426 cleveland stroker
 

1st cleveland and love it. any word on stroked 426 clevelands? need some feedback by Ford guys and not sales people. Thanks

Sounds cool? Reliable?:confused:

I assume you're referring to a 9.500 block?

The more motor you give a Cleveland head the better it likes it.

I don't think you can get there with a 9.200" block, and if you could, I wouldn't recommend it. Clevelands are not known for thick cylinder wall thicknesses. That much of a stroke would put a lot of side loading on the walls.

A lot of builders don't even like to go to 408 with Cleveland blocks.

426 cleveland stroker
 

Bounty 1,

I run Clevelands in my Pantera's and am just finishing up a 408 stroker. That's about as large as you can make a cleveland because of the deck height and wall thickness. If you're running the early 4V closed chamber heads with that combo you should be able to get 500 + horsepower and torque out of a 10.5 compression engine with right cam and a little head work.

If you need more cubes you're going to have to go to a Windsor or Clevor block like the Dart. You can take the 9.5 deck height Dart all the way to 454 cubes.

Short of finding one of the 'Rare' Siamese blocks designated for Nascar in the mid/late 70's that were cast in the USA then shipped to Aussie for machineing etc its a 'Risky Business' Im even more conservative than these guys when it comes to the production blocks, wont bore them past 4.030", wont build them with less than a 6" rod even at 3.5" stroke. Why, I learnt the hard way---- the more you stroke em the more they broke em':) & I hate doing things twice for no good reason.

I think maybe its a reference to the new Boss351 block

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/13/f...-engine-block/

available in 9.2 & 9.5 deck height

from the article...
"Max stroke is up to 4.25" depending on crankshaft manufacturer with max bore size topping out at 4.125" with coolant cross drilling. A non cross-drilled block with increased bore capacity will be available by 3rd quarter."

guessing this would get you a 4.00 x 4.125 in a 9.2in block (?)

LoBelly

Go over to the Cleveland forum, there's a guy named Tod Buttermore who has developed a new Cleveland block with an much improved main priority oiling system. It's supposed to accomodate significantly larger bore and stroke parameters than a standard Cleveland block, and it's available in both iron and aluminum.

Tod's block isn't ready yet but will have better oiling and the ability to go with a bigger bore but still has the 9.2 Cleveland deck height. The Boss 351 block is similar to the Dart World Style block and a bunch of Dart copies now coming in from China that are basically Windsor blocks with the Cleveland 2.75 main bearings and 4 bolt main bearing caps.

Shade Tree--

your comment "Dart copies now coming in from China " -- what have you seen >? are they showing up as off brands or are they trying to sell them as Dart/SVO/etc >?

--Steve

It looks just like a Dart Iron Eagle...Dick has stopped anyone from selling them, last I heard.

There was a book out by George Reid that explained stroked small blocks, and there was some Cleavland info therein. I think there was a 426 possible with a 9.2" deck if memory serves.

http://www.amazon.com/Build-Big-Inch.../dp/1884089836

You could do it.

But you'd wake up screaming in a puddle of cold sweat for months afterward.

Here is the only company making this kit and I hear that their quality is questionable.
http://www.speedomotive.com/ps-127-1...roker-kit.aspx
After speaking with many Cleveland builders no one recommends going over 4" stroke. Keith Craft only recommends 393's.
Tod Buttermore will also be producing a 9.5" deck block at some point which should get you 460ci, pair that up with some nice CHI heads and you should easily make 700hp. A 408 will get you over 600hp with these heads.

Me, I'm with Keith.

What is the problem? Are the cylinder walls cracking at a 4.0" or 4.1" stroke?

The piston compression height is shorter in a 347 than a 426 Cleveland would be.

Apart from the std clevo cyl wall thickness problem its stroke & rod ratio( and the resulting angle), not pin height that are the real issue.
On the 3.4" stroke / 5.4 rod this ratio is 1.588/1 with the 302 8.200" block.

Clevo with 4" stroke/6.125" rod is 1.531/1 in 9.2" block with 1.075 pin height.

I see a lot of 4.0" stroke with 6.0" rods in 408 Clevelands (1.5 ratio).

A 426C with a 4.1" stroke and 6.0" rods is 1.46 ratio.

Does piston speed also play a role in the destruction of Cleveland cylinder walls?

Yeah around 1.5 ratio is about the same as a stock BBC 454 which has 1.53....the bowtie bunch dont complain much....and they push a lot of power with them.

Its kinda hard to isolate piston speed, it comes with the territory in longer strokes & if the owner insists on pushing the RPM it does become a major factor. Depends on what the application is really, Put it in a class where the high RPM is not continous & the stroker will probably last, try it in a boat or circuit car ( Road course or Nascar long track types ) where high revs are for longer periods and the short rod combo will self distruct.

The best example that we probably have here is the SBF combos of: 4.125 bore X 3.25" stroke versus the 4.00" bore by 3.40" stroke. Both are the same capacity @ around 346/347 ci, but the short stroke/big bore motor can rev higher, yet really gives nothing away down low either.

Clevos are pretty popular down under with the Aussie Falcon crowd & an easy swap to a 6" rod ( The 302c had a 6" rod/3.00" stroke ) plus an Aussie 1.425" pin height piston makes a nicer motor out of the 351c & virtually eliminates the bore cracking problem.

One other problem the std 351c has, the std rod/piston combo pulls the piston skirt well below the cyl bore @ BDC, the 6" rod cures that, but it returns again if you lengthen the stroke, on the Jet Boats we worked with that ran continous @ around 5500 plus the piston skirt would get a very defined 'mark' on the skirt where the piston 'rocked' @ BDC largely due to the lack of bore support.