Author Topic: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno  (Read 31844 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« on: November 27, 2011, 03:30:48 PM »
It's been a pretty busy last week and a half or so.  Last weekend I finally got around to pulling the wounded cammer motor out of my Drag Week car:



Teardown started last Sunday morning, and revealed some very unexpected and disturbing surprises.  Everything looked good as I pulled the valve covers, oil pan, and front cover.  The oil pan had a bunch of black crap in the bottom, and after looking at it for a while I concluded that it was probably some of that Moroso ceramic seal that found its way into the oil pan because of the coolant leak into the engine interior.  On Drag Week, after the oil pressure started going down and the coolant temperature started going up, Joel and I had stopped the car at an exit and found the water in the oil, and decided to throw in the towel.  We changed the oil and topped off the coolant in hopes of getting back to Topeka and our hotel under our own power, but after 20 miles on the way back, the oil pressure had dropped from 60 to 20, and I decided I'd better stop the car and get it towed.  Coolant temperature at this point was still running 160 as normal, so I made the assumption that I was losing the bearings in the engine.  The ceramic sealer remnants I found in the oil pan seemed to support this theory.  

Next I pulled the rocker shaft and rockers off the engine.  Everything looked perfect here; just as I'd put it together.  Lash was good, roller wheels on the rockers all felt good, cam lobes looked perfect, etc.  Here's a photo of the engine at this point in the disassembly process:



Next I disassembled the front end, again with no issues.  The bearing in the Pond front cover looked fine, the bearings on the chain tensioner and fuel pump gear stand were fine, the Munro chain and all the gears looked fine.  I had checked the chain tension and the cam timing when I first pulled the front cover and that was all fine also.  So far, there was no indication of any reason for the engine to be down so much on horsepower.  I also pulled the cams, and was surprised to see that the bearings looked pretty good.  There was no indication of scoring or excessive wear, and the cam bearing journals looked fine.  If I was circulating some abrasive material through the oil and losing the bearings, I would have expected to see some wear at the cam bearings.  Hmmmmm...

Everything changed when I pulled the heads.  I pulled the right head off first, set it on the bench, and looked at the combustion chambers.  Everything looked normal.  Then I pulled the left head and did the same inspection.  Here's a photo:



Look at how clean the #8 chamber is.  It almost looks like it wasn't even firing!  I couldn't believe that I would have missed that during the dyno pulls, but just to be sure I went back and checked the data, and sure enough #8 had normal exhaust temperature during the dyno pulls.  Maybe water was getting into that cylinder?  One important observation here was that this cylinder didn't look like this when I pulled the heads when the engine was on the dyno last summer.  Maybe when I put in the new head gaskets I didn't get a perfect seal on that cylinder...

Next I went back and looked at the right bank pistons, and was shocked by what I saw. Three out of the four pistons showed evidence of piston to valve contact!  The contact was all on the eyebrow portion of the intake valve relief, not down on the piston dome itself.  Further, the contact was really, really excessive, with aluminum from the piston peeling out away from the contact area.  This was a total surprise.  When I had pulled the heads with the engine on the dyno last summer, there was absolutely no evidence of piston to valve contact on this engine.  The heads had been planed .005", so this must have been the change that caused the contact, but .005"??  It looked like I had boatloads of contact, and that didn't come from a mere .005" cut on the heads.

Looking on the left bank, I saw some minor contact between the intake valve and the piston eyebrow on pistons 5 and 8, but nowhere near as extensive as on the three pistons on the other side.  Piston number 4 was definitely the worst of the bunch.  I decided that I'd better center punch all the valve locations on the pistons, so I disassembled the heads and removed the valves, then took a junk valve, cut the head off, and sharpened a point on it on my lathe.  I put a degree wheel on the crank and found TDC on number 1, then reinstalled the heads on each side and working around the engine rotation, center punched each piston with the pointed valve stem when it was at TDC.  Then I pulled the heads and measured the distance from the center point to the contact point on the pistons.  The dimension was 1.230".  Well, this didn't make sense; the valves in this engine are 2.300", so the valve shouldn't extend any further out from the center point that 1.150".  Yet I had contact at 1.230".  Hmmmm....

I rocked the pistons in the bores back and forth at TDC, and found that the top of the piston would move about .050" laterally, rotating on the piston pin.  This could explain part of the dimensional discrepancy, but not all of it.

I left the short block together, still puzzled by all this, and early this past week I gave my pal Blair Patrick a call.  Blair suggested that maybe the closest point of approach of the edge of the valve to the piston eyebrow wasn't at TDC, and thought I should center punch one of the pistons at a few degrees before and after TDC to see if the valve centerline moved further inboard at some point.  After hanging up with him I drew a few sketches of the piston and valve relationship, and with the cammer valve and piston geometry I couldn't see any way that the valve centerline would move inboard from TDC.  But it was worth a check, so I re-installed the right head and center punched #4 at -30, -20, -10, +10, and +20.  Furthest inboard position of the valve centerline was definitely at TDC.  Here's a shot of the piston with all the marks on it; the line scribed in the top of the piston points toward the center punch mark at TDC:



Tuesday night I pulled the short block the rest of the way apart.  Surprisingly, everything looked good.  In particular, the bearings looked perfect!  Another mystery; with new oil in the engine on my last 20 miles of the Drag Week drive, oil pressure was dropping.  Why?  The bearings and crank looked beautiful.

I checked the cylinder bores and they were out of round by .001" or .002" in some cases, but the measurement was done without a torque plate, so they might have still come back into line when the head studs were torqued.  I had been hoping to find an obvious answer for the loss of 150 HP on the dyno with this engine, but it was not apparent on the short block teardown.  (I don't think that the piston to valve clearance issue is related to the horsepower loss, because the loss was the same before and after the headwork and new head gaskets last summer).

Wednesday I stopped up at R&R Performance and asked my pal Bryan up there what he thought of the piston to valve contact issue.  I brought along the #4 piston, and also the #4 intake valve.  With as hard as the valve was hitting the piston, I figured that this valve had to be bent, but it didn't really look like it, and I wanted Bryan to check it.  Sure enough, the valve was not bent.  Go figure.  Bryan measured the valve then set up a scribe compass, and put it in the center punch hole in the piston, then scribed a line around the piston dome to see where the valve should be.  It sure looked far away from the contact point.  Here's a photo of the top of the #4 piston:



The scribed line shows that not only is the piston contact point further outboard than the valve head is, but it is also offset to one side.  The pistons look like they are made correctly, judging by the center point on each one.  Just for grins I checked to cracks in the heads that may allow the guide to move around somewhat, but found nothing.  Guides were nice and tight, too.  Hmmmm...

