FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: Skeeter65 on March 20, 2021, 07:58:07 PM
-
Can anyone give me a list or diagram of the oiling mods that need to be made on an FE? I’m going to have the machine shop do them while he has the block and want to make sure he gets everything done that should be for the improved oiling.
Thanks.
-
You don't really need to do anything, but if you simply must then here are some pages from an old story on FE oiling.
-
Main thing is a good oil pan. 7qt. With baffles is worthwhile. Other than that .070" restrictor to the rocker arms and open up the feed to the filter adapter. Rest proper prep and clearances. If going turn alot of RPM bbc rod journal size is a plus. The fe rod bearing size is a weak point. Is too narrow and too big in diameter.
-
I was wondering the same. Thank you!
-
I am one who believes that the origin of the side-oiler was due to weak spots in the design of the center oiler. Here's my thinking.
The very first time I took my '64 Custom/427 to Milan, I discovered that the oil warning light came on just before the 'eyes' and stayed on until I went down the return road, when it would go off. I was there with my cousin Bob, who knew someone from DST who was there that morning. We found him and discussed my experience. He said that, at a minimum, I needed to drop the sump on the factory pan and add two extra quarts of oil. He spoke of it as a 'band-aid' and said that the real culprit was the design of the oiling path with the oil running from the main gallery in the valley, down the openings and behind the cam bearings, with bleed-off there, before getting to the mains. I built a deep-sump pan and quit worrying about it at that time.
Some years ago, I did a series of articles for Mustang Illustrated Magazine on improving the FE engine. All the work was done at Roush's Prototype Engine Facility in Livonia, MI. Jack was very helpful to me and enabled me to call a series of round-table discussions with those of his employees who had been part of the original FE engineering team. They'd come to work for/with him after regular retirement.
After discussing oiling modifications with them, it was decided to improve, as much as possible on the significant oil volume and pressure loss at the cam bearings. We put the C4 block I was using in a boring mill and opened the cam tunnel slightly, to make possible to insertion of roller cam bearings intended for a 385-series engine. The bearing ID is the same as an FE but the OD is larger to make room for the rollers. And since the rollers oil by splash, there is no loss of oil---the outer shell of the roller assemblies have no opening for oil to leak out. After opening the cam tunnel, the grooves running around the circumferences of the openings were enlarged. Greater flow and no loss between the main gallery and the main bearings.
The main gallery is also bored half from the front and half from the back of the block. It is common to have a mismatch where they meet in the middle. We ran an extended-length half-inch reamer all the way through to eliminate any mis-match.
We, therefore, did, within the block, the same sort of arrangement used in top fuel blocks where the mains are fed through hollow cross-bolts direct to the mains. Each way does the same sort of thing---the mains have priority instead of being at the far end of the engine oil circulation.
KS
-
I've just gone threw my whole oil system. It was a lot of work but, all the galleys, from the pump, to the end of the main, top galley are a minimum 7/16" now. The FE was designed to be a 3/8 feed. Opening the pump to the diagonal 7/16 hole, that runs across the front bulkhead, doesn't do much, to change that. You will have extra volume to only the front cam bearing and the dist feed hole. It helps nothing else. Where it will help the most, is getting it to the main galley, at the top of the block.
That galley, feeds 4 cam and main bearings, as well as the rocker arms and all the lifter bores, for Hydraulic lifter blocks. You can open the the main galley to 7/16" with a 12" long, split point aircraft type drill but, it has to be done carefully, from both ends, in order to meet in the middle.
But, It is still a 3/8 feed system, until you open the the other 3/8" diagonal galley, at the front of the main galley, that meets the front bulkhead galley. That one, is even harder to do, to insure it intersects with front feed. I'll post a link on how I did both. I wasn't confident, at all, in doing it, without the drill guilds I made.
Ok, now that you've done all that, you can be sure you'll have more oil volume, to all the leakage at the different bearings, rockers and lifters. it's important to meter the oil to the rockers, for less bleed @ those two bearings. But, there is one more issue, the 4, annular grooves that the oil to the mains, has to go threw. I measured the rear and #3. They are .235 wide and .115 & .126 deep, on my engine. So, the flow area is less than a hole of .25 diameter. A .25 hole, has a area of .049 sq in, the area of my rear main (.235 x .115, per side) is about .043. Not much oil transfer volume. I have no way to easily, deal with this, for all 4 bearing, or I would have. It can be done with a rotory table and a long arbor or interpolated them, on a CNC.
Because the mains webs, aren't very wide, if modified them, I would use a 2" x 9/32 circular cutter, ground .14R and cut the grooves .150 deep. Then drill threw to the main galley with a letter L (.290) drill. That would increase the volume area, to .066, or 150%.
As some know, I've learned a lot about Ted Wells, high hp, high revving, 361 Ford engine. He did two basic oil mods. First he drilled the main feed holes, all the way threw to the main galley @ 5/16". As you know, #2 & #4 mains, come close to the edge of the cam bore when drilled 1/4" (he cautioned about that) and that's the reason I wouldn't go more than .290 but, he did nothing to enlarge the annular groove so, I don't think he accomplished anything by doing it.
Second, he blocked the rocker arm feed, completely and ran, restricted 1/4" od lines to the rockers, off the main galley. A inconvenient modification but, a good one to keep full flow to #2 & #4 mains. I would do this, if I made my own rocker stands (thinking about it).
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=9500.50
PS
I asked in my build project, if any others had the measurements of the annular grooves (both width and depth) to see if Ford ever made them any larger. I'd still like to hear back.
-
For some reason, guys put a lot more effort into this than what it needs to be and you can go so far that you will weaken the block. I've seen numerous FE blocks that are cracked through every main where someone along the way had completed "oil mods".
The biggest oil mods I do are:
1. Tap all the gallery plugs for screw in plugs.
2. Blend in the oil pump mounting hole.
3. If you're using race bearings such as a Federal Mogul or similar, very lightly blend the saddle hole back to meet the bearing hole on the #2 and #4 main saddle.
4. Restrict oil to the top end where applicable.
5. Run correct bearing clearances for the mains, rods, and camshaft according to your application.
Based on my experience, nothing else needs to be done at all and there are a lot of things that can damage the integrity of the block. I will vouch that these mods alone will support 700 hp and 7500 rpm.
The origin of a lot of these "oil mods" stem from decades ago when oil pan designs stunk, oils stunk, and aftermarket rods were few and far between.
I completely disagree with drilling and opening up the main saddles. Please DO NOT ask your machinist to drill anything out. It's completely unnecessary and is a good way to cause yourself some issues down the road. FE blocks are known to split in between the mains and cam. Don't do anything to help it along. If I were to get a block in here with all these extra drilling procedures completed, it would quickly leave without becoming a completed engine.
