'58 Edsel 361 Build and into '54 Ford

[frnkeore]

This is about one of the oldest FE's made. The reason that I wanted it, was because I always wanted to work with one of the early engines, that had machined combustion chambers. I believe they were only made in '58 & '59. My parents got a '58 Citation in '59, when I was 15 and I got my Corsair, when I was 19, the Corsair and Citations, were only MEL engined and I didn't want to work with a MEL. Unlike some, I have always liked the '58 Edsel but, only the '58 so, since I've always loved FE's I went this route. In '58, The 361 was only available in the Ranger and Pacer.

The Citation was the top of the line, the Corsair, was the sporty model of that car and they had a built in 5K tach. Those 2 models, were on the Mercury chassis. The Ranger was the bottom of the line and the Pacer was upscale from it and they were on the Ford chassis. All had the Steering hub mounted, push button trans shifters and they were trouble free, at least, from '59 to '64.

I just got it back from the local machine shop (Keller Motor Supply, Medford OR) I've dealt with him for more than 30 years and he is the best in my area, for precision work. He had to dunk it, over night, twice to get most of the baked on slug off  and it still has small areas that didn't come clean. Hot tanks don't remove rust so, there's lots of it left in the water jackets. I bought it from a forum member at a excellent price and I thank him. I won't say who it is but, if he wants to ID himself, he can

With the slug off, exterior of the casting is fairly crude and inside and out, there are areas that have fairly large cast flash. I don't have pictures of the heads yet, as they are getting seats installed, before coming home. The valves will be 2.09 x 1.65.

This how I want the build to go, I may modify some things but, it will be a 419 ci, with new pistons and crank, in hand, valves on the way. The cam will be HFT of 226 x 233 @ .050, ordered from Howards but, they have notified everyone that they are out/low of cam cores. They only use US cores and this pandemic has hurt them and every other cam maker that use US cores. I'm trying to keep the Static CR, under 10/1 and the dynamic, under 8/1, to run my local 92 octane gas. Haven't decided on whether to go 108, 110 or 112 LSA but, I'm favoring 108 unless it will effect fuel mileage, unfavorably.

Trans will be a stock C6 out of a pickup and I'm trying to get a '62 Galaxie 500 to put it in but, the guy has title issues on it! If not, I'm not sure what it will go in but, my first choice is a '60 Galaxie.

The original pistons, are pretty interesting. I'll post a little on them, too.

I'll try to take lots of pictures, as I go.

[wowens]

Cool build

[FERoadster]

Frank: here is the VIN tag from the car. Found the car in the scrapyard about 16 years ago. I tried to salvage everything from the body.
I did get the entire front end sheet metal but sold that. Rear axle has a 5X5" BP.
Richard >>> FERoadster

[frnkeore]

Thank you, Richard.

[My427stang]

Frank, did you drill for the modern cam retainer plate and timing set?  Easy mod, but best to do before you start assembling

[frnkeore]

Ross, I'm a long, long way from assembling but, yes, Richard gave me a cam retaining plate and aluminum timing cover.

He didn't have a crank spacer, I could use the seal diameter and length of it, to make one of aluminum.

Right now, I'm machining the cap and block for the later thrust bearing diameter.

I have a question, now that I have this block, I see, right from the start, that only the left water inlet has the tear drop shape, that there seams to be no reason for. Anyone know why that inlet is shaped that way?

[My427stang]

Frank, no idea on that quirk of an FE, must have been a reason but I have no idea.

As far as the crank spacers, aftermarket steel spacers are cheap and likely more durable unless you speedi-sleeve the wear surface on an alum spacer.   

[RJP]

I'm not a big fan of the early machined combustion chamber heads simply because there is very little quench area as it is cut away in the machining process. Personally I think there are better iron heads out there. With that said I did run a set on a 427 3 x 2 Holley set up on a centeroiler in my 61 Starliner. Did they work? Yes, they worked ok but IIRC they were timing sensitive, more-so than a head with a cast chamber and a bigger quench pad. Now I don't know if it were the very small quench pad or the difference in a cast or a machined chamber. Would I use a set? Yes, if thats all I had to work with.

[FERoadster]

Frank: looked at about 6 other blocks including another early EDC and most have the teardrop shape including one C4 and one ribbed block. Only 2 blocks had both holes round.  I'll take a look to see if there is a mold pattern, foundry or other way to tell the difference. I'll be in the shop today so I can take a look. Maybe the round holes are from 105 blocks.  I'll post findings.
Also I thought I included a crank sleeve, I've got quite a few and I'll get you a good one. Should be going thru Central Point to look at my 427 sometime in the next 2 weeks.
Richard

Update:  Checked 14 blocks and all have the teardrop water passage in the front bulkhead, the 2 I thought were round still had the gasket on them. So now why the teardrop shape and not a teardrop shaped gasket to match? Frank sorry for Hi-jacking your thread (but you started it (LOL)

[frnkeore]

Richard, you not hi-jacking the thread.

It is a interesting question and a very odd feature. I've always used it as a "for sure" way of IDing a FE, in with a bunch of other blocks and I've often wondered why.

It probably deserves it's own thread, to reach more members, for clues. Could it possibly have anything to do with equaling the flow, between banks?

[Heo]

Could it have something to do with draining the block. you have a tap to drain the block
only on one side so with the dropshape you drain out a tad more on the side without a tap
Just my thought for whats it worth

[blykins]

Frank that early thrust bearing diameter works really well as-is.  I've built some >500 hp road race engines using early blocks and small thrust bearing diameters.  I don't think I'd change it unless it was going in a pulling truck engine where they have to ride the clutch so hard.  If you're just wanting to play, then I understand.