With this mystery lingering, this weekend I decided to pull the sleeves out of the block.  When I had originally offset bored this block we had broken through into the water jacket in cylinders 3, 4, and 8.  After installing the sleeves I had used a chemical sealant called Seal-All, available from Goodson, to seal up these leaks.  It held from 2008 through 2010, but apparently failed in the past year.  As a result I expected to see a lot of rust on the sleeves in cylinders 3, 4, and 8.  This would make them more difficult to remove.  To remove the sleeves you have to heat the block up to 300 degrees and then tap the sleeves out with a brass drift from the crankshaft side of the block.  As expected, cylinders 3, 4, and 8 were difficult to remove, and all three showed evidence of leakage.  Here's a shot of the block with the sleeves removed on the left bank, showing the clean aluminum casting in hole #7, and the rusty residue left inside hole #8:



However, I was surprised to see that on the right bank, there was rusty residue left inside holes #1 and #2, in addition to #3 and #4.  A look at the outside of sleeve #1 showed at least a partial explanation:



It looks like I have another head gasket leak here, and water is being forced down between the sleeve and the block, and out the bottom of the sleeve.  You can see evidence of the same leak in cylinder bore #1:



The leak in number 2 is a mystery at this point.  I think I will put a torque plate on this side of the engine, with a head gasket, and pressurize it to look for any leaks in the block casting in the #2 bore.

Short story - the engine was leaking water like a sieve, both in the expected places, and also in some unexpected areas involving the head gasket.  Was this the reason for the lack of power production?  I don't know, but it sure didn't help matters.  I'm looking at a few different options to more positively seal this block up, including either welding the block or O-ringing the bottom of the sleeves.  Neither option is perfect, but I think I can get 'er done.  Then it will be time for new sleeves, new pistons, and re-assembly of the engine.  Hopefully by then I will have figured out the deal with the piston to valve contact, and can get a new set of pistons built that will eliminate this problem.  I will post more under this topic as I get further along down the road to rebuilding this engine...









« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 07:12:55 PM by jayb »
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

Hemi Joel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2011, 07:26:18 PM »
That is quite a mystery.  Heres an idea to chew on. If I remember my FE cylinder numbering correctly, it looks like the piston to valve contact on #4 is focused on the rear half of the piston.  The heavy side, considering your fore and aft piston to rod offset. Could the piston be rocking in the bore that much due to the offset?    
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 07:28:41 PM by Hemi Joel »

Kirk Morgan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2011, 07:28:36 PM »
Does your valve timing advance or retard a few degrees when the engine is at max RPM? That just blows my mind why that may happen. When you checked your valve guides did you look to see if there is a wear pattern? It will be very interesting to find the solution.  

Kirk

country63sedan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2011, 07:58:27 PM »
What do the piston skirts look like? If the valve to guide fit is tight, and the valves are straight, then the cause probably came from below. A piston rocking in the bore would explain the strange clearance difference. How's the fit on the rod bushings? (Nevermind, that should be the same as checking  clearance through rotation.) Your failures/issues are always head scratchers Jay! Good luck. Later, Travis.

WConley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
  • No longer walking funny!
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2011, 08:42:52 PM »
Wow this is indeed a mystery!  It makes you wonder if those sleeves were moving around at all.

Any sign of fretting or polishing on the bottom lands that support the sleeves in the block?
A careful study of failure will yield the ingredients for success.

66FAIRLANE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
  • Andy
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2011, 10:27:14 PM »
Wow this is indeed a mystery!  It makes you wonder if those sleeves were moving around at all.

Any sign of fretting or polishing on the bottom lands that support the sleeves in the block?

Yes, thats what I was thinking too.

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2011, 10:33:55 PM »
Thanks for the comments; I took another look at some of this stuff tonight as a result.  

As far as rocking in the bore, the piston will rock back and forth at TDC about .050", along the piston pin axis as I mentioned in the original post.  After I discovered this I checked the piston to wall clearance at the skirt and it was right on at .006".  Piston skirts look good; the coating is still on the skirts.

Rocking in the other direction doesn't appear possible after looking at the piston and rod assemblies.  The pin fit is pretty much perfect.

I took another look at the valve guides, and they weren't quite as good as I had initially thought.  I put the #4 intake valve back in its guide, hung it about 1" open, and then fitted a dial indicator so that I could measure the side to side movement of the valve head.  At that lift I got about .010" side to side movement from one extreme to another.  This seems like its way too much, and may be a contributing factor.  Looking inside the guides, there was no obvious wear pattern, except that the wear seemed to be concentrated towards the bottom half of the guide.

A few years back I did some very extensive testing on the chain stretch on the SOHC, and how it affected timing, using magnets on the two cams and the crank, and magnetic sensors fitted to the timing covers.  What I found was that the right cam retarded a couple degrees between 3000 and 7000 RPM, and the left cam advanced a couple of degrees.  Since the right bank showed the primary contact with the intake valves, this doesn't really correspond with the cam retarding.  If the right cam had been advancing, I could see this as a contributing factor.  Of course, when I did this testing it was using a different chain and gears set, different cams, different springs, etc.  Who's to say what's actually happening with this particular engine.

The sleeves in the block don't actually sit down on a ledge at the bottom of the bore; the stop for the sleeves is the flange at the top of the bore.  I looked under a few of the sleeve flanges to see if there was any indications of movement, but didn't really see anything that would indicate that.  It's hard for me to believe that the sleeves would actually be moving around in the block more than a thousandth or two.  The deck surface of the block is fairly thick and is solid, so I don't think the sleeves could actually be moving around at the top.  At the bottom the sleeves tie into the metal making up the main webbing, so it seems unlikely this could move either.  The sleeves are held in place from the top by the sandwich of the flange against the block, the O-rings in the sleeves, the head gasket, and the head.  

Despite discovering the issue with the valve guides, the explanation for the valves hitting the pistons is still unclear...
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

66FAIRLANE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
  • Andy
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2011, 12:27:43 AM »
I know it's probably 4/5ths of phuk all. But if you are looking for another couple of thou, I wonder how much the diameter of the valve head grows when its hot? And maybe length?

GJCAT427

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 662
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2011, 06:54:22 AM »
Jay, what make is the block? From the looks of the liners I think you may have a poraisty(sp) problem? Are the bores siamised?  I know that I had a John Deere diesel that filled with water and couldn`t figure ouy why untill the liners were pulled and found the bottoms were ate from electrolis and ruined the oring seals at the bottom. I`m surprised the liners don`t have a bottom seal. This would elimanite a water leak if the block is poris. Just some thoughts. Garry (GJCAT427)

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2011, 09:37:11 AM »
It's a Shelby block.  I don't think it's a porosity issue; I have three others, and none of them have leaks.  This block has the water jacket exposed on cylinders 3. 4. and 8 because of the offset boring operation I performed on the block.  If there are other leaks that I don't know about, it's also probably due to the offset boring operation.
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2011, 10:17:44 AM »
The .010 clearance on the guides is unusual  for what I'll venture is short running time. How many miles or hours of operation on the engine? Using a PC type seal sometimes results in virtually no guide/stem oiling.

As to the valve-to-piston clashing, I think your comments on some intensive cam timing testing hit the nail on the head. The advancing/retarding cam 'feature' of the SOHC as you know has been mentioned in historical Ford racing tomes long ago, even leading to Sneaky Pete's one-off SOHC gear drive. Back then they weren't running the high lift/high duration camshafts and high spring pressures as you're doing today. I wonder if all this, added up with the on-the-throttle/off-the-throttle nature of street driving that 585 for Drag Week, unlike dyno testing, has lead to what I'll term chain whip and resultant valve clash?

Just a thought but unless something else pops up like loss of spring pressure, causing valve float, although some Rimac spring checking would tell.......?

