Close



Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1

    Default Which block to use???

    I have a question concerning two 302 blocks I picked up a couple years ago. The casting numbers are C90E-6015-c and D8VE-6015-A3A. I have tried decoding both of these and this is what I found.

    The C90E block is a 1969 block from a truck.
    The D8VE is a 1978 Lincoln block, but what I don't understand is people on Google are saying it is similar to a Mexican block.

    My overall question is which block should I use for a mild 331 build.
    1983 GLX

  2. #2
    FEP Power Member Ourobos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Waikoloa , Hawaii
    Posts
    1,879

    Default

    Find a late model 85+ roller block, unless you want to stay flat tappet or use link bar lifters on hydraulic roller.

    Neither block is better than the other for a mild build FYI
    1986 CHP SSP Coupe

  3. #3
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Afaik the earlier block may be stronger. Weigh them- the 69 should be much heavier.

  4. #4
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Having a neutral balance steel crank shaft might help a Mexican block survive, but there are too many issues with a Detriot unbalance 28 or 50 Oz crank in a stock thin wall Small block 302 Ford block. Too much swinging recipricating mass is held in by too little cast iron.

    http://pantera.infopop.cc/eve/forums...2/m/2251010656



    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h5...psr0ns6egu.jpg


    My friend Blair destroyed his NASCAR pillow block 351 Cleveland engine just with forged pistons which weren't clearanced exactly right. All he noticed was a funny scuffing noise at 1500 rpm, and blow by that didn't make sense on a solid block. It was stock 4.00" bore, plateau honed. It was still working fine for the next three months, taking a hammering and behaving like a real great small block Ford V8 does.

    What was happing was the bores were getting scored by wrong clearancesd, so it ended up being re-sleaved and the expensive block the US racers used in the Winston Cup series got sold off. When running, it made 375 hp and gave 20 US miles per gallon in his 1971 Australian Falcon. Blair spent 8 grand on the whole XE coded engine (what was latter known as the SVO M-6015-A3"NASCAR" block, then sold that scored cylinder bore block off, and re-financed another 1977 Aussie non NASCAR block. That's the lesson on Clevelands, but also 5.0 302w's. Spend more money on a better block, always, if its a thin wall Ford small block.

    That was 1988 in New Zealand. If Blair had cheaped out, his investment in a better block would have cost him a lot more than 5k. So it is with any thin wall Henry block, more so the more power your looking for. 3 grand was the extra value of the NASCAR block verses a stock US 351C or Aussie std 351C. (New Zealand dollars back then were penut grade compare to the good old U$ Dollar).




    Any 302 block except the factory 302 Boss blocks from 69-70 are the achillies heal of any 331 stroker. It way more than a 2 grand liablity.

    You might be just fine with a 30 thou over D8, it might also become rubble. The defining factor is how much bore thrust face you have after machining, and how close you come to the iron yielding under the loads of a 3.25" stroke crank with the rods you end up using.

    Save money by never having to do it twice.

    Thinwall Stroker engines using over bored Production Ford 5.0 blocks under durablity tests always have a potential to break at 7000 rpm, and have insufficent wall thickness at the thrust faces when over bored even 20 thou.

    The rules from Aussie veteren engine rebulder Brad Girdwood from the 1988 article on making tough 302 and 351 Fords was the same as the Chevy Offroad and Marine guru Sam Blumstein....its never changed for iron OHV small block V8's....

    You need 180 thou at the thrust faces after over boring
    You need extra block support if its a Thinwall Small block Windsor Ford.

    By way of example, after 1985, Ford Australia no longer cast Cleveland engines in Australia, so when it came time to build 216 hp plus engines again like they did in the 70's, they used the last 5.0 Mountanier/Explorer blocks for a very special run of 335 hp Stroker engines in 2002.

    They spent more money on plateau honing the prodction 4.00" bore block, running cast alloy Hyper pistons by Mahle, and then buying in very good cast iron cranks and Scat 5.35" con rods. The result was a totally dependable stock 4" bore 342 engine made from the 1997-2001 Ford SUV block. It had a crank girdle, 4.2 V6 style.


    Any time you use a stock block over bored, you then have to re-season it during the machining process, and do a lot more expesnive checking. That won't fix the 90 to 130 thou thrust faces of iron thickness after over boring, which causes bore slpitting.