Just as a heads up with the cam thrust plate deal:  the cup plug takes up a lot of real estate when you go to drill/tap those two existing holes for the thrust plate.   The oil feed hole for the distributor gear is back inside the driver's side hole and there's only a couple of threads worth of retainment between the feed hole and the counterbore for the cup plug.  What I do is thread a full bolt in there, then use a center punch through the cam bearing hole and mark the bolt, then use a Dremel and cut a groove in the bolt so that it will pass oil. 



New steel crank spacers are about $40-45. 

No clue on the tear drop water pump hole, I think every FE block I've ever seen (even some aftermarket blocks) has it but just remember that one of the water pump bolt holes and one of the timing cover bolt holes on the passenger side hits water.

The next engine you build, see if you can find someone that has a steel abrating machine instead of a hot tank.   The blocks are baked to get the old paint and grease off and then they are tumbled and hit with steel shot.  Here's how they look when they come out (this one has been machined too):

[frnkeore]

Thanks for the tips guy's.

RJP, how much did the timing change on the machined heads?

Brent, I wish there was a way to clean the water jackets, here locally. I do know the process you speak of, isn't available, in my area. Regarding the cam bolt, as a machinist, my idea is to drill the bolt, relieve the threads, in the passage area and then cross drill to the hole in the center. Kinda like the cam bearings journals are done.

Another question I have is, is there any reason to not restrict the oil to the heads at the block, below the heads? I can't think of one.

[blykins]

Brent, I wish there was a way to clean the water jackets, here locally. I do know the process you speak of, isn't available, in my area. Regarding the cam bolt, as a machinist, my idea is to drill the bolt, relieve the threads, in the passage area and then cross drill to the hole in the center. Kinda like the cam bearings journals are done.

Another question I have is, is there any reason to not restrict the oil to the heads at the block, below the heads? I can't think of one.

Not totally following you on the thrust plate bolt, but just as long as you know what you're up against, you can come up with something.



The only con to restricting the oil at the deck is that if something happens and you change rocker arms, change setups, find that you need more/less oil etc., you'd have to pull the heads to change the restrictors. 

I always oil through the pushrods when given the option, but if you're oiling through the heads, then IMO it's best to restrict it right at the rocker stand opening.  It's very easy to drill and tap the head feed and then just drill an orifice in a set screw. 

[frnkeore]

Brent, imagine your ground slot, being a 1/8" hole in the middle of the bolt and at the end of the slot, a thread relief, matching the hole to the cam bearing and then another 1/8" hole into the center hole.

[Nightmist66]

I believe Frank is referring to something similar to this hollow rocker adjuster.

[frnkeore]

Yes, thank you.

[blykins]

That'll work.  Picture's worth a thousand words.

[RJP]

Thanks for the tips guy's.

RJP, how much did the timing change on the machined heads?

Brent, I wish there was a way to clean the water jackets, here locally. I do know the process you speak of, isn't available, in my area. Regarding the cam bolt, as a machinist, my idea is to drill the bolt, relieve the threads, in the passage area and then cross drill to the hole in the center. Kinda like the cam bearings journals are done.

Another question I have is, is there any reason to not restrict the oil to the heads at the block, below the heads? I can't think of one.

Frank, It has been so long since I had that combo running, so going by a very distant memory here as it was mid 80s when I ran those heads. All I remember the timing was more sensitive to changes, not near as bad as the D2VE open chamber head used on the 'one year only' 72 460. Those heads were horrible and much worse than the machined chamber FE head. The FEs has a very small quench pad that does create some turbulence unlike the D2 460 heads which are a totally open chamber, no quench at all and no turbulence.  Perhaps using a steel shim head gasket and a zero deck piston might provide the needed turbulence to suppress detonation and have a bit more leeway with total timing. Regarding your 'restrict oil to the head' question. I have always use a restrictor under the rocker stand only so that in the very rare event it should get stopped up with ?? you don't need to pull the head to clean the debris. The restrictors are instrumental in helping the head drains not get overloaded as some heads are very restricted in the drain area surrounding the head bolt. I now make grinding more "relief" in the head bolt/drain intersection as "S.O.P." when ever the heads are off an engine. 

[frnkeore]

Thanks, RJP. I was more curious about total advance, I figure to start it up at ~38 and do the cam brake in and make my first runs at that setting, also.

I got the thrust bearing surface finished today. The caps are fairly easy, indicated as I show and the fly cutter is set at 4" diameter but, the block is much more tedious, to sneak up on the finished surface. The last 5 cuts, were at .0005 each, until I could just see witness marks in the die.

In the picture of indicating the center of the mains, if you look to the right side of the picture, you can see one of the large pieces of mold slag I spoke of earlier, There are more but on the outside of the block.

I also included pictures of the way I hold the block to the table.

[RJP]

Frank, What is the date code and casting location of that block you have pictured? Just curious when they stopped casting the freeze plug bosses in the front and back of the block. Also didn't some very early heads had freeze plugs in the front and rear of the head? The 2 or 3 sets of machined combustion chamber heads I have do not have these freeze plugs.

[frnkeore]

RJP, here you go.

The oil pump mount area, seems to be much thinner than later blocks, too.

Yes, the heads have soft plug holes. I can't take pictures, right now, they are in for Ex seats.

[frnkeore]

I don't know what the clock code means but, I believe the casting date is just below the casting number (79  8 ) Aug or Sept of '57.

My someone with a knowledge of Y block castings could confirm this?

Edit:
Also, does anyone want to take a stab at what the stamping mean, near the Rt water inlet? They don't go with anything on the Vin plate.

I've ordered a '58 Edsel service manual to see if I can find out what the quirks are on the 361. Should be here around the 20th.

[thatdarncat]

Frank, here’s some documentation that should be helpful for de-coding your engine. It’s courtesy of Barry Buck.

Your casting date code of “7 9  8” is 1957 September 8th.

Your block was cast at the Cleveland Foundry, the “CF” logo is there.

I believe the one stamped number on the front of your block is the assembly date & plant. Although the document shows it on the side ear like later FE’s have, I’ve seen other early FE’s with the assembly date stamped on the front like that. It could be there were differences depending on engine plant too.

