Wow, good on them!  A step in the right direction. 

Note - Hot vs cold lash on this iron/iron 351C is the same.

That's the way it is on FE's too.  I've never seen lash change between cold/hot on an iron/iron combo.

As far as the quench discussion, glad to see no attempt to make it too tight.  I think for most .040-.050 is plenty for the squish benefit, and I regularly run them proud with a 8554 and some even taller if we are trying to keep intake dimensions on the rare stuff.  Even comparing .045 or so to .036 I'd expect no gain and only added risk.

In terms of the machining, geez Howie, Brent was right, said Ford was all over the place, and then you come back with Ford couldn't hold a spec with their tech at the time, that is EXACTLY the point.   Who cares what the spec is if the machine can't hold it anyway?  Brent didn't say that the machinists were evil or FOMOCO was playing a trick on us.  I'll add that valve centerline, bore centers, cam bore dimensions are all over the place too once you start measuring.

Additionally, no doubt things flex with heat cycles, I am not sure what you mean by massive flexing, I don't agree with that, an FE is pretty forgiving on head gaskets even fewer head bolts than modern engines.  Although anything can move, they don't change .026 from end to end and grow .010 over deck height.  That's a crank centerline or deck machining issue that causes that much variance, and the numbers can tell you which it was.

Square deck a block or two, you'll see things, square deck 20, you can really see the trends.

Howie can't see logic for rage.  It's ok, I got him dead to rights with a simple observation that apparently all of us have seen, except for him.  My favorite part is that he calls bull on my saying that they're out .020", but he agrees that it's the high end of spec and then gets mad at me again.  Poor Howie. 

Oh, and his heating/cooling cycles argument isn't valid either.  I've had some NOS blocks come through that were still in the crate and were still way off. 

In Brent's defense, my 361 Edsel block was off .018 across the deck and cleaned up at 10.172. It had the same quench as a '58 352 but the heads had no evidence of contact of any sort and would have had a min quench of .038.

But, Ford would NOT have release a engine with a nominal .036 quench if it would not be enough, period. 5 yrs later they built a all aluminum SBF, reliable enough to finish the Indy 500.

Now, if Ross's engine, that had a deck height of 10.155, had been assembled with a nominal .036 quench, It could not have left the assembly line so, it would have never made it to the street.

Last, it is my recollection (please correct me, if I'm wrong) that the the engine that Brent ran .035 quench on, was his JJ, 352 and he had aluminum rods in it (most high strength alum expands at 3 times the rate of steel). It didn't make any noise and didn't hurt anything, either.

Steel rods. Molnars.

Barry has seen the same thing as me.....contact marks at around the .036-.037" mark. 

Quote from: blykins on March 30, 2024, 04:31:50 PM

Ford had trouble machining a block within .020".

BS

Well, I've seen quite a few and have no reason to exaggerate.  I've seen factory blocks and aftermarket blocks that were off .020" (and worse) from end to end on one deck. 

Matter of fact, Ross posted on one 428 block the other day that had a high deck height of 10.183" and a low deck height of 10.155".

So sorry, yes I was wrong.......it was more like they couldn't machine a block within .028". 

Nothing like having 10.5:1 compression on one end of the engine and 9.9 on the other........ROFL

I've ran .035" piston/head clearance before and it was starting to knock the soot off the pistons at that distance.

If you're .009" out, a .051" head gasket will be just fine. 

One very interesting video he did was on flat tappet grinding. His findings made me rethink flat tappet problems. I would have posted the video but couldn't figure out how, hopefully the builders on here find it and give some feedback on their thoughts.

The biggest flat tappet cam failure cause is valve spring loads.  I'm not saying that there aren't other causes, but IMO, that's the biggest one.  Cylinder head manufacturers sell all kinds of heads that are "for flat tappet cams" and the valve spring loads are stupidly high.  Nobody needs 140 lbs seat for a hydraulic flat tappet. 

Combining that with the fact that most guys working out of their garage don't check the spring loads, or even know that they need a LOT less than what they have for break-in.  So instead of pulling the inner springs or swapping valve springs, they're bolting heads on and letting it eat. 

Quote from: blykins on March 22, 2024, 01:44:04 PM

I had Adney Brown work me up a 391 crank 5-6 years ago.  Did the snout work, did the flange work, turned the rod journals down to BBC size.  It was beautiful until it took about 8 pieces of heavy metal to balance it.

The application should always determine the parts specifications but if I was building an engine that wasn't under big boost, or not running with the throttle on the floor for three hours, I'd probably go with a good nodular crank and a good balance.  Less rotating mass, stiffer than forged, easier to balance, and the budget-friendly solution.  Everyone has their comfort zone.

Sometimes I have to work with what the customer sends/asks.