 hp.
Not enough. Lookie here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NBe3ceIn7I
-
We are essentially bouncing back and forth between street and race with no clear definition of application here. I have no chassis that will withstand 800 or 1200 horsepower, so it's a moot discussion for me. Better to work on all the gaps that the FE still has than gamble on a tiny niche, IMO.
If somebody wants... http://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/cto/5562640102.html
-
Kind of off on a tangent here, but... I was reading an interesting article in one of the Ford magazines last month about sprayed on cylinder liners. Instead of pressing a cast iron sleeves into the aluminum block, Ford came up with a process of spray welding a hard liner into the bare aluminum casting, sort of like the chrome liners they have been using in atv's forever. As I was reading the article I was thinking it would be nice to have an FE made that way. It would eliminate any potential problems associated with cylinder liners. Any thoughts on something like that?
-
Im on the other end and in it for 100% racing.
I still long to see someone with deep enough pockets to have a mid to low 7sec FE.
I know it's possible in a full tilt race chassis. If a 990hp Lima with a lenco can push a 2500 pro stock/top sportsman to 7.68's at 177 plus then surely a 1050hp FE could do the same.
-
Being the kind of guy that I am...a giver...I will be willing to complete the "other" end of Jay's manufacturing deal.
For all you guys nationwide (and Canucks too) that upgrade to this new fancy stuff, I'll come and haul away your Pond, Shelby, Genesis, and BBM blocks so you don't have to. At the same time I'll try to make room for your Edelbrock, BBM, Survival, and Blue Thunder heads...if I still have room on my truck.
All this at no charge to you, my FE brethren.
Tommy, you are the man! I have a Pond block sitting out in the driveway, just for you! Needs minor repair ;D ;D ;D
-
Well 1100 hp would take a little more than a factory adjustable rocker arm.... :-)
But most of us run T&D rockers on the high-performance solid roller stuff anyway.
A lot of the guys are in it for bragging rights only, so it would be nice for them to make seven or 800 hp without having to go to a solid roller or 14 to 1 compression…
-
We are essentially bouncing back and forth between street and race with no clear definition of application here. I have no chassis that will withstand 800 or 1200 horsepower, so it's a moot discussion for me. Better to work on all the gaps that the FE still has than gamble on a tiny niche, IMO.
If somebody wants... http://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/cto/5562640102.html
OK, I'm going to fly in the face of convention and say that a stock Mustang or Torino chassis (suspension and frame), plus subframe connectors, can take an 800 HP engine, provided that you don't put slicks on it. Violent traction shocks are what twists up a chassis. I don't think that the 235/60-15 BF Goodrich radial TAs on my 68 Mustang are capable of bending the car, no matter how much power the engine has. So there, Felony ;D ;D
-
I have one of those "needs minor repair" pond blocks too. LoL.
I'm about to talk myself out of making the repairs and wait and hope that a FE power block does come together in the next 12 - 24 months.
Hell it would nearly take that long mos likely to get a Shelby or pond. What ever happen to the side oiler garage project?
-
Kind of off on a tangent here, but... I was reading an interesting article in one of the Ford magazines last month about sprayed on cylinder liners. Instead of pressing a cast iron sleeves into the aluminum block, Ford came up with a process of spray welding a hard liner into the bare aluminum casting, sort of like the chrome liners they have been using in atv's forever. As I was reading the article I was thinking it would be nice to have an FE made that way. It would eliminate any potential problems associated with cylinder liners. Any thoughts on something like that?
The BBM guy brought this up on the 54 forum a while back as a possibility to their blocks. I hate the idea! If something goes wrong, repairs are nearly impossible, or very unlikely. With new engines, you just toss the block and get another one of the hundreds of thousands that are out there or available. When you've got five grand in the PURCHASE of a block (no final machne work), throwing away isn't exactly desirable. I wouldn't touch an FE block with a spray on bore liner.
-
We are essentially bouncing back and forth between street and race with no clear definition of application here. I have no chassis that will withstand 800 or 1200 horsepower, so it's a moot discussion for me. Better to work on all the gaps that the FE still has than gamble on a tiny niche, IMO.
If somebody wants... http://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/cto/5562640102.html
OK, I'm going to fly in the face of convention and say that a stock Mustang or Torino chassis (suspension and frame), plus subframe connectors, can take an 800 HP engine, provided that you don't put slicks on it. Violent traction shocks are what twists up a chassis. I don't think that the 235/60-15 BF Goodrich radial TAs on my 68 Mustang are capable of bending the car, no matter how much power the engine has. So there, Felony ;D ;D
So the title of this thread should be: "Building a Better Burnout Machine".
Back in my teens when I started street racing, I was running a 289 winder in a stickshift '68 Mustang with zero torque. I can't tell you how many more powerful cars I beat because they always went up in smoke. Except for that damn Charger R/T. But I digress.
Listen, Jay. I think everybody here is impressed with your devotion to the hobby, and your willingness to make new parts. I just hate to see you apply the success of your earlier endeavors to something that steps over into the Twilight Zone. That would surely be a nad crusher. The hobby needs availability of these "now you see it, now you don't" parts to be addressed. Way way too many of those still.
-
I'd think another quality supplier of aluminium blocks is desperately needed.
Seems to me that Fe power blocks would help do just that, increase the availability of parts that are hard to get. If Bret and Barry and Blair and any other well established FE builder can't even get "any" aluminum block with customers in line then almost no chance for the un known garage builder to get one unless you stumble across one used. Who knows when they will be available again so I think it's a good thing to have one more source to potentially pull from.
-
I'd think another quality supplier of aluminium blocks is desperately needed.
Seems to me that Fe power blocks would help do just that, increase the availability of parts that are hard to get. If Bret and Barry and Blair and any other well established FE builder can't even get "any" aluminum block with customers in line then almost no chance for the un known garage builder to get one unless you stumble across one used. Who knows when they will be available again so I think it's a good thing to have one more source to potentially pull from.
Not just blocks, either. A few years back the 909 was selling lightweight I-beam 6.49 rods at a decent price. You cannot find any such animal anymore. I called RPM and they don't get that there are people looking for better-than-stock but lighter-than-H-beam. Hell, you can't even find Scat rods in that size either. But they sure have kept the price of FE cranks artificially high. Art Francis makes his stuff only when the stars are properly aligned. Et cetera.
-
Holy Mackerel Andy, right out of Economics 101 the price get$ into significant profit margins and up steps a manufacturer that say's: Looks like there's significant profits to be made there and he reaches into his bag a tricks and enters the market.
Was just daydreaming last week about when Genesis first went into 427s back in days of FECA I believe the ground floor buy in was $2500....? Unfortunately the only thing for those "lucky ones that got in" was watching their deposits vanish and nothing to show.
-
Add from a 2001 Fe club of America , 4th quarter edition.
(http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j387/fekbmax/20160523_202647-1_zps9o0f2jzf.jpg) (http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/fekbmax/media/20160523_202647-1_zps9o0f2jzf.jpg.html)
-
Add from a 2001 Fe club of America , 4th quarter edition.
(http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j387/fekbmax/20160523_202647-1_zps9o0f2jzf.jpg) (http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/fekbmax/media/20160523_202647-1_zps9o0f2jzf.jpg.html)
I have one of the last Iron Gen's made, I bought it new from Genesis in 2011.
I would love to have an aluminum block collecting dust for my grandsons.
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q128/ScotiaFE/PICT0083.jpg) (http://s135.photobucket.com/user/ScotiaFE/media/PICT0083.jpg.html)
-
Much as I like ... no, LOVE ... this idea there is no way I see mu budget ever including such a big engine.
I'm having trouble fitting in the heads, drive train parts and suspension pieces for a will built 482 FE.
The cost of making a 560+ cubic inch engine hook and without just breaking parts doubles the cost of adding each extra cubic inch.
I would really like the idea of blocks and tunnel port heads being readily available.
Bob
-
Just as a side note here, on the 632 Chevy, I ported several sets of heads for those 20 years ago that flowed 490/340 to 538/360cfm, on the exhaust with 2.400-2.450/1.940 valves. Made 1213 hp with two dominators and sheetmetal intake. I have found over the years that the more cubic inches you have, you can't get the ports too big. For a FE to be competitive at that level, it needs comparable flow capabilities. The Victor can be ported to flow over 500 cfm, but the best heads right now are still limited at, or near 400-410cfm. It is going to take a huge increase in flow potential to reach 490cfm with the FE design and still look like a FE from the outside. The valve arrangement is not the problem, it is the dogleg and short turn that need to be completely revised. Barry's head intake port shape is getting close, just needs a much higher short turn. I really like the idea of a block that is capable of 4.600 bore, in the stock appearing architecture. JMO, but hope you can make it happen. Joe-JDC
-
Just as an aside comment.. In talking with Jon Kaase he mentioned that the biggest market for his Boss 9 engines is not racers, but high end rods and muscle cars.
With as many Cobras and Mustangs being built you may find that bucks up builders would be wowed by big inch. big power FEs and not be put off by the price.
Availability is the key.. Builders do not want to wait 6 mo for parts.
-
Ha Ha wonder if Jay subconsciously set the subject up for a very interesting note:
SUBJECT: "New FE Block, Heads, and Intakes on the horizon..."
He will not be saying: New FE Block, Heads, and Intakes from way over the horizon..." as in from the other side of the globe!..............
-
Correct, BB, this will be all Made in USA stuff...
-
Correct, BB, this will be all Made in USA stuff...
Ha. More foreign stuff eh. ;)
-
Just as a side note here, on the 632 Chevy, I ported several sets of heads for those 20 years ago that flowed 490/340 to 538/360cfm, on the exhaust with 2.400-2.450/1.940 valves. Made 1213 hp with two dominators and sheetmetal intake. I have found over the years that the more cubic inches you have, you can't get the ports too big. For a FE to be competitive at that level, it needs comparable flow capabilities. The Victor can be ported to flow over 500 cfm, but the best heads right now are still limited at, or near 400-410cfm. It is going to take a huge increase in flow potential to reach 490cfm with the FE design and still look like a FE from the outside. The valve arrangement is not the problem, it is the dogleg and short turn that need to be completely revised. Barry's head intake port shape is getting close, just needs a much higher short turn. I really like the idea of a block that is capable of 4.600 bore, in the stock appearing architecture. JMO, but hope you can make it happen. Joe-JDC
Joe, I will be getting with you on this as I get a little further down the road. But for what it's worth, on the high flowing version of the heads I was looking at a 2.45" intake valve and a 1.90" exhaust. You can use a pretty big valve when your bore is 4.600"...