So your assembly date/plant info “1-79 U” is Cleveland engine plant #1, 1957 September 20th. That fits with the casting date.

I’ve been trying to follow & figure out some of these unique features of the early FE’s for a while now. The really early Edsel FE blocks have core plug holes on both the front & back, the front core plugs seemed to be phased out first, I’ve seen other blocks like yours with the core plug holes just on the back, then shortly after that the rear core plug holes were phased out too.

[frnkeore]

Kevin, thank you, very much. I truly appreciate it.

[68fecyclone]

.

[pbf777]

     As most aren't familiar with the early executions of this, I'd almost be tempted to bore the front block bosses for the core plugs, so that at an event with the hood up I could confuse some individuals as to what engine it was, perhaps even implying that it was one of the new Dart or World manufacture's blocks, and see how many would claim to have one too!       

     Scott.

[Heo]

Coreplugs at the ends of the block indicate English blocks..On flatheads there is

[FERoadster]

The other EDC block and heads Frank passed on.
The block is dated 7A  E and the heads 79-D. Heads are from a different purchase and don't go with the block.
The block does have the undrilled front core plug bosses.
If I read Kevin's post correctly this block would then be a Nov 1957 casting date?
Richard >>> FERoadster

[thatdarncat]

The other EDC block and heads Frank passed on.
The block is dated 7A  E and the heads 79-D. Heads are from a different purchase and don't go with the block.
The block does have the undrilled front core plug bosses.
If I read Kevin's post correctly this block would then be a Nov 1957 casting date?
Richard >>> FERoadster

Yes, 7A E would be 1957 November 5th. Is that also a Cleveland Foundry cast block? CF logo would be under the oil filter adapter pad like on Franks block. Does the 7A E block also not have the core plugs on the back? I have a 1957 October CF cast FE block, and it does not have the front or rear core plugs.

Just out of curiosity where were the heads cast, DIF or CF?

[frnkeore]

As I said, I'm adding some info on the 361 pistons. The factory stated CR for this engine, is 10.5 as opposed to the high compression 352's 10.2.

I got one all cleaned up and they certainly look great, for 63 year old pistons but, the rings grooves are worn. The second groove is only .001, out of tolerance but, the top groove is about .004 out. The second, probably could get by but, the top will have to opened and a spacer put in to use them. The wrist pins and bores, are also good.

They weight about 882g and the compression height is 1.872. Most of the weight is in the very thick head, with no reliefs. After I get them all cleaned up, I'll measure the head thickness, weigh and check the CH on all of them.

[gdaddy01]

are you going to use the stock lock rings on the wrist pins or go with something different ? I have had these come loose , makes a nice groove in the block . 

[frnkeore]

are you going to use the stock lock rings on the wrist pins or go with something different ? I have had these come loose , makes a nice groove in the block .

Thanks for the tip. Something to think about. If I use them, I'm thinking of a rebored 352 with one of the late model Ford Hyd cams, of 200* @ .050.

In searching for info on this engine, last night, I found a very interesting, 1958 HR article on this very engine and the machined head dates, too.

Not much HP but, 8 weeks of dyno testing. It is where Isky developed their EE300 & 400 cam and they used Y-Block 1.5 rockers. I mapped the cam events.  For me, it took some innovation, to enlarge enough to read the HR pages.

http://www.ford-mel-engine.com/viewtopic.php?t=611

[frnkeore]

I worked on the oil system and here are the results.

The oil pump mount was originally just a 3/8 hole, with a 3/8 passage to the oil filter flange. You can see that in my first block pictures. I enlarged the mount area, to .500 with a 1/2" ball end mill, to match the gasket. Then I opened the passage to the filter to 7/16". Then took a flame shaped burr and blended them together.

For the main bearing passages, I picked up the oil hole (.375) in each main bearing shell, in each bearing saddle and used a 7/6 ball end mill to open the center to .390. I used a shell that had a perfectly centered hole but, some were off as much as .005, that's why I open the edge of the holes to .390. Then also blended them with the same burr.

[frnkeore]

Here is a little more info on these oil locations, everything is based on the center of the center main and located from the bearing tang. That is, with the center main, installed on the tang and the center of bearing, is the target location.

Center of front bearing, -10.210/ Center of oil feed hole, -10.360

Center of the #2 bearing, -4.630/ Center of feed hole, -4.770

Center of #3 bearing 0/ Center of feed hole, 0

Center of the #4 bearing, +4.630/ Center of feed hole, +4.770

Center of #5 bearing, +9.760/ Center of feed hole, +9.760

I also forgot to mention that the main feed, out of the oil filter housing, feeding the gallerys, is 7/16. Seems odd that the oil pump to oil filter was 3/8. I also open the front main feed hole, to 9/32, from 1/4, into that 7/16 feed but, not to the cam bearing.

[blykins]

Here is a little more info on these oil locations, everything is based on the center of the center main and located from the bearing tang. That is, with the center main, installed on the tang and the center of bearing, is the target location.

Center of front bearing, -10.210/ Center of oil feed hole, -10.360

Center of the #2 bearing, -4.630/ Center of feed hole, -4.770

Center of #3 bearing 0/ Center of feed hole, 0

Center of the #4 bearing, +4.630/ Center of feed hole, +4.770

Center of #5 bearing, +9.760/ Center of feed hole, +9.760

I also forgot to mention that the main feed, out of the oil filter housing, feeding the gallerys, is 7/16. Seems odd that the oil pump to oil filter was 3/8. I also open the front main feed hole, to 9/32, from 1/4, into that 7/16 feed but, not to the cam bearing.

You'd be surprised on how much oil a 1/4” hole will move:  way more than enough for a single main bearing. 

Everyone has their way, but I personally choose not to open any of these holes up as I see it as a way of weakening the main saddles.  I've seen factory blocks with cracks on every single main saddle, originating at the feed hole.  I'm sure that they probably saw a lot of abuse, but I also see that as a reason not to remove any material there. 