    It won't fix the lack of cast iron in the bulkheads that cause the block slpitting.

    Since you can probably legally get away with it in a SC registered car, I'd presonally buy a Ford Racing Performance Parts block for 2k.

    in the blurb, FRPP say

    WARNING:
    This part is designed and intended for competition use only. It should not be installed on a vehicle that is driven on public roads and highways. Installation of this [p]art on a vehicle driven on public roads and highways is likely to violate U.S. and Canadian laws and regulations relating to motor vehicle emissions.
    and

    Consumers are strongly advised not to install parts accompanied by this warning on vehicles that will be driven on public roads.
    But the stock block, even the better C9, is a real risk in 30 thou over form.

    https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6010-BOSS302

    That way, you've got ample room to over bore it 125 thou to make a 347 with your 331 crank some time in the future.






    Bottom end strength is improved by

    1. the use of four-bolt caps on mains two, three, and four and
    2. thicker bulkheads in the block (Early 2015 photo of the similar FRPP Boss 351 block by the late Jay Storer, RIP 2017)

    Another goodie is this

    Quote Originally Posted by dtmilsap View Post
    Here's a pic of my new block. Came in yesterday.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
    I won't show the photo record of cracked 5.0 and 5.8 Windsor OHV blocks that litter the internet.

    Good fortune with your build...don't play fates with a stroked, over bored thinwall 5.0 block. You can't add metal to a factory Ford block, only hardfill cement grout , and hoping for a little "luck".

    If you believe in "luck", you can then forget the science.

    The science is based on Ford engine builders over the world, and unlike most racing in the USA, Ford racers in the Australia had to use production stock 302 (and earlier, 351C) engine blocks in 600 mile, 6 hour circuit racing duels.

    From what I've read,

    Quote Originally Posted by DJR_Team_Penske
    Johnson and Hansford drove a steady race to finish in fourth place outright despite the 302 cui Ford V8 engine running low oil pressure throughout thanks to a crack in the engine block that was only discovered when the team stripped down the car and engine after Dick had raced it in the Group A support race at the 1986 Australian Grand Prix meeting in Adelaide
    the Group A Endurance Mustangs often split bores, blocks, broke timing chains, had oil delivery problems and block cracking in racing, not just the DJR 71, 17 and 18 5.0 Mustangs, but the Pine Pac, ITM and Truck Spares and Capri Spares 5.0 Mustangs as well.














    adding a stroker crank to a 5.0 won't take the stress off, it'll add to it, even if its not being endurance raced

  5. #5
    FEP Power Member slow84lx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,562

    Default

    Xtasy,
    You never disappoint with the info & pictures. You are da Man! Thanks for sharing.
    Last edited by slow84lx; 09-26-2017 at 10:25 PM.

  6. #6
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    (its all stollen info, smashed and grabbed from only the best sources....)

  7. #7
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    784

    Default

    For what its worth, I have a 331 SB Ford, that runs 10.2-10.3ETs in my Fairmont, with a 4 speed Jerico, dumping the clutch at 6600 RPM, shifting at 6800, going 7200 thru the finish line. This same engine was run in my buddys 64 Comet, also with a 4 speed, as well as my 85 Mustang (same Jerico and RPMs). For the first 5 seasons, it used a stock 5.0 hyd roller block (with flat tappet soilid lifter cam), and 28 OZ imbalance crankshaft. End of 2015, tore it down for a freshen up, found cracking in the main webbing, and a cracked #1 main cap.Put all the internals in a stock 1974 302 block, along with a bottom end girddle, and 2 full seasons later, its still running great. The 74 block has blind head bolt holes (5.0 hyd roller block has head bolt holes into the water jackets), also the 74 block has blind main bearing bolt holes, while the hyd. roller block main bolt holes were open to the crankcase. Not sure how much stronger the earlier block is (if any) but it does look a bit beefier, and with the girdle, hope it lasts for a few more years of racing. On a mainly street driven car, especially one with an automatic transmission, I would have no concerns by using a stock block.
    1978 Fairmont 2 door sedan, 428CJ 4speed. 9.972ET@132.54mph. 1.29 60 foot
    Replaced the FE big block with my 331/4 speed in my Fairmont, best 10.24ET @128 MPH.
    1985 Mustang LX hatchback NHRA Stock Eliminator 302 4 speed best in legal trim 12.31@107 mph, but has gone 11.42@115 with aftermarket intake, carb, and iron Windsor Jr. heads.New for 2012! 331 cube SB Ford, AFR 185 heads, solid flat tappet cam, pump gas; 10.296ET@128.71 mph, 1.37 60 foot.
    1979 Zephyr Z7, all original 302 auto, 2nd owner.