-
Well after being a guest here for quite awhile I finally decided to register so that I could vote and give my opinion. I would love to see FE parts that are available first and foremost. There are two FE projects I have planned. The first being a 500 cube 427 for my 67 Mustang that I have spent years collecting parts for to turn it in to a Shelby GT500 tribute. I have been on different lists three different times trying to get my hands on a medium riser 2 x 4 tunnel wedge intake only to be disappointed. So for me availability is big. I know this is a limited segment of the hobby but if you could call up and order the parts you wanted or at least be in line on a list with a reasonable amount of time to get what you need I think it would really benefit people who want to build these engines. The SOHC that I would like to build for my 68 Mustang is a good example. A couple manufactures have claimed they would be a "on stop shop" for everything you would need to assemble one of these motors. In reality you are going to spend years searching or waiting to collect enough parts to do it yourself. I could build a 385 series a lot cheaper and make more power than what is available at this time, but that's not what I want for the car. An aluminum big bore block yes please!! It would be great to be able to build a 600 cubic inch SOHC!!
-
Jay, I just tweaked a set of BBC heads for a local guy, and the exhaust was 1.880", which is fairly common and easy to buy. The ports were smallish, but still could be made to reach close to 300 cfm, and with a little work, I am sure they would have. I think you are on the right track for maximum flow potential at anything over 2.350", and the 1.900" is a good compromise for unshrouding. The 1.940" exhaust valve starts to get heavy in inconel. For a 500 cfm intake, you need in the range of 350 cfm on the exhaust, and a header will pull a port up at least 20 cfm if the shape if good. Joe-JDC
-
most of this stuff is out of my league,but i would like to have a real good set of heads and intake for my 428.i got whipped by a gm 400 smallblock a while back. not really whipped but he was a car length ahead at the finish. i would love to gain a noticeable amount of power with better heads and intake.i cant stand to get beat buy these smallblock chevys!
-
most of this stuff is out of my league,but i would like to have a real good set of heads and intake for my 428.i got whipped by a gm 400 smallblock a while back. not really whipped but he was a car length ahead at the finish. i would love to gain a noticeable amount of power with better heads and intake.i cant stand to get beat buy these smallblock chevys!
Unless you are class racing? A heads up from another level means nothing really.
Of course all racing/car junk is budget directed.
How big do you want?
How fast do you want to go?
How shinny do you want it?
That costs extra. Please pay on your way out. Thank You. ;)
-
its just street racing,bragging rights.no power adders.im talking daily driver stuff.no pro street,nothing special,just street cars,not street outlaws.just a buddy with a camaro who rubs it in my face.the old ford-chevy stuff
-
How does a 632" engine in your 390 Mustang or Torino sound?
Or a F-100? With a leaky 12-71 cherry on top. If the block can handle 1800-1900hp.... I'm in.
-
or a comet or fairlane with a 632! i just want to see the fe kick-ass even if i cant afford one.i would give my left n?? to see it!!
-
Jay, Do you have any more information at this time on any other planned features for the blocks?
-
Not really, but I should know a lot more in a few weeks. I think the response to this topic has convinced him to go forward with the block, in all the versions we have discussed here. When I find out more I will post it here - Jay
-
Sweet.. If things go as planed do you think there will be a list of some sorts to get ones name in the hat ? Maybe some kind of deposit to assure that one is marked for an individual so as to not have to worry about them all getting gobbled up . ? Would you plan to have a prototype to display and go over it with your trusted judgment so everyone would know the ends and outs ?
I realize it could still be down the road a bit. There are many of us that I believe have a lot of interest.
-
I'm not sure about any of that Keith, but I will bring it up with the block manufacturer and hopefully get more information within a few weeks - Jay
-
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned earlier in this thread but changing the bell housing mating surface would open up so many possibilities for transmissions. But if your willing to buy into new blocks then your probably ok with buying aftermarket adapters.
-
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned earlier in this thread but changing the bell housing mating surface would open up so many possibilities for transmissions. But if your willing to buy into new blocks then your probably ok with buying aftermarket adapters.
Excellent idea!! An optional mod motor bell housing pattern would allow for 4,5, and 6 speed autos, and easier/cheaper stick swaps. Good thinking. It's probably get ignored.
-
Very interesting thread!
All of a sudden my 527 Shelby "big Bore" engine looks like a small block ;)
I will follow this thread carefully ;D
Regards
Morten
-
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned earlier in this thread but changing the bell housing mating surface would open up so many possibilities for transmissions. But if your willing to buy into new blocks then your probably ok with buying aftermarket adapters.
I had somebody else email me about this today, but I don't see the appeal. You can already buy anything from a toploader to a Magnum 6 speed that bolts up to an FE, or a C-4 or Powerglide in addition to a C-6. Why bother with anything else?
Let's not forget - complexity adds cost. The more the block manufacturer is asked to do, the more expensive the part gets...
-
I had somebody else email me about this today, but I don't see the appeal. You can already buy anything from a toploader to a Magnum 6 speed that bolts up to an FE, or a C-4 or Powerglide in addition to a C-6. Why bother with anything else?
Just because you don't see the appeal doesn't mean that there aren't hundreds that do. You'd sell craploads more blocks with a modern pattern than a raised cam block with wider bore spacing. Personally, I'll take a winder with a manual valve body 6R80 and a paddle shifter.
Let's not forget - complexity adds cost. The more the block manufacturer is asked to do, the more expensive the part gets...
Says the guy who's trying to sell 632-inch engines. I KNEW this would get ignored. >:(
-
Sorry, I know you hate being ignored ;D If there are hundreds of FE fans out there who see the appeal, I'd sure like to hear from them. I doubt it, though. I wonder what a 6R80 will take horsepower-wise?
-
looking at the 6r80 and an FE bellhousing, it seems you could almost make a block that could provide both with minimal issues (need to be able to remove alignment dowels obviously). I think I'd need them both in front of me tho and at my location I have neither.
Of course this project is for the fastest of racers and I cannot see any any of them kicking a c4 or powerglide out of a car for a 250lb 6r80.
I don't see the appeal of taking an older nostalgia engine and changing everything, might as well just start off with a 460 aftermarket block, or if you are just dying to design and change 100% of the engine, why not just design and engine from scratch? seems like a lot less headaches.
Back to 390 blocks for proletariat like us Felony....
Either way, good luck Jay, should be a fascinating journey for those with the fortitude and bankroll to buy a ticket for this ride.
-
I'll take my 632 with a lenco or liberty please.. :D
-
I wonder what a 6R80 will take horsepower-wise?
stock? rated at 800ft lbs. (Thought that was what 6r80 means.... 6 speed, 800ft lb)
spend a few thousand and you have something that could survive behind your car. Might be handy if you need a super low gear and double overdrive. I think it'd be a much nicer street trans or perhaps something for the 1 mile drag racers (maybe even salt flats?)
-
And of course, I have to bring up the point of when does a FE quit being a FE? There are people are wanting highly modified blocks, canted valve heads, non FE intakes (sorry Jay) re-arranged firing order and on and on... So far, we have everything needed to make 1000 HP N/A in a engine that looks and sounds just like the way Ford built them. Some compression and a lumpy cam in a FE is all I need because NOTHING sounds as good.
I know guys with 500-600 inch other stuff and while they do go fast, they sound just like every other lump out there. If I had a real race car, was about 20 years younger and wanted to go fast it wouldn't be FE powered. Put me in the Old and Nostalgic Club please..
-
Yes, "When is it no longer an FE" is a good question. Since I'm doing a set of heads from scratch I could do canted valves, but to me that is too far away from the original FE design to be of interest. I'd like the engine to look like an FE, with FE valve covers, water pump, timing cover, oil pan, same basic valvetrain arrangement, etc. Some people may look at the intake manifolds I'm working on and say that the engine doesn't look like an FE anymore, but on the other hand there are so many intake manifold variations (1X4, 2X4, crossrams, tunnel rams, downdraft and sidedraft Webers, etc. etc.), and nobody every says "That doesn't look like an FE", so I kind of feel like the intake can be any configuration without betraying the basic form of the FE engine.
I guess its all semantics in the end anyway...
-
Modified bellhousing pattern...count me out.
Paddle shifters...phht. Might as well add a fart can, a big wing on the back and subwoofers. Me thinks you've watched one to many Fast & Furious movies.
I'd add Lenco, Liberty and G-Force to Jays list of trannys that can be used. You can even air shift them if that's what you want.
-
I had the "paddle shifter" 6 speed automatic, and I did not like it. My son has one in his BMW turbo, and loves it. I guess it is a generational thing. I found my "paddle shifter" slow to upshift, and I wound up over-revving or hitting the fuel shut-off before it would shift. Same with the slapstick manual shift automatics in all the trucks, they will not shift when you do. So, my vote is still TKO style bellhousing and three pedals. Joe-JDC
-
If I could slightly twist your arm, Jay, I would reconsider the valve layout....a canted valve layout may make a tremendous amount of difference. I haven't given it any more thought than what I just wrote, but maybe it's possible to lay it out and keep it under a factory valve cover/intake layout?
-
I have looked at that Brent, and have even gone so far as designing a new valve cover that would have bulges on the outboard side, to accommodate the moved exhaust valve and valvespring. But goodbye to a single rocker shaft design with that approach, and then I've got to tool a valve cover in addition to the heads and intake, plus all the really cool vintage valve covers won't fit anymore. The canted valve system moved me too far away from the basic FE design concept.
-
Here is an idea you might find interesting. It is off topic, but applicable to what you are thinking. As most of you know I have been helping a few folks with Ford Y block heads and intakes, and there is a fairly new aluminum head cast by Edelbrock for John Mummert, in CA. He has updated the head and intake, so that a fairly stockish 292/312 Y block can make close to 400 hp on pump gas, and idle like a stocker. I have ported several sets of those heads and even had one set make 585hp on a stroker Y, and just last year another set for an EMC entry made 561hp on 362 cubic inches. We tried many intakes that I had ported to flow various cfm average, and the heads flowed around 282/202 upper, 272/202 lower ports. The heads were neither the best or worst, just a good set of heads, but John Mummert has come up with a radically changed head that is angle milled .125" for a smaller chamber and valves moved closer to centerline of bore, moved the exhaust valve inboard and installed a smaller 1.510" valve, moved the spark plug and tapped it for a 10mm sparkplug, and the real neat part was moving the rocker stands to achieve a 1.7 rocker ratio. We bolted a pair of the CNC'd heads on the same engine, and immediately picked up 21 hp. Whether it was a combination of higher compression, and more rocker ratio, or moved spark plug, it flat worked! They went on to produce 594 hp @ 6800 rpm, and after the EMC was over, made a few tweaks to 599.4hp. All this through a 1.94/1.51 set of valves. If the FE head was treated to similar tweaks, I am sure the flow would come up, and performance would jump. Just a few ideas to consider. Joe-JDC
-
I have to say multiple bell housing bolt patterns would be a great option but then again Im not the one doing the work either. ;-)
-
Well this is really cool stuff for the folk with cash to play. How big do you think that market is? Me I'd rather see cheaper 427 blocks or hell 428/390 blocks. A lot of the junk us regular folk are playing with is getting tired and causing headaches and hard to come by. Would be great to pickup an new block for $1500. either stroke it or new style heads and the average joe would have a solid reliable platform. Plenty of power for the street. I would even prefer iron.
Dont get me wrong I am all for cool trick parts but the aftermarket for fe is getting heavy on the high end race pieces. Would be nice to see some offerings for us regular folk. Plus it would seem that market would be bigger.