On a factory replacement bearing, such as a King/FM/Clevite full groove, the oil hole location is perfectly fine and doesn't need any movement/dressing.   Not touching the holes at all and using a coated full groove bearing will support BIG horsepower. 

On a race bearing, such as a Federal Mogul 125M, the bearing will practically cover the saddle hole, so doing *something* is warranted.  What I do is just lay over the hole slightly with a die grinder so that it matches up with the bearing hole, but I do so while trying to remove as little material as possible.   Remember, unless you're opening up the entire hole from the main saddle to the cam tunnel, opening the hole up at the saddle doesn't affect flow. 

[My427stang]

I do the same as Brent.  Not much to add after Brent on this one, but I did happen to find this on my computer.  Ford did address it

At your power level, I wouldn't lose sleep though.  Opening the oil holes won't be an issue if the block is good.  Did you have the mains magged?  Some blocks crack in the mains although I haven't seen it in the early 2-bolt blocks (although admittedly I have not checked a lot either).  Is it because of opening an oil hole or harmonics?  I tend to lean toward a balance issue, because #2 and #4 tend to beat that area up in some steady state industrial motors, but in the end, I consider it conservative to just slightly lay back hole, and only when I need to, and even then, it's just a light bevel

It's hard to see how much you took away, doesn't look like you were too aggressive, but not a common practice to open the mains

[blykins]

....but not a common practice to open the mains

I think in the 60's, they did goofy stuff like that.  I had a customer bring me a 427 S/O block to use for a build and the passages between the mains and cam had been opened up a good bit.   I told him I wouldn't use it. 

I also think that a lot of guys get caught up on "oil mods".   It's a good practice to open up and blend the oil pump flange hole because that hole is typically stupid-small.  It's also necessary to lightly blend in the saddle holes if the bearings cover them up. 

A lot of the "mods" are left-overs from the 60's when the rods stunk and the oil pans stunk.  Flimsy factory rods would go out of round with horsepower, spinning rod bearings, and then guys were left trying crazy stuff because they thought the oiling was the problem.   They got into the habits of aiming for 110 lbs of oil pressure, re-routing oil lines, roller cam bearings, etc.   Now we're making more horsepower with less "tricks". 

One single 1/4" hole will keep 8 hydraulic roller lifters pumped up, along with supplying sufficient oil to 8 pushrods and rocker arms.  It's not always necessary to make things bigger.

[My427stang]

....but not a common practice to open the mains

I think in the 60's, they did goofy stuff like that.  I had a customer bring me a 427 S/O block to use for a build and the passages between the mains and cam had been opened up a good bit.   I told him I wouldn't use it. 

I also think that a lot of guys get caught up on "oil mods".   It's a good practice to open up and blend the oil pump flange hole because that hole is typically stupid-small.  It's also necessary to lightly blend in the saddle holes if the bearings cover them up. 

A lot of the "mods" are left-overs from the 60's when the rods stunk and the oil pans stunk.  Flimsy factory rods would go out of round with horsepower, spinning rod bearings, and then guys were left trying crazy stuff because they thought the oiling was the problem.   They got into the habits of aiming for 110 lbs of oil pressure, re-routing oil lines, roller cam bearings, etc.   Now we're making more horsepower with less "tricks". 

One single 1/4" hole will keep 8 hydraulic roller lifters pumped up, along with supplying sufficient oil to 8 pushrods and rocker arms.  It's not always necessary to make things bigger.

Agree 100%

I'd even like to see a before/after volume test of the oil pump mount being blended on the pan rail.  Although I do it, a transition that occurs over .250 or so of depth as the oil slams into a 45-ish degree bend may do nothing at all.  It's not like an intake manifold that fuel can be sheared out of suspension from a sharp edge.  It may be a feel-good too, and it's not like the blocks are consistent enough to drill to pump size, or even close.

[blykins]

....but not a common practice to open the mains

I think in the 60's, they did goofy stuff like that.  I had a customer bring me a 427 S/O block to use for a build and the passages between the mains and cam had been opened up a good bit.   I told him I wouldn't use it. 

I also think that a lot of guys get caught up on "oil mods".   It's a good practice to open up and blend the oil pump flange hole because that hole is typically stupid-small.  It's also necessary to lightly blend in the saddle holes if the bearings cover them up. 

A lot of the "mods" are left-overs from the 60's when the rods stunk and the oil pans stunk.  Flimsy factory rods would go out of round with horsepower, spinning rod bearings, and then guys were left trying crazy stuff because they thought the oiling was the problem.   They got into the habits of aiming for 110 lbs of oil pressure, re-routing oil lines, roller cam bearings, etc.   Now we're making more horsepower with less "tricks". 

One single 1/4" hole will keep 8 hydraulic roller lifters pumped up, along with supplying sufficient oil to 8 pushrods and rocker arms.  It's not always necessary to make things bigger.

Agree 100%

I'd even like to see a before/after volume test of the oil pump mount being blended on the pan rail.  Although I do it, a transition that occurs over .250 or so of depth as the oil slams into a 45-ish degree bend may do nothing at all.  It's not like an intake manifold that fuel can be sheared out of suspension from a sharp edge.  It may be a feel-good too, and it's not like the blocks are consistent enough to drill to pump size, or even close.

I try to straighten it out a little bit, as much as I can.  I will drill from the outside of the block to the pump flange, then use a ball-end burr on a die grinder to shape and straighten it out from the flange side. 

It is a horrible transition as-is, it's almost a 90° turn and the drill point from where factory drilled the hole in the block makes for a mess to clean up. 

Spending a little time there is good, IMO, as if you can eliminate any bottleneck from the get-go, at least you have a good foundation for whatever is downstream.  There's a lot you can't get to, such as the U-turn bend from the diagonal going up from the oil filter adapter to where it comes back to the main oil gallery down the lifter valley, but I try to do what I can. 