Btw, I'm not suggesting a gear drive is needed! I also found Harvey Crane's own write-up on the SOHC chain issue. The original link is mighty long, one I'm sure Jay has seen before, but for others here's the excerpt:  

Innovation Gained From Engineering

Pete believed in the Ford SOHC 427 so much that when company wags reduced the factory support to a strangulation point Pete forged ahead.  He knew that the OHC design and Hemi configuration was the ultimate for a nitro engine and he continued to perfect it.  In the early days of running the SOHC 427 Pete encountered an alarming tendency of the engine to hang open a valve, creating a backfire situation and instantly launched blower!  Because the Cammer drove those wonderful SOHC camshafts via a long chain drive arrangement, Pete suspected that the chains were creating a "tolerance stacking" effect, lengthening during operation and creating a serious retardation in timing that was resulting in blower explosions.  To prove his theories to himself Pete brought his car, trailer and of course the massive 427 SOHC engine to Harvey's Hallandale shop.  Harvey had recently installed a then state-of-the-art, Heenan-Froude  dynamometer with all the instrumentation, for cam and component engine testing.  Pete dropped his Cammer motor onto the mounts and set up degree wheels on each bank, and a strobe timing light, to measure the chain stretch and valve timing retardation.  He also duct taped an 8mm home movie camera to a stand, aiming it directly at the degree wheel on the bank he suspected.  With this very rudimentary set-up he fired up the big Cammer and ran a couple of   conservative power runs.  Harvey recalled Pete's first fire-up test of the nitro-fed Ford:  Our dyno cell was located on the North side of the Hallandale shop, with a concrete block wall separating it from the main cam grinding shop.  The first time Pete fired up that blown, nitro 427 Ford engine our guys in the shop thought the building had exploded!  They all ran for the fire exits, sure that the whole side of the building was destroyed!  A couple days later, after we had the movie film developed, Pete had his proof.  The chain was definitely stretching and retarding the cam timing, causing the blower explosions.

Pete went back to Atlanta and during the drive home, decided that a gear-drive system was the most accurate, most reliable means of making the Cammer engines work to their full potential.

Again, when railbirds first saw Pete's amazing solution to the chain stretch problem, they crowed that Pete had "finally lost it".  His fix eliminated the long, unreliable chain completely and replaced it with a series of intricately machined, spur-toothed gears, all designed to fit inside a front cover fabricated from lightweight sheet aluminum.

It looked like Godzilla's pocket watch, and Pete's gear-drive solution remains one of drag racing technology's most intriguing achievements.


    
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 11:41:34 AM by machoneman »
Bob Maag

Hemi Joel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2011, 10:30:47 AM »
I'd like to see a picture of that gear drive. Does Any one have one?

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2011, 10:41:06 AM »
Click down to mercuryjunky's H.A.M.B. post and you'll see the front of Robinson's cammer gear drive with the inspection cover off:   

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=356918&page=10

« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 10:45:01 AM by machoneman »
Bob Maag

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2011, 12:34:45 PM »
Problems with the SOHC chain drive system are rather exaggerated, in my opinion.  If the chain is tight, variations in valve timing will be a few degrees at most, at least up to 7000 RPM.  Maybe it would be a lot more at 10,000 RPM, but I've never run this engine past 7500.  And even if the chain were whipping and stretching a lot, that doesn't explain why the impact point of the valve on the piston is so far off the valve's normal location. 
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2011, 12:57:42 PM »
Yes, the impact point being so far off is a really odd issue. Wonder if you can do an on-engine check with the actual valves (not just stems and center points) and checking springs and some Prussian blue or some other dye/paint marker at various pre-post TDC checks? Hard to believe though that even with .010 stem clearance the valve heads could move as far the pics show to cause the piston marks to show up outside the pockets.

I should have mentioned with the gear drive issue too that the vast, vast majority of successful SOHC racers did not use this invention. They ran the OEM or OEM-type Ford chains, gears, tensioners, guide rails, etc. quite successfully and merely advanced or retarded one of the cam's timing events the requisite 6-7 degrees (or thereabouts) for parallel phasing at high rpm. Only Robinson had the one-off gear drive.  

So, still a major mystery!    

On edit: what was btw the recorded intake/exhaust valve to piston clearance on this engine? Have you had the chance to see if its changed?  


        
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 01:49:08 PM by machoneman »
Bob Maag

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2011, 02:13:31 PM »
PV clearance was about .140" if I recall correctly, on both intake and exhaust.  I didn't recheck it on disassembly.  But since you mention it, it seems clear that the piston to valve clearance I measured had the valves touching the pistons in the middle of the pocket, rather than on the edge of the pocket where the contact is.  Obviously the valves hitting the pistons where they are is the result of dynamic engine operation, rather than the static PV clearance measurement.
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2011, 02:48:41 PM »
Yes, that .140 is far more than enough to eliminate in-operation clashing. Your analysis makes sense, pretty much eliminates the chain drive variable and given, say, tight .002 or so guides and a revised valve pocket location that problem should go away.

On those guides, I wonder out loud if the cammer's unique rocker arm, cams that push the rockers differently from one head's side to another, et al, have an effect on guide wear as opposed to mere lack of oiling (my comment on PC seals earlier).  Can't imagine though that the SOHC rocker arms, even with your high lift/duration cams, could cause that unwanted swiping action that can push a valve sideways more than up-down, the same effect as a too short/long pushrod in a non-OHC engine. Does this engine's sweep produce a narrow valve tip mark like a pushrod 427 or is it substantially wider?  Remember the worn, non-hardened tips you showed on some cammer valves awhile ago but didn't catch the sweep dimension. 

I also forget if these are B. Coon's heads or what. Not to knock them but if the guide material isn't wholly compatible with your SS valves, guide wear can be accelerated as you know. 'Course, if the valve's head perimeter was grazing the piston pocket at speed, that alone could cause rapid guide wear!

I wonder too if the engine has a few valves that did not touch the piston's valve pocket (if not all of them did) exhibit normal valve guide clearances (whatever you set them at initially)?      



« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 03:27:55 PM by machoneman »
Bob Maag

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2011, 03:56:03 PM »
There are indeed some pistons with no clearance issues.  Correlating the valve guide wear on the right head with the pistons that have marks is a good idea, and may shed some light on whether the valve guide wear played a part.  R&R has a valve guide measurement tool that goes down to a tenth, so maybe I'll haul the heads in there and have them checked.

The design of the SOHC rocker arm will put the arm into a twist when it is on the cam lobe.  I wonder if that is forcing the valve to one side or the other on the guide, and also contributing to the problem?  And it surely is a different force from side to side, because of the geometry of the heads (on the right bank the cam "pushes" the roller on the rocker arm, while on the left bank the cam "pulls" it).  Hmmmm....
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

Joe-jdc

  • Guest
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2011, 08:42:06 PM »
Jay, how much of the guide is supported by the head material?  That is a problem with the high arc intake ports on some SBF heads like the Yates, and the valve guides wear very quickly.  I would think you need at least 1.000 inch of head surface area around the guide for stability, and more is better.  If it is less, then you may consider welding a vane in front and behind the guide to support is from rocking, and blending it for flow. I know that is a lot of work, heat and warpage possible, but may solve the valve stability issue.     Joe-JDC.