-
Would be great to pickup an new block for $1500.
As much as I like the idea of a $1500 block, I doubt that will ever come close to being a reality. Just not enough sales like you'd get with a small block Ford or Chevy.
-
Fair enough, what do you think the price point would be for a standard fe block? 2k? 3k?
-
Heavy on the high end race pieces ??
Hell, can't even get blocks except when it's the 32nd day of the month with a double full moon.
-
i would like to see some heads and intake that would bolt right up to a good shortblock 390-427-428,fit under the hood and add 150-200 extra hp over stock heads and intake.something that would give us little guys some bang for the buck
-
Fair enough, what do you think the price point would be for a standard fe block? 2k? 3k?
I don't think it would be that much cheaper to do a 390 or 428 block than it is to do a 427 block. As a guess, if a 427 cast iron block is $3500, I doubt that a cast iron 428 block would be less than $3200. The differences in cost would come from the frost plugs (press in vs. screw in) and the cross bolts. Other than that, I think the costs would be about the same.
Now, if we could do a production run of 2000 blocks, I'll bet the price would be half that much.
-
I wonder what a 6R80 will take horsepower-wise?
stock? rated at 800ft lbs. (Thought that was what 6r80 means.... 6 speed, 800ft lb)
spend a few thousand and you have something that could survive behind your car. Might be handy if you need a super low gear and double overdrive. I think it'd be a much nicer street trans or perhaps something for the 1 mile drag racers (maybe even salt flats?)
6R80 ..... 6 speed ... R is rear wheel drive ...... 80 is kilo watt rating .... GM and Ford both use this rating
-
So, 80 Kilowatts is 106 horsepower. 800 kilowatts is 1060 horsepower. And kilowatts is power, not torque. I've also read in the last couple of days that the 800 is in Newton Meters, which is about 590 lb-foot of torque. That seems to make more sense. Then I also read that this is the rating at the transmission input shaft, not at the torque converter, and that the torque multiplication factor of the 6R80 is pretty high at 1.8:1, so the torque from the engine that the transmission can handle is 1.8 times less than the torque that the transmission is rated at. Not sure what to think about that trans, after reading all these contradictory reports...
http://www.f150hub.com/trans/6R-80.html
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/2011-2014-mustang-gt-tech/303689-2012-mustang-gt-6r80-transmission-power-rating.html
-
I have never researched it any further than my Transmission manuals saying that ......... Newton meters seems to be the closest
-
I believe the new Cobra Jet cars use a C-4??? If the others were so strong, why go backwards? Joe-JDC
-
I have never researched it any further than my Transmission manuals saying that ......... Newton meters seems to be the closest
Either way, thanks for the education!
-
I've been thinking about this because it raises an interesting question - why build an FE to begin with? I know there are serious builders and racers on this forum - I've relied on you for good advice on my mild little project. They are one class of enthusiast. I think once you have gone as far as some of you, including Jay, in pursuit of the maximum the engine architecture can yield, there must be a desire to push past the design limits. I had never heard of anyone changing the bore spacing before I learned Jay had done it. It may not be that unusual in serious racing circles, but it seemed pretty interesting to me.
I am curious why the FE appeals to the racing community, to me the appeal is largely nostalgic. The 427 is iconic, and the SOHC is (to my knowledge) the only engine ever to draw a sanction from NASCAR. I have no interest in today's homogenized NASCAR vehicles. They are not as fast as they were in the sixties, and they bear no resemblance to the car you can go and buy. Hell, most of the actual cars are FWD but they race RWD cars.
For me, I had wanted to build an FE since I was a teenager 40 years ago. I never wanted to build anything else. Thanks to the very good after market parts now available, it was a lot easier for a lay person. Most people like me didn't have the detailed knowledge of FE parts, or access to places where they could be found (you can't hunt parts at swap meets where there are no swap meets).
For me it was a little important to start with a period block, but given that I have aluminum after market heads and intake, a modern cam and crank, etc., originality was not that important. I would have been very happy with an aluminium 427 block as a starting point. $4,000 would have been a little more than I spent on reconditioning my 390, but if it came ready to assemble, it would have been an attractive proposition.
For a nostalgia builder the new block would be a good alternative to finding and re-conning an old block. As for the intake and heads - 700 hp sounds better than the 550 I hope to see, but what other complications will they present? BBM, Survival, and others offer packages for those of us with fewer skills that more or less bolt up.
Once I have survived this project, I might want a big cube 900 hp street motor, I would have to find another vehicle first. Would I have started with an aluminum 427 block? Yes.
-
Think about it this way we have new heads to chose from that are stock replacement level incremented all the up to full race level. But for blocks we have full race only, in aluminum or iron. So if you don't want need that you stick with stock. So you look for hen's teeth or you deal with 40 over, maybe resleeve it.
I wasn't thinking of a block based off the current offerings that does seem silly. So I think there would be other differences, most cast iron aftermarket 427 blocks tip the scales at 250 lbs. that's what 50 lbs over stock? That 50 lbs is a turnoff for me when I don't need a block that will hold 1000+ hp. Make a 428 block with thick cly walls and some minor enhancements to have a reliable 600-700 hp range. Most guys on the street don't need more than 600. But stock blocks seem to be on borrowed time in that range.
So less material should = cheaper, but then I suppose there would be development costs. If you are targeting the mainstream then your sales numbers should be higher. How many people do you think we have on these forums? Now think outside the forum. Seems like 2000 should be attainable. Are FE powered vehicles really that small?
But this just me, just thinking out loud. Certainly far from an expert in this field.
-
So less material should = cheaper, but then I suppose there would be development costs. If you are targeting the mainstream then your sales numbers should be higher. How many people do you think we have on these forums? Now think outside the forum. Seems like 2000 should be attainable. Are FE powered vehicles really that small?
I think the issue is not whether or not 2000 blocks could be sold, but rather how long it would take to sell them. Selling at a lower price, it would take a long time to recoup costs from such a major investment. Typically, only big companies can do that sort of thing. Now if you could sell those 2000 blocks in one or maybe 2 years, that would be different. You'd probably recoup your costs within half of that timeframe.
When a company first releases their block or head, such as BBM did, you'll get a rush of sales, partly because a lot of guys have been looking, waiting or are just jumping on the opportunity while it's there. Once that initial rush is over, sales will probably drop pretty drastically and even out at a much lower rate.
I'm not a business man, so that was all guessing, but it seems to be logical.
-
i might be wrong too,but i think after the rush to get one is over everyone else will see them and i think there will be steady sales from then on.jmo,
-
I had the "paddle shifter" 6 speed automatic, and I did not like it. My son has one in his BMW turbo, and loves it. I guess it is a generational thing. I found my "paddle shifter" slow to upshift, and I wound up over-revving or hitting the fuel shut-off before it would shift. Same with the slapstick manual shift automatics in all the trucks, they will not shift when you do. So, my vote is still TKO style bellhousing and three pedals. Joe-JDC
Joe, paddle shifters are, of course, actually electric switches controlling little servos that move the valves in the valve body and, therefore, do the shifting. My ECTA Lincoln LS has the same system except that the switches are attached to the lever in the console. In order to get crisp instant shifts, it was necessary to reprogram the transmission part of the ECU. Now it works just fine. Part of what I did when reprogramming was to raise the line pressure moderately.
KS
-
So less material should = cheaper, but then I suppose there would be development costs. If you are targeting the mainstream then your sales numbers should be higher. How many people do you think we have on these forums? Now think outside the forum. Seems like 2000 should be attainable. Are FE powered vehicles really that small?
I think the issue is not whether or not 2000 blocks could be sold, but rather how long it would take to sell them. Selling at a lower price, it would take a long time to recoup costs from such a major investment. Typically, only big companies can do that sort of thing. Now if you could sell those 2000 blocks in one or maybe 2 years, that would be different. You'd probably recoup your costs within half of that timeframe.
When a company first releases their block or head, such as BBM did, you'll get a rush of sales, partly because a lot of guys have been looking, waiting or are just jumping on the opportunity while it's there. Once that initial rush is over, sales will probably drop pretty drastically and even out at a much lower rate.
I'm not a business man, so that was all guessing, but it seems to be logical.
Doug, you should be a business man because you are exactly right on this. A couple of my own examples: When my book was released in 2010, I sold 450 in the first month. Since then, I am still selling them but only average 10-15 a month. I re-couped my publishing costs on the first 400 books, but the costs of all that race gas, intake gaskets, sealer, etc. took me until 1000 books to recover. Never mind getting paid for all my labor. Don't get me wrong, I don't regret any of it, because I had a great time doing all those tests. But as a business proposition, it would be a loser.
It is basically the same story on my intake adapters, I had a list of more than 100 people who wanted them and it took me quite some time to fill those orders. As I went along building them some unexpected costs came up, and it ended up taking me 130 adapters to recover the tooling and machining costs associated with them. Now I'm caught up on my list for the medium riser adapters, and selling them on ebay in addition to selling them directly, and they go out the door at about one per month. So I'm making a little money on them, but nowhere hear enough to compensate for the hundreds of hours I put into that project. Again its a good thing I enjoyed doing it, because as a pure business proposition they are a loser.
Now let's look at this run of 2000 cast iron FE blocks. If the sale price is $1500, let's say that the cost of manufacturing, including amortizing the tooling over 2000 blocks, is $1000 per block. To commit to getting 2000 done, that is an investment of 2 MILLION dollars up front. I'm as FE-crazy as they come, but I would run screaming from a deal like that, even if I could afford it (which I can't). Maybe you could sell 250 in the first year, but I'll bet you'd be selling 50 per year thereafter, and it would take you 35 years to sell them all. From a gross profit standpoint you would make a million bucks, IF you could sell them all, over 35 years. No guarantees on that one. Meanwhile, you'd make more money investing in Treasury notes, and you wouldn't have to do any work. The whole project makes no sense, even for someone like me who isn't looking to make their living on it.
We have to recognize that the size of the FE market is such that custom parts are going to be more expensive than they are for a small block Chev or LS engine. Anybody who thinks different is welcome to make the big investment themselves, and see how that turns out!
-
Do you think any of the bigger kit car manufacturers for which the FE was original equipment would want to partner with you on something like this? Just thinking out loud, but that might be a way to increase throughput to recover the higher NRE costs like blocks.
-
Fair enough, I would have to do my own market research to know for sure. That is business 101. But I'll take your word on it, I know nothing about costs involved. I think the key to selling high volume entry level stuff is distribution figure out how to get the general public to see the offering in parts catalogues and major online vendors and you are guaranteed to sell more.
When you guys start getting your new 427 blocks please contact me about your old junk. I would be happy with a 428 or 390 block in good condition. 30 or less overbore when ready to run. The closer to std bore the better. In the Denver area as I don't want mess with shipping. Of course no cracks, sleeves, or other problems to fix.
