Genesis 427 side oiler

[farmallmta]

NM at all, this time

[farmallmta]

Originally Posted by Carnut427

Ford (nor the other manufacturers) knew siamesed cylinders would work. To my knowledge, Chevy was the first to do it on the 400 smallblock. Dan

A little bit of drift from the topic, perhaps, but the Bowtie Bozos yet again get credit for an idea they merely copied from their betters. Chebby was NOT the first to utilize cylinder siamesing. All manufacturers were familiar with the design but for various reasons having to do with cost and warranty considerations shied away from the concept for the most part.

While various truck and heavy duty engines earlier had used siamesed cylinder design for low RPM applications, the Hudson 308 inline 6cyl developed in the late '40's and first installed in the Hornet line in '51 had siamesed cylinders and was intended to be capable of all-out sustained high RPM racing. This application most closely tracks our interest in this forum and is probably one of the first American applications of cylinder siamesing as we would use it.

The Hudson 308 engine was a bored version of the 262ci engine which required strengthening as the original design limitations were exceeded. The high chromium content of the block alloy minimized cracking of the siamesed cylinders under ordinary use conditions but an overheated block would occasionally crack under severe (race) use. Despite this, the Hornet was THE car to beat in NASCAR (a brutally harsh racing environment in those crude dirt track days) from '51 up into '54. Anyway, the best overhead valve V8-equipped Olds and Mopars found it very difficult to beat the 308ci (FLATHEAD no less) 6 banger in a Hudson Hornet. The other marques (ESPECIALLY Chebby) were completely outclassed and not even close to being serious contenders.

Doc (The Fabulous Hudson Hornet) Hudson sends his kind regards!

[Enginetime]

Have built up a Genesis for my ERA. Great block, has stronger webs in lifter valley than old blocks. Also has thicker corners where originals tended to crack. I used old and new...I'll buy new castings over a 20+ year old block anyday as the investment is over 10K to do it right.
Enginetime

[Snakepilot]

Ceslaw,
What are the specs of your engine; stroke, heads, cam, & carb?
Thanks

[Enginetime]

Just finished up a Genesis 427 SO engine project. Goal was 500hp on pump fuel, 93 octane. Stroked to 452, Scat billet crank, H beam rods, precision oil pump,Edl 76 CC heads machined out 80cc's, KCraft assymetric roller cam .633/.633,Crane roller tappets, (tested 3 other's cams both soild and hyd. on the dyno), result was great, 510HP on a Superflo dyno @ 5,200 RPM's engine will pull over 6,000 RPM's but never will have to....my ERA is lightin' fast with this setup. About 20K invested to do it right with all the good stuff,all new, no junk.
Enginetime

[496fe]

I now have about 1,600 miles on a 496 cid Genesis-based SO. The blocks have more material around the cylinder bores also. You can easily use 4.310" pistons with a 4.250 bore which yields 496 c.i. I ended up at 607 fwhp with 9.4:1 compression - 91 octane baby! It turned out to be the ultimate dual purpose car I was looking for. 590 lbs-ft torque starting at about 2,400 RPM - it goes fast without ripping the tires out from under it.

I'm a fan of cubic inches and the aftermarket blocks make it easy, albeit a little on the expensive side - about $22K.

Good luck,

Brian

[Excaliber]

Well you can't blame the flat cams on the block, come on!

Interesting question: If a modern block looks the same why would go with a real one? Why would you buy a real Rolex when you can get a knockoff that 'looks real' and has a fine Timex motor inside it?

Some of us WANT the 'real thing'. The side oilers were designed for racing, for extreme rpm. Heck thats the block they used for the SOHC which turned 8000 plus rpm. It's not the BLOCK thats weak, it's the way it's BUILT that makes the difference.

Shelby alloy 427's blow up and make no mistake, if you don't build it right you can blow up ANY block!

Why don't you go with a 351W and slap some 427 valve covers on it! Why don't you go with a 352 or 390, heck they LOOK the same and there really cheap too. Why not go with a center oiler and save a bundle over a side oiler? Really tough to tell the difference. WHY? Because I know what's under my hood and that matters to ME.

[RedCSX1]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Well you can't blame the flat cams on the block, come on!

Interesting question: If a modern block looks the same why would go with a real one? Why would you buy a real Rolex when you can get a knockoff that 'looks real' and has a fine Timex motor inside it?

Some of us WANT the 'real thing'. The side oilers were designed for racing, for extreme rpm. Heck thats the block they used for the SOHC which turned 8000 plus rpm. It's not the BLOCK thats weak, it's the way it's BUILT that makes the difference.

Shelby alloy 427's blow up and make no mistake, if you don't build it right you can blow up ANY block!

Why don't you go with a 351W and slap some 427 valve covers on it! Why don't you go with a 352 or 390, heck they LOOK the same and there really cheap too. Why not go with a center oiler and save a bundle over a side oiler? Really tough to tell the difference. WHY? Because I know what's under my hood and that matters to ME.

LET ME CLEAR IT UP FOR YOUR ERNIE.

63 Center oiler = solid lifter cam

I did not want to take another chance on getting inferior lifters with a soild lifter cam for a solid lifter only motor.

Therefore I went with a Hyd. Roller in a all aluminum Pond block.

The Pond and Gen versions of the 427 SO are much stronger motor than the original. Thicker walls and more internal bracing.

[Carnut427]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

...Some of us WANT the 'real thing'...

If you had been paying attention you would have noted that Archrms's question was "...is there any reason other than "authenticity" that makes an original block any better than a new Genesis?"...
If you want "the real thing", great. Buy one. Some of us on the other hand, have tried the "real thing" and, while deeply greatful that Ford brought out this wonderful engine, are tickled pink that better versions are available.