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2011, 09:14:42 PM »
The guide support is right about 1", Joe.  Maybe a little more, but not much.  Probably these valves are bigger than an SBF valve, so maybe its not enough to prevent wear...
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

plovett

  • Guest
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2011, 11:30:29 AM »
I don't have anything to add other than I really hope you find your "smoking gun", Jay.

paulie

Cyclone03

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2011, 01:04:28 PM »
Could the power loss have come from the cumbustion pressure being lost down the sleaves to the crankcase? If so wouldn't/couldn't that "float" the sleaves in the bore?

Is it posible the valves were "lofting" over the nose?That would seem to mess up static P-V clearence.

With the carbon build up over the "relief's" it may have happened on the last run,weak springs?
Lance H

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2011, 04:34:36 PM »
Thanks for the thoughts.  I would think that if the engine was losing any significant combustion pressure down the sleeves I would see significant blowby out of the breather, and the engine really didn't have much of that.  Certainly not 150 HP worth, anyway.  The springs were new, and checked fine on disassembly, and the cam/spring/rocker combination was checked on Bill Conley's spintron and found to be good up to 8000 RPM.  So, I don't think the issue is valvetrain related.
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

country63sedan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2011, 06:53:20 PM »
Sorry I missed the details in the original post. Guess I shouldn't try to read/comprehend when the kids and the dog keep tearing through the office. I did have an idea today, but it's a bit of a stretch. Is it possible that the engine kicked back or even tried to run backwards during the hard starting problems? Could this cause enough slack for the cam timing to get out of sync momentarily? I told you it was a stretch, but it's something I thought of today. Later, Travis.

P.S. At failure analysis training several years ago, they told us that over half of all failures (on big trucks)are caused by DRIVER ABUSE ;)

cdmbill2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2011, 03:54:20 PM »
Jay, looking at this differently for a moment, what are the differences, parts, assembly, cam etc. between this version of the engine which shows that appearant piston to valve interference problem and the last version(s) that didn't form priro Drag Weeks etc.?

Given the way the valve intersects the bore and the piston face I'm wondering about those particular valves hanging up on the compression stroke bleeding power, and causing the piston to knock it closed otherwise its hard to understand how the witness mark can be so far from the scribed valve diameter.

You can obviously expand the radial size of the valve relief but you haven't actually discovered the source of the interference.

Also, what is that black curled up substance we see in the pictures? Carbon, or blackened valve material?

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2011, 04:56:09 PM »
Bill, this is basically the same engine I ran in 2009.  The only difference is the switch to the ems-pro and coilpacks, and removal of the distributor.  Same heads, same valves, same pistons, same cams, same rockers, same springs - same same same.  Which is why this is so puzzling.

FYI I took one of the heads in to my shop to have the valve guides measured, and all the guide/valve combinations showed a clearance of .0020" to .0022".  According to my shop, that's not a problem.  I had held the valve an inch or so out of a guide and checked the movement with a dial indicator, and got .010" movement, but after getting the guides checked I tried to repeat that measurements, and only got about .004" of movement.  I have to assume that the dial indicator was moving on the first measurement, because I sure can't repeat it.

That curled up stuff is aluminum from the piston.  I assume that it is black because once it got out of the way of the contact, it carboned up like the rest of the chamber.  Seems like the valve was just shaving the piston eyebrows.

Still pretty confused about this...

Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #26 on: December 09, 2011, 05:22:11 PM »
Jay, now that we know the guides, etc. are o.k. I'll ask you to go back to Country63Sedan's post above about the possibility that the engine, if even only once, ran backwards on a backfire or after a hot shutoff.

You could easily replicate the effect of the engine running backwards, even for one single revolution, and see if the chain tensioner backs off enough to allow a really loose chain and valve/piston clash. Hey it ain't your typical pushrod FE now is it?

Just a thought......otherwise the mystery continues!  Maybe we need Inspector Clouseau? LOL!
Bob Maag

Joe-jdc

  • Guest
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #27 on: December 09, 2011, 10:26:35 PM »
Jay,

I read your complete posting again, and I have a couple of questions and ideas.  How short is the piston skirt?  How far below the pin does it extend? What is the material the guides are made of? Is there enough room for a longer rod to help with piston rock?  This is one of those engines where I would try to squeeze the longest rod possible, and a slightly longer skirt on the piston for stability.  Your stroke and rod ratio is a curiousity in my mind to the piston rocking.  Piston bore size vs pin height vs rod length may be causing the problem.  The skirts may look good, but are they actually flexing under load and causing the problem?   Are they a full skirt  like a Mahle?  I still would suggest  welding a vane in front of the guide since you will probably be changing them, and trying to get the hardest material you can for the replacements.  Hope something I said triggers an idea.  Joe-JDC.

XR7

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #28 on: December 09, 2011, 11:34:47 PM »
Jay,
I have some questions and a few thoughts on this. I may be out in left field here... but there could be something to this. I keep thinking about the offset bores and how that effects things. If you went from a 4.63 bore center, to say a 4.70 (not sure of the dimensions you used) then if I am thinking correctly.... the center cylinders have another .070 between so now are .035 farther apart (each) from where they used to be, and the outer corner cylinders are .070 over from that.... which would be a total of .105 offset away from where those bores were originally. Is this correct? If this is, then do you have 4 pistons with .035 offset valve reliefs and 4 pistons with the reliefs offset over .105? The heads have the standard centers so now the chambers are offset to the bore. What about the crank rod pins? Were these offset or in a normal FE location?

I have read that the BBC connecting rods have an offset where a true Ford rod it is on center. I am assuming that that would be the pin or small end centers are different than the big end center, as far as fore and aft installed on the engine. What if this rod pin offset and your offset bore are stacking up together? Maybe the (heavy?) SOHC piston is (now not centered to the rod) rocking, and/or flexing the piston pin one direction only, to where they are leaning over at high RPM and kissing the valve? There is no piston skirt on the sides to support or locate the piston to the bore "square" this non thrust direction...

How thick are the piston pin walls, I would think you would want a thick tapered tool steel pin on this engine. Lightweight pins are not a good thing and will flex, hard on piston pin bosses and cause cracking or breaking right doewn the middle of the pin bore on the piston.

 I see where you made the center punch for the valve on the relief, and where it is hitting is way over or off center. Weird...

Like I said these things may be all wrong, but something I have been thinking about and trying to wrap my head around it. Doesn't really explain why some cylinders are problems and others aren't. If it were the 4 corner pistons hitting (which would be worse than the center 4 pistons) it would make sense... but that doesn't sound like what is happening either...

What are your thoughts and could you explain the offset bores and how you handled the piston valve reliefs and crank. I don't think it is the valves moving over that far myself, but I could be wrong. It has to be one or the other, or a combination of the two. Definitely a head scratcher as it just doesn't make much sense. Hopefully you will figure this out, this has to have had something to do with the power loss, the engine wasn't "happy".
68 Cougar XR7 GT street legal, 9.47@144.53, 3603# at the line, 487 HR center oiler, single carb, Jerico 4 speed, 10.5 tires, stock(er) suspension, all steel full interior

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #29 on: December 09, 2011, 11:43:33 PM »
Jay, now that we know the guides, etc. are o.k. I'll ask you to go back to Country63Sedan's post above about the possibility that the engine, if even only once, ran backwards on a backfire or after a hot shutoff.

You could easily replicate the effect of the engine running backwards, even for one single revolution, and see if the chain tensioner backs off enough to allow a really loose chain and valve/piston clash. Hey it ain't your typical pushrod FE now is it?