-
I didn't vote on anything , right now I'm happy with what I got ..... that said I ran 2 kids in jr dragsters for 10 years and if they ( kids) ever wanted to go RED (rear engine dragster) I would probably at some point want a reliable 1100 hp dragster , then I would be a player , we have been out of the jr league for a few years and no takers at the moment , my self I don't want anything more than what I got and have going ...... but for the new engine seems like when you get over 1000 hp naturally aspirated there is not a whole lot of difference money wise between any make of engine from any brand , so in that case I would rather have some FE valve covers on my RED if we ever get to that point
-
I had the "paddle shifter" 6 speed automatic, and I did not like it. My son has one in his BMW turbo, and loves it. I guess it is a generational thing. I found my "paddle shifter" slow to upshift, and I wound up over-revving or hitting the fuel shut-off before it would shift. Same with the slapstick manual shift automatics in all the trucks, they will not shift when you do. So, my vote is still TKO style bellhousing and three pedals. Joe-JDC
Joe, that has nothing to do with the shifter. That is the factory programming. It's exactly why I specified MANUAL valve body, so there is no lag going up or down.
It isn't a ricer thing, either. The fastest and most expensive domestic and euro cars have fast-reacting paddles in them. Listen guys, I have more top loaders in and out of cars than anyone here. I have more autos, too. Is it so beyond the scope of reason to want to have something DIFFERENT? For FUN? Not yelling at you, Joe. You da man, the Duke of Windsor. Just frustrated. Dot had a great idea. Put the optional pattern on the standard block, and quit suggesting killer trans combos that should be behind the big-inch racers. Apples and oranges, again.
-
I have never researched it any further than my Transmission manuals saying that ......... Newton meters seems to be the closest
Wanna know why the Coyote cars are so quick? 4.17 first gear in the 6R80. Think about that for a second. Not enough balls? You know there is a 6R140 behind the 6.2? Of course you do, Eric, because you know more than most people give you credit for. Just sayin'.
Think of a nice peaky winder with that gear spread. NOT a drag racer, guys.
-
I love all of these ideas. I hope all of them come to fruition. That said, I say use the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid. Obviously, you are the opposite of stupid, Jay. You are intelligent, educated, motivated, and industrious. I'm not sucking up to you. I'm telling it like it is. I think we are extremely lucky to have you as an FE enthusiast.
So, what the FE hobby needs most, in my opinion, is a practically priced (and available), standard dimension, USA made, aftermarket block (iron or aluminum). It's the keystone for the engine. And I'm saying that as "head guy". ::)
That's all there is to it. Do that and you have done more than any FE guy in the grand scheme of things. Edelbrock and Barry have the heads covered for 90% of the range. Do MORE than that, and it's all gravy.
JMO,
paulie
-
I voted several days ago,then I started thinking.....
So now I have questions.
would the raised cam work with the available intakes (RPM for example) the push rod angle will change correct?
could the re-centered block be used in a less than all out engine,again with an Ed,or Survival head?
I know it seems dumb to use a "full race" block in a mild(ish) build but if the same casting can be used as a base for a light weight FE
then the market should be larger.
With the marketing threads above I cant see anybody loving FEs enough to drop a few $mil on one block much less two. But maybe one block that can go from 427,428 to 550 inchs would have a larger market?
Now features I'd like to see in an aluminum block:
O ring seal the water pump, O ring seal the oil galleys,core holes (freeze plugs) and cam plug.
Do away with the oil filter adapter just thread the side of the block for -10 strait threads,another O ring.
Use an alloy that has minimal thermal expansion.
Rib the heck out of it.
-
I had the "paddle shifter" 6 speed automatic, and I did not like it. My son has one in his BMW turbo, and loves it. I guess it is a generational thing. I found my "paddle shifter" slow to upshift, and I wound up over-revving or hitting the fuel shut-off before it would shift. Same with the slapstick manual shift automatics in all the trucks, they will not shift when you do. So, my vote is still TKO style bellhousing and three pedals. Joe-JDC
Joe, that has nothing to do with the shifter. That is the factory programming. It's exactly why I specified MANUAL valve body, so there is no lag going up or down.
It isn't a ricer thing, either. The fastest and most expensive domestic and euro cars have fast-reacting paddles in them. Listen guys, I have more top loaders in and out of cars than anyone here. I have more autos, too. Is it so beyond the scope of reason to want to have something DIFFERENT? For FUN? Not yelling at you, Joe. You da man, the Duke of Windsor. Just frustrated. Dot had a great idea. Put the optional pattern on the standard block, and quit suggesting killer trans combos that should be behind the big-inch racers. Apples and oranges, again.
I have a JPT C-4 with reverse manual valve body, trans-brake, and when I move the selector, it moves instantly. I also have a C-6 with the similar workings, wide ratio, and rollerized, etc.. It shifts instantly. I understand the higher line pressures, leaving out check balls, etc., and it is still FUN even with only three forward gears. Anyway, my transmission shifts quicker than I can react now-a-days! I have to try to release the button on the second yellow just to get close to a .020 or less. LOL Joe-JDC
-
I have a JPT C-4 with reverse manual valve body, trans-brake, and when I move the selector, it moves instantly. I also have a C-6 with the similar workings, wide ratio, and rollerized, etc.. It shifts instantly. I understand the higher line pressures, leaving out check balls, etc., and it is still FUN even with only three forward gears. Anyway, my transmission shifts quicker than I can react now-a-days! I have to try to release the button on the second yellow just to get close to a .020 or less. LOL Joe-JDC
Somehow I wound up with 23 C4's. Argh.
Here's a fun video in a new Charger Scat Pack. If you don't want to watch all of it, go to 4:25 and see what a proper factory automatic is like. Vroom vroom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP1WqxERb_U
-
I have a JPT C-4 with reverse manual valve body, trans-brake, and when I move the selector, it moves instantly. I also have a C-6 with the similar workings, wide ratio, and rollerized, etc.. It shifts instantly. I understand the higher line pressures, leaving out check balls, etc., and it is still FUN even with only three forward gears. Anyway, my transmission shifts quicker than I can react now-a-days! I have to try to release the button on the second yellow just to get close to a .020 or less. LOL Joe-JDC
[/quote]
2nd yellow? Joe your car is not reacting very quickly. I doubt your much slower than a normal human which means your car is taking about .075 to break the beam to get a .020 light leaving on second yellow on a 5 tenths countdown tree. Unless your personal reaction times can be measured with a sundial something is wrong with your car.
-
I hope my reply helps here. Despite what people think torque converter multiplicaion is really the difference in speed between the turbine and impeller in the converter. Impeller is connected to the crankshaft so as the speed of the turbine matches the impeller the torque multiplication becomes a non issue. A good reason why the idea that the 6r80 or any transmission does not use the torque converter muliplication in the equation. What is used in all new automatics of the Simpson design are lockup torque converters. The converter has a clutch mechanism to provide lockup and this clutch is the limiting factor. A 6r80 can easily hold 800 n/m torque but the limit is the torque converter clutch lockup. Diesels are especially hard on a lockup converter. Usually the converter is not locked in the lower gears. So the lockup clutch does not activate until the 4th in a 6 speed. This saves the converter some of the stress.
-
Sorry Jay! I know this thread started about 427 blocks and cylinder heads, and yes I am still looking for a 427 block. The heads would be nice, but the blocks just are not there or anywhere. I can find .060 + blocks! Maybe sleeving to a 4.125 bore as some have suggested is another option but not for the those looking for big cubic inches. Heck, even an aluminum big block Merlin is near $5k at todays prices.
-
Sorry Jay! I know this thread started about 427 blocks and cylinder heads, and yes I am still looking for a 427 block.
No need to apologize, all this stuff is of interest and related to blocks or the heads - Jay
-
I voted several days ago,then I started thinking.....
So now I have questions.
would the raised cam work with the available intakes (RPM for example) the push rod angle will change correct?
could the re-centered block be used in a less than all out engine,again with an Ed,or Survival head?
I know it seems dumb to use a "full race" block in a mild(ish) build but if the same casting can be used as a base for a light weight FE
then the market should be larger.
With the marketing threads above I cant see anybody loving FEs enough to drop a few $mil on one block much less two. But maybe one block that can go from 427,428 to 550 inchs would have a larger market?
Now features I'd like to see in an aluminum block:
O ring seal the water pump, O ring seal the oil galleys,core holes (freeze plugs) and cam plug.
Do away with the oil filter adapter just thread the side of the block for -10 strait threads,another O ring.
Use an alloy that has minimal thermal expansion.
Rib the heck out of it.
Using the raised cam version I think it is likely that the pushrod holes in a stock intake would have to be massaged to fit, especially towards the bottom. Nothing that couldn't be handled with a die grinder and a couple hours of work, and it wouldn't leave the intake unusable on a stock engine, so that's probably not a big deal.
A spread bore center block could certainly be used on a less than full race engine. What you have to be careful of is whether the spread bores will still line up with the stock chambers in stock heads. I've already had to deal with that with my spread bore engine, and have found that moving to a bore spacing of 4.700" and a bore of 4.500" will allow the stock chamber to fit. If you went smaller than a 4.500" bore on a 4.700" bore spacing, the bore might start overlapping the stock chamber, which would compromise the head gasket seal. And of course a 4.800" bore spacing with a 4.600" bore is not workable with stock heads. A little earlier in the thread I described a 445" 390 stroker engine that went to 540" with the 4.7/4.5 block, using the existing heads, the stock cam location, and the 4.25" stroke crank and rods that were already in the engine. I figured for about $7500 you could pick up almost 100 cubic inches with this approach.
-
Sundial! Yes, that is the problem! Jay, at ~50 years old, just about anything is possible for a healthy young man. If you are as engaged with your family as possible, and you have the resources and connections, then open the door, and if it is meant to be, it will all fall in place with your guidance. Enjoy your youth while you still can, and enjoy your family while they are still around. When you get my age, things still are enjoyable, but other things become more important than cars, engines, or horsepower. Age has a way of taking the edge off all your skills, and you slow down whether you want to or not. In another 20 years, you will have a whole different set of values and desires. BTDT. Going on an Alaska cruise with my sweetheart of 50 years for our anniversary. Hope to see you next month. Joe-JDC
-
I think this would all be really exciting but I'm not sure of the amount of market that is available.
As for heads I think a cast version of the billett canted valve heads would be a great option.
-
I voted several days ago,then I started thinking.....
So now I have questions.
would the raised cam work with the available intakes (RPM for example) the push rod angle will change correct?
could the re-centered block be used in a less than all out engine,again with an Ed,or Survival head?
I know it seems dumb to use a "full race" block in a mild(ish) build but if the same casting can be used as a base for a light weight FE
then the market should be larger.
With the marketing threads above I cant see anybody loving FEs enough to drop a few $mil on one block much less two. But maybe one block that can go from 427,428 to 550 inchs would have a larger market?
Now features I'd like to see in an aluminum block:
O ring seal the water pump, O ring seal the oil galleys,core holes (freeze plugs) and cam plug.
Do away with the oil filter adapter just thread the side of the block for -10 strait threads,another O ring.
Use an alloy that has minimal thermal expansion.
Rib the heck out of it.
Using the raised cam version I think it is likely that the pushrod holes in a stock intake would have to be massaged to fit, especially towards the bottom. Nothing that couldn't be handled with a die grinder and a couple hours of work, and it wouldn't leave the intake unusable on a stock engine, so that's probably not a big deal.