-
I hope this thread doesn't go south, somehow oil mods bring out the best in us LOL
This really isn't a question about HOW to get volume though, it's closer to do you NEED to get more volume and where does the risk shift to? In my opinion, a well prepped block, in this case meaning: straight main bore, straight crank, and balanced with proper crush and clearances, just doesn't need more than Brent's 5, assuming there isn't some sort of casting flash or an old push-in plug jammed in there (both I have seen)
Trying not to pick a side, but I would advise anyone that came to me to follow the 5 listed above, it's also what I do. The risk/reward math isn't worth it to me, especially if a block with any value. I also wholeheartedly agree with Brent on the mains. FE blocks are known to crack in the saddles when drilled, heck, some crack in the main bolt threads UNdrilled. I would not do more than an easy chamfer, and only if needed. As far as PSE-like modifications to push oil through the side, they also scare me because I really want the weight bearing part of the mains to be as strong as they can be, the cross bolt is likely plenty strong, but working the cap seems to be counter-intuitive.
Remember, this isn't a low pressure cutting oil feed, it is a 65-80psi feed, there is a ton of oil through small holes. As Brent said, bad pans, crappy oil, marginal machining, I just hate to see people carving on things without a very purposeful reason
One other point, some machinists are sharp, some march to a different tune. I am down to a single real good one, so I'd be leery of going to a knife edge with the average guy and a block with core shift. It's one of those "will it work if I don't?" questions, and if the answer is yes, DON'T
FYI, I did some quick research on Ted Wells, stories overlap, but seems like he was sharp and pretty fast for his time. However, at some point, he switched from the 361/352 (depending on source) to a destroked 427 at 397 inches. They claim he launched at 8300 RPM and broke pinion gears out of 9 inches, (no surprise if he launched that high) and ran 10.70s with the car, but I can't tell which engine and any specifics on the car when it ran that fast. If the stories are true and he was 3800 lbs, he was making 600+ HP, so I really doubt it was 10.70s with the 361
I'd be interested to hear more specific details if the exist, to include what he was trying to correct and what led him to that. Don't forget adding all the flow, and spinning that high, likely required something different for a pump and supply side work, likely a dual inlet Milodon or Moroso cover at least, whoever made those back then, and of course when you open up one feed, you lose volume at another, there is no free chicken.
In the end though, I haven't had a lick of issues on many FEs using similar to Brent's.
-
Can anyone give me a list or diagram of the oiling mods that need to be made on an FE? I’m going to have the machine shop do them while he has the block and want to make sure he gets everything done that should be for the improved oiling.
Thanks.
What is the intended purpose for the engine, and how it will be used? A near stock build really needs nothing done to the block for oiling, after all, it has already lasted over 50 years, right? Depending on the HP level and RPM, some mods are a good idea, but what Brent has listed are about I would do , unless it`s some 8500 RPM high power Super Stock or similar build, then I would ask somebody like Blair that specializes in such engines. Like Brent said, the risk of splitting the main webbing in the block outweighs any perceived benefit from drilling out the main feed holes. Since having one of my 428 drag engines split the #2 & 4 main webbing between the crank and cam bores, I don`t even open up the oil feed holes to match the main bearings anymore. On my block, the cracks went directly thru the oil feed holes, where I had radiused them.
-
FYI, I did some quick research on Ted Wells, stories overlap, but seems like he was sharp and pretty fast for his time. However, at some point, he switched from the 361/352 (depending on source) to a destroked 427 at 397 inches. They claim he launched at 8300 RPM and broke pinion gears out of 9 inches, (no surprise if he launched that high) and ran 10.70s with the car, but I can't tell which engine and any specifics on the car when it ran that fast. If the stories are true and he was 3800 lbs, he was making 600+ HP, so I really doubt it was 10.70s with the 361
The info I have on Ted, is out of his own mouth, in a feature, CC magazine article. He ran 11.18/121.46 with the 361, in a 3200 lb car. He ran the 10.70 with the 396, no mph given. The '54 Ford Mainline (base model), is a fairly light car. With a 6 cyl engine, the curb weight is 3070. That's one of the reason I wanted one. Their weight would be in the '64 Fairlane region, with a FE installed. I believe the 3270 lb cited was with driver, as he had a fiberglass bumper, hood and fenders.
As to it said that drilling or matching the holes in the main saddles, causes cracking. While Brent says he has seen "lots" of it and Rory documents his, others say it has happened w/o any modifications. Only a objective investigation would tell what's happening. Regardless of Brent saying he can get 700 hp, with a standard FE block, Ford didn't create the side oiler for no reason. Does anyone think the side oiler is worth nothing or Ford wasted their time and money making them? In those days, Ford had one of the best high performance and pure race, engineering teams, of all time!
Back to Teds engine. I do not recommend drilling the main feeds to 5/16", at all. Increasing them any amount, won't increase oil flow to the mains, w/o increasing the annular grooves width or depth. But, if what is being said, weakens all blocks, he would have lost oil pressure, soon after doing it, since it puts the edge of the hole, very close to the edge of the main web. He used 5/32 rings, gaped .019, with Forge True, 12.25 CR pistons and a quote from him is, "I can make 150 to 200 runs, with these rings, before I get serious blow by" so, he ran it a LOT w/o issue. Here we have, with Rory's block, a minor mod, with a crack and Ted's a major mod, w/o a crack.
The bearing matching has been going on many years and has been fine, in most all blocks. It for sure, doesn't crack any block it's done to. Ted's mod is unusual and much more radical but, his block, didn't crack. So, this is not a settled issue. I do this stuff, because I can and if you have a 3/8 orifice at any point, that's where the flow is maxed out and there is no need to open anything on a FE, including the oil pump mount, as the front main and dist oiling won't even improve and 90% of the oiling comes after that, in a 3/8" feed. Even blending mismatches, won't do much if anything to help flow.
-
Should the length of the oil passage in question be considered when calculating flow volume as will as diameter? example; easy to blow through a foot of garden hose and very difficult with a 30 ft. length.
-
FYI, I did some quick research on Ted Wells, stories overlap, but seems like he was sharp and pretty fast for his time. However, at some point, he switched from the 361/352 (depending on source) to a destroked 427 at 397 inches. They claim he launched at 8300 RPM and broke pinion gears out of 9 inches, (no surprise if he launched that high) and ran 10.70s with the car, but I can't tell which engine and any specifics on the car when it ran that fast. If the stories are true and he was 3800 lbs, he was making 600+ HP, so I really doubt it was 10.70s with the 361
The info I have on Ted, is out of his own mouth, in a feature, CC magazine article. He ran 11.18/121.46 with the 361, in a 3200 lb car. He ran the 10.70 with the 396, no mph given. The '54 Ford Mainline (base model), is a fairly light car. With a 6 cyl engine, the curb weight is 3070. That's one of the reason I wanted one. Their weight would be in the '64 Fairlane region, with a FE installed. I believe the 3270 lb cited was with driver, as he had a fiberglass bumper, hood and fenders.
As to it said that drilling or matching the holes in the main saddles, causes cracking. While Brent says he has seen "lots" of it and Rory documents his, others say it has happened w/o any modifications. Only a objective investigation would tell what's happening. Regardless of Brent saying he can get 700 hp, with a standard FE block, Ford didn't create the side oiler for no reason. Does anyone think the side oiler is worth nothing or Ford wasted their time and money making them? In those days, Ford had one of the best high performance and pure race, engineering teams, of all time!
