TNR Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 22, 2014, 06:28:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
SMF - Just Installed!
60254 Posts in 4372 Topics by 359 Members
Latest Member: igyebeqbm
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  TNR Forum
|-+  Ford Racing
| |-+  Clevelands (Moderator: wildcobrar)
| | |-+  427 CLEVOR 9.2 BIG BORE / 3.6 BT HEADS
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 Print
Author Topic: 427 CLEVOR 9.2 BIG BORE / 3.6 BT HEADS  (Read 13250 times)
rmcomprandy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311

« Reply #180 on: April 13, 2012, 07:57:40 AM »

I had the same question and wondered how they compare to the CHI stuff. the graphs posted suggested the CHI225 is better ootb? from what I remember the flow charts I seen from the CHI225's only went to .700 and they hit 325. this was an as cast port that to me looked like would be easy to pick up another 25cfm but I am probably wrong lol

Look at the before and after chart with stock and bowl blend with short side work.  Then be objective and do a fair comparison to similar heads.  The same results will not take place.

Joe

Just curious ... wouldn't the 4.30 Blue Thunder head have been a better choice "out of the box" for this type of an engine...?   I have heard that the ports of these heads are actually smaller until ported.
There's even a cast 2 piece intake made for it.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 08:02:05 AM by rmcomprandy » Logged
www.rmcompetition.com

The finest in Custom Engine Building for all venues ...!
1(586)909-1591 ... fax 1(586)771-2930
Selling Parts & Supplies from companies I use.
R.Olds
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1584

« Reply #181 on: April 13, 2012, 08:15:52 AM »

I have not seen a 4.3 casting up close, but they are a porters casting only where the 3.6 gives the option, and of course porting is the best option...LOL. I agree that the 4.3 could be a better head if one was aiming at a full race engine. The 4.3's are shaft rockers only as well and Im not sure the Yella Terras would work on that casting.
I have a 2 piece intake on the 408 I did, but because of height issues, the 2991 was a better fit for this project.

Rick
Logged
I was Anti Obama before it became popular.....
161854
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1094

« Reply #182 on: April 13, 2012, 08:42:33 AM »

     The 3.6 needs no apologies. I only suggested the 4.3 to Rick so he could go from ridiculous "street" HP to absurd on his next build LOL Of course there WERE those here that could make that kind of power with ported E7TEs and a CI hydro cam. But it all revolves around the "magic" 4500 convertor! :punk: This engine is a great example of a higher end , but not "all out", build. More dyno testing time, cam, compression, etc. "might" have given a bit more but this is REALLY stout for what it is. A friend of mine who works at CP Pistons did a 427 with Vic Jrs , similar compression and cam and made 565 hp. That engine in an automatic equipped '65 Mustang is difficult to drive without smoking the tires. Part throttle is required all the time and really gets annoying. I can only imagine what 690+ would be like!  I'm gonna stay in the "slow lane" with my 460+hp 408 so I don't get run over.
    Again , nice work Rick.
       Randy       
Logged
numbers/turtle 2  , just don't call me late for dinner
rmcomprandy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311

« Reply #183 on: April 13, 2012, 08:37:11 PM »

I have not seen a 4.3 casting up close, but they are a porters casting only where the 3.6 gives the option, and of course porting is the best option...LOL. I agree that the 4.3 could be a better head if one was aiming at a full race engine. The 4.3's are shaft rockers only as well and Im not sure the Yella Terras would work on that casting.
I have a 2 piece intake on the 408 I did, but because of height issues, the 2991 was a better fit for this project.

Rick

As I said, I was curious as I have heard things but, never actually had any experience with those 4.30 heads myself.
I have ported a pair of 3.6's with ridiculously small valves, (2.055" & 1.65"), and 50 degree seats. They worked very, VERY well.
Logged
www.rmcompetition.com

The finest in Custom Engine Building for all venues ...!
1(586)909-1591 ... fax 1(586)771-2930
Selling Parts & Supplies from companies I use.
Kazoom
Guest
« Reply #184 on: July 14, 2012, 09:02:45 PM »

Ive been workin my but off on this thing, so Joe can try to blow it up in a couple weeks... :lipsrsealed:

Got the oil pump clearanced, and cleaned out, the pick up and pan needed a bit of tweaking, but all is good.


I had to shorten the Yella Terra stands by .220 to get proper geaometry, but they are done, the push rods are here and the heads are bolted down for good.


As soon as the intake arrives, I have a buddy that will machine out some nice rail spacers to fill some of the gap on the intake. The intake gaskets have been matched to the heads.


I have a MSD billit dist for this......and low and behold, the gear is in the right location, I didnt have to tweak anything.... :thumbup:.... :thumbup:

Rick

Hi, I am just wondering if you used a windage tray on your deal and what type if you did?, I ordered the same block so I would like to find one that might work with a cast pan I got which I have to mod to fit :cursing:. Did you have to clearance the pump because of the 4.00 crank?, I will be using a 3.850 so just wondering if I will be doing the same.
Logged
R.Olds
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1584

« Reply #185 on: July 15, 2012, 07:41:10 PM »

No windage tray was used, just the stock baffles in the Moroso pan. As far as the pump, the pick up needed more clearencing then the pump did.

Rick
Logged
I was Anti Obama before it became popular.....
161854
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1094

« Reply #186 on: July 16, 2012, 06:51:52 AM »

        Pump and pickup issues are crank counterweight specific except for the rods at the back of the pan. My 408 uses a "lightening" hyd roller block and cast steel RPM crank. No pump mods on a std vol, iron replacement pump. Stock TRW pickup ( not early '