A spread bore center block could certainly be used on a less than full race engine. What you have to be careful of is whether the spread bores will still line up with the stock chambers in stock heads. I've already had to deal with that with my spread bore engine, and have found that moving to a bore spacing of 4.700" and a bore of 4.500" will allow the stock chamber to fit. If you went smaller than a 4.500" bore on a 4.700" bore spacing, the bore might start overlapping the stock chamber, which would compromise the head gasket seal. And of course a 4.800" bore spacing with a 4.600" bore is not workable with stock heads. A little earlier in the thread I described a 445" 390 stroker engine that went to 540" with the 4.7/4.5 block, using the existing heads, the stock cam location, and the 4.25" stroke crank and rods that were already in the engine. I figured for about $7500 you could pick up almost 100 cubic inches with this approach.
The direction I was heading is one block,many uses. How about casting the block for the wide bore spacing then machining it for either of the above bore spacing's?
I think the current block offerings (if you could get one) cover the "stock" 427 pretty well the market void is the outer limit block,an "easy" 500+ inch FE would find a place in the market I'm sure.
-
In talking to the block manufacturer I think it is the plan to make any of the blocks machinable to the different bore spacings, and just have two castings, one for a raised cam and one for a standard cam location.
-
Sweet... ;D
-
I wondered about the oiling system, I'm sure a priority main/rod layout would be the best and would be my vote. For a long time I have wondered why on the number #2 & #4 cam journal you could groove the journal to help with more consistent oiling in the SOHC configuration. Would it be a possibility? I think it is going to be a tough decision to decide on features with all the configurations and great ideas everyone has for a new block. Costs will certainly go up the more options that are designed into them. If the foundation is there though to do the modifications you want it will be well worth it.
-
You mean groove the cam bearing bore in the block, not the journal of the cam, right? It would be great to do that but would require some special tooling to reach in there and cut a counterbore in the #2 and #4 bores. What I do on the SOHC is machine the stub cam #2 to make the groove wider and deeper. I also use a plug on #4 and line up the oiling holes, so that oil will come through the cam bearing from the bottom and go up to the head, and is contained in the cam bearing bore by the plug. Barry R has also suggested going in there with a die grinder and cutting a slot between the two holes in the #4 cam bearing bore by hand, which may be easier. I've never tried that; with my luck I'd slip the die grinder and grind through to the edge LOL!
-
Yes that is what I mean, groove the cam bearing bore. I think that the plug you made for the #4 cam journal is an ingenious solution and I have certainly filed that away for future use!! I just never liked the grooves in the cam bearings always thought there could be a better solution. Do you think running roller bearings in the first two journals for the stub cam would be possible? You would have to groove either the cam journal in the block or cut a groove in the back of the bearing. If the rollers don't need anything but splash oiling would they get enough? My luck runs about the same Jay so I definitely would want to get it set up in a mill somehow!
-
Its very easy to do it. I have a faceplate that centers the block and chucks in a 24" lathe. Spin the block slow, poke the tool through the bore with a nice radiused tool. We groove behind roller cam bearings frequently.
-
On my last .060 over 390, the one the 428 crank broke in after either slinging the weight, breaking the eagle rod, can't say for sure what happened first lol but anyway on that 390 105 block I put roller cam bearings in and we were able to make a cutter and use the align bore machine to deepen the oil grooves around #2 and #4 cam bearings since boring the bearing registers took most of the passage away.
-
Jay,
I'm not sure if you've selected a casting house yet, but I've had good luck with SeaCast being very proactive. They might be worth a phone call if you havent yet down-selected.
Joe
-
Joe, I've got a couple of foundries that I use in my area for my intake adapters and timing covers, one in Minneapolis and one a little south in Iowa. The one in Iowa seems to be pretty good. Where is Seacast located?
-
Jay,
They have a few locations in Seattle, and now one in Butte Montana.
Joe
-
Jay I am sure you have thought about Siamese cylinders which would give you a lot of strength and bigger bore size, this sounds like fun to me maybe if I ever get this Cammer project done. Leny Mason
-
I'd assume that siamesed cylinders are a given in this discussion. Itd be the only way you could offer standard bore spacing and offset bore spacing in the same casting. I think all the current aftermarket blocks are siamesed cylinders, aren't they?
-
So less material should = cheaper, but then I suppose there would be development costs. If you are targeting the mainstream then your sales numbers should be higher. How many people do you think we have on these forums? Now think outside the forum. Seems like 2000 should be attainable. Are FE powered vehicles really that small?
I think the issue is not whether or not 2000 blocks could be sold, but rather how long it would take to sell them. Selling at a lower price, it would take a long time to recoup costs from such a major investment. Typically, only big companies can do that sort of thing. Now if you could sell those 2000 blocks in one or maybe 2 years, that would be different. You'd probably recoup your costs within half of that timeframe.
When a company first releases their block or head, such as BBM did, you'll get a rush of sales, partly because a lot of guys have been looking, waiting or are just jumping on the opportunity while it's there. Once that initial rush is over, sales will probably drop pretty drastically and even out at a much lower rate.
I'm not a business man, so that was all guessing, but it seems to be logical.
Doug, you should be a business man because you are exactly right on this. A couple of my own examples: When my book was released in 2010, I sold 450 in the first month. Since then, I am still selling them but only average 10-15 a month. I re-couped my publishing costs on the first 400 books, but the costs of all that race gas, intake gaskets, sealer, etc. took me until 1000 books to recover. Never mind getting paid for all my labor. Don't get me wrong, I don't regret any of it, because I had a great time doing all those tests. But as a business proposition, it would be a loser.
It is basically the same story on my intake adapters, I had a list of more than 100 people who wanted them and it took me quite some time to fill those orders. As I went along building them some unexpected costs came up, and it ended up taking me 130 adapters to recover the tooling and machining costs associated with them. Now I'm caught up on my list for the medium riser adapters, and selling them on ebay in addition to selling them directly, and they go out the door at about one per month. So I'm making a little money on them, but nowhere hear enough to compensate for the hundreds of hours I put into that project. Again its a good thing I enjoyed doing it, because as a pure business proposition they are a loser.
Now let's look at this run of 2000 cast iron FE blocks. If the sale price is $1500, let's say that the cost of manufacturing, including amortizing the tooling over 2000 blocks, is $1000 per block. To commit to getting 2000 done, that is an investment of 2 MILLION dollars up front. I'm as FE-crazy as they come, but I would run screaming from a deal like that, even if I could afford it (which I can't). Maybe you could sell 250 in the first year, but I'll bet you'd be selling 50 per year thereafter, and it would take you 35 years to sell them all. From a gross profit standpoint you would make a million bucks, IF you could sell them all, over 35 years. No guarantees on that one. Meanwhile, you'd make more money investing in Treasury notes, and you wouldn't have to do any work. The whole project makes no sense, even for someone like me who isn't looking to make their living on it.
We have to recognize that the size of the FE market is such that custom parts are going to be more expensive than they are for a small block Chev or LS engine. Anybody who thinks different is welcome to make the big investment themselves, and see how that turns out!
So some confusion Jay. How many are they going to make?
They would have to have a target, no?
As I said I doubt that much more than 500 blocks total
from all manufacturers, Genesis, Shelby, Dove, Pond, BBM SOG
have even released to the public in the last 10 years.
Count them if you don't believe me.
I have one.
Who's next?
-
I think they are talking about fairly low volume production, to fill some gaps between their other production products; maybe 25-50 at a time. But I think what we could do is, when production of the blocks is certain, get a list together of people who would be willing to buy when they were ready, and then order the required production volume at that time. Basically the same kind of thing I did with my intake adapters. That actually worked out pretty well; I had very few cancellations, and was able to sell the extras from the first batch to new customers.
By the way, I don't know how many FE blocks have been sold, but I can tell you that Shelby blocks are consecutively numbered with a serial number. If I recall correctly I have blocks ranging from 300 to 900-something (not sure of the exact serial numbers), and the last one I bought was in 2008, so it wouldn't surprise me if Shelby alone has sold 1200+ blocks since they were released in the mid 1990s.
-
By the way, I don't know how many FE blocks have been sold, but I can tell you that Shelby blocks are consecutively numbered with a serial number. If I recall correctly I have blocks ranging from 300 to 900-something (not sure of the exact serial numbers), and the last one I bought was in 2008, so it wouldn't surprise me if Shelby alone has sold 1200+ blocks since they were released in the mid 1990s.
Now that I think more about the Shelby block that would make sense
all the Cobra replica's. Doh
I must confess they start looking all the same after a while and I was not counting
those as I was thinking about this.
This what I think.
BBM- 100 to 110 iron all sold, they had some alum ones but not sure what happened
but there has yet to be a release.
Genesis- 150-250? I have one. It was not a lot though.
SOG- 50-100?
Pond- Not sure. Low vol though.
Dove- ? Very low vol.
Shelby- 1200+
Over 20 years.
Hey I'm all for it, flood the market make 10,000 blocks. ;D
One day the FE will be like the Flatty.
A novelty. Even this FE craze will die off.
As "we" this generation moves on.
Even standard good 390 blocks are starting to creep up.
And they are NOT making any more of them.
-
One thing to consider is changes in how prototyping is being done and how it affects small run manufacturing. CNC machines are great, but 3D printing is becoming viable. The SpaceX rocket uses a metal 3D printed main oxidizer valve - hard to beat that for cool (although it has yet to win the 24 hours at Le Mans) http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/07/31/spacex-launches-3d-printed-part-space-creates-printed-engine-chamber-crewed (http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/07/31/spacex-launches-3d-printed-part-space-creates-printed-engine-chamber-crewed). I don't think a 3D FE block is around the corner, but it may be viable to make the casting cores, and an important point, to make internal shapes that can't be made using conventional techniques.
I am curious about the raised cam idea and why it is necessary. I understand it allows a different angle to the lifter to resolve some of the pushrod/valve interference issues, but isn't the SOHC the elegant answer to that problem? Would it perhaps be a better use of time to make the SOHC parts more available?
-
I think the list idea would be a good one, even if you had to take a deposit of some sorts because it's odvious you will have alot more on the line with a $4000 block than the adapters. I know it's crazy sounding and maybe would be to much to keep up with but it would be great if a pay check to pay check kinda guy like me could put a deposit down an even add $ to it as it goes along so maybe when the blocks are done and ready it won't be so much of a strain to plop down the remaining balance. I know that's maybe not realistic but just a perspective from por boy racing... lol..
-
Im thinking that for the most part, the raised cam is mostly to be able to accommodate a longer stroke crank for more cubic inches..
-
I am curious about the raised cam idea and why it is necessary. I understand it allows a different angle to the lifter to resolve some of the pushrod/valve interference issues, but isn't the SOHC the elegant answer to that problem? Would it perhaps be a better use of time to make the SOHC parts more available?
Well, it certainly isn't necessary, but Keith is correct that it is to allow a longer stroke. The SOHC allows that too, but the SOHC is a much more complicated engine, with a lot more potential for things to go wrong. And its a lot more money...