Originally Posted by Excaliber

...make no mistake, if you don't build it right you can blow up ANY block!

As though a cylinder wall breaking has anything to do with how it was built rather than core shift causing thin cylinder walls. It's virtually impossible (never use that word!) for a Genesis block to have this problem unless taken out to the max, which is .135 over the stock 427 bore...and you can always sleeve it back to 4.250 and start all over again!

Dan

[Archrms]

Thanks to everyone for all of the input, as it is helping me get closer to making a final decision. What it has come down to is this; if the price were identical, which engine would you rather have, an original 428/FE or a new 427/FE Genesis?

[quickjack]

Unless you are going for dead nuts originality, once you make the switch to a good quality aftermarket block you will never go back. My $.02
jack

[427SnakeSC]

I don't think the price will be the same, but if it was I would still take the 427 FE. The 427 Keith Craft is building me is with the Pond cast block. Just my .02 worth!

[olddog]

For what it is worth, I'm in the process of pulling apart a 95 4.6 DOHC modular. I know, I know, it not an FE, but bear with me a second here, as it becomes relevant. I haven't got it apart enough to measure the bores, but there are no ridge lines at the top. This engine has 105K miles on it. By feel I'm guessing less than 0.010 wear as I cannot feel anything anywhere, and you can still see the hone lines. Here is where it becomes relevant. This is an aluminum block with steel sleeves. I think the steel sleeves hold up much better than cast iron. This is a plus for a modern aluminum FE block, assuming they use steel sleeves rather than cast iron.

Additionally aluminum conducts heat better than cast iron, so cooling and even temps are much improved. However with the aluminum there is much more thermal expansion (think 4 times not sure). In my mind a large aluminum block push-rod engine almost has to have hydraulic lifters. With solids the valves would be mighty loose cold. Also the main bearing clearances change a bunch from cold to hot on an aluminum engine. Warm up is even more critical on an aluminum motor.

Hope that gives some food for thought on aluminum verses cast iron.

[Eliems]

Not wanting to hijack this thread but wondering about a local motor - 427 side-oiler, "built right" and available for $8,000 Canadian.

This is a lot of money for this motor isn't it?

[RedCSX1]

Originally Posted by Eliems

Not wanting to hijack this thread but wondering about a local motor - 427 side-oiler, "built right" and available for $8,000 Canadian.

This is a lot of money for this motor isn't it?

Depends, If it really was rebuilt right! its not a lot of money.

But what does your phrase built right really mean?

[decooney]

What's even more puzzling to me is the people who declare they MUST have a 1960s original 427 block vs. a new aftermarket FE block in their replica Cobra.

[RedCSX1]

Originally Posted by decooney

What's even more puzzling to me is the people who declare they MUST have a 1960s original 427 block vs. a new aftermarket FE block in their replica Cobra.

Ernie, you still out there? The snake must have his tongue

[Woodz428]

Originally Posted by olddog

I haven't got it apart enough to measure the bores, but there are no ridge lines at the top. This engine has 105K miles on it. By feel I'm guessing less than 0.010 wear as I cannot feel anything anywhere, and you can still see the hone lines. Here is where it becomes relevant. This is an aluminum block with steel sleeves. I think the steel sleeves hold up much better than cast iron. This is a plus for a modern aluminum FE block, assuming they use steel sleeves rather than cast iron.

I think you are coming to a conslusion that is waaay off. Since the introduction of low tension piston rings in mass production in the 80s(created as a way to elevate CAFE) cylinder wear is much less than it once was. I have pulled down several 5.0 roller motors with over 120K and they have minimal wear also. I think the reduction in wear you are seeing is a result of the ring design and has nothing at all to do with the block metallurgy.

[olddog]

Originally Posted by Woodz428

I think you are coming to a conslusion that is waaay off. Since the introduction of low tension piston rings in mass production in the 80s(created as a way to elevate CAFE) cylinder wear is much less than it once was. I have pulled down several 5.0 roller motors with over 120K and they have minimal wear also. I think the reduction in wear you are seeing is a result of the ring design and has nothing at all to do with the block metallurgy.

I'm sure the rings would make a differance, but back in the day (60's & 70'S) I have pulled engines with 100K miles apart that had 0.030" taper worn into the cylinders. Generally the bottoms of the bores would be way out of round from the thrust of the piston skirts. I suspect rings alone do not explain it all. In fact the 4.6 modular pistons have the skirts coated to reduce piston wear. I would assume this would make the piston harder, which should cause even more wear to the bore. However your 5.0 observation is an interesting data point.

[Woodz428]

Originally Posted by olddog

I'm sure the rings would make a differance, but back in the day (60's & 70'S) I have pulled engines with 100K miles apart that had 0.030" taper worn into the cylinders. Generally the bottoms of the bores would be way out of round from the thrust of the piston skirts.

I ran an Automotive machine shop for several years in the late 60s into the mid 70s and again in the later 80s. It is my recollection that most of the wear is at the TOP of the cylinder( that's why the lip). The heat ,etc. makes the wear more prominent at the top. Piston skirts of aluminum are going to wear themselves away much faster than it could ever wear the wall. That's why they went to aluminum from the cast iron they used to use for pistons. The rings, always under extreme tension to keep a seal, are much harder and do much wearing. If you examine a worn cylinder closely, you see that the wear starts at the top and tapers off to less wear as you go down, hence the word taper. The wear in a cylinder, while not exclusively in the ring travel area, is mostly confined to that area. I will credit some of the newer ring coatings for some of the reduction in wear also. But the low tension rings have more overall impact on wear reduction.