351C or 351W

[jetenginedoctor]

Some of the statements in the above post are a bit misleading.

Originally Posted by rdorman

Either can make that much HP without efi or supercharging... and efi systems don't have the edge like they used to... so long as max hp is a concern.

Could you please elaborate on that? A carburetor can't touch a properly executed EFI system in terms of drivability, economy, OR power. Programmable engine management has come a long way in the past decade, but for the most part, the $250 Holley 4bbl carb you buy from Jegs/Summit today is the same thing you'd have bought 10 years ago. Sure, there are nicer carbs (Barry Grant "Demon" carbs being some of my favorites) available now that weren't around a few years back, but the point is that you get a lot more per $1000 spent on electronic engine controls than you do for the same money on a carbureted system.

I'd say carbs and EFI each has their place, but I wouldn't say that carbs are superior over EFI. Not even close.

Me, I like the cleveland. Aside from the good stock heads, a stock bottom end that will live all day at 7000rpm (pro stockers ran 10,000 with 'stock' crank and never broke them) with nothing but decent pistons, bolts and assembly, they also make a number of great heads for it.

Now, that's REALLY stretching it. First of all, if you spin a stock Cleveland to 7000 RPM you are almost guaranteed to have a bearing failure. Anyone who's been around and has built these engines to run at high engine speeds knows that you have to address the issue of the oil system priority NOT being the main bearings. Do a little searching around on the 'net' and you'll see what I'm talking about. That's just the main bearing issue, next is. . .

THE CRANK. The 351C cranks are pretty good, but don't bet on making one live at 10k RPM. If you de-stroke and zero-balance a 351BOSS crank, then you might see 10k without a problem, but don't bet on turning that 351C 2v Torino engine to 10k without some serious carnage. And then the issue of. . . .

PISTONS/RODS. If you're serious about spinning one of these (or any Ford production V8 engine) to 6k RPM and beyond with any regularity, you need to spend the money on the lighter pistons and stronger rods than what FoMoCo cranked these engines out with 30-some years ago. The stock parts will likely disassemble themselves in short order if you buzz them beyond that speed. The good news is that the stock valvetrain will float and wreck itself before you'll get that far.

My point? You're never going to make a "stock" 351C bottom end live at 10k RPM, no matter what rod bolts, assembly methods, or magic blessing stone you use to put it together.



Sorry for the hijack. I'd say "pick your poison," but at the same time warn you that you won't make either rev to 10k RPM. . . . . more than once.

BK

[rdorman]

You will get no argument from me on EFI's drivability, economy.. but power, yes. I have seen time after time where peak HP on either system is about the same. I don't think a carb is superior to efi, in fact the other way around. But, like my post said, efi does not have the edge it once had in terms of max hp, particuarly in the type of engines for which this thread is discussing.

7000, absolutely. Bot not as it comes from the factory. Like my post says, a well assembled bottom end with good rod bolts and of course no one would attempt that with stock cast pistons. At least, not more than once! A basic polish of the beams (which means they will need to peened again), rod bolts, decent pistons and a good balance and the cleveland bottom end will live at those R's.

I am familiar with the oiling issues, taking care of that is part of a "decent.. assembly".

No one expects a stock Torino engine to turn 10,000 rpm. But pro stockers ran cast cleveland cranks at those rpms for years upon years. Sure they where modified, what crank designed for an old american push rod v-8 would not have to be to live at those r's, but they where cast iron cranks from ford and they lived and rarely failed.

I suggest you go back and re-read my post. The only reference to 10,000 rpms was in regards to the crank. Again, they where ford pieces and not that I have gave a little more detail, hopefully you will see what I mean.

As for 7000 rpm, the cleveland bottom end will live just fine modified as I described.

Pushing the limits, sure, but it does work! The Boss crank was nothing but a high nodular iron cast crank. I spin mine daily to 6400 and after 18,000 miles runs great. The only reason I don't spin it higher is it wasn't built to run higher!

My point, I completely agree with your point, "You're never going to make a "stock" 351C bottom end live at 10k RPM, no matter what rod bolts, assembly methods, or magic blessing stone you use to put it together."

[jetenginedoctor]

Okay, this may be nit-picking, but let's look at the semantics here. . . . .

To most people, "stock" means as it was when it left the Ford/Chev/whatever production line. This would be an unmodified piece installed just as it was when it originally came off the assembly line.

In the context of your contribution, stock implies only that the part was a standard production piece, but not exclude a certain measure of alteration/modification. When somebody explains that they have installed "stock" rods in an engine, they typically don't mean that they've been polished/peened/bushed wristpin end/etc. Resized, sure. . . . new fasteners, we should all hope. A production crank that's had the counterweights cut down and knife-edged, zero balanced with ? hundred dollars worth of mallory stuffed in there, and de-stroked to give the rods a fighting chance of livng at 10k RPM isn't a "stock crank." Sure, that crank started out the same as the one in the old Torino engine per my example. But I think there's a world of difference between what the world considers "stock" and what you describe as "stock." I think the better way to describe what you're speaking of, would be to call them "modified production parts," and not simply a "stock bottom end."

Like I said, sorry to nit-pick. Not suggesting that you're being untruthful or anything, I just think that maybe you're description of the level of condition/preparation of "stock" production engine parts is a little broad.

BK

[rdorman]

I completely agree, you are being nit-picky Sorry, just having some fun. Please substitute 'modified production pieces' in place of the word 'stock'. When i put the word stock in quotes, what you said is exactly what I was trying to infer, that the crank is a off the shelf factory piece modified for the application.

On the 10,000 rpm motor, the rods where never stock pieces, modified or other wise. Aluminum rods where used. Stock rods can be massaged for 7 but not 10!

Now for the 7000 rpm motor, just bolts, polish the beams, peen them, suitable pistons and careful assembly and machine work is all you need. Pretty much standard stuff when constructing any performance engine. Oiling mods are also pretty standard fair when building a performance Windsor or Cleveland. You don't even need the four bolt block.

Sorry for the confusion!