-
I'd definitely put my name on a list..
Jay, any thoughts about final machining? Do you envision selling raw castings or finished products? When I bought my Pond block from KCR back in the day, I paid for align honing, final bore honing, square decking, setting the sleeves, cam bearings etc. Although some of these operations weren't done all that well ::), it was definitely a convenience to not have to ship it somewhere to have it done.
-
These would not be raw castings, but I don't think finish machining is on the menu, Phil. You need specialized equipment for align honing, bore finishing, etc. That equipment is not in the inventory of a typical CNC machine shop. Probably these blocks would need all that stuff. By the way, I got a Shelby block once and paid extra to have it align honed. What a joke, the mains were way off. I had to have my local shop do it again...
-
I think I'd almost want to be able to have those things done after acquiring the block. It's nice to be able to have someone at a shop that you trust do those things so you can comunacate and be in the loop.
-
It can be a daunting task to find a conscientious shop that takes pride in their work. :( My block originally had lovely egg shaped mains. Had to crate it up and send it back to be redone. Oh well. No one ever said this hobby is supposed to be easy.
-
RE: Siamesed bores
Jay - Since you're considering siamesed bores with heavy walls, you might ask the machinist if he can do a little trick we learned at Ford. From a core plug, you drill a few small holes through the material between the bores. We saw a lot of improvement in bore distortion from having a bit of cooling there. The higher the better, of course!
-
Here is an idea for more cubes and greater bore spacing-----make an Aluminum MEL block. Then you'll have the market cornered.
Mark
-
RE: Siamesed bores
Jay - Since you're considering siamesed bores with heavy walls, you might ask the machinist if he can do a little trick we learned at Ford. From a core plug, you drill a few small holes through the material between the bores. We saw a lot of improvement in bore distortion from having a bit of cooling there. The higher the better, of course!
That's an interesting idea, Bill, but I don't think we'd have the space for that here. For example, with the spread bore block, with bore spacing of 4.8 and finished bore size of 4.6, you only have 0.200" between the bores. And 0.180" of that is taken up by sleeves if they use a .090" wall. No room to drill the hole, really.
For a standard bore spacing it may work, although it might still be close. Let's say you have a finished 4.25" bore, and 0.125" thick sleeves. With the 4.63" bore spacing that would leave you a little more than 1/8" (0.130") to drill the hole. If you went down to 0.090" sleeves you would have 0.200" to drill the hole, which I think would be best case. Do you think such a small hole would help?
-
Actually, Ford did drill holes between the cylinders on their Motorsports blocks with siamesed cylinders. It is used on all the Nascar style engines. They simply drilled a small steam hole between the cylinders at an angle to let any trapped air be drawn off, and the small amount of cooling was a plus. The head gaskets have small holes for this modification used on motorsports blocks. We drilled drilled the blocks as early as the A4 block. The small hole is not an issue on the non thrust walls, and it is only as small as the drill bit and at an angle, so not a strength issue. Joe-JDC
-
One thing to consider is changes in how prototyping is being done and how it affects small run manufacturing. CNC machines are great, but 3D printing is becoming viable. The SpaceX rocket uses a metal 3D printed main oxidizer valve - hard to beat that for cool (although it has yet to win the 24 hours at Le Mans) http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/07/31/spacex-launches-3d-printed-part-space-creates-printed-engine-chamber-crewed (http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/07/31/spacex-launches-3d-printed-part-space-creates-printed-engine-chamber-crewed). I don't think a 3D FE block is around the corner, but it may be viable to make the casting cores, and an important point, to make internal shapes that can't be made using conventional techniques.
I am curious about the raised cam idea and why it is necessary. I understand it allows a different angle to the lifter to resolve some of the pushrod/valve interference issues, but isn't the SOHC the elegant answer to that problem? Would it perhaps be a better use of time to make the SOHC parts more available?
I don't think a 3D metal block would be able to handle the stresses of a FE that's been built for max power. The problem with anything that is 3D printed vs the same part that has been forged, is strength. A forged part is homogeneous, where as a 3D printed part is not due to curing in layers. You'd be better off having a billet FE block.
But like you pointed out, 3D printing will make creating these parts easier and cheaper with a higher level of accuracy. The various molds needed could be created using 3D printing. The recent shift to CAD modeling will also make this cheaper.
-
I don't think a 3D metal block would be able to handle the stresses of a FE that's been built for max power. The problem with anything that is 3D printed vs the same part that has been forged, is strength. A forged part is homogeneous, where as a 3D printed part is not due to curing in layers.
You did respond to my real point, about using 3D printing to make the molds - in fact you could make pretty accurate wax molds and use the lost wax method. Having said that, I would have agreed with your point until I read that SpaceX are using 3D printing for their mixing nozzles, not only that, they are using them to make full rocket motors - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDraco - I would surmise that they may have overcome some of the limitations of 3D printing.
3D printing is a generic term that isn't very informative about the actual process and technology in use. I do expect to hear some time soon that some madman is 3D printing engine blocks, and from what I've read, it would not shock me to find out it is Jay.
-
The problem with 3D printing is that everything cures in layers, even with powdered metal sintering. It's not that it cannot be used, it's that the material thickness has to be greater. Every method of creating something has its uses, where it shines and where it causes headaches. The below is likely a little biased due to being a forging company but many of the points are valid.
http://www.qcforge.com/Forging-vs-Powdered-Metal
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if information is coming from SpaceX or NASA, powdered metal sintering cannot achieve the same strength of forging given the same metal, when focusing on the metallurgical properties of both. But, every type of manufacturing comes with its own limitations and 3D printing from a design flexibility standpoint doesn't have many. Sometimes design flexibility can makeup for shortcomings in strength that enable the overall part to be stronger.
As for creating a custom FE block, I think it would need to be super low production runs and for the best results, a lost wax method might be best.
-
3D printing is great, but nobody is doing iron and few are doing aluminum due to the power demand. At the rocket engine company I work for, we have some of the largest printers in the world, but they're printing platens are still only ~15"x15" square. Keep in mind that post printing, you still have to send each part through a Hot Iso-static Pressure (HIP) process and additional heat treatment processes. Its great, but like all things, the more you know, the less great it then becomes. The process still has a long way to go before building larger parts such as an intake, and even further for a block.
Joe
-
Well, it depends on if you need the part to be metal or plastic...
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia-mobile/fna/us/en/news/2015/05/27/ford-using-computer-printed-parts-to-accelerate-product-developm.html
Ford is using 3D printed plastic parts for intakes on the FGT race car.
-
3D printing is great, but nobody is doing iron and few are doing aluminum due to the power demand. At the rocket engine company I work for, we have some of the largest printers in the world, but they're printing platens are still only ~15"x15" square. Keep in mind that post printing, you still have to send each part through a Hot Iso-static Pressure (HIP) process and additional heat treatment processes. Its great, but like all things, the more you know, the less great it then becomes. The process still has a long way to go before building larger parts such as an intake, and even further for a block.
Joe
I don't know Joe.
I had to google that and they have some pretty big 3d printers on the google.
Granted the aerospace probably has some very high end stuff, but there are guy's
in the shed building some stuff that is pretty crazy.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=large+3d+printer&biw=997&bih=775&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjKrb6y4IvNAhWpzIMKHTrbCKQQsAQISQ#tbm=isch&q=largest+3d+printer
-
Just a random thought. Looking at the cross bolts for the 3 center main caps. They use bolts and spacers that help locate the mains and keep them from walking. Could you use stud in place of the bolts and use a beveled nut and seat like a lug nut to apply the pressure. My thought on this is it would help locate the main cap up and down and for and aft. Jim
-
Just a random thought. Looking at the cross bolts for the 3 center main caps. They use bolts and spacers that help locate the mains and keep them from walking. Could you use stud in place of the bolts and use a beveled nut and seat like a lug nut to apply the pressure. My thought on this is it would help locate the main cap up and down and for and aft. Jim
would make a big mess when you need to align bore the caps then have nothing fit afterwards .... edit to ad >>> what would be neat is dowelled like BBM and then maybe 8 bolt main , 4 bolt main in the main web and 4 bolt cross bolts on the side
-
Good point, I didn't think that far ahead.
-
I had to google that and they have some pretty big 3d printers on the google.
Granted the aerospace probably has some very high end stuff, but there are guy's
in the shed building some stuff that is pretty crazy.
I should have been more clear. For printing metallics the plattens are still restricted to 15"x15" or so. But you're right, for plastics like nylon they've gone to much larger machines. The reason they can do that, is they dont need to have an inert atmosphere, and they dont need to heat the printing volumes. The heat is captured at the head with nylon (or other plastics) whereas with metallics its either a laser or electron-beam.
So maybe you could nylon print the typical sand casting portion of the block or intake, and then pour it like a lost-wax method?
Joe
-
For metallic printing, i know of a company that can print up to 762 × 393 × 393 mm for stainless steel. That comes out to 30" x 15.5" x 15.5". Not a bad working area and the company doesn't seem to be that expensive. Depending on how large the mold is, you could create permanent molds for an intake or head. So there would be the permanent mold you pour into with aluminum and then another mold you use to create either ceramic or sand based hollow shapes out of. You could ship the molds off to a company like Jet Hot to get a special coating that serves as a heat barrier and a mold release barrier.
I need to get SolidWorks but once I eventually have that installed, I plan to figure out a way to import my SOHC model. I'd really like to create some parts for the engine and SolidWorks is an amazing platform to design them. I've already started working on a Weber intake (similar in design to the Super Cyclone SOHC), a set of COBRA valve covers and a gear drive. All I need is SolidWorks and some time to start developing the parts with more detail, I'll have some money to eventually put into the designs to make them happen. My first priority would be the intake, I feel I could probably create a prototype for $4-5000 and after that, sell copies for $3-4000. But this is all early estimation.
-
I had to google that and they have some pretty big 3d printers on the google.
Granted the aerospace probably has some very high end stuff, but there are guy's
in the shed building some stuff that is pretty crazy.
I should have been more clear. For printing metallics the plattens are still restricted to 15"x15" or so. But you're right, for plastics like nylon they've gone to much larger machines. The reason they can do that, is they dont need to have an inert atmosphere, and they dont need to heat the printing volumes. The heat is captured at the head with nylon (or other plastics) whereas with metallics its either a laser or electron-beam.
So maybe you could nylon print the typical sand casting portion of the block or intake, and then pour it like a lost-wax method?
Joe
My new 3D printer is good for a 22" X 24" X 24" volume, using PLA, ABS, PVA, or nylon. The foundry I work with is promoting 3D printed sand molds for castings (!), which is pretty cool. Apparently they 3D print sand grains with some kind of a glue or binder, kind of the like the binder that holds airset sand together. I think you also might be able to 3D print the form for the sand casting, and then make the sand molds from that, but I'd think that pouring aluminum into a 3D printed plastic form would just instantly melt the form and pollute the casting. But who knows...