Just a thought......otherwise the mystery continues!  Maybe we need Inspector Clouseau? LOL!

I think even if the engine ran backwards, which is certainly possible, it would not explain the piston contact.  The closest the valve ever comes to the edge of the relief is at TDC, and you can see how far away it is from the relief based on the center punch point and the scribed valve diameter.  No matter if the engine is running forward or backwards, this doesn't change.  If stretch or slack in the chain let the valve hang open, it should hit the flat part of the valve pocket in the piston, not the edge where it is hitting. 

Also FYI I run the chains on these engines pretty tight, so even if the engine ran backwards I doubt that there would be any significant variation in valve timing.
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #30 on: December 09, 2011, 11:55:13 PM »
Jay,

I read your complete posting again, and I have a couple of questions and ideas.  How short is the piston skirt?  How far below the pin does it extend? What is the material the guides are made of? Is there enough room for a longer rod to help with piston rock?  This is one of those engines where I would try to squeeze the longest rod possible, and a slightly longer skirt on the piston for stability.  Your stroke and rod ratio is a curiousity in my mind to the piston rocking.  Piston bore size vs pin height vs rod length may be causing the problem.  The skirts may look good, but are they actually flexing under load and causing the problem?   Are they a full skirt  like a Mahle?  I still would suggest  welding a vane in front of the guide since you will probably be changing them, and trying to get the hardest material you can for the replacements.  Hope something I said triggers an idea.  Joe-JDC.

Joe, I have the absolute longest rod in this engine that I could fit.  The valve pockets in the piston extend down from the deck, and determine how high up on the piston the top ring can be.  I have the smallest ring package in there that I can get (.043/.043/3mm), and the pin is as high up on the piston as I can get it.  As it turned out a 6.700" rod was a fit with these dimensions, so that's what I used. 

On the skirts, they are full skirts but they are pretty short because they have to clear the 4.6" stroke crank, so piston rock is definitely a concern.  I measured .050" with feeler gauges at TDC, which would explain part of the gap between the valve contact point and the measured valve location, but not all of it.  The pistons skirts extend a good way out of the sleeve at the bottom of the stroke, but the sleeves are made longer than stock FE bore length, and notched for crank counterweight clearance, to try to mitigate this issue.

I don't know what the material is that the guides are made of, but making them from a stiffer material makes sense to me.  I'll look into that, and thanks for the comments.
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2011, 12:18:56 AM »
Jay,
I have some questions and a few thoughts on this. I may be out in left field here... but there could be something to this. I keep thinking about the offset bores and how that effects things. If you went from a 4.63 bore center, to say a 4.70 (not sure of the dimensions you used) then if I am thinking correctly.... the center cylinders have another .070 between so now are .035 farther apart (each) from where they used to be, and the outer corner cylinders are .070 over from that.... which would be a total of .105 offset away from where those bores were originally. Is this correct? If this is, then do you have 4 pistons with .035 offset valve reliefs and 4 pistons with the reliefs offset over .105? The heads have the standard centers so now the chambers are offset to the bore. What about the crank rod pins? Were these offset or in a normal FE location?

I have read that the BBC connecting rods have an offset where a true Ford rod it is on center. I am assuming that that would be the pin or small end centers are different than the big end center, as far as fore and aft installed on the engine. What if this rod pin offset and your offset bore are stacking up together? Maybe the (heavy?) SOHC piston is (now not centered to the rod) rocking, and/or flexing the piston pin one direction only, to where they are leaning over at high RPM and kissing the valve? There is no piston skirt on the sides to support or locate the piston to the bore "square" this non thrust direction...

How thick are the piston pin walls, I would think you would want a thick tapered tool steel pin on this engine. Lightweight pins are not a good thing and will flex, hard on piston pin bosses and cause cracking or breaking right doewn the middle of the pin bore on the piston.

 I see where you made the center punch for the valve on the relief, and where it is hitting is way over or off center. Weird...

Like I said these things may be all wrong, but something I have been thinking about and trying to wrap my head around it. Doesn't really explain why some cylinders are problems and others aren't. If it were the 4 corner pistons hitting (which would be worse than the center 4 pistons) it would make sense... but that doesn't sound like what is happening either...

What are your thoughts and could you explain the offset bores and how you handled the piston valve reliefs and crank. I don't think it is the valves moving over that far myself, but I could be wrong. It has to be one or the other, or a combination of the two. Definitely a head scratcher as it just doesn't make much sense. Hopefully you will figure this out, this has to have had something to do with the power loss, the engine wasn't "happy".

You guessed the dimensions right on.  The bore spacing on this block is now 4.700", the inboard bores are moved out .035" from center and the outboard bores are moved out .105" from center.  The piston domes are still in the same location relative to the heads, leading to pistons with offset domes.

You are correct that given the pistons offset configuration, they are not centered up on the connecting rod.  I don't think they are rocking along the pin axis, though, because the pin fit is like new.  Also the pins are tool steel and fairly thick wall because they are small block Chevrolet size (0.930"?), rather than FE size or BBC size.  But, if they were rocking in that direction, that would certainly help explain the valve contact point that appears on the piston.  I will give that possibility a little more thought...
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

country63sedan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2011, 12:39:48 AM »
Jay,
  Let me start by saying that the thoughts in my head usually don't translate through the keyboard very well.  This can be seen in some of the dumb statements I've made.  Having said that, let me explain my idea on this.
  I have turned serpentine belted engines over with the nut on the alternator pulley, this only works in one direction (the spring loaded tensioner only helps in one direction). Your cammer has a chain, so it can't slip like the serpentine belt. I would compare this to running the chain backwards on a ten speed bicycle (tensioner can't handle it, chain wads up). Your cammer has what looks like a spring loaded tensioner albeit a strong one, and guides to keep the chain from wadding up. This would mean the chain slack is now a change in cam timing. This would also mean that the piston is now chasing the intake valve.
  I'm still thinking on how the contact got so close to the edge.I'm also no sure on how or why it would try to run backwards. It should also be noted that this computer is the closest I've ever been to a real cammer.
  I'm not trying to argue by any means, and I'm not trying to force my idea on you. I just thought I should try to explain it. Later, Travis


Edit: my theory may be all wet.... I just looked at the picture again and have a question.  Is that shiny part under the tensioner a spring or an oil line?
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 12:51:16 AM by country63sedan »

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2011, 07:40:28 AM »
Jay, now that we know the guides, etc. are o.k. I'll ask you to go back to Country63Sedan's post above about the possibility that the engine, if even only once, ran backwards on a backfire or after a hot shutoff.

You could easily replicate the effect of the engine running backwards, even for one single revolution, and see if the chain tensioner backs off enough to allow a really loose chain and valve/piston clash. Hey it ain't your typical pushrod FE now is it?

Just a thought......otherwise the mystery continues!  Maybe we need Inspector Clouseau? LOL!

I think even if the engine ran backwards, which is certainly possible, it would not explain the piston contact.  The closest the valve ever comes to the edge of the relief is at TDC, and you can see how far away it is from the relief based on the center punch point and the scribed valve diameter.  No matter if the engine is running forward or backwards, this doesn't change.  If stretch or slack in the chain let the valve hang open, it should hit the flat part of the valve pocket in the piston, not the edge where it is hitting. 

Also FYI I run the chains on these engines pretty tight, so even if the engine ran backwards I doubt that there would be any significant variation in valve timing.

Good points. Agree now that you pointed it out, the contact point should be the same regardless of timing events or running backwards. The mystery continues but some of the questions above seem to indicate possible answers as well.
Bob Maag

Barry_R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1915
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #34 on: December 10, 2011, 09:55:59 AM »
Couple thoughts.
Pin flex and bind are very possible - diameter and length are more important than wall thickness in that area and a .927 pin is pretty small.  Short and fat is how I like them  (don't tell my wife...).

I have observed valve contact even though I was damn positive that the radial clearance was adequate.  I suspect that the valves kinda corkscrew down the bore in a running engine instead of going straight up & down.  If they bind in the guide things will get worse.  Bind in the guide.....like if that elephant foot adjuster doesn't skid nicely against the tip and instead bends the valve stem in operation...just thinking out loud on the keyboard.

Wet sleeves with flanged uppers and multiple O rings for coolant sealing are extremely common in the diesel world - but not in aluminum blocks.  Might need to work on the installation strategy some more.  How tight is the press - if any - on the upper flange?

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #35 on: December 10, 2011, 06:22:22 PM »
So, maybe with the SBC pin I am seeing some flex.  Between that and what you said about the valves, plus the potential for piston rock at TDC, maybe that is the explanation.  I'm going to send the pistons back to CP and see what they think.  In any case, I want to certainly avoid this issue next time around.

There actually is no press fit at the flange of the sleeves, and only a .001" press fit on the sleeve in the block.  I feel fairly confident that the O-ring will work at the bottom of the sleeve, and am primarily concerned with the thin spot in the sleeve that the O-ring will create.  At the top I was kind of thinking about using a sealer like that Motorcraft stuff, or the Right Stuff, just in case I had a leak in the head gasket like what I appeared to have last time.

Barry, on those diesel motors you were talking about with multiple O-rings, did they use one groove for each O-ring, or did they put multiple O-rings in a single, wider groove?
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

WConley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
  • No longer walking funny!
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #36 on: December 10, 2011, 06:50:35 PM »
Jay -

For this type of o-ring seal, called a "gland seal", it's preferable to have one groove per o-ring.  Under pressure the o-ring will squeeze up against the hard walls of the groove and the surface of the mating part.  This creates a seal force that increases with pressure.

If you let the o-rings bunch up against each other you don't get this effect.  The soft round wall of the adjacent ring will create unpredictable behavior.

- Bill
A careful study of failure will yield the ingredients for success.

Barry_R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1915
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #37 on: December 11, 2011, 11:07:39 AM »
They use multiple grooves and o rings - each shaped or material'd differently and installed one per groove, along with a press around the flange.  They run wet - no support in the center, and are sometimes serviced right on the side of the road.  I suspect that a .001 press is essentially no press at all in an aluminum block - probably either increase it or go without any press at all.  If I recall correctly the diesel stuff has a pretty good press at the deck end and they just float in the block even at the bottom.

Don't really know the answers - but can generate plenty of questions....

country63sedan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #38 on: December 11, 2011, 11:55:36 AM »
Hey Jay,
  On a Mack E7,  there is a thicker portion on the top 1/3 or so of the liner. This seals against a counterbore in the block (with silicone). Only the thick part of the liner is wet and only the head gasket seals the top part. Midliners (French) use several grooves cut into the block at the bottom and one at the top in the liner. MP engines (Volvo) use yet another combination of grooves and o-rings.  Is there enough meat to cut a groove at the bottom in the block and then a relief under the flange for a thin o-ring on top? I'm not sure how any of this translates to an aluminum block. It's noteworthy that some o-rings can roll and cause the liner to go out of round ( a quick check with a dial bore gage shows it).
   Later, Travis

 

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2011, 12:25:07 PM »
Thanks for the info guys.  On the press fit in the block, I just duplicated what was measured when I re-sleeved my Pond aluminum block a few years ago.  Removing the sleeves was a matter of putting the block in the oven and heating it to 300 degrees, and the sleeves would pop out with no trouble.  Installing was the reverse, and the cold sleeves would just slam into the hot block.  At normal operating temperatures, I'm guessing there is essentially no press, but I'm reluctant to size up the sleeves to make the press bigger; otherwise installation and removal could be a problem.

I would love to be able to groove the block and install the O-rings there, but the bore spacing is 4.700", and the bore size in the block itself is 4.680".  So there is no room to cut the groove where the cylinders are close.  Same holds true at the top of the block, on the flanges.  They have flats on them to allow them to fit next to each other, and the material left after the flats are ground into the flanges isn't wide enough to allow an O-ring groove. 
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

cammerfe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #40 on: December 11, 2011, 03:13:01 PM »
Jay, let's think way out there for a mo' or two.

When I dug into the Jag AJ27 engine I'm running in my Land Speed car, I found an aluminium block that had been designed for sleeves from the ground up. It therefore had water jackets that only extended down the bores for about two inches. All the rest of the block was cast solid. In that case, the sleeves are cast in place, but if you use flanged sleeves, you could undoubtedly get enough integrity to do what you're looking for.

If you look at the block as something into which you have input from the start, and not something that needs to be monkeyed-with after delivery, you open up a whole new world. In terms of displacement, a high-deck block offers real possibilities. The same could be said of a Moldex crank. Properly cut, a billet crank would take the moving of the bores into account and everything could go back on center. (You see, I have no trouble at all spending your money!)

KS

Have you considered using liquid nitrogen to shrink the sleeves for installation? Works like a charm. Would likely make possible a greater 'press'.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 03:26:42 PM by cammerfe »

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #41 on: January 19, 2012, 12:26:22 PM »
So Jay, it's been awhile now and perhaps you've gotten those pistons back. What's the answer for the odd valve head-to-piston clashing? Valves sticking in the guides, the guides are bending in the head bosses, flexing piston pins, excessive piston rock.....unusual Minnesota lodestones under your shed causing magnetic pull, thus interference...LOLl!
Bob Maag

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2012, 10:18:07 PM »
Still don't know what the deal is on that PV contact, Bob.  Here is where I am on this project.  I am currently waiting for new sleeves for the block.  I had the block bored so that all eight holes are the same, and ordered new sleeves from Darton  that have an O-ring groove on the outside of the sleeve, near the bottom.  I will use a Viton O-ring on each sleeve to address the leakage issue.  I expect to get the sleeves in about five weeks.  At that point I will install them in the block and if everything looks good at that point, I will order new pistons from CP.  I will send them the old pistons for reference, and hopefully they will be able to offer a clue as to what is happening with the PV contact.
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2012, 08:53:58 AM »
Got it... and thanks Jay for the update.
Bob Maag

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #44 on: February 19, 2012, 11:34:22 PM »
This week I finally received my new sleeves for the Shelby block from Darton.  Here's a picture of two of them:



Notice the groove in the outside of the sleeve at the bottom; this is for a 1/16" Viton O-ring.  The sleeve on the left in the photo has the O-ring installed.