[My427stang]

....but not a common practice to open the mains

I think in the 60's, they did goofy stuff like that.  I had a customer bring me a 427 S/O block to use for a build and the passages between the mains and cam had been opened up a good bit.   I told him I wouldn't use it. 

I also think that a lot of guys get caught up on "oil mods".   It's a good practice to open up and blend the oil pump flange hole because that hole is typically stupid-small.  It's also necessary to lightly blend in the saddle holes if the bearings cover them up. 

A lot of the "mods" are left-overs from the 60's when the rods stunk and the oil pans stunk.  Flimsy factory rods would go out of round with horsepower, spinning rod bearings, and then guys were left trying crazy stuff because they thought the oiling was the problem.   They got into the habits of aiming for 110 lbs of oil pressure, re-routing oil lines, roller cam bearings, etc.   Now we're making more horsepower with less "tricks". 

One single 1/4" hole will keep 8 hydraulic roller lifters pumped up, along with supplying sufficient oil to 8 pushrods and rocker arms.  It's not always necessary to make things bigger.

Agree 100%

I'd even like to see a before/after volume test of the oil pump mount being blended on the pan rail.  Although I do it, a transition that occurs over .250 or so of depth as the oil slams into a 45-ish degree bend may do nothing at all.  It's not like an intake manifold that fuel can be sheared out of suspension from a sharp edge.  It may be a feel-good too, and it's not like the blocks are consistent enough to drill to pump size, or even close.

I try to straighten it out a little bit, as much as I can.  I will drill from the outside of the block to the pump flange, then use a ball-end burr on a die grinder to shape and straighten it out from the flange side. 

It is a horrible transition as-is, it's almost a 90° turn and the drill point from where factory drilled the hole in the block makes for a mess to clean up. 

Spending a little time there is good, IMO, as if you can eliminate any bottleneck from the get-go, at least you have a good foundation for whatever is downstream.  There's a lot you can't get to, such as the U-turn bend from the diagonal going up from the oil filter adapter to where it comes back to the main oil gallery down the lifter valley, but I try to do what I can.

I agree and do it too, no reason not to, I mark the gasket, work from the back, then roll with a nice little ball.  However, I still wouldn't be surprised if it does nothing in terms of volume and/or pressure reduction downstream.  It makes plenty of tight turns beyond the pump and no matter what you do, it necks down. 

Preaching to the choir, but the behavior of hydraulic pressure is nothing like airflow.  That's why I mentioned a volume or pressure drop test, maybe it's worth its weight in gold, it maybe it does nothing. It's one of those tests that would be cool to see, but I haven't blown up a non-oil modded FE or a modded one, so not worth the mess to test IMHO.

I think you nailed it that all the windowed blocks out there have other explanations.  That being said, I won't stop either, LOL, but I think modifications to enhance return and oil pan baffling / volume are far closer to the weakest links

[frnkeore]

Whether or whether not, what I'm doing, needs to be done, is irreverent, as far as I'm concerned. I'm doing this to give a even, unimpeded path for the oil to get to the main and rod bearings. All the main holes, 2 - 5 are are factory sized at 5/16 and your telling me that enlarging the 1/4" front hole, 1/32, with it's much more substantial bulkhead, when compared to the center mains, will weaken the engine? Should I have left the oil pump hole 3/8 and not matched the oil pump and gasket? 

The real oil flow, choke point for the std FE block is, the cam bearing relief. I haven't actually measured it yet but, it appears to be ~1/4" wide and 1/8" deep, giving a 1/4" diameter, threw hole. I'll check that today.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, in this thread, I'm just showing what I am doing. If you (Brent & Ross) have any proof that enlarging the front feed hole 1/32" or what I'm doing with the saddles, will cause my, or any other engine, to blow up, please present it.

[blykins]

Whether or whether not, what I'm doing, needs to be done, is irreverent, as far as I'm concerned. I'm doing this to give a even, unimpeded path for the oil to get to the main and rod bearings. All the main holes, 2 - 5 are are factory sized at 5/16 and your telling me that enlarging the 1/4" front hole, 1/32, with it's much more substantial bulkhead, when compared to the center mains, will weaken the engine? Should I have left the oil pump hole 3/8 and not matched the oil pump and gasket? 

The real oil flow, choke point for the std FE block is, the cam bearing relief. I haven't actually measured it yet but, it appears to be ~1/4" wide and 1/8" deep, giving a 1/4" diameter, threw hole. I'll check that today.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, in this thread, I'm just showing what I am doing. If you (Brent & Ross) have any proof that enlarging the front feed hole 1/32" or what I'm doing with the saddles, will cause my, or any other engine, to blow up, please present it.

Frank, I'm saying that we all work off of experience.  My experience is that I don't open saddle holes up and there are no consequences to that.  My experience is also that I've seen cracks in all 5 mains of FE blocks originating from saddle holes.   That area seems to be a weak spot.  Obviously, making a 1/4" hole a 5/16" hole to match the others probably won't hurt anything, but going in and enlarging the other existing holes, while putting any kind of stress riser there could potentially cause a problem. 

I don't believe the cam bearing relief is of any consequence either.  Lots of high horsepower, high rpm 427 center oilers out there without having that passage enlarged.  A 1/4" diameter hole is a big hole and can easily feed one cam bearing (with it's own restricted orifice), one main bearing, and one rod bearing. 

FWIW, I wasn't giving you a hard time, but I don't want guys who have never put an FE together before scrounging the internet looking for tips and thinking, "If that is good, then a bigger hole is better." 

[My427stang]

Whether or whether not, what I'm doing, needs to be done, is irreverent, as far as I'm concerned. I'm doing this to give a even, unimpeded path for the oil to get to the main and rod bearings. All the main holes, 2 - 5 are are factory sized at 5/16 and your telling me that enlarging the 1/4" front hole, 1/32, with it's much more substantial bulkhead, when compared to the center mains, will weaken the engine? Should I have left the oil pump hole 3/8 and not matched the oil pump and gasket? 