-
My new 3D printer is good for a 22" X 24" X 24" volume, using PLA, ABS, PVA, or nylon. The foundry I work with is promoting 3D printed sand molds for castings (!), which is pretty cool. Apparently they 3D print sand grains with some kind of a glue or binder, kind of the like the binder that holds airset sand together. I think you also might be able to 3D print the form for the sand casting, and then make the sand molds from that, but I'd think that pouring aluminum into a 3D printed plastic form would just instantly melt the form and pollute the casting. But who knows...
You can 3D print with metal as the material. This would be the way to go with a 3D printed mold. Or, create the positive molds with metal and then use sand or ceramics create the negative mold. I'd favor a permanent mold if you planned on producing the part more than once. Sometimes the shape of the part makes it rather difficult to go the permanent mold path and you're stuck using sand or ceramics. An intake however could be done with a permanent mold and then you just need some sand to fill the voids.
If you wanted to 3D print a part out of casting wax, you could go that route. Then just encase it in ceramics, melt the wax out and cast the part. Then spend a while chipping off the ceramic mold. This is more of a 1 off method however, as the wax part is destroyed and the ceramic mold can't be used again, unless you created it in layers the first time. Sand for voids will be easier to remove though.
-
Jay, shot you a reply to your PM. I had been browsing without logging in and didn't know I had a message....
-
or metallic printing, i know of a company that can print up to 762 × 393 × 393 mm for stainless steel
. Thanks for the info! Is the 762 dimension the Z or vertical build volume? I've seen an Arcam machine that was a ~15"x15" platten but had a tall build volume, about that I believe.
My new 3D printer is good for a 22" X 24" X 24" volume, using PLA, ABS, PVA, or nylon. The foundry I work with is promoting 3D printed sand molds for castings (!), which is pretty cool. Apparently they 3D print sand grains with some kind of a glue or binder, kind of the like the binder that holds airset sand together.
Jay, I've work with that type before as well. The binder is somewhat fragile, then they spray a coating on it and bake it, which firms it up. They're pretty neat. We used them as form-tools in low temperature composite curing situations for a fast proof of concept and had good luck with them.
-
I'm not sure, as they don't specify but from the video I've seen of the company I think it's length. It's a powdered mental 3D printer that uses a binder to hold the metal together until secondary process solidifies the part. In a way, it doesn't matter. You can build the part on its side. I'd assume the X dimension because you always list in X, Y, Z. Length always comes first, then width and then height.
The company is Shapeways, out of NY.
-
Joe,
Id never seen the one machine they're using as Im used to plastics, DMLS and EBM. This technology is much different and I find it quite interesting. It appears that it could have use for Jay as it actually prints the investment cast mold, and he could take it to a casting house ready to roll (so they claim).
http://www.3dsystems.com/quickparts/investment-casting-patterns
And it appears this could do the whole shootin match, assuming the material properties are sufficient.
http://www.exone.com/Systems/Production-Printers/M-Print
Thanks for sharing!
Joe
-
3dsystems also has the ability to print metal parts, out of titanium and stainless steel. Depending on the build envelope, you could print a set of heads with impossible design parameters. They might be able to do other materials too. Imagine a DOHC 427 FE with 4 valves... That is the magic of the 3D revolution, it allows one off production runs for a lot less money.
-
Joe,
That's where there is the rub, even the 3DSystem is limited to 10.8x10.8x16.5in in DMP. The Shapeways process could build parts but I dont know what you'd end up for material properties since its a sintered stainless that they then re-infiltrate with bronze. Maybe it'll work?
EOS has the largest machines currently that do actual metal deposition and melting within the machine (either DMP/DMLS/EBM), which will yield the same wrought material properties for INCO718 and 625, various titanium alloys, niobium, a few different grades of copper.
I know the machine makers want to go bigger, but the technology just isnt there quite yet. Itss getting there though, maybe in a few years.
-
But are there any companies that offer their services for such a printer?
-
I used 3D systems for some prototypes two years ago. I eventually found the name of the company they shopped the work out to in China and started using them directly. I did this because the finished product was very good (mostly CNC work), and 3D systems couldn't find enough ways to screw me up.
They shipped my parts to a competitor - TWICE. After I had a complete fit over it the first time, and got the strongest possible assurances it would never happen again, and how horrified they were at the mistake, they did it again. Then, some time later after I'd stopped using them, they shipped me parts for a different company.
On one of my orders they charged my credit card twice, and when I tried to explain to their accounting manager that they couldn't just process a credit, they had to actually reverse the transaction or it would incur several hundred dollars in exchange fees - USD to CAD - she asked me what CAD was. Now, many of you could be forgiven for not knowing the standard 3 character banking codes for currencies (USD, GBP, CAD, EUR, RMB, etc.) there is NO excuse for a senior manager in their accounting group to not know them.
Good quality work when I got it, and they were VERY convincing when they apologized - I gather they have a lot of experience.
-
Would you mind sharing the name of that Chinese company? I hate to say it but, Chinese work will probably be cheaper and sometimes just as good.
-
Stratasys in Austin is great to work with. Cal-RAM in the LA area have made good parts as well.
-
Jay -
Sorry for the late reply. Joe explained the small holes in the siamese wall quite well. On the 2.0L 4-cylinder engines we tested, the holes were only about .060" or so. There were three, drilled fairly horizontally instead of at the angle Joe mentioned.
The NASCAR guys are certainly doing this to help with bore distortion ---> ring seal for a few more ponies. It may still be worth checking out.
- Bill
-
Would you mind sharing the name of that Chinese company? I hate to say it but, Chinese work will probably be cheaper and sometimes just as good.
HLH Prototypes Co Ltd
Office: 1801 Xing Ji Building, Xin Sha Road, Shajing, Shenzhen
Factory: 2nd Floor, Bld 6, Hua Fa Industrial Park, 1st Fuyuan Road, Fu Yong Town, Bao' an District, Shenzhen,China
Tel: +86-755-82569129 Fax: +86-755-82569136
www.hlhprototypes.com info@hlhprototypes.com
What is nice is the manager (James Murphy) is English so talking to him is pretty simple. We had a few issues with them on some prototypes, but they fixed them very quickly.
-
Thanks for the information :)
-
This is great. I am very excited for any and all of this! I would buy an offset block and some radical heads in a heart beat.
On another note if you wanted to make a canted valve or hemi style head or anything of that sort it can easly disguised under a SHOC valve cover and still keep that FE look.
-
This is exciting news.
I'll jump on the bang wagon with others that I'm not wealthy enough to slap down $20,000 (++) for a engine, but to those of you that can, what an amazing motor it will be for you !
Now for us lower income guys. Like mentioned before, the newer FE and Side Oiler engine's today are almost out of reach for us to purchased.
The Shelby is way out of reach and the lowest price of $4,000 for the BBM a real stretch.
If indeed, we could get enough interest with Jay's block & heads, there's nothing in world that would make me happier than this combination sitting within the frame rails in my 427 Cobra replica.
Even if I could not afford this engine, this is very exciting for the FE world ! 8)
-
I think I see the reason for your financial issues.... DAAAMN dude! It's a good issue to have....
-
On my last .060 over 390, the one the 428 crank broke in after either slinging the weight, breaking the eagle rod, can't say for sure what happened first lol but anyway on that 390 105 block I put roller cam bearings in and we were able to make a cutter and use the align bore machine to deepen the oil grooves around #2 and #4 cam bearings since boring the bearing registers took most of the passage away.
Several years ago I did an engine at Roush's prototype shop in which we used 385-size roller cam bearings in my C4 390 block. (The cam journal size is the same in both the FE and 385.) In order to do the oiling grooves in the cam tunnel, we set up the block in a boring mill. It worked perfectly, but you have to have such a boring mill---it's so large you have to use a step-ladder and climb up on it in order to do the set-up.
KS
-
:D
-
Uummm yeah, I can really appreciate the curves on the cobra too 8)
-
I agree, there's nothing like great body curves. ;)
-
How about incorporating a one piece rear seal on the new blocks.
-
Any news on progress for the blocks? Or what features may be incorporated?
-
I'm hoping to get an update next week. Regarding the one piece seal, I think that would require a crank with different dimensions on the back, so that is probably not going to happen.
-
I'm hoping to get an update next week. Regarding the one piece seal, I think that would require a crank with different dimensions on the back, so that is probably not going to happen.
plus will require different flex plate and/or flywheel because a FE crank flange would be larger than the OD of the one piece main seal , just not as easy as it sounds
-
In the somewhat near future( with in a year or two) I'll be in the market for an alum block. The power and rpm levels that really require an aftermarket block would mean some homework would be done on a tranny that can also stand the abuse. With that said the fe is kinda an odd duck for bell housing choices. So if a new block were to come to market would it be feasible to include sbf or 385 series bell housing pattern? Either bell housing pattern would open up a slew of transmission choices and bell housing options and not require the need for an adapter motor plate or adapter bell housing for the high hp/rpm applications that an aftermarket block would probably require. And for the street crowd it would open up a huge market for the many overdrive transmissions currently in circulation. Just a thought I had on the subject......
-
Re: " From a core plug, you drill a few small holes through the material between the bores. We saw a lot of improvement in bore distortion from having a bit of cooling there. The higher the better, of course!"
Bill a "hot spot" will sometimes produce steam pockets that in effect are self increasing in severity. A steam pocket/bubble holds the coolant off the already heated metal which in turn without coolant contact further increases the temp of the metal's surface since it's lost contact with the coolant. Being hotter it further holds coolant away and the heating in specific spots goes critical... Simply drilling passages between the bores in no way insures adequate differential pressure exits between the two ends of said passage. Low/no flow is indicative of not carrying away the heat. The current Ford Racing NASCAR engines utilize designated water manifolds to distribute coolant under pressure to exact positions of the cylinders/heads for optimum cooling. It's said the Ford NASCAR motor is exceptionally efficient at cooling and can utilize a smaller grill opening/radiator than brand x's.
The classic FE's cooling jackets are a long way from getting coolant where it's most needed--- when you look at it closely it's painfully primitive.
-
Any updates when BBM will have blocks ?
How do we get on the list ?
How many are on the waiting list ? (sure it's hard for us to find out)
Realisticly,.......how long will the wait be. 1 month,........12 months, or in my case, I may die of old age before my number comes up ? :'(
-
BB - Re your comment that drilling small holes between bores doesn't ensure coolant flow. I'm sure in some cases you are correct, but in our test engines the data showed a lot of bore distortion improvement. We also had measurable power increase due to better ring seal. We wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't worth the trouble!
The upper part of the cylinder block doesn't get that hot, especially compared to the exhaust valve area of the head. In that area you've got to do a lot of work to ensure coolant flow! Remember too that on those race engines the water manifolds are plumbed to the head above the deck, not the block water jacket. My Gurney Weslake heads had the same deal...
-
I called them today, and I'm on the list for Sept. for a block. I said that as of right now, I'm undesided on what way I want to go for a block, old or new, but he said I can cancel at anytime.
They also have their bare heads on sale for $1,100 shipped. Hum.....?
-
Just curious why you would ask about BBM blocks on a thread about a totally different block possibility.
What's the connection?
