Quote from: falcongeorge on September 22, 2019, 10:44:24 AM

Quote from: My427stang on September 22, 2019, 06:50:05 AM

A drill bit test isn't going to prove much, the question is condition of cylinders and core shift.  The 2 bolt motor mount blocks seem a little more consistent, but after that, they are all over the map.  Last fall I turned down a 428 standard bore  irrigation motor for the hyd roller build in the dyno section because four on one back were "over and up" and I didn't trust the block at .030 and 500 hp. 

Of course if no-one checks, any block might work!

I guess its not surprising a bunch of guys that have no idea how to find these blocks think that they don't exist.

Falcongeorge you sound like a very experienced and knowledgeable individual but I wouldn't downllay the knowledge and experience of others on this forum. They are simply being honest and expressing their own knowledge and experiences, in hopes of saving someone alot of grief. Also preventing someone of thinking they have something that they really don't and throwing a ton of money at something that could end in failure.

You are correct that I am mocking, early on I was sharing usable info, now I have resorted to mockery rather than sharing info, in fact, I am deliberately withholding that info. Earlier on, I had posted a fair amount of solid, hard-core stuff on what the thick blocks are all about, when they were produced, and how to identify them. When it turned into the usual internet forum dogpile, I went back and carefully edited any usable information that would help guys find these blocks, as they aren't interested in that.
They don't have any of these blocks, and haven't seen any, because they don't have the required knowledge to identify them.
And the nature of the typical post-modernist mob is so hubristic, that if THEY dont know about something, then it doesn't exist. This is the predominant groupthink on internet forums. The line of reasoning (if you can call it that) goes like this. "I might not know much about the information being presented, but most of the people posting here are saying this information is wrong, if I join in, I can piggyback on this, and appear more knowledgeable than I actually am. Even if the people I am agreeing with are incorrect, the sheer weight of numbers lends credence, and I can safely ride on the coattails of that". I alluded to this on page three in post #43, but naturally, it had zero effect, and didn't cause anyone to pause and reflect for even a moment. So it really shouldn't be surprising that I am mocking them rather than sharing information. Sharing that information would be a wasted effort, due to their hubris.
So, especially in light of the fact that I have a late 390 block that is cast on 428 cores sitting less than 100' from me as I type this, it shouldn't be surprising that I choose to mock, rather than inform. Taking the low ground? Well yes, I am, but then I am a notorious iconoclast, so...
A quote from a famous American iconoclast, I think it applies rather well in the context of critiquing the post modernist groupthink that dominates internet forums
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
Mark Twain


Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/, from ancient Greek ὕβρις) describes a personality quality of extreme or foolish pride or dangerous overconfidence,[1] often in combination with (or synonymous with) arrogance.[2] In its ancient Greek context, it typically describes behavior that defies the norms of behavior or challenges the gods, and which in turn brings about the downfall, or nemesis, of the perpetrator of hubris. The adjectival form of the noun hubris is "hubristic".

Hubris is usually perceived as a characteristic of an individual rather than a group, although the group the offender belongs to may suffer collateral consequences from the wrongful act. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments or capabilities

FWIW, I am not at all angry, in fact, I am rather enjoying this, I hope that is coming across in my posts.
To show a little goodwill, I will expand on my flippant response to My427stangs hubris. The drill bit test is vitally important, it tells you what cores the block is cast on. This is a field test, it helps you to decide whether it is worthwhile to haul the dirty chunk of cast iron laying in front of you into the machine shop for a sonic test, or to leave it where it lays. This test is vital even if you intend to build a +030 390 out of said chunk of cast iron, as blocks that will accept a 1/4" or 3/8" bit aren't even suitable for that.
So there you go, just so this debacle isn't a total waste of bandwidth. Of course, the hubris of most members of any given internet dogpile will prevent them from even utilizing this little tidbit of information. Carry on...

This conversation has continued on off-forum and some snickering has ensued. Apparently another FE Power member within about 20 miles of the "Area 51 Garage" had one of these "nonexistent" blocks ,and he mentioned to me that theres a third one (all three are early-mid seventies service blocks),  within 5 miles of my place. Im gonna try to find out if I can get a look at it, and hopefully stick a drill bit between the cores. But don't worry, we'll keep the results to ourselves, I don't wanna cause anymore emotional trauma.
Geez, three "non-existant" blocks in a 20 mile radius! Whoda thunk??!! Must be a disturbance in the gravitational field or something! Don't mind me, carry on with "all 390's are thinwall castings" internet groupthink, some of us are enjoying this...

Certainly you aren't indicating Mr. Lovett is incorrect.

Yup.