The real oil flow, choke point for the std FE block is, the cam bearing relief. I haven't actually measured it yet but, it appears to be ~1/4" wide and 1/8" deep, giving a 1/4" diameter, threw hole. I'll check that today.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, in this thread, I'm just showing what I am doing. If you (Brent & Ross) have any proof that enlarging the front feed hole 1/32" or what I'm doing with the saddles, will cause my, or any other engine, to blow up, please present it.

Here is what I think...us bickering is ridiculous, but it always goes there.  I'll find you a reference, but I bet it has less credibility than the people who frequent this forum, 35+ years of FE for me, not to mention every other brand all the way up to big diesels, and I am a baby to some of the others.   

I can only speak for me, but I also wasn't giving you a hard time, and I thought I provided experience and interesting documentation which I also thought you'd enjoy. On top of that, I purposely chose words carefully to not make it sound like I think you damaged anything. 

I am with Brent though, too many cracked mains on cores to not say something for everyone else, you didn't request or pay for the input, but I would say the collective experience of this forum in general, is to not open the feeds more than the minimum required.

[RJP]

All good info here. In the past I have opened up all the oil passages on std. FE blocks only to learn that this weakens them at a vulnerable section of the block. I don't anymore. I only do as Brent has stated a minimal "touch up" at the bearing saddle with minimum material removed. In the past I also have taken queues from the FT truck oiling systems that use the breadbox 11-12 qt. pans, higher volume pumps, solid lower main bearings inserts, aligned bearing saddle holes and have larger passages to supply a larger volume of oil to the crank to aid in cooling the steel FT crank, rods & bearings. These are the 330" 359" 391" medium and heavy duty gas engines that are designed to run at a governed 42-4400 rpms at WOT for hours on end using the cheapest gas available. The system must work pretty good as these engines usually last for 250-300K miles between rebuilds....Oh, yeah, the 10lb 4 ring pistons don't hurt long life much either. 

[blykins]

All good info here. In the past I have opened up all the oil passages on std. FE blocks only to learn that this weakens them at a vulnerable section of the block. I don't anymore. I only do as Brent has stated a minimal "touch up" at the bearing saddle with minimum material removed. In the past I also have taken queues from the FT truck oiling systems that use the breadbox 11-12 qt. pans, higher volume pumps, solid lower main bearings inserts, aligned bearing saddle holes and have larger passages to supply a larger volume of oil to the crank to aid in cooling the steel FT crank, rods & bearings. These are the 330" 359" 391" medium and heavy duty gas engines that are designed to run at a governed 42-4400 rpms at WOT for hours on end using the cheapest gas available. The system must work pretty good as these engines usually last for 250-300K miles between rebuilds....Oh, yeah, the 10lb 4 ring pistons don't hurt long life much either.

I've got a buddy that does carb work for me and his dad used to run Super Stock with a 428.   He told me that the blocks used to split right down between the cam tunnel and the mains, right through that main saddle feed hole.  To do a quick fix, they would press a piece of tubing inside the hole to keep it from bleeding out.

[Rory428]

I also used to flare out the main oil feed holes to align properly with the main bearings. Did that for years,..until one of my 428s from my Fairmont lost oil pressure. Pulled the engine, and was checking everything, thats when I noticed #2 & #4 main bearing bulkheads were cracked between the cam bores and main bores, the crack lining up exactly where I had "fixed" the misalignment "problem". But although the cracks were obviously not a good thing, but the main cause of the low oil pressure was that the crack relaxed the pres fit of #2 cam bearing, allowing it to walk up enough to uncover the annual groove normally covered by the cam bearing shell, causing a major internal leak, thus the low pressure. pressing a tube into the oil feed hole would not address that problem. I can`t guarantee that removing any material from the oil hole(s) WILL cause the block to crack there, but after that incident, I stopped opening them up, and also never had another bulkhead crack. And by the way, the bearings still always looked great, even with the "mis-match".)

[frnkeore]

I got my 58 Edsel Service Manual, yesterday and it has a few interesting things in it but, first the oil transfer area, around the cam bearings.

I only measured two, the center main and the rear main. They are pretty easy to measure, using a inside mic. Mine is a Starrett, I mention that, only because with it, the thimble measuring projection, is long enough to go into the groove w/o touching the bearing bore. Others may be shorter so, check that if, you decide to measure one. It's easy to do, you just set the mic at under 2.5 and slip the small end, into the oil hole and turn it, into the groove. Mine measure 2.503 for the center and 2.480 for the rear. The width of the groove is .235, leaving a transfer area smaller than 1/4" diameter, with the cam bleeding off, some of that oil. If later blocks, have wider grooves, I'd like to hear how wide they are.

So, what I've done probably isn't needed but, I don't think it's hurt anything, either. Cracks propagate at sharp edges, that is why all aircraft and aerospace parts have radii on all transition surfaces. I'm not sure of the HP level of this engine but, it shouldn't be over 420 @ 5500 and I doubt that it will ever see 6k.   

Interesting info, regarding the compression ratio and the cam timing, show that these early 10+ to 1 engines, really needed the higher octane gas, of those days. The dynamic CR was somewhere between 8.25 and 8.67. If this engine really was 10.5, it would be that 8.67 but, as near as I can figure, the chamber didn't include the 1.58cc, above the top ring. That drops it to 10.31 and 8.52 Dyn. The top ring is low on this piston, @ .400. I had to fiddle with the head gasket thickness, to even get that (.0175x4.25), a .030 gasket, takes it down to 9.98/8.25 still in the premium gas range, for a heavy load. By comparison, the 10.2 CR, 352, would be less than 9.77/8.08. It has .014 deck clearance, as opposed to the 361's .008 but, I don't know how high the ring is on it.