  8. #8
    FEP Power Member Ourobos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Waikoloa , Hawaii
    Posts
    1,879

    Default

    ^ sounds like more than a MILD setup no?
    1986 CHP SSP Coupe

  9. #9
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    To ensure your investment isn't a lottery ticket of loss, there are block stays, girdles and "belts and braces" you can use to look after a stock 5.0 block. Below 10 grand, you've got to look at options. I'd seriously look at the fully counterweighed SVO stroker cranks. Ford SVO in 1989 used to make a blank steel forging that just needed, oh, 8 hours of grinding to index the crank and journals to perhaps 3.4" inches max. No unbalance.

    If you want to lean on it, get an upper block girdle. Doug P at Horsepower Sales Valley Girdle Pro. Included in the link is the 4.2 Essex V6 crank girdle, and the factory AU Falcon 5.6 crank girdle. It was cheaper for Ford to add those than up grade the Windsor or Essex block castings.

    http://www.horsepowersales.net/



    Cracking is eleviated by light weight Hyper cast pistons with long rods. The development Ford Australia did for its stock bore "347" was only to tie the base of the 2002 Explorer block, and then reduce recipricating mass of the engine, even with a 3.4" stroke, 6000 rpm and 335 hp is well within nice limits for a 342 or 347.

    The Tickford engineers from Prodrive designed a simple Tickford main bearing girdle.





    What I learning in 1988 was these seven things, mostly from ex Holden racing guys who had swapped camps from Ford V8's before 1979 when Ford Australia pulled out of racing and were given orders to kill off the Geelong plant Cleveland engine production. GM guys, especailly Aussie ones, tell the most hardcore tales...because they are rooted in truth.


    1. Drag racers show more traction based mechanical empathy than other earthlings....

    Funniest facts is....problems with Ford engine and drivetrain durablity shows up on Endurance racing or in the outback in prodcution cars mis-treated. The block cracking of the 302 Windsor showed up at Bathurst in 1968, and the old Top Loader 3 rd gear main shaft failure on H code 351's with 300 hp engines in outback driven cars that spent a long time in third.

    Usually on the 1000 mile Nullarbor Plain, where with a factory long range 43 US gallon fuel tank, a GT HO 351 4V could do 500 miles to a tank of gas at 90 mph in third gear. 5300 rpm for almost 6 hours between fills. Top was 140 mph, but you couldn't slow down for a cammel or a wash out...unless you were in thrid. The plain in two fills of gas was possible with extreme speed to those crazy enough.


    2. Traction loss has bent a lot of small block 5.0 and 331/347 strokers out of shape over the years, not just Fox bodies, but especially Aussie Toranas and Commodores. Engine breakage is normally traction loss based unloading, something good crankshafts with smaller main bearings like the SBF 302's and 304/308 Holden strokers don't like.


    3. On SB Fords, Recipricating Weight loss. Because the SBF was based on the Y block 4-3/8" bore spacing hard dimensions from the tooling line, it had to get significantly reworked for a massive weight reduction of about 140 pounds under the last Y blocks.

    For the 62 model year, Ford wanted to significantly undercut GM aluminum engines costs with an almost as light weight, so the crank was under balanced with 28 ounce bob weights, and on the little 221/260's it wasn't an issue.
    On the 289's, vibration was starting to become one, so in came the HP balancer and timing chain set, primarily for competition duty Cobras and Shelby's.


    With the 1968 302, the reversion to the earlier non HP 289 style crank and harmonic blancer made all non Boss 302's durablity failures in very hard 500 mile Endurance racing. While the 1968 US 230 hp J code engine was a good one, in the Australian XT 302 GT it failed badly from main and rod bearings at the 1968 500 mile Bathurst. Paradoxically, it did win the Teams Prize in the 7,000 mile 1968 London - Sydney Marathon. Under very hard 90 mph average speeds, the little 5.0 wasn't as reliable as the 1967 A code 225 hp 289. The reliability of the J code 302 4v engine had been convincingly demonstrated only in situations where the engines weren't canned like in a SCCA event.