Don't get me wrong I think BBM has a great product but WTH.
-
The BBM has been mentioned several times about cost, availability, production numbers etc.
My point is, we really have no idea on this new block, heads and intakes. The BBM's are supposed to be available in Sept., so do I wait on the proposed block, heads and intake or the BBM ?
If the possible production times were posted, I may wait to see what happens, as with Jay being the best FE guy out there, I'm sure the products will be well worth it. So are these new products possible anytime soon, or will it take a few years before production starts ?
-
It is certainly a good idea to be looking at other options besides the heads and blocks described in this topic. As mentioned at the very beginning, this topic was designed to gauge interest, there is no guarantee that any of these products will come to fruition, and the parts are probably still 9-12 months away, if everything goes according to plan. For my part, I'm pretty committed to making the heads and intakes a reality, but I don't have any direct control over the blocks. I'm sure things will get clearer as time goes by...
-
Well, maybe waiting for the block is what I may do then.
Very exciting Jay.
-
I was thinking today about the offset bore block. Now a 427 on a valve cover is cool. A 527 on a valve cover is just awesome. But today I just thought how amazing 627 on a valve cover would be. wow!
-
I would love to see provisions for more bell housings.
To me it seams a way better option than using an adapter.
I am looking seriously at the 6r140 for my truck, it's an almost ideal trans.
The 6r80 is awesome too, but don't think it would like the torque I'm hoping to generate.
Drag racers understandably like to keep things simple, so a bullet proof 3 speed is hard to beat. But those of us wanting a dayly driver or street/strip machine really like the idea of a wide gear spread, more gears, overdrive and a locking torque converter.
How much more would it add to the cost of the block to add a little extra meat where needed and drill & tap 6-8 more holes? Just my 2 cents.
-
I am hoping for a big bore block with a minimal of major specification changes from stock, trying to make too many changes gets expensive. My two cents would be to run a built C4/6 three speed and add the Gearvendors overdrive unit..a six speed that can handle 1200hp. I was bench building a big bore SOHC (632cid) and remembered that custom heads may be required as stated in Jays first post. I know that to do the 585 offset pistons - the dome?? - were used, so with a 4.6 bore a SOHC may not be possible unless someone does a custom head for this block?? With a limited number of suppliers do you think one of them would step in and work to get them available?? With the big cubes a raised intake port would be nice too even though intake spacers would be necessary. A pro port SOHC head..??? then you could even move the rocker shafts around for help getting a better ratio - man I'm glad it doesn't cost anything to bench build..lol!!
-
I know this is a very old post but if your starting with a clean sheet how about a dual bell housing pattern for a late model transmission that would save a lot of money for people who want overdrive in turn a cost offset overall. Just thinking sorry about being so late to the game.
-
Has there been any progress on the potential new engine blocks?
The purpose of this post is to gauge interest in these parts. No commitment to production has been
made yet, but the designs of the parts are mostly complete, and they could be brought to production
status within a year. If you may be interested in any of these parts, please respond to the poll at
the top of the post, or if you are not a forum member, email me at jayb@fepower.net. No commitment
is required at this point, of course, we are just trying to get a feel for interest from the FE
community.
Let's talk about the block first. I have recently been discussing this with the block manufacturer.
I'm excited about some special features of this block that have not been previously available to us
FE folks. I'm also interested because I have been surprised by the recent price increases of
aluminum FE blocks. Having some experience through my intake adapter projects with foundry and
machining costs, I don't see a good reason for these price increases. Yet a Shelby block is now all
the way up to $7250, and a Pond aluminum block is $5700. Not sure what the price on a BBM aluminum
block is, but I think at least $4500 (anybody know)?
The block manufacturer is trying to get an aluminum block to market for a selling price of
$4000. This is less expensive than any aluminum FE block has ever been, as far as I know. This would be
for a standard 427 style block with replaceable sleeves, sideoiler oiling system, standard bore spacing,
with bores up to 4.35". Steel crossbolted main caps and main studs would be included. This would
basically be the same as some of the aluminum blocks that are already out there, but at a more reasonable
price.
Now here's what gets my juices flowing on this. For an additional cost of about $1000, the block would also
be available with a raised cam and spread bore spacing, to allow big cubic inches. The cam would be
raised to eliminate the interference between the rod shoulders and the cam lobes, and would allow strokes
up to 4.750", assuming a 2.200" rod journal diameter like the existing stroker cranks out there, and an
aftermarket connecting rod. Special requirements for the raised cam version would be the use of a
429/460 timing chain with the standard FE timing gears, A specially machined version of my FE timing cover
with the removable front plate (for clearance to the raised top cam gear), and also a custom distributor
gear and spacer, to raise the distributor gear on the shaft, and provide a spacer between the bottom of the
raised gear and the ledge in the block. Stock FE distributors (minus the stock gear), oil pumps and oil
pump driveshafts would be retained.
The spread bore version would allow bore spacing up to 4.800", and bores up to 4.600". I have a little
experience with this kind of thing already, because I spread the bore spacing on the Shelby block
in my big SOHC to 4.700" and use a 4.500" bore. I also was able to fit a 4.600" stroke in the SOHC,
because there are no cam lobes to get in the way of the rod shoulders. This resulted in 585 cubic inches.
With this block, using a 4.750" stroke and 4.600" bore, cubic inches would be 632! These dimensions are
the same as the very popular 632" big block Chevrolet. How does a 632" engine in your 390 Mustang or
Torino sound?
Special requirements for the spread bore version would be special head gaskets for whatever bore spacing was
used (which either I or the block manufacturer would make available, probably SCE or Cometic), custom pistons,
and in some cases custom cylinder heads. Any cylinder head with factory dimensions would work on bore spacings
up to 4.700" with a 4.500" bore, using special pistons (like what I did with my big SOHC), but going past those
dimensions would require special heads.
A tall deck version of the block is also being considered, but may be less attractive for a variety of reasons,
including tooling cost for that version. Since a 4.75" stroke and a 6.625" rod will fit with the stock FE deck
height, it doesn't seem like a tall deck offers a lot of advantages. And it does make for a lot of complications
(special sleeves, special intake, special distributor, heavier rod, etc). However, since this is an aluminum
block with sleeves, a simple spacer on top of the block deck, coupled with longer sleeves, could be used to
increase the deck height. Matching spacers would have to be used between the heads and the intake and on the
end rails of the block.
The heads and intake are my part of this project. I have been thinking about this for a long time, because
the basic FE cylinder head architecture is outdated, and is the major limiting factor in producing big
horsepower levels. But because of the complexity of the FE intake, where pushrods, water jacket,
distributor and valve cover rail all go through the intake manifold, it is difficult to change the basic
design, so we have been stuck up to now with the basic FE architecture.
When I designed my intake adapters, I did both the medium riser and high riser/tunnel port versions. The
high riser/tunnel port versions were designed as more or less a blank canvas, so that I could put the valve
cover rail and ports anywhere I wanted, to satisfy the requirements for both high risers and tunnel ports,
and any custom cylinder head that may come along (for example, an Edelbrock Pro-Port head).
My cylinder head design will work with a special version of the high riser/tunnel port intake adapter. I
don't want to say a whole lot about the heads yet, except that they will feature inline valves like a
standard FE, repositioned and radically raised intake ports, and an option for radically raised exhaust ports
(with standard exhaust port locations available for shock tower cars). They will require longer than stock
valves, custom pushrods, and a special intake rocker, but will retain the stock exhaust rockers and stock rocker
shafts. The rocker stands will be incorporated into the cylinder heads for rigidity. Stock FE valve covers
will be retained. All ports will be CNC ported, with different size valves and ports available to match the
application, from a 390 inch engine all the way up to a big cube engine. I am shooting for maximum flow numbers
in the 475-500 cfm range, using the biggest valves and ports that I am planning. But even set up with the
smaller ports and valves, the ratio of flow to port cross sectional area will be significantly better than a
stock FE port, because the radically redesigned intake port will be much more efficient than a stock-architecture
FE port.
Finally, the casting will be done so that I can machine the heads for different bore spacings, to match up with
the different bore spacings available from the block described previously.
The intake adapter will be machined to fit the pushrod and port requirements of these heads. I am working on
four potential intakes that will fit on the intake adapter used with these heads, as follows:
- Individual runner crossram style intake, EFI only, fits under stock hood
- Plenum style intake with a front facing throttle body, EFI only, fits under stock hood
- Single 4 in either 4150 or 4500 style, two piece and split down the middle for easy porting, carb or EFI, will
not fit under stock hood
- 2X4 sheet metal style intake, fully machined (not cast), carb or EFI, will not fit under stock hood.
One thing to note here is that, so far at least, I don't have a carbed version that will fit under the stock hood.
The intake ports are raised so much that the additional height of the carburetor on top of the intake makes
for a package that is difficult to fit. I may be able to come up with a design for this at some point, but it
would probably compromise performance somewhat. The EFI versions get around the hood clearance issue; no carb.
I'm shooting for pricing of about $2000 for a pair of the bare heads, plus about $500 for the longer, hollow-stem
valves and $400 for the intake rockers. This is with no valve job or hand porting done. I sell the intake
adapters for $689, and I would expect the intake manifolds to range from $500 to $1500, depending on which type.
So the complete package, with heads, valves, intake rockers, intake adapter, and intake manifold would be in the
$4100 - $5100 range.
With these new heads and intakes I think you could build an easy 700 HP 390 stroker, a big cube 900 HP streetable
FE, or an 1100 HP race engine.
On the heads and intakes, I'm about halfway between pipe dream and full production. I'm getting ready to start
3D printing copies of the head design for flow testing of the port designs, and I may try to CNC a billet version
of the heads, in two pieces that can be bolted or welded together, for some actual dyno testing before I go for
the tooling to get them made. I don't have the designs for the intakes finished yet, but I'm working on them.
I don't have any control on the block; that is totally up to the block manufacturer, and all I can do
is advise.
Again I must stress that lots of things could come up that would cause me to abandon this project (not the least
of which is the cost), and I'm sure the block manufacturer feels the same way. But I'm pretty excited
about this and really do want to bring these projects to conclusion. However, I could really use a little
feedback on how desirable you guys think these things are. So if you are interested in something like this, or
have any comments, pro or con, please post them here or let me know via email. Thanks, Jay
-
The deal I was trying to make with the engine block designer fell through, so no progress on that. I am still planning to do a block, but it won't be until after I have my cylinder heads finished and available.
-
Any time frame update on heads?
-
I'm hoping to have at least one sample casting to show at the FE Reunion. Still sticking with my guess of availability for purchase at the end of this year.
-
Regarding the spread bore operation you designed and performed on your 585 SOHC Shelby aluminum engine block: Is it possible and practical, relatively speaking, to do so with a BBM iron engine block? Would 8 sleeves be required, and is there any method of doing so that would not result in cracking?
The deal I was trying to make with the engine block designer fell through, so no progress on that. I am still planning to do a block, but it won't be until after I have my cylinder heads finished and available.
-
No idea if that would work with an iron block. You'd have to roll the dice and try it, keeping in mind that you might be turning the block into scrap...