Another reason I wanted the service manual, was to see what the actual bore is. In many sources, especially Ford advertising, it was said to be 4 3/64 (4.0469) and 4.050, in others. It turns out that it is 4.050 and can be as large as 4.0524.

I have a few manuals, from the '58 ford, to the '75 FT. Most of the info, is consistent, as far as tolerance goes but, on all the Ford FE, block and head surfaces, for flatness, it's .003, in 6", .006 max. The 361 Edsel, lists it as .002 per 6", .004 max.

Even though I doubt that the block casting is different than the 352, they list the max bore at .060. Regarding the block, I measure the clearance between the cylinders, a 1/4 allen wrench (.247) will stick in the area near the top of the core plug hole but, is loose at the bottom. I'm also curious, regarding the casting number, being -C, in early, Sept of '57.

One glaring omission in the manual, is that it only lists the 3 speed manual and OD trans and NOTHING about the push button shifter or auto trans (Teletouch).

[blykins]

Happy Holidays, Frank.

[frnkeore]

Thank you, Brent and the same to you.

[frnkeore]

I just got my rods back, from getting new wrist pin bushings and my machinist says that I got his last set of bushings and that they are getting hard to come by.

Is this getting to be the case?

[frnkeore]

Continuing on with my efforts to weaken the block, while getting as much oil, as possible to the mains and what ever else, runs off of the center oil galley:

The galley is 3/8 behind the 7/16 plug so, I'm using a 12" long 7/16 drill (from both ends) and a 5/8 x 18, threaded drill bushing, held by a plate, made from some 4130 scrap.  The arms are made of 3/8 x 3/4 CRS, slotted 7/16 for the bell housing end and also used for the front 3/8 & 5/16 bolts.  The ends of the plate, are .375 thick and taped 5/16 x 18, for flat head bolts. I made spacers out of the same .375 thick CRS, to hold everything tight and aligned with the hole. The threaded drill bushing is reamed .438 and I use a drill blank, as seen, to align the drill bushing, with the galley, then carefully tighten it in place, so that it is still, a nice slip fit, when fully tight. It's very ridged when finished.

The reason for the 5/8 x 18 thread, is that when making the hole undersize the minor diameter, is the same size as the 1/4 NPT, taps shank (I actually reamed the hole .564, before tapping). The actual spec for the thread hole is, 37/64 and that would work to guild the tap, ok but, I wanted it a closer fit.

The actual drilling, went pretty easy, using a 1/2 drill motor @ low speed and clearing the chips often.

The diagonal hole comes next. I will use this same drill bushing, modified to press in the 9/16 hole and aligned in a similar manor, before drilling.

[frnkeore]

The oil system is finished, with this last 7/16 enlarged hole.

It took a few hours to make this drill jig up but, I didn't feel comfortable, just doing it by hand.

I placed a piece of 3/8 ground shafting, in the hole and then made a 3/8 bushing for my drill jig. Adjusted it, until I got a slip fit on the shaft. then put the 7/16 bushing back in and drilled it.

[BigBlueIron]

That is quite the fixture!

I usually take a long 3/8" drill from both sides just to clean up the casting transition in the center of the block and call it good. Sometimes they have quite the offset there. 

[frnkeore]

My work on the block is done and it's off to get bored and line honed.

I did the valley stand offs a little different. I used 2" long 1/2" pipe nipples and turned the threads of, one end. There a little lighter than the others that I've seen, at 16 grams. They're installed with a 1/2", internal pipe wrench, as shown.

I also did the cam plate bolts different, to fit the cam plate a little closer. They started as 7/16 FH I turned the head to .69, then turned the area that fits the holes, to .46. The plate hole is .47. The remaining area left to thread, in front of the expansion plug isn't much, only about 7/16. I tapped it with a bottom tap and then made a special tap, to get one more thread out of it.

The relief in the threads, is .12 wide and just to the bottom of the threads. Made with a 1/16R tool. The cross hole is also .12 and the hole in the end of the bolt, is the same.

[frnkeore]

Block still isn't back but, I've been working on the heads.

The fixture I'm using locates the heads on the 2 end exhaust valve guilds. I did this on my SBF, too. It's the same fixture with just a different spacing.

The early FE's, have holes in both ends, just like the SBF and they are accurately located like the SBF. The expansion plug hole, sets the height of the heads (Z axis) and the valve guild pins set the X & Y axis. Both angle plates, have a 1 1/4" spud, to fit the expansion plug holes and are set on my surface plate, to the same height. The springs you see at the bottom, are for counter weight to make it easier to get it set up and on and off. The SBF's are much lighter so, i didn't need them on it.

The intake valves are std 2.09 x 3/8 stems, with 30°. The first cut, is 15°, then the 30° seat, followed by 45° & 60°. I'm making a 80° cutter, to finish the throat, down to the guild. The exhausts are 1.656 x 3/8 x 45° and I have a 1.453, ball endmill, coming to cut the Stellite seats for those.

You'll note that the machined chambers, have sharp edges, all round, I deburred them and the spark plug, break threw area, has 2-3 little glow plug type extensions, that I removed, too.

Although I don't need it, I'm going to make a one piece rocker stand, oiled by the 2 rear, pipe fitting, at the end of the main oil gallery, with caps to hold the shaft. I have a .840, ball endmill on order.

[frnkeore]

There has been a little set back on the block. It was a std bore and I bought .040 over pistons for it but, on Monday, I got a call and my machinist, told me one bore, wouldn't clean up all the way, because of the rust, in one cylinder, near the upper part of the bore.

I went down and looked at it and sure enough, it looked "ify". So, he said he could offset the bar .005, in the direction of the rust and rebore to .060. I went down and looked at the cylinder, bored to 4.106 and it looks good. Now he will bore all of them but, he has to wait for me to get a new set to hone it.

[blykins]

Now he will bore all of them but, he has to wait for me to get a new set to hone it.

Frank,

If your intent is to use an older set of pistons, then that's probably true because older NOS pistons will vary up to a thou on the diameter.  However, if your intent is to use a modern piston with a modern ring, then he can go ahead and hone away, because newer pistons will only vary by a couple of tenths at the very most. 

FWIW, if you're ever put into that spot again, sleeve the bad hole.  That way you keep a thicker cylinder wall and you can use the pistons that you already have.  I don't like taking 390 blocks out to .060" without a very thorough sonic check. 

[Gregwill16]

+1 ^ No way I would take any FE out an extra .020 on the bore due to a couple cylinders, much less just one cylinder.

[frnkeore]

One of the very first question that I asked, when I came onto this forum, about two years ago was "When did Ford change to a thin wall casting", the response was, "that it was always a thin wall casting". I knew that wasn't true, as Fords first thin wall was the 144/170 Falcon engine, in 1960, then the SBF, in 62. I'm still not sure of the switch over but, it was earlier than I had thought. I think it was sometime between 60 and 63. I was thinking more like 65/66 time frame.

Ted Wells had said that he like to use the earlier blocks, because they were thicker but didn't offer a time frame. My block was cast in Sept of '57 and is now bored .060 over (4.110) and the following reading are taken with a Utrasonic Thickness Gauge UM6500. It had heavy rust in the out board side of #5 and my machinist, suggested offset the boring bar, .005 to clean it up, going from his, already .040 over bore. It worked and there is still lot of metal, in that bore, too.

The readings are as viewed from the top of the block and are at 1.5" and 3.5" from the deck (not 4" as I wrote on the paper), as this will have a 428 crank. I'm lazy so, I only took two depth readings. I verified the readings on the China walls, at the thinnest spots where it's counter bored for the dist and plug, at the end of the gallery, both before I started and after I finished, all readings were within .005 of each other.

[frnkeore]

For those not familiar with Ted Wells, here is a extremely interesting HR article from March of '71, posted on HAMB. It's hard to read but, if you hit ctrl then push + until it's at 133%, it's easy to read. I bought the magazine on Ebay to get the article.

https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/i-like-54-fords-and-thought-i-had-seen-this-car-in-the-past.1045716/page-2#post-13521649

It didn't say if he enlarged the gallery, from the top main down to the diagonal pass, across the front bulk head, as I did but, I don't think he would have missed that. BTW, other top FE builders do this same modification. Of course, Brent isn't one of them.

I do not agree with Teds opening of the mains passages, to 5/16 to the main bearings. It gets to close to the edge of the cam bearings and is no benifit, because the annular grooves will only allow the capacity of the existing 1/4" hole but, if I had a way to increase the width annular grooves, to .281 and the depth, to .142, I would drill them to 9/32 (.281). But, remember, Ted ran his .050 over, 352 for years, drilled like that, at up to 8300 rpm launches and shifting at 7500 rpm and HP in the 450/500 range.

Enjoy, it's a great read and shows what the FE could do, "back in the old'n days".

Also, note that he used the C0AE heads and heavily modified the chambers. VHS was one of the top head porters, in those days.

I also think is very beneficial, to block the feed to the heads and run a separate lines, off the rear of the main oil gallery. That way you don't loose any oil to #2 & #4 main bearings.

While my engine doesn't really "need" these mods for the HP and rpm level it will have, I was able to do the fixtures and use them for my other 361 (indust) that will benefit from them.
 

[frnkeore]

More progress on the Edsel, although slow.

I mocked up the pistons and the block is in to be decked now. This block is taller than 10.17, the drivers side is 10.174 @ #8 and 10.181 @ #5. The passenger side is even taller, #1 10.185 and #4 is also 10.185. It's being cut to 10.172/3 and .016/.017 out of the hole.

The heads are coming along, too. I made a piloted 10° throat cutter, 1.875 dia, 1.5 lg with a 5/16 radius. It gives a throat or almost 90% of the 2.09 valves. You'll notice that there is some casting shift (actually shrinkage), as the 2 pockets are are almost right on @ 1.98 C/C and the other two are about .02 short and the distance from the first In valve, to the last, is .010 short. It is within Ford tolerance of .020.

The throating cutter will make it bowls flow more even. I'll narrow the guilds and do a little more bowl work on the entry and that's about it, I'm not a "porter" and don't like it.

The valve job is roughed in, also. In are 15, 30, 45, 60 and the throat is 80. Ex is 30, 45, 60.

[frnkeore]

It been a long time so, here's a update on the Edsel:

I have ruined the heads!!! I had a lot of work in them. The intakes turned out great BUT, I made the bowl to big on the EX and broke threw the water jacket, when blending it to the runner,@#$%^&&*"?. I bought a set of C4-G's and have to start over

On the up side, I thought you guys might be interested in my new crank spacer. I'm building two engine and both will get one. This one goes on the Edsel . The other on my 412 ci, 361 Industrial engine,  The 412 will have a dry sump and be driven with this spacer. I haven't figured out what to drive with it, on the Edsel, for now but, it's there to use.

It is 18 groove, 3/8 pitch and weighs 8.1 oz, as shown. I'm guessing but, I think the steel one will weigh about 1 1/2 lb, since steel weighs 3 times what aluminum does. The 428, Edsel crank, is out for balancing right now so, I can't assemble it until it gets back.

I have a aluminum WP for it and It will be driven with a keyed, 1.500 diameter spud, off the front of the dampener and a slip on aluminum pulley. I haven't decided whether to use a V belt or a timing belt for that yet.

Back in the 80's I sold drive systems and also sold a SBC water pump, of my design. I may see what I can do for a WP on my 412, similar to the SBC design.

[4twennyAint]

That sucks about the heads.  Thanks for sharing the article about Mr. Wells.

[jayb]

Nice work on that crank spacer, Frank!

[frnkeore]

Thank you, Jay. I appreciate that