I had previously acquired the O-rings and had the block bored so that all eight sleeves would be the same diameter.  This left me with fairly large holes in the aluminum casting in cylinders 3, 4, and 8.  In order to make sure that the O-rings didn't snag on the holes in the cylinders I peened the edges of the holes over a little with a small ballpeen hammer.  Then I set the block up in my powder coating oven to bring it up to temperature.  I heat the blocks up to 300 degrees Fahrenheit to install the sleeves.  Installation is normally pretty easy, because the sleeve is at room temperature and the block is hot.  If you are removing the sleeves, the block and sleeve are both hot and so they both expand, making removal a little more difficult than installation.  However, in this case I had the O-rings to contend with also, so the sleeves would have to be pushed into position against the force of the O-rings, rather than just sliding into place.

Complicating matters is the fact that the sleeves all have flat on them, where they fit together, and if the flats aren't lined up properly, the sleeves won't fit into the block.  It isn't much of a challenge lining up the flats when the sleeves don't have the O-rings because when the block is at temperature the sleeves can be rotated easily by hand.  However, the O-ring again complicates matters, and I expected it to be more difficult to rotate the sleeves if necessary, after they were installed.

Here's a photo of the block in the oven showing cylinders 5-8, prior to installation of the sleeves:



I let the block warm up for an hour before I started the installation.  While I waited I cleaned all the oil off the sleeves, installed the O-rings, and lubricated each O-ring with a special lubricant designed to make installation easier.  Finally I cracked open the oven and installed sleeve #8.  It went in easily up to the O-ring, and then I had to use a deadblow hammer and a block of wood to push the sleeve into position.  I tried to keep the flat in the right spot, but sure enough by the time the sleeve was nearly installed it had rotated somewhat.  I tried twisting the sleeve to get the flat aligned correctly, but it wouldn't budge.  After trying to tap the sleeve with a hammer to get it into the proper position, I decided to shut the oven door and let the block heat back up, and try to come up with a solution.

Eventually I decided that I could use a small vise grip to grab the flange of the sleeve, and then hit the vice grip with a hammer to rotate the sleeve in the bore.  After ten minutes I opened the oven again, and after a couple of tries the vise grip and hammer approach worked, and I got the sleeve rotated into the correct spot.  A couple more strokes with the dead blow and the sleeve was all the way in.

I continued with this technique to get the remaining sleeves put into position.  In nearly all cases I had to grab the flange of the sleeve with the vise grip and rotate it so the flats would fit; the sleeves always wanted to turn a little while they were being driven in.  But finally I got them all into the correct position.  Here's a photo of cylinders 1-4, with sleeve #1 still not quite all the way into position:



Now that the sleeves are installed, I will leak check the block this week.  If I find any problems I will have to either replace the O-ring on that particular cylinder or come up with some other solution.  Assuming the block is leak free, I will be ready to order pistons.  When that happens, I'll be sending some of the existing pistons to CP, and maybe they will be able to shed some light on my piston to valve clearance issues.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2012, 11:41:31 AM by jayb »
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

HolmanMoodyStroppeVet

  • Guest
Re: 585" SOHC - Teardown, repair, rebuild, and re-dyno
« Reply #45 on: May 02, 2014, 12:59:23 AM »
Hi guys

I was doing some back reading for fun and need to add some stuff.

The gear drives for SOHCs were made at Holman Moody Stroppe by my first boss, master machinist Noel Timney. It was one of the first SOHC prototype parts from the 60's that we made more of, for boat racing too, and we had the prototype and plans, mounted on a board, with the way to hob the gears, and what the material and heat treat was. Hard finished product, like a current style drive.  I thought Pete brought the idea to us and we made it in this huge machine shop we had. It went on and on, and we had gear hobbing locally by batch. You just call out the root, pitch, etc..  This was what the shop said, so I recall it clearly. 

Pete was a great man, and Ford loved him, we lost him too young, testing down force in a fueler, at Pomona. He did want what the Dodges ran, and we did a bunch of Drag Team cars, most all of them visited too, when out West.

The thin backing plate was replaced by hard, ground steel, and there were other tricks.  Noel also made gear drive for Ford McCullough and Paxton style blowers, and other Ford race cars

I just loved the guy, so his name is worth remembering for some of us. He helped Ford win a lot. He made it into the Garlits Hall of fame too, round 1, for building the first Drag Car to go 150 MPH at the original NHRA Nationals in Topeka Kansas, Lloyd Scott drove it.  It had 2 engines, and he made the differential, with one ring gear, and 2 pinions.  A friend from Lion's Drag Strip, saw that pass, and we talked about it recently. He is older than me,,,,ha ha.  Check out The Bustle Bomb some day.

But Noel claimed this, he actually made these gear drives, I made parts for some too.  So did the big bosses, so i wanted to add this to be more accurate.  The gear drive, it was one of many Ford Racing special parts, because the goal was winning and the budget was big. The consensus was though, the SOHC gear drive was great, but very expensive, and had to be fit, and matched in, had a lot of parts, and a lot of gears, in a daisy chain.  For the era, it didn't really catch on, since so many were winning, in Dragsters, with chains. Also, gear drive stub cams, and chains upstairs. I have one of the first good gear drives for the stub cam, thus magneto, if blown.

The next step was a belt drive, that was tested then, then done a lot later.

Like current Pro Stocks spinning way high, on carbs, retarding the cam can help

So way back when, guys were on to this on gas.

OK, we tested cam retard and advance in many ways, sensors, strobes, sure, we also had crank sensors to measure crank flex at the rod journals, in minutes away from perfect 90 degree indexing, and so on.  The tension on the chain plays a big part of the graphs you derive.

I would say 2 things, having done a whole lot of blown fuel too, Dyno Don, who I raced with, and helped, and miss, and knew well, actually changed his cam timing, to suit the track, or, between rounds, based on the bite, opposition, air and so on.  That was state of the art on carbs back then.  So his Crew Chief in the Maverick Pro Stock years, was another boss back when, and he is still a close friend. 

Just tweaking the tensioner between rounds can be a wise move.

Somebody here said Dyno ran the Nitro 640s, that is way off.  We had a long list of secret in house grinds, and  'special' stuff from Crane, Holman and others,  The trick was sometimes, getting the raw blanks, or turning billet to do special stuff.

I am writing to try to help the guys not mix apples and oranges.

In the era of the SOHC on fuel, and later in Pro Stock, they are different beasts

The SOHC came to the drags, on fuel, to run against the 392 and 354 Dodge Hemi, on fuel.  These guys, we spin them over 10,000 today, at about 250 MPH.  They always had a gear drive, since the late 50s.

Why?  To drive a fuel pump and a mag, and take a lot of valve spring and heavy rockers, steel, and big chromoly pushrods

So, one reason Pete and others wanted a comlex gear drive, was to reliably drive a big magneto, off of the stub cam, and a fuel pump, off of the fixed idler.  These loads, requires a bigger hex drive too

Blown on fuel, precise valve timing does bang a lot less blowers, sure, and the pumps and mag, just follow the leader

Cam retard is not a big enough benefit. You have to just imagine, you are staring at the blower, in a front motor Dragster, going over 200 MPH, sitting on the rear end. Everybody had a 8 3/4 Chrysler 3rd member, and Hig Tuff Henry's axles.  Those alone nearly killed Jack Chrisman, poor guy.