Back to Teds engine. I do not recommend drilling the main feeds to 5/16", at all. Increasing them any amount, won't increase oil flow to the mains, w/o increasing the annular grooves width or depth. But, if what is being said, weakens all blocks, he would have lost oil pressure, soon after doing it, since it puts the edge of the hole, very close to the edge of the main web. He used 5/32 rings, gaped .019, with Forge True, 12.25 CR pistons and a quote from him is, "I can make 150 to 200 runs, with these rings, before I get serious blow by" so, he ran it a LOT w/o issue. Here we have, with Rory's block, a minor mod, with a crack and Ted's a major mod, w/o a crack.
The bearing matching has been going on many years and has been fine, in most all blocks. It for sure, doesn't crack any block it's done to. Ted's mod is unusual and much more radical but, his block, didn't crack. So, this is not a settled issue. I do this stuff, because I can and if you have a 3/8 orifice at any point, that's where the flow is maxed out and there is no need to open anything on a FE, including the oil pump mount, as the front main and dist oiling won't even improve and 90% of the oiling comes after that, in a 3/8" feed. Even blending mismatches, won't do much if anything to help flow.
Do I think a S/O block is necessary? No. Do I think it has some desirable traits, such as priority main oiling? Sure. The true beauty of a side oiler is in the block's strength.
Most of the things we are looking at in the year 2021 with regard to the FE engine are about 55 years old, give or take. Understand that in 1965, they were only 30-40 years removed from dipper oiling and poured bearings! With that being said, a lot of the problems guys were dealing with in the 60's were because of the lack of technology at the time.
As I mentioned, oil was junk. I've pulled valve covers off of old cores and found a heap of sludge the shape of the valve cover.
Lots of guys spun rod bearings back then. It's because the stock rods were junky and guys found out to make them survive with "current" technology, they would hone the big ends out of round.
Big oil pans were almost non-existent, it's not like anything today, when the aftermarket is full of big sump oil pans.
I could give many more examples.
The point is that guys who were really whooping on the FE back then didn't know what we know now about things. So their reactions were, "I'll just make everything bigger."
In reality, the top oiler oiling system isn't much different than a SBC. As you know, they do quite well.
In response to your comment about the oil pump mounting hole, I do not enlarge that passage, but only match it and blend it to the oil pump, just because it's not good practice to dead-head flow. Just like we don't like the air/fuel charge hitting a wall when the intake port is bigger than the head port, it's not good for oil to hit a brick wall either.
And in response to Ted running hundreds of runs without cracking a main saddle, that's all fine and good. Ted got lucky and just because he mentioned it on that one block doesn't mean that he hadn't seen it. In addition, I make more power out of a street 445 now than he did with a full race engine. Horsepower is hard on things. I've seen and know of many, many blocks that have cracked there. Opening those passages up is assuming a huge risk with absolutely zero benefit.
-
Frank, I split my 428 block about 10-12 years ago, Ted Wells was racing his car in the late 60s-early 70s. 35 years of use would likely contribute to block streses, wouldn`t you think? Also, I was running a 428 crank, which obviously has much longer stroke, plus was externally balanced, so more stress on the much older block as well. Also, I ran that particular 428 for over 12 years, with a stick, I wouldn`t be suprised if my 428 had a lot more runs than Wells 352 did.
-
Standard bore 427 side oiler....cracked through the middle 3 mains, originating from the feed holes. One of my customer's brought this block in for a Tunnel Port build. He had saved this block for years. When we got it cleaned up, the cracks were very apparent.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4261/35770817101_8d5e2ecdae_z.jpg)
-
Standard bore 427 side oiler....cracked through the middle 3 mains, originating from the feed holes. One of my customer's brought this block in for a Tunnel Port build. He had saved this block for years. When we got it cleaned up, the cracks were very apparent.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4261/35770817101_8d5e2ecdae_z.jpg)
That is such a sad post. I would be gutted if that happened to me, especially after planning and hoping for all those years.
In any case, a great thread and typical of the conversations on this forum. With what I have learned here in the past 4 years since I built my first I think I may have to build a second! Just need car for it.
-
That block is why I say either build a common easy to find and cheap 390 block and make a 445 out of it or buy an aftermarket block like a BBM or Pond. Just saw a .017" over S/O block sell for $3,200.
As to blocks cracking, it is not just FE's that crack at the main oil feed hole up to the cam, are a lot of other cam in block blocks do the same. Other place common is at the main cap bolt hole. Best advice be use a light rotating assembly, balance everything, and keep the engine out of Detonation! Fun fact on at least the early 427 blocks Ford machined the main oil holes at the mains wider so guess they were more concerned with oil to the crank at the time. I would not recommend do it today as not needed.
Regarding the reason for the side oiler, only reason Ford did it was for NASCAR use where had to go 500 miles at 7,000 rpm. They also widened the rod journal and had special bearing made. This was to increase the load bearing area. The other thing they did was cross drill the crank which cause oil starvation at high RPM. The solution enough oil pressure and more direct feed path (Side oiling) to over come the centrifugal force making the oil go the wrong direction in the crank. Also keep in mind NASCAR made them sell this stuff in cars back then to be legal to race.
As said the T/O oiling system is similar to a SBC and nobody complains about SBC oiling. The difference is the SBC does not oil the rockers off of #2 & 4 cam bores and the rod bearing is wider. The FE has one of the narrowest rod bearing of any American V-8. Want to improve the oiling on a T/O FE? other than a good pan would be oil the rockers via lifters and block the rocker feeds. Find some cam bearing that are not drilled and drill the cam feed holes smaller to restrict the oil to the cam and use a cam that is not grooved at #2 and 4 journal. Finally use a crank with a BBC rod jounal sizing. Of course good luck finding a non-drilled cam bearing, but anyways that is my 2 cents on the subject.
-
Want to improve the oiling on a T/O FE? other than a good pan would be oil the rockers via lifters and block the rocker feeds.
That is a key statement. Instead of trying to hog out all the holes and make things bigger, be strategic on where the oil goes. There's a tremendous amount of oil going to the heads in unrestricted mode. I oil through the pushrods on almost every FE I build. When you block the feeds to the heads and oil through the pushrods, you can even restrict oil to the rockers by restricting at the pushrod without restricting oil to the lifters.
In addition, I'll say that if you wanted to restrict oil at the lifters, you can restrict oil to each individual lifter gallery leg if necessary and a bank of hydraulic roller lifters will work perfectly fine on a .188" orifice there, even while oiling the rockers through the pushrods.
-
They had deep sump pans way back when. It's funny how we rediscover these things.
http://www.mustangtek.com/Library2/MuscleParts.html
pl
-
Well sure, but for the most part, guys didn't run them on the street and those deep pans didn't have all the oil control features that the pans now have. Now days, we don't reach for stock pans as a default. A street pan usually consists of a 7-8 quart oil pan and the good ones have trap doors to keep the oil where it needs to be.