Quote from: thatdarncat on September 20, 2019, 01:24:59 PM

Quote from: falcongeorge on September 20, 2019, 09:42:55 AM

Quote from: Tommy-T on September 19, 2019, 10:09:50 PM

Quote from: 67428GT500 on September 19, 2019, 01:43:09 PM

The Being '66 was the first year and 70 the last year of the 428 as far as vehicle installed most I looked at to replace my block with that split two cylinders are relatively thin at 4.130. I have sonic checks on four blocks I considered for purchase. The thickest wound up being a 105 D4 block. I have .140- .156 and this is at a 4.155 bore.  One of the lessons learned with the new block is how important it is to bore the block with a torque plate. Charles at Charles machine was showing me that the distortion is usually .005 or more.  Not one of the earlier FE specific book offerings mention this.  Very little about it until Barry's books.
I am going to fire the new engine this weekend.  Hopefully all goes well. It seemed strange to grind the tangs off of the Cleveland mains. I hope all is well there too. Perhaps the cam is the largest concern. Always nerve racking breaking in flat tappet cams.

                                                                                                           -Keith

Keith, I wish I was as fortunate as you when I went searching for a thick 390 block. The thickest I found was also a D4TE block. The machine shop sonic'd it and said it would be thicker than .100 everywhere after a 4.130 bore. Got it done and in the meantime got an Ebay sonic checker. Naturally, when I sonic'd it myself after the boring, I found a place .079 was the thinnest, and 3 other spots below .090. Filled it to the water pump holes and am going to run it. Wouldn't have started this project if I didn't already have the pistons and crank.
No more .080 over 390 blocks for me. I do believe the "thickies" are out there...but really hard to find.
Good luck on the cam break-in.

Very little mention on here of WHERE the thick or thin spots are, which is vitally important. .079 between the bores? Meh, who cares? .079 on the minor thrust side? I'd be pretty nervous. .079 on the major thrust side? Its scrap.
The other question I would be asking myself, is my ebay sonic tester as accurate as the one the machine shop used. I realize they pinged it before they bored, and you pinged it afterwards, but that's still a question worth asking. Is it possible to get them to re-test the area in question against your tester?

I’ve seen a 427 split a cylinder wall between cylinders at around .100. Personally I wouldn’t dismiss that location.

Exactly.  It may not be a thrust surface, but a thin cylinder on any "side" is weak....also gets back to that ring seal point......a weak cylinder will flex.

Tommy T, your intuition to fill the block was spot on.

Totally agree on the fill. I didn't want to discourage the poster, but to be honest, I would be hesitant to build a motor that had a .079 spot in a cylinder wall ANYWHERE, filled or not. I know some guys do it, and skate by, but that's pretty bloody thin. You might skate by depending on where, down low between cylinders would be best scenario, but that's awfully thin, regardless. Too bad its already filled, if it were only one cylinder that thin, I would sleeve the hole.

Quote from: 67428GT500 on September 19, 2019, 01:43:09 PM

The Being '66 was the first year and 70 the last year of the 428 as far as vehicle installed most I looked at to replace my block with that split two cylinders are relatively thin at 4.130. I have sonic checks on four blocks I considered for purchase. The thickest wound up being a 105 D4 block. I have .140- .156 and this is at a 4.155 bore.  One of the lessons learned with the new block is how important it is to bore the block with a torque plate. Charles at Charles machine was showing me that the distortion is usually .005 or more.  Not one of the earlier FE specific book offerings mention this.  Very little about it until Barry's books.
I am going to fire the new engine this weekend.  Hopefully all goes well. It seemed strange to grind the tangs off of the Cleveland mains. I hope all is well there too. Perhaps the cam is the largest concern. Always nerve racking breaking in flat tappet cams.

                                                                                                           -Keith

Keith, I wish I was as fortunate as you when I went searching for a thick 390 block. The thickest I found was also a D4TE block. The machine shop sonic'd it and said it would be thicker than .100 everywhere after a 4.130 bore. Got it done and in the meantime got an Ebay sonic checker. Naturally, when I sonic'd it myself after the boring, I found a place .079 was the thinnest, and 3 other spots below .090. Filled it to the water pump holes and am going to run it. Wouldn't have started this project if I didn't already have the pistons and crank.
No more .080 over 390 blocks for me. I do believe the "thickies" are out there...but really hard to find.
Good luck on the cam break-in.

Very little mention on here of WHERE the thick or thin spots are, which is vitally important. .079 between the bores? Meh, who cares? .079 on the minor thrust side? I'd be pretty nervous. .079 on the major thrust side? Its scrap.
The other question I would be asking myself, is my ebay sonic tester as accurate as the one the machine shop used. I realize they pinged it before they bored, and you pinged it afterwards, but that's still a question worth asking. Is it possible to get them to re-test the area in question against your tester?

Ultradyne was .004, just took a look. Kinda looks like Comp is the odd one out @.006, way to ramp up those hyd intensity numbers on the sly. I have an old Crane master lobe list here somewhere, but I haven't found it yet. Howards is .006 on their master lobe list.

there are a few 390 blocks around that will go +.080 and still be thick enough, but they are not common, and to go out and hunt one down is probably an exercise in masochism, if not futility. If you are really determined, you can pre-sort them with the allen wrench test, but you will still need to sonic test any potential candidates, and if they are pitted on the water jacket side, you can still be in trouble. Brent alluded to the primary reason to do this, unshrouding a 2.19 intake valve. Its always about the cylinder heads.

You can take a look here as well, starting at reply #2. I wouldn't even consider trying to take any OEM FE block to +.125.

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=7778.0

Ok Paulie, I'll put the hatchet down. But heres the thing you said "now you are talking sense".
Above is my VERY FIRST POST on this thread. Note the two bolded lines at the end of the first paragraph. Its been what I was saying since I started, three pages back, its all about getting the cylinder wall away from the valve .
Brent and I may not agree, but its clear from his responses that he carefully reads what I say, thinks about it, and then responds to what I have said. That tells me that even though we disagree, he is respecting the points I am making, and thinking about them.
I watched both this thread and the thread on correct wall clearance for TRW L2291's, and I watched and waited for a long time before I responded. In both cases, I was hesitant to respond, because frankly, I am just not interested in entering into pissing matches. This thread is largely about opinions, but in the case of the TRW thread, the info he was getting was just plain wrong, factually incorrect.
I have been on internet automotive forums since the 1990s, and for me, the first thing that goes through my mind when I see a thread like that is "hell, its no skin off my ass if the info this guys getting is crap, and hes going screw his stuff up if he follows it, but if I speak up, theres going to be a pissing match, so I am just going to keep my mouth shut, its not my problem, and I don't need the grief". And I can tell you for a stone cold fact, I know a HELL of a lot of other guys that feel the same way. I know several guys that are VERY EXPERIENCED engine builders, chassis builders, and fabricators who lurk these forums, see all KINDS of totally stupid stuff being repeated over and over again, and just sit back and watch and laugh about it. Hell, its one of our favorite topics when we are sitting in restaurants over coffee.
They take the attitude "Why the hell should I waste my valuable time typing something out when some keyboard commando is going to be blowing smoke up my @$$, just repeating some crap that he read in Car Craft or Yellow Bullet? Theres nothing in it for me, I don't gain anything, and I gotta put up with the grief". And honestly, I am starting to develop the same attitude, I see lots of stuff that just flat out wrong, and I ignore it, because I am not going to gain anything, and its going to trigger a flame war. Who needs it? And we all suffer because it, because it kills off any chance of a respectful exchange of knowledge and experience.
Im not saying you are doing this, its a more extreme example, but hell, its all over the place on the internet, and I can tell you, the MAJORITY of the guys that I respect and learn from will not post ANYTHING on ANY interent forum because of the lack of respectful discourse and discussion.
So the point of all this is, ANYBODY, EVERYBODY, ME INCLUDED, before you go off half-cocked on something you disagree with, 1) make sure you have REALLY read it, and understand it. If you don't, swallow your pride and ask for clarification, maybe you will learn something new and 2) when you respond, realize that there are LOTS of other eyes reading what you say, and based on the nature of your response, they may be thinking "ha, forget this bs, I'll keep my knowledge and experience to myself", and believe me, LOTS of VERY experienced race car builders are reading this stuff and thinking exactly that.

  How much flow do you gain on a bore size that's relative to the discussion that we're having here?  Going from a 4.030" bore to a 4.155" is a huge difference and is a lot greater than the difference between a 4.080/4.09/4.100" and a 4.130". 

[/quote]
Well, as to the question of whether a test based on chevy bore sizes is going to tell the whole story on the FE, fair enough, I tested the two SBC bore sizes because we were trying to get a handle on how much the larger bore fixture inflated RHS published flow numbers, and I think the test gave us a handle on that.
But consider a couple other factors. 1) a 2.19 in a +.030 390 is closer to the cylinder wall than a 2.05 in a 4.03 chevy and 2) And I think this is the big one. The chevy has a 23 deg. valve angle, the FE is 13, so the valve is coming down much straighter towards the bore, so moving the bore away from the edge of the valve is probably going to help flow numbers even more on the FE. Maybe some further testing is in order, its not a big hassle to switch the bore adapters out on a flow bench, and maybe I will try the same test on an FE head some time. I would probably use a 4.03 because I already have one, and the 4.05 isn't much difference, and compare it to a 4.13. Of course, there will probably STILL be bitching, but if the bitchers don't learn anything, well that's the normal order of things.
As I said in post #24, I understand your position and why you wouldn't want to do it on a customers motor, it probably doesn't do down well when they spend the money for a sonic test, half fill, and boring, and after all that you find a porous spot in the cylinder wall, and its junk. That's fine, I get that.
But it IS do-able, I've DONE it. And as I hinted at in my first post, and made clearer in the last post above, its not about the 10 CI, That's not the big gainer, its about moving the cylinder wall away from the flow cone around the intake valve.