    4. When the 1968 302 came out, it reverted to the non HP front timing chain with a new twist....the 302's certainly were not as durable at revs, and in fact were failures in long distance Circuit racing where as the 289's were very realiable. After the G code Tunnel Ram 302's competition failure, the next G code Boss 302 used most of the K code HP 289 block details, its con rods, but a Super High Performance 302 crank which was forged in steel and cross drilled.

    5. In the LeMans and TransAm durablity testing, Fords Engine guys started fiddling with the SBF firing order. It never went far untill the 351 engines of both types. On the Windsor 351 and Clevelands it was to get main bearing life in order. The 351m's and 400 Fords continued with it, becasue they were born 335 engines.


    6. The much later 1980's change to the 50 ounce unbalance co-incided with the earlier 1979 serpentine drive and the planned firing order change required to run the 351W cam timing. The plan was always to bank fire the Port EFI cars, but most cars had 2-bbl CFi or Variable Venturi oe 2bbl 2150 carbs, so the firing order had to be free to change between the 302 and 351 if needed.

    The 5.0's move to 351W/C/M firing order change was done to relieve main bearing life like it was in the tall deck 351's. It was a real problem with the 4V versions of the 351W and 351C, as incipient detonation hammered the main bearings, and the firing order change helped give extra hours of engine life on a dyno. Same issue with the higher performance 1982 F codes (157 to 161 hp) and then 174/165/180/190/210 hp M codes of varying types.

    The 50 ouce Unbalance was also durablity related due to the problems with crank life. The 50 ounce unbalance helps crank life, probably at the expense of block life. The spin off was improved mid range torque on the 5 to 5.8 liter engines.

    The Aussie 4.9 liter 302 also got the 351C fring order, and even strangled with a 245 cfm 2-bbl carb, they were always very strong in the miod range, and it wasn't just the good heads. It was the cam and firing order. The problem was they also make any engine a lot less liking of a dual exhaust. The firing order makes them sound quite strange with dual pipes.

    7. The block life. A lot of people in Australia during the late 70's and early 80's used to put in 1956 to 1960 312 "Thunderbird/Mercury" cranks in the GM 308 V8 Holdens, while others tired the Chevy 350 crank trans plant. I know Victor Meli did these kits very early on, and they transformed the 308 into a very reliable fire breather. He passed on early from cancer, but his work was pivotal in making the endurance engine Holdens look at increased capacity engines. By 1982, stroker 355 Holden engines became common due to the crank being an easy swap, and the 350 Chev engine didn't package well; it used to hit the Right Hand Drive Torana and Commodores rack and pinion steering and starter motor due the the "lead with the left bank" block. Meli's strokers were some of the best, becasue of the quality of the Ford Y block crank. And Aussie guys could track these cranks down pretty easily. The 4.375" centre Y block crank would fit the 4.40" bore spacing Holden or Chevy block, and old way to get your 125 thou over 283 Chev to 346 cubic inches was the 312 Ford crank rewelded.

    The real advantage was that the common junkyard 312 Y block crank a twist forged steel and fully counterweighed crank. A Holden V8 like that would become a 3.44" stroke engine of 351 cubic inches with 30 thou over 4" 350 Chev pistons and the stock 5.625" Holden rods. These engines were so good, Holden made there own for the last 1997 to 1999 GTS Holdens, basically using the Chev 350 crank, but it was very similar to the ancient 312 Y block.

    The last 5.7 strokers and all of the 304's were esesntially internally blanced Windsors which would spin up to 8000 rpm with NASCAR spec rods. The GM Holden block was very flimsy, essentially a GM 350 block with 90 pounds less metal and a 8.9" deck.

    The durablity came from the internally counterweighed crank.The 312 and all the later 304 Holdens had 100% internaly balanced cranks. Ford skipped that jazz for 39 years with its small blocks.