-
They are right in the catalogs back then. I wasn't running FE's back then so I am not sure how many people were or weren't using deep pans. I don't think you need trap doors for a street/strip or even a full on strip car. I think baffles work. My modern Milodon deep pan just has a baffle to resist rearward movement of the oil in straight line acceleration.
These old catalogs are cool! Lots of cool stuff in them.
pl
http://www.mustangtek.com/Library2/68CobraPartscatalog.html
-
They had deep sump pans way back when. It's funny how we rediscover these things.
http://www.mustangtek.com/Library2/MuscleParts.html
pl
That's the very rationale that prompted Ford to install deep-sump pans on every Thunderbolt and Light Weight Galaxie they built in 1964.
-
They had deep sump pans way back when. It's funny how we rediscover these things.
http://www.mustangtek.com/Library2/MuscleParts.html
pl
That's the very rationale that prompted Ford to install deep-sump pans on every Thunderbolt and Light Weight Galaxie they built in 1964.
Cool! Did you check the price list in the back of the Ford catalog? $43.70 for the deep sump pan. It looks baffled in the picture, but I can't tell for sure. The Shelby one is certainly more elaborate with baffles and doors. The 2x4 MR dual plane intake was $115.85. I know that was a lot more money back then, but that is still neat to think about.
pl
-
They had deep sump pans way back when. It's funny how we rediscover these things.
http://www.mustangtek.com/Library2/MuscleParts.html
pl
That's the very rationale that prompted Ford to install deep-sump pans on every Thunderbolt and Light Weight Galaxie they built in 1964.
Cool! Did you check the price list in the back of the Ford catalog? $43.70 for the deep sump pan. It looks baffled in the picture, but I can't tell for sure. The Shelby one is certainly more elaborate with baffles and doors. The 2x4 MR dual plane intake was $115.85. I know that was a lot more money back then, but that is still neat to think about.
pl
Was a lot of money. In 1964 I was making $2.50 an hour. In 1965 it was ( best I can remember ) $97.00 a month plus room, board, clothes, boots, rifle and lots of ammo.
-
They had deep sump pans way back when. It's funny how we rediscover these things.
http://www.mustangtek.com/Library2/MuscleParts.html
pl
That's the very rationale that prompted Ford to install deep-sump pans on every Thunderbolt and Light Weight Galaxie they built in 1964.
Cool! Did you check the price list in the back of the Ford catalog? $43.70 for the deep sump pan. It looks baffled in the picture, but I can't tell for sure. The Shelby one is certainly more elaborate with baffles and doors. The 2x4 MR dual plane intake was $115.85. I know that was a lot more money back then, but that is still neat to think about.
pl
Was a lot of money. In 1964 I was making $2.50 an hour. In 1965 it was ( best I can remember ) $97.00 a month plus room, board, clothes, boots, rifle and lots of ammo.
Yeah, I didn't look up the ratio between then and now, but I bet it was around 10:1. $1 back then equals roughly $10 now?
Here's a better pic of the pan. And a link to the Ford Hi-Per Parts catalog.
pl
http://www.mustangtek.com/Library2/HiPerfParts.html
-
It's funny how things keep circling back,I remember being told 40 years ago that even though the SO block was the hot shit you really only needed one if you were running a 500 mile race at 7,000 rpm.And I love the way some people have described the PSE SO kit as a solution looking for a problem.
-
A 1969 dollar is $7.17 today, so that oil pan was $313 in today's money and the intake was $832. Randy M
-
My good friend Robert Sprowl put this info back together a while ago on the old net54 FE forum. Skip down to "Part Three - Modifications". Very good info IMHO. http://www.fordfe.info/Forum/Oil.html
-
Can we extrude hone? At least the initial passage from filter head to camshaft?
-
Sure you can. Extrude honing is rather expensive, but if you have the coin, then the sky's the limit. Again, I'm not sure what all of this accomplishes. It's not hard to find threads about how the valvetrain is being flooded with oil and how to restrict that, and at the same time conclude that FEs suffer from low or restricted oil flow that the oiling system must be fiddled with. I guess that's a cognitive dissonance.
-
I appreciate all the information you guys have provided. As far as the motor, it is a '67 390 that I picked up from a local salvage yard about 5 years ago and it came out of a 2 door '67 Galaxie 500. Anyway, I broke it down to the block last week and it appears it's never been bored but does have some wear. Since it likely needs to be bored anyway I am planning to do a 445 stroker and would like to do TFS heads if possible. It will be mostly street use but may hit the track a few times so it's not going to be an all out race motor by any means. That said, I will follow the advice given regarding the oil mods not really being needed for my intended purpose.
-
>I hope this thread doesn't go south, somehow oil mods bring out the best in us LOL
If you see a bunch of 351C guys fighting in a parking lot, you can bet it's over oiling modifications. ;D
>That is a key statement. Instead of trying to hog out all the holes and make things bigger, be strategic on where the oil goes.
What Brent says - pay attention to details and just help the oil get to where it needs to be, and not too much where it doesn't need to be. My 351C comment is only a half joke, I've run a lot of hard, fast rounds with nothing more than attention to the details, clearances, etc. Lifter clearance, main/rod clearance, deburr the pump, clean up the passage from pump to filter inlet, make sure the galleries and runs are all clean and free of blockage, 351C special - restrict some oil going up to the cam, run the pump with a drill and watch how much oil comes up top and take any steps, like restrictor push rods, to control that. Could be worse - could be like a Buick LOL.
-
Let the "old guy" ( me ) interject some stuff you younger guys "might" not know from simply not being there> Don't be offended!!!!
There were some serious advancements in tire technology ( going wider initially) in '63. This led to higher speeds and attending "G" forces in cornering. Engines failures were common due to higher revving engines ( again tire related) because of the increased speeds. Oil pan "technology" was in it's infancy. Often crudely fashioned "bustles" were welded onto the sides of stock pans. Hours of racing caused unsupported oil pick up tubes to break off. Ford engineers "saw" bearing failures ( IMHO ) caused by oil starvation rather than by "oil system design " problems. Remember there were NO data recorders / cameras etc. to see what the "busy" driver couldn't. Cross bolts were the first attempt to stop blocks from failing due to the new found speed. The side oiler followed( as a generally acknowledged "fix") and helped some but (IMHO) allowing a "dry sump" ( not legal then) would have made a "top oiler" bullet proof "back then". Ford's "fix" was make it stronger / heavier so the Nascar rod crank system was developed shortly after the side oiler block.
The original Thunderbolt "deep sump" pan was good for drag racers "straight line" performance , but zero help for corner benders. Aviad was one of the first to offer a "T" shaped sump and oil control baffles / gates for serious cornering use. Shelby ( unhindered by "rules") created a dry sump for his competition Cobras and only lost engines because of rod bolt and valve train failures.
So here we are some 50 years later making more power for the street than a full "race" engine made in 64-65 . The oil system is largely unchanged by we are doing a better job of making the power and being easier on the engines in general. "To me" increased oil capacity and attention to details like Brent and others do is the reeason it works now . Oh and the improvement in oils too. Maybe I am too optomistic.