So blower banged all of the time back then, they wer not stripped, but carefully set closer, with tricks, and the mags were tiny,so...would you like to have less flames in your face?  Less rotors hitting your open face helmet?  Most that we knew said yes...ha ha, so the gears were for safety in large measure.  Pete was known to design in speed and safety ingenuity, with Fords help, and the help of many.

Back to carbs,,,

With a lot of compression, big cams, a high launch RPM, and a 4 speed, the way to split the cams, and which one to lead, and by how much, was worked and worked and worked on, on the same combo, to squeak out hundreths in ET. Over and over, pass after pass.  So that was the deal way back when, squezing every last drop, out of a rules mandated combo.

Now Ed Pink is super smart and had a big budget, not like FORD racing did then, but he is top shelf.  He did do special chains, with chromoly bushings and pins, and they were better, but expensive.  Kieth Black ran them, many did. They look different from some distance. So they were and are trick.

 Then, the sponsored racers got free parts like water, so the stock chains got changed out a lot, if the slot on the tensioner showed stretch, or pin wear. Adios. Hand to this or that team

We should remember, the sponsored teams, had stacks and rows of spare free parts.  Chrisman place was close to were I grew up.  He had a wide bench, and below it, was a tall stack of sohc heads, in various state of use, or injury

Point is, many many good cars, ran fast nitro or gas cars, with hand me down SOHC parts.  Blown fuel parts, got passed to injected fuel SOHCs, the blown gas, injected, then carbs.

The gear drives were great, but complex and expensive, and milling the stock heads or block a lot required adjustments sometimes.

I think Noel deserves credit for his part here, everybody said he made what PEte asked for, and fast.  He also did the first super tough main cap girdles, I made some for him. They really added strength blown, and also on fast gas with a bunch of RPM.  The are 1'' thick. I have one left.  You got a lot more passes on a 'H' , or SOHC block or sideoiler, this way, by fitting them perfectly, then remachining.  It took time, so, one size did not fit all.  We often refined the pan rail dimensions, and we added a surface grond flat on the caps.  The botom end of a Y block, ends up more like a Indy engine this way, for example, the entire bottom end gets tied in, and stressed simultaneously,in essence.

On the sleeves leaking, I know that you figured out how important a snug fit on bottom is.  The bottom register helps a lot as heat sinks into the sleeve, and contact on bottom, transfers up to the compression seal, and provides a lot less rock, better heat transfer, and it won't leak.

This was a R&D effort I would guess, right ?  Sounds fun.

I just remember, we did 351 C Pro Stock blocks, by furnace welding in thick sleeves, in large heat treat ovens. Seeing the braze, make a complete seal on bottom, and top, was critical.  Same deal adding bigger, thicker sleeves to a Side Oiler. Lots of special machine work, and time, and furnace work, and in the end, you need a huge budget, like we had, to throw such stuff at a design, to try to win this or that event.

I bet that you could restore the actual seal down there a few ways, and add epoxy to stablize it, down low, but you have a bunch of spares, so race a solid block maybe, and use this guy for street FE or something.

I buy the Shelby Big bore blocks for some guys, and they have a bigger sleeve too, but no holes in the  block so that the pressure test and seal.

The big bore block is 4.400, and really, that is so close, you just service the sleeve if it hones much beyond that size, they start at 4.375.  For the guys if they wonder.

I bet you run them too, my wonder was, how big were these bores ?

I will read more, nice job, this is a fun thread, and thanks for sticking with SOHC's and pushing the envelope. 

Also,

I read on the these SOHC theads, that testing kind of re determined, that the stock rocker, non adjustable, which there are tricks for, with the range of lash caps, which we had a roll away dedicated too,,,,lol   plus custom ones, do live well in certain racing conditons.  They are better than some people think , with light valves.

Spring tricks are also a big deal, running the stock spring cup was improved on some. A lot actually. We made our own, hardened and ground, heat treated

People rail against sodium races without remembering something, they won a bunch of races. The Lemans rods got new cap screws every rebuild, like the manual suggested, but we had the trick stretch stuff way back then.

And on the sodium valves, they get maligned. Guys need to know, they were free, buy the box, so they got changed out after enough use to stretch, or move, show any wear, and on a real safe change out interval.  Ford knew how far to stretch that string, so use, versus abuse seems fair to note.

We had boxes of them in used conditon. We tossed them at each other, across a huge series of shops, to say  Hey, the lunch truck is here, and so on. They got thrown out a lot, often.

They  grind, new, with a unique sound, and bounce with this high pitch ping. We checked it all to blueprint tighter, sure, but I would say, what I was taught. They did a lot of good work, when new ?  They won, a lot. We did not have titanium valves, we did have Donovan stainless.

The problem was, they were so pretty, the ones headed to the trash got taken home, sold, given away, and those used valves got beat until failure I think.  Just run to death.  That reputation for popping heads, and for separation, was probably due to use way beyond the designed in fatique point, we figured. Old valves, even NOS new, today, do corrode from inside, so beware, sure. I have a bunch for momentos. Brand new. For a museum maybe...ha ha.

But again, on these same Ford valves, we shortened them, and won a lot of Trans Am races with them too, in Boss 302's. Ask Doug Nash and others. There is a oil quenching trick for these.

This was a fun thread, thanks. 

It is fun to back read some of these builds and failure analysis.

This is just me, I would probably scale back the bore a bit, to stabilze the sleeve and block, and give the entire bottom end more passes and life maybe.  It is hard to trust sealer, and then find water in the oil at a race

Nice work and thanks again

When I have more time, I look forward to seeing the rest of this analysis

OH, we often dynoed and dialed, raced, pulled the engine, re dynoed to see the loss, or GAIN       in power.   If possible, or to refine a new part. It does reveal things too, as you guys know

Now I look forward to reading all of the rest here, I posted after about 10 comments, I have another wonder, the steam cleaned cylinder, clearly saw coolant and steamed the color and carbon away. See it from 20 feet kind of issue, now I am trying to figure, how didn't this show up on the plugs, between rounds, or as the car got serviced.  You see this fast when you rack the plugs between rounds, so I wondered why this big issue was showed up way late, or on tear down?  Then I say, we got lucky because this kind of trauma, can kick a rod when it hydraulics, seen it in the pits on carb cars, seen it the second a blown car fires, if it did not get backed down for example, or when a lot of fueler ran a water block or heads.  Many still do in nostalgia, so I figured, the plugs looked even, then the drive home sprung the leak, or?  Glad it didn't leak, sit, then get fired and say ouch. But I also wondered, didn't the puke can, show coolant loss too? To give you a warning and heads up maybe,,,I just wondered there

I'll read more

Oh, I read some guy kind of making fun of Dyno Dons 'sextant' they called it. That was one of several devices he used to win. You gotta remember, race airplanes from prior eras, and war birds, had advance retard mechanical devices, like a Model T, to trim the engine out for performance. Don played and played with how and were to add or lose total advance, while driving the car,,,,that takes one hell of a driver if you ask me. He did it by feel, then confirmed it with the time slips. He was a great tuner/driver, and his advance/retard device, was a quiet, but winning trick from then, being able to move the distributor, by a scale, or with the shifter cane, or rods. I thought it was super cool, pre solid state chip style retarders and so on, programmable maps. Seat of the pants, and make 1000 passes works good too if you ask me....

Very fun

Thanks a bunch





« Last Edit: May 02, 2014, 01:31:02 AM by HolmanMoodyStroppeVet »