  10. #10

    Default

    All is great info, thank you gentlemen. I do not want to just bore the block out if I don't have to. I wanted to drop in a 331 stroker crank with minimum boring out if at all possible even if it reduces the overall cubic inches. I also do not want to push the horsepower envelope with this either. I want a stout, over built 350 hp build. The 83 coupe is already light enough and she is going on a diet to shed some weight. With that said, the less weight the motor has to push the less horsepower I need to make a quick street car.
    1983 GLX

  11. #11
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    I'm an ex Laboratory Technician with 25 years of experience doing Soils, Aggregates, Aluminum, Steel, Carbon Fiber and Roading Material testing. That means putting stuff in 20 ton hydraulic presses, or laying it on non destructive testing gigs, by bombarding it with gamma or beta radiation, or die penetrate.

    Like the anatomy of Stewie Griffin, you may not think go can cut yogart, but you can
    freeze it,
    cut it and
    thaw it,


    or it'll put you on diaper detail, and belive me, it won't make it easy on you...





    Alloy heads reduce block ridgity. They save about 45 to 47 ponds, maybee.

    Cast Iron, even if aged, is just like cement in shrink and exapand expanision index (Youngs Modulus), and in any casting, a cement floor, or and engine block, it always forms cracks which can be seen by Mag particle or flouroscene analysis. Under a black light, these cracks can be pressure tested, or the block or specimen can be put on an ASME Virating table, and shake for hours, and the cracks can be assessed as life threateing or not. The late Joe Mondello used these Contruction material testing devices to set up 100 thou of an inch amplitude shaking loads



    that shake a 300 pound Oldsmobile 350 diesel engine block with in an inch of its life.

    http://mondello.com/page23.html

    Like this https://www.humboldtmfg.com/vibrating-table.html





    The only way I can describe the value of a good iron block is by the amount of material FRPP puts back in. It shows you how mercenary FoMoCo were in the 60's by taking the inaugural Windsor 302 metal out.


    Some aftermarket 8.2" deck siamese bore blocks adds 65 pounds of extra metal in the block walls, and generally another 8 pounds in the bores, about 73 pound more. The quoted differences are often 135 for a stock C9 or D8 302 block, and about 55 more or 190 pounds for an aftermarket 302 with siamese bore capaility bore its over bored. Again, just over boring it 125 thou takes out 8 pounds of iron.

    Based on the Quality Assurance work done in 1969, and quoted by Fords Total Performance Ambassordor, the late Ak Miller, the stock Cleveland engine plant blueprint casting thickness for thin wall blocks was 187 thou,

    but very importantly, that was just the heads and block, the cylinder bores were all shell moulded to 130 thou thickness if there was no core shift. That won't take 11:1 compression and BMEP pressures that give you a 400hp or more engine. With sand cores, they are tied in, and they shift, and with age and rusting, before even a rebore, that can go down to 90 thou on the thrust side, and you might have more of less in other parts. The risk is just huge.



    Compartively, Ford takes about 1 pound of iron out of each thinwall cylinder compared to a 400 Chev, or Siamese bore Dart, World or FRPP block, and the those aftermarket blocks sit at about 245 thou for cylinder wall thickness at the trust faces, before a 1/8" 4.125" overbore.


    In just the cylinders, shell molded thin wall small block Fords take about 8 pounds of cast iron out of the 8 cylinders in total, and about 65 pounds out of the bulkheads and flanges and walls of the block.

    Any aftermarket 302 Siamese bore Dart, World or FRPP block is as heavy as the thinwall 351 Windsor or perhaps 351 Cleveland blocks. That means everywhere trhoughout the contrction, the whole block is fully buttressed, and wil take NASCAR style, or even Indy style engine loads of an 8000 rpm fortified race engine

    Overbored, all the above aftermarket blocks still have 180 thou of cylinder wall thickness at the trust faces.

    You'd be best to use a block girdle in that instance.

    Plateau honing a stock block and using hyper pistons is the single most important way to reduce bore splitting.

    Ford USA dropped forged pistons only because of cost, and finding a a better way to look after cylinder bore quality without having to spend big


    Exported Windsor 5.0's became stroker 5.6 liter stock bore 347's, or, effectively, 342's

    Factory re-honing process on a stock 4.00" bore Explorer/Mountaineer block imported fully built up to Australia.


    The old 1996 to 2001 blocks were probably the worst for cating quality, but preparation, girdles and lots of development turned a very cheap engine into a Factory Ford made , 100 horspower stronger sub 14 second fire breather.


    Good fortune. Hope this helps make your engine rebuild a winner.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJvUrgJla5k

    https://www.motormag.com.au/features...5-6-windsor-v8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •