From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: RE: 351C trivia...
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 00:17:36 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Thursday, Jan 07 19:17:30
X-Sequence: 3257
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

In article <fmyrn+=@dixie.com>, you write...
> 
>-> I don't see where you'll lose a lot of power, unless the walls flex
>-> *inward*. Flexing outward means more blow-by, but how much are we
>-> talking about?
> 
> *Any* blowby is horsepower going right out the crankcase vent.

I'll grant you that.  Should be pretty easy to measure power loss using
the ratio of blowby to exhaust...
However, if we're talking about the same amount of power that's lost to the
power steering pump, I ain't gonna worry about it.  The block was bored
using torque plates, which should reduce blowby considerably.
> 
> 
>-> the stuff done in the early 1900's is pretty amazing - multivalve
>-> heads (most people think the Japanese developed them.  Hah!) etc.
> 
> Desmodromic valves, roller lifters and rockers, aluminum blocks,
>overhead cams, fuel injection, dry sumps...  the only reason it all
>looks newish today is the deadly sameness of Detroit engineering from
>the 1930s to 1980s.  Fifty years of the same old Detroit Wonder Metal
>(cast iron), with the big whoopees being the mid '50s when everyone
>finally switched from cast iron to aluminum pistons, and the mid '60s
>when overhead valves finally took over.  (I had a '65 Rambler with a
>flathead six!)

Actually, I'd attribute the sameness to the bean counter attitude.  If we
had the engineers (the "gung ho" ones) running the business, who knows *what*
we'd be driving now.  (I happen to be an engineer - electrical, though, so
I've had very little formal mechanical engineering training.  Doesn't stop
me from playing though <grin>).

> 
> 
>-> No, haven't spun bearings.  Haven't revved to 7,000+ yet, either.
>-> Have you had a cylinder *poof* due to being too thin?  (OK, I'm being
>-> sarcastic :))
> 
> I've seen several cases of catastrophic cylinder wall failure and a
>couple of cracked cylinders.  Lots of times when you come across an
>engine that "threw a rod" and you start fitting the puzzle back
>together, you find it was the cylinder wall that went first.
> 
Interesting.  I've read that the main reason the big Fords spin bearings
is lack of lubrication.  A lot of re-work will fix it, but I'm not planning
on running my 351C past 7,500 or so, and definitely not "all day".

Just for shits and giggles, I tried measuring the wall thickness of my block.
I was able to get a 0.125" allen wrench to barely fit between the cylinders
(# 7 and 8).  Bore to bore, measured from the top, was 0.360".  0.36 - 0.125
= 0.235.  Guestimated wall thickness is 0.12", but only at that one point.
I can't see any non-destructive way of measuring the wall thickness, unless
something like ultrasound would work (moot point:  I don't have access to
anything like that).  Any idea of how valid my measurement is, with respect
to the rest of the bore?

> Be it as it may, people like Mario Rossi and Jack Roush didn't part
>with large amounts of folding money for heavy-duty Australian cylinder
>blocks just to impress the guys in the pits.  Gapp & Roush were so tight
>with money they ran a four door Maverick for years.  (you want a laugh?
>See a four door Maverick staging against a Camaro sometime)

I'll look, next time I'm at Norwalk.  There's a guy that runs a '74 or so
Capri pretty regularly.  He dropped the V6 - for a Cammer!  Can't get to
anywhere near the potential of the engine - brakes aren't good enough!
>                                                                                              
> 
>----------
>Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)

Mike Jamison

----------
Posted by: emory!ARIEL.LERC.NASA.GOV!EDWLT12
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod