Which FE Aluminium Block is best?

[undy]

Just thinking out loud, as a side note...

I think it's totally rediculous punching out a brand new high dollar block to it's max bore for no other reason to gain a little cubic inch bragging rights.

I had my Pond block finished to it's smallest bore (4.25"). If I bust a ring and score a cylinder there's enough meat to take it to the next size. Again, that's just me.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by undy

Just thinking out loud, as a side note...

I think it's totally rediculous punching out a brand new high dollar block to it's max bore for no other reason to gain a little cubic inch bragging rights.

I had my Pond block finished to it's smallest bore (4.25"). If I bust a ring and score a cylinder there's enough meat to take it to the next size. Again, that's just me.

I do agree with you in principal and that's why I have a 4.25" stroke and bore for 482ci. But I was only pointing out one minor difference between the two blocks.

Having said that, considering that I don't drive my car 10,000 miles per year, I kinda wish I did punch it out to 500+ cubes or even the 527 cube max. Worst case scenario, if something bad happens to the engine, then you just re-sleeve the block. The aluminum blocks already have sleeves.

It's only time and money.

[undy]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I do agree with you in principal and that's why I have a 4.25" stroke and bore for 482ci. But I was only pointing out one minor difference between the two blocks.

Having said that, considering that I don't drive my car 10,000 miles per year, I kinda wish I did punch it out to 500+ cubes or even the 527 cube max. Worst case scenario, if something bad happens to the engine, then you just re-sleeve the block. The aluminum blocks already have sleeves.

It's only time and money.

I understand that you were making a comparison and my reply wasn't pointed in your direction.

With 4.25" bore in a Pond block you still have the ability for 2ea 0.030" bore increases.

I believe pond sleeves are "cast in" the block, not sure how easy it is to resleeve. I hadn't heard (in my limited experience) of anyone resleeving a Shelby or a Pond blockl.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by undy

I understand that you were making a comparison and my reply wasn't pointed in your direction.

With 4.25" bore in a Pond block you still have the ability for 2ea 0.030" bore increases.

I believe pond sleeves are "cast in" the block, not sure how easy it is to resleeve. I hadn't heard (in my limited experience) of anyone resleeving a Shelby or a Pond blockl.

I thought these blocks had replaceable sleeves, but I'm often wrong. Nothing new there.

I've had a few engines built over the years, but I haven't had to tear them down and rebuild them. I guess I've been fortunate. So based upon my experience, maybe I should have gone the big bore route. Waiting for something bad to happen, twice, so that I can have the ability to overbore a couple times seems superfluous to me. At least now it does.

[rodneym]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Waiting for something bad to happen, twice, so that I can have the ability to overbore a couple times seems superfluous to me. At least now it does.

Good point.

[RICK LAKE]

Guys this is why custom pistons are made. 4.250 is a base size. As far as pistons, you can go .010", .015", .017", .020, .025 or .027. Then comes the big one at .030" over After this if you still have a block that is square, you can go from .030" to .080" before sleeve time and start all over. The big thing is the block not getting spun mains or camshaft bearing spun. In Aluminum these are also repairable. All you need is a good welder and machinist.
As for Dick S 198 record asK Joe B in Cali. I think he is still alive and has built many of Dick's motors. Have to remember that fuel was alot better back then with 160 octane, and 14.5 compression was not uncommon for a motor to run. I know the rear tires where largest he could fit in the rear wells. The windshield was tilted back, and the front end was low on the ground for a wedge effect. Rick L.