-
"Do I think a S/O block is necessary? No. Do I think it has some desirable traits, such as priority main oiling? Sure. The true beauty of a side oiler is in the block's strength."
So why is the Priority Oily desirable, if TO will get you 700hp @ 7500, with reliability? And if the SO block is stronger, why would it crack, with the slight mod of oil holes as shown? Could detonation played a role in the SO cracks?
Most of the things we are looking at in the year 2021 with regard to the FE engine are about 55 years old, give or take. Understand that in 1965, they were only 30-40 years removed from dipper oiling and poured bearings! With that being said, a lot of the problems guys were dealing with in the 60's were because of the lack of technology at the time.
As I mentioned, oil was junk. I've pulled valve covers off of old cores and found a heap of sludge the shape of the valve cover.
Oil was junk? Really? I ran a 8.5K engine, on 20-50 Vavoline, in those days. Many other race engines servived on that and other race oils in those days, that included 24 hr, 500 mile races and not just drag racing. Regarding sludge, that is mostly, a product of non detergent oils, driven a long time between oil changes, on the streets. Race engine oil, didn't stay in the engines, but a short time.
Lots of guys spun rod bearings back then. It's because the stock rods were junky and guys found out to make them survive with "current" technology, they would hone the big ends out of round.
Big oil pans were almost non-existent, it's not like anything today, when the aftermarket is full of big sump oil pans.
To assume no one knew anything about pans back then is rediculous! Ted had a 3" deeper pan, with a 1/16" larger pickup and as I said, he blocked off the rocker oil passage and restricted the oil to the rockers, off the top feed (.031).
I could give many more examples.
The point is that guys who were really whooping on the FE back then didn't know what we know now about things. So their reactions were, "I'll just make everything bigger."
I will agree that Teds drilling 5/16, threw to the main gallery, wasn't prudent.
In reality, the top oiler oiling system isn't much different than a SBC. As you know, they do quite well.
I just happen to have a SBC 350, 4 bolt block, that I used as a display for the products I used to make.
I went out and checked it and this is how it's plumbed:
The feed is 7/16", from the pump, to the end of the main gallery (17% larger that the FE). The main bearing feed holes are 1/4" and the annular groove, around the cam bearing is, .260 wide x .128 deep, as opposed to .235 x .124/.128, measured on my FE.
The mains are 12% larger on a FE and the rods, 16% larger, than the 350.
So, I'd expect the SBC to do better, feeding the bearings, especially since the rotating assy is much lighter.
In response to your comment about the oil pump mounting hole, I do not enlarge that passage, but only match it and blend it to the oil pump, just because it's not good practice to dead-head flow. Just like we don't like the air/fuel charge hitting a wall when the intake port is bigger than the head port, it's not good for oil to hit a brick wall either.
And in response to Ted running hundreds of runs without cracking a main saddle, that's all fine and good. Ted got lucky and just because he mentioned it on that one block doesn't mean that he hadn't seen it. In addition, I make more power out of a street 445 now than he did with a full race engine. Horsepower is hard on things. I've seen and know of many, many blocks that have cracked there.
Well, 84 ci is a big advantage :) I'd say JJ is more like it, 359 vs 361.
Teds 361ci, calculated HP from the Wallace site:
11.18 ET x 121.5 mph
Your HP computed from your vehicle ET is 415.18 rear wheel HP and 461.31 flywheel HP.
Your HP computed from your vehicle MPH is 411.98 rear wheel HP and 457.75 flywheel HP.
It would be expected that after 50 yrs, you could increase HP with better cam profiles, ring packs and lighter rotating componants, not to mention the heads available today.
"Opening those passages up is assuming a huge risk with absolutely zero benefit."
1. Does that include opening the main galley to 7/16". If so, how many FE's have you seen with that modification? As a engineer, how and why does that weaken the block and where will it crack, if that mod is done?
2. If FE blocks crack, in the same area, w/o altering (as in matching feed holes to bearings) the block, how can it be said, that the alteration causes cracking?
-
"Do I think a S/O block is necessary? No. Do I think it has some desirable traits, such as priority main oiling? Sure. The true beauty of a side oiler is in the block's strength."
So why is the Priority Oily desirable, if TO will get you 700hp @ 7500, with reliability? And if the SO block is stronger, why would it crack, with the slight mod of oil holes as shown? Could detonation played a role in the SO cracks?
Most of the things we are looking at in the year 2021 with regard to the FE engine are about 55 years old, give or take. Understand that in 1965, they were only 30-40 years removed from dipper oiling and poured bearings! With that being said, a lot of the problems guys were dealing with in the 60's were because of the lack of technology at the time.
As I mentioned, oil was junk. I've pulled valve covers off of old cores and found a heap of sludge the shape of the valve cover.
Oil was junk? Really? I ran a 8.5K engine, on 20-50 Vavoline, in those days. Many other race engines servived on that and other race oils in those days, that included 24 hr, 500 mile races and not just drag racing. Regarding sludge, that is mostly, a product of non detergent oils, driven a long time between oil changes, on the streets. Race engine oil, didn't stay in the engines, but a short time.
Lots of guys spun rod bearings back then. It's because the stock rods were junky and guys found out to make them survive with "current" technology, they would hone the big ends out of round.
Big oil pans were almost non-existent, it's not like anything today, when the aftermarket is full of big sump oil pans.
To assume no one knew anything about pans back then is rediculous! Ted had a 3" deeper pan, with a 1/16" larger pickup and as I said, he blocked off the rocker oil passage and restricted the oil to the rockers, off the top feed (.031).
I could give many more examples.
The point is that guys who were really whooping on the FE back then didn't know what we know now about things. So their reactions were, "I'll just make everything bigger."
I will agree that Teds drilling 5/16, threw to the main gallery, wasn't prudent.
In reality, the top oiler oiling system isn't much different than a SBC. As you know, they do quite well.
I just happen to have a SBC 350, 4 bolt block, that I used as a display for the products I used to make.
I went out and checked it and this is how it's plumbed:
The feed is 7/16", from the pump, to the end of the main gallery (17% larger that the FE). The main bearing feed holes are 1/4" and the annular groove, around the cam bearing is, .260 wide x .128 deep, as opposed to .235 x .124/.128, measured on my FE.
The mains are 12% larger on a FE and the rods, 16% larger, than the 350.
So, I'd expect the SBC to do better, feeding the bearings, especially since the rotating assy is much lighter.
In response to your comment about the oil pump mounting hole, I do not enlarge that passage, but only match it and blend it to the oil pump, just because it's not good practice to dead-head flow. Just like we don't like the air/fuel charge hitting a wall when the intake port is bigger than the head port, it's not good for oil to hit a brick wall either.
And in response to Ted running hundreds of runs without cracking a main saddle, that's all fine and good. Ted got lucky and just because he mentioned it on that one block doesn't mean that he hadn't seen it. In addition, I make more power out of a street 445 now than he did with a full race engine. Horsepower is hard on things. I've seen and know of many, many blocks that have cracked there.
Well, 84 ci is a big advantage :) I'd say JJ is more like it, 359 vs 361.
Teds 361ci, calculated HP from the Wallace site:
11.18 ET x 121.5 mph
Your HP computed from your vehicle ET is 415.18 rear wheel HP and 461.31 flywheel HP.
Your HP computed from your vehicle MPH is 411.98 rear wheel HP and 457.75 flywheel HP.
It would be expected that after 50 yrs, you could increase HP with better cam profiles, ring packs and lighter rotating componants, not to mention the heads available today.
"Opening those passages up is assuming a huge risk with absolutely zero benefit."
1. Does that include opening the main galley to 7/16". If so, how many FE's have you seen with that modification? As a engineer, how and why does that weaken the block and where will it crack, if that mod is done?
2. If FE blocks crack, in the same area, w/o altering (as in matching feed holes to bearings) the block, how can it be said, that the alteration causes cracking?
Thanks for the entertainment, Frank. Have a good night.
-
Thank you, Brent, I will.
-
In most cases where a manufacturer upgraded an existing engine design to a high performance application,as far as oiling systems the most common change was upgrading to a larger diameter pickup tube,while easy on FE's some engines such as Buicks and BB Mopars required drilling and tapping the block suction passage to the pump to a larger size and the fact that they did this attests to the fact that they thought this was necessary,but seldom did they make changes to the block passages on the discharge side of the pump.Even Oldsmobiles with their torturous oil drainbacks from the heads were relatively trouble free in car applications since high rpm operation was limited to short bursts,but when used in a marine application (jetboats) being run at more than 4500 rpm for more than a couple of minutes resulted in literally pumping the pan dry and the heads being flooded with oil.in this scenario the largest pressurized oil passages won't help,I think the effort is best spent getting the oil back to where it belongs around the suction of the pump.
-
In most cases where a manufacturer upgraded an existing engine design to a high performance application,as far as oiling systems the most common change was upgrading to a larger diameter pickup tube,while easy on FE's some engines such as Buicks and BB Mopars required drilling and tapping the block suction passage to the pump to a larger size and the fact that they did this attests to the fact that they thought this was necessary,but seldom did they make changes to the block passages on the discharge side of the pump.Even Oldsmobiles with their torturous oil drainbacks from the heads were relatively trouble free in car applications since high rpm operation was limited to short bursts,but when used in a marine application (jetboats) being run at more than 4500 rpm for more than a couple of minutes resulted in literally pumping the pan dry and the heads being flooded with oil.in this scenario the largest pressurized oil passages won't help,I think the effort is best spent getting the oil back to where it belongs around the suction of the pump.
I agree. Getting the oil back to the pan and blocking the oil from going where it doesn't need to go are the keys.
The OP got his question answered though and I'm hopeful that his machinist won't be drill-bit happy on everything.
I did get up to Frank's shop yesterday though and saw him testing out his new oil gallery drill bit fixture:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51067556068_800fec533b.jpg)
-
In most cases where a manufacturer upgraded an existing engine design to a high performance application,as far as oiling systems the most common change was upgrading to a larger diameter pickup tube,while easy on FE's some engines such as Buicks and BB Mopars required drilling and tapping the block suction passage to the pump to a larger size and the fact that they did this attests to the fact that they thought this was necessary,but seldom did they make changes to the block passages on the discharge side of the pump.Even Oldsmobiles with their torturous oil drainbacks from the heads were relatively trouble free in car applications since high rpm operation was limited to short bursts,but when used in a marine application (jetboats) being run at more than 4500 rpm for more than a couple of minutes resulted in literally pumping the pan dry and the heads being flooded with oil.in this scenario the largest pressurized oil passages won't help,I think the effort is best spent getting the oil back to where it belongs around the suction of the pump.
I agree. Getting the oil back to the pan and blocking the oil from going where it doesn't need to go are the keys.
The OP got his question answered though and I'm hopeful that his machinist won't be drill-bit happy on everything.
I did get up to Frank's shop yesterday though and saw him testing out his new oil gallery drill bit fixture:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51067556068_800fec533b.jpg)
Thanks Brent. I will be in touch with you for some questions I have as soon as I know the block is usable.
Jody
-
In most cases where a manufacturer upgraded an existing engine design to a high performance application,as far as oiling systems the most common change was upgrading to a larger diameter pickup tube,while easy on FE's some engines such as Buicks and BB Mopars required drilling and tapping the block suction passage to the pump to a larger size and the fact that they did this attests to the fact that they thought this was necessary,but seldom did they make changes to the block passages on the discharge side of the pump.Even Oldsmobiles with their torturous oil drainbacks from the heads were relatively trouble free in car applications since high rpm operation was limited to short bursts,but when used in a marine application (jetboats) being run at more than 4500 rpm for more than a couple of minutes resulted in literally pumping the pan dry and the heads being flooded with oil.in this scenario the largest pressurized oil passages won't help,I think the effort is best spent getting the oil back to where it belongs around the suction of the pump.
I agree. Getting the oil back to the pan and blocking the oil from going where it doesn't need to go are the keys.
The OP got his question answered though and I'm hopeful that his machinist won't be drill-bit happy on everything.
I did get up to Frank's shop yesterday though and saw him testing out his new oil gallery drill bit fixture:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51067556068_800fec533b.jpg)
LMAO
-
Can you special order an FE block in with no cam tunnel, for SOHC use?
-
Don't you have to have the first 2 cam bearings for the stub cam?
-
Don't you have to have the first 2 cam bearings for the stub cam?
Generally,....... yes! ;)
Scott.
-
Distributorless ignition.
Belt drive oil pump.
-
Distributorless ignition.
Belt drive oil pump.
Still need to drive the cams though. :)
-
Frank,
I think I still have one of Ted's old deep sump pans. No pick up though. PM me if you want it for "freight cost" only. Looks like a '69 CJ "core" was used. Deeper than a factory C8AX pan and no scrapers on the pass side.
Randy
-
Very cool of you Randy.
-
Thank you, for the offer, Randy but, I bought Alan's T-pan a few months ago.
I don't think I'll have any fitment problems with it but, if I do, I'll get back to you if you still have it.
-
Distributorless ignition.
Belt drive oil pump.
Still need to drive the cams though. :)
I bet I could figure out how to mount an idler in the middle without a stub.
Like a plate mounted to the OEM thrust plate mounting holes with a post, a roller bearing and a sprocket...
-
Distributorless ignition.
Belt drive oil pump.
Still need to drive the cams though. :)
I bet I could figure out how to mount an idler in the middle without a stub.
Like a plate mounted to the OEM thrust plate mounting holes with a post, a roller bearing and a sprocket...
I have absolutely no doubt that you could, Barry. It would have to be a sideoiler block though. Not sure how well an FE would stand up to splash lubrication for the mains and rods..lol Then again, 2 solid plugs with correctly drilled holes could take care of that issue.
-
I bet I could figure out how to mount an idler in the middle without a stub.
Like a plate mounted to the OEM thrust plate mounting holes with a post, a roller bearing and a sprocket...
But why? ???
Scott.
-
I bet I could figure out how to mount an idler in the middle without a stub.
Like a plate mounted to the OEM thrust plate mounting holes with a post, a roller bearing and a sprocket...
But why? ???
Scott.
You could say that about damn near everything we do....
-
I bet I could figure out how to mount an idler in the middle without a stub.
Like a plate mounted to the OEM thrust plate mounting holes with a post, a roller bearing and a sprocket...
But why? ???
Scott.
You could say that about damn near everything we do....
;D ;D ;D
-
to get my fair share of abuse .
-
I'm working on a 427 side oiler block now and reminded myself that the side oiler isn't even a true priority main oiling system. The offshoot coming from the main oil gallery running the length of the driver's side of the block, splits, and feeds both mains and cam bearings at the same time.
-
Sometimes, you read stuff and you take it at face value, Brent. A long, long time ago when people printed stuff on paper, I read that the side oiler's design intention was to make it possible to easily externally adjust oil pressure. I have also read that as far as durability, there is no difference between center and side oilers, since, again, it was an oil control feature.
If one looks at the oil passage diagrams between the center and side oiler, yes, what you write is true. It's a split. Even with that, it's a less tortured path than the center oiler. And by some miracle, the oil in the center oiler seems to find its way to where it needs to go. I would think that as long as you don't lose a cam bearing, that you are going to be fine with a center oiler.
-
Sometimes, you read stuff and you take it at face value, Brent. A long, long time ago when people printed stuff on paper, I read that the side oiler's design intention was to make it possible to easily externally adjust oil pressure. I have also read that as far as durability, there is no difference between center and side oilers, since, again, it was an oil control feature.
If one looks at the oil passage diagrams between the center and side oiler, yes, what you write is true. It's a split. Even with that, it's a less tortured path than the center oiler. And by some miracle, the oil in the center oiler seems to find its way to where it needs to go. I would think that as long as you don't lose a cam bearing, that you are going to be fine with a center oiler.
Agreed. I think the best feature of the side oiler is the cross bolted caps.
Also agreed that the center oiler does what most guys think it won't do. My 352 goes to 7500 rpm with increasing oil pressure throughout the entire pull, with only a oil pump mount blend and some strategically placed restrictors. Given the fact that the lifter valley drains are plugged except for the two ends, there is also no issue with getting the oil back to the pan. Bearings looked great upon last check. Buttoned it right back up to hit it another time.
-
are there any diff in the block prep between running a solid vs hyd cam? i am running hyd flat tappet now,thinking about putting a solid in it later and was wondering if i need to do anything to the block.i have been wanting to know for sure for years.
-
are there any diff in the block prep between running a solid vs hyd cam? i am running hyd flat tappet now,thinking about putting a solid in it later and was wondering if i need to do anything to the block.i have been wanting to know for sure for years.
It's not necessary in every case, but I usually restrict oil to the lifters when running solid cams. An .080-.100" orifice is more than enough, even for lifters that oil and pushrod oiling.
Each case can vary a little bit depending on the parts that are used, but more often than not, you can choke the oil down quite a bit.
-
Sometimes, when you consider the torturous, convoluted path that oil to the rocker shafts has to travel, in a stock FE center oiler engine, you would think that there is no way that could possibly be an adequate source of lubrication. Yet, many of us find it desirable to reduce the amount of oil getting to the rockers. In fact, some of the early 332 and 352 FE rocker shaft stands had a small drain tube, to direct the excess oil to a pushrod hole in the intake, so it could drain down, without flooding the heads and valve springs. So it would seem that oil can get to places quite well, even when we think otherwise.
-
That's a great point, Rory.
It's like a water hose, the more and larger the holes you put in it, the less flow and you have at the end that counts. But, you can compensate for that, with a bigger hose.
-
Oh my , this seems to be one of those kinda threads . Right out of the gate Brent there is this thing you keep saying thats just plucking at me every time you say it. "The technology just wasnt there" or words to that effect . Brent you are aware that the Lockheed A-12 Took its first (Publicly released) test flight in 1962 right ? This is where you say this dude is off his rocker ,whats that got to do with anything... Well it has to do with technology of the Era we are dancing around in here and the Era you say was without some sort of technology to do a thing. This particular plane started life in 1958 . Does anyone reading this thread look at that plane and its stats and say , Man , that was just a rough time in our Technological history ? So the fastest plane the world has ever seen hits the skies in good ole 1962.... With todays technology and the technology of all the years following there has not been one built thats faster or holds the stats that bird has (The SR-71 , the A-12s son).
Around the same time Ford was about to head to Le Mans and I believe it was Barry that posted some information about the test equipment Ford was using at that time. Ford was Dyno testing Engines real time and as close to the real environment as they could , not a few pulls at a good RPM . All of us know how that turned out for Ford . Ford was also doing very well in Stock Car racing at the time. Again , not an environment where the engine sees a few stout blips and is put away for a nice nap.
I could just keep typing and typing about the different industries at the time and what they were doing and some of these old Boys in this forum were right in the middle of it. Smart people , Brilliant people , I would argue smarter than folks we have today that are riding the backs of those folks that blazed the trails we travel today.
If it was needed and there was sufficient funding , these boys got it done , up to and Including defeating the most powerful military on the globe at the time to create this great country and the freedoms we all enjoy today.
Have we advanced ? Certainly we have . For the better ? Im not sure on that one.
As far as the oiling system..... This is a rabbit hole.... However I will say there indeed must be an "Engine builders hand book" because I hear a ton of the same things from the younger guys . I highly doubt Ford sent engines to Le Mans with off the shelf blocks and unmodified oiling systems , as you say the cave men just made everything bigger , bigger is better . But those cave men go down in history as winning those races and giving us the lineage we enjoy today.
Barry may have some info on the engines they used at that time and what mods they did to them... Hell there may be a few guys around here that know. If you meet your goal and fulfil a need then you succeeded , how you did it matters less than what you accomplished ... Technology is no more than that.... Years of it.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Gt6DWQZk/A3686-ACA-5-C98-4-A5-D-9-FE8-B4-B98-C1-CD029.gif)
-
Oh my , this seems to be one of those kinda threads . Right out of the gate Brent there is this thing you keep saying thats just plucking at me every time you say it. "The technology just wasnt there" or words to that effect . Brent you are aware that the Lockheed A-12 Took its first (Publicly released) test flight in 1962 right ? This is where you say this dude is off his rocker ,whats that got to do with anything... Well it has to do with technology of the Era we are dancing around in here and the Era you say was without some sort of technology to do a thing. This particular plane started life in 1958 . Does anyone reading this thread look at that plane and its stats and say , Man , that was just a rough time in our Technological history ? So the fastest plane the world has ever seen hits the skies in good ole 1962.... With todays technology and the technology of all the years following there has not been one built thats faster or holds the stats that bird has (The SR-71 , the A-12s son).
Around the same time Ford was about to head to Le Mans and I believe it was Barry that posted some information about the test equipment Ford was using at that time. Ford was Dyno testing Engines real time and as close to the real environment as they could , not a few pulls at a good RPM . All of us know how that turned out for Ford . Ford was also doing very well in Stock Car racing at the time. Again , not an environment where the engine sees a few stout blips and is put away for a nice nap.
I could just keep typing and typing about the different industries at the time and what they were doing and some of these old Boys in this forum were right in the middle of it. Smart people , Brilliant people , I would argue smarter than folks we have today that are riding the backs of those folks that blazed the trails we travel today.
If it was needed and there was sufficient funding , these boys got it done , up to and Including defeating the most powerful military on the globe at the time to create this great country and the freedoms we all enjoy today.
Have we advanced ? Certainly we have . For the better ? Im not sure on that one.
As far as the oiling system..... This is a rabbit hole.... However I will say there indeed must be an "Engine builders hand book" because I hear a ton of the same things from the younger guys . I highly doubt Ford sent engines to Le Mans with off the shelf blocks and unmodified oiling systems , as you say the cave men just made everything bigger , bigger is better . But those cave men go down in history as winning those races and giving us the lineage we enjoy today.
Barry may have some info on the engines they used at that time and what mods they did to them... Hell there may be a few guys around here that know. If you meet your goal and fulfil a need then you succeeded , how you did it matters less than what you accomplished ... Technology is no more than that.... Years of it.
For crying out loud man, take a breath.
I'm not sure what any of that was meant to say????? We started with A-12's and SR-71's and ended with cave men.
I appreciate Barry, but I don't need him to tell us what mods were used on engines 60 years ago. I have seen the blocks filter through here, with Holley jets threaded in between the main feed and the cam feed, feed holes hogged out to who knows what, and the resulting cracked blocks.
I'm on here so that guys don't get drill bit happy and ruin blocks.
And no, the technology was not there......
-
Oh my , this seems to be one of those kinda threads . Right out of the gate Brent there is this thing you keep saying thats just plucking at me every time you say it. "The technology just wasnt there" or words to that effect . Brent you are aware that the Lockheed A-12 Took its first (Publicly released) test flight in 1962 right ? This is where you say this dude is off his rocker ,whats that got to do with anything... Well it has to do with technology of the Era we are dancing around in here and the Era you say was without some sort of technology to do a thing. This particular plane started life in 1958 . Does anyone reading this thread look at that plane and its stats and say , Man , that was just a rough time in our Technological history ? So the fastest plane the world has ever seen hits the skies in good ole 1962.... With todays technology and the technology of all the years following there has not been one built thats faster or holds the stats that bird has (The SR-71 , the A-12s son).
Around the same time Ford was about to head to Le Mans and I believe it was Barry that posted some information about the test equipment Ford was using at that time. Ford was Dyno testing Engines real time and as close to the real environment as they could , not a few pulls at a good RPM . All of us know how that turned out for Ford . Ford was also doing very well in Stock Car racing at the time. Again , not an environment where the engine sees a few stout blips and is put away for a nice nap.
I could just keep typing and typing about the different industries at the time and what they were doing and some of these old Boys in this forum were right in the middle of it. Smart people , Brilliant people , I would argue smarter than folks we have today that are riding the backs of those folks that blazed the trails we travel today.
If it was needed and there was sufficient funding , these boys got it done , up to and Including defeating the most powerful military on the globe at the time to create this great country and the freedoms we all enjoy today.
Have we advanced ? Certainly we have . For the better ? Im not sure on that one.
As far as the oiling system..... This is a rabbit hole.... However I will say there indeed must be an "Engine builders hand book" because I hear a ton of the same things from the younger guys . I highly doubt Ford sent engines to Le Mans with off the shelf blocks and unmodified oiling systems , as you say the cave men just made everything bigger , bigger is better . But those cave men go down in history as winning those races and giving us the lineage we enjoy today.
Barry may have some info on the engines they used at that time and what mods they did to them... Hell there may be a few guys around here that know. If you meet your goal and fulfil a need then you succeeded , how you did it matters less than what you accomplished ... Technology is no more than that.... Years of it.
I don't have the standing of many of the guys here who have been at this for a long time, but there are a few points worth making regarding your post.
1/ The A-12 and SR-71 were, what is the term?, MILITARY SECRETS. So no, that tech didn't make it into Ford engine design in the day.
2/ There is a reason no plane has ever flown faster - the need wasn't there. All surveillance work was taken over by satellites. Interceptor aircraft were obsolete because ballistic missiles overtook bombers as the strategic threat.
3/Yes Ford won Lemans and was dominant in Nascar, but as is pretty well known by fans of the FE, Ford didn't put much of what it did in racing back into production engines, so high performance parts for a long time were pretty much just very rare racing parts.
The real conversation is about the need for oiling mods, and to a limited extent, is a side oiler needed today vs a center oiler? I do think while gas seems to be worse, oil is much better, and computer modelling of fluid mechanics is cheap and widely available, which it was not back even into the 90's. I for one am fascinated by the conversation and have learned a lot, as I often do here on this forum.
-
LOL , take a breath ? No , I dont suffer from internet sensitivity . Nor do I get very excited often... And again , YES , the technology was there to do what needed to get done because as we can all see very clearly , It got done...
If you cannot understand the comparisons then perhaps thats why you hold the beliefs you do....
-
LOL , take a breath ? No , I dont suffer from internet sensitivity . Nor do I get very excited often... And again , YES , the technology was there to do what needed to get done because as we can all see very clearly , It got done...
If you cannot understand the comparisons then perhaps thats why you hold the beliefs you do....
If you want to hog out every hole in your block because that's the way they did it 60 years ago, then by all means, have at it.
In the meantime, I (along with other guys in here that build for a living and guys who do a lot of racing) have shown how to adequately supply oil without doing any hogging, drilling, or anything extensive. Since drilling can potentially crack blocks and render them useless, I figure that would be useful information to supply.
Kumbaya.
-
Now Brent , I think you need a breath maybe. Read back through my post and I dont recall saying that anything should be "Hogged out" , I simply said that modifications have been done and in my opinion (Like assholes) that they did indeed enlarge on engines that did then have to run for 24 hours with a bit more than pride on the line. I also made no assumptions of exactly what was done , just that something had been done .
As for my opinion on to drill or not to drill , I do a little of shutting off AND drilling out.... :) like the human body , bleed off kills..... Is it the answer everyone should have ? Hell I dont know if its even an answer for me.... Its worked so far and Nothing has cracked in half .
Its a conversation people ................ Conversations lead to technology..... 8)
-
Barry may have some info on the engines they used at that time and what mods they did to them... Hell there may be a few guys around here that know.
Dang, Barry, I didn't know you were that old!
(getting some more popcorn before his response)
-
HAHA. I say that because Barry seemed to have some inside info when he posted up that video that time...WHich , I might ad , was pretty technologically advanced regardless of time period. Wait a minute , what exactly does "That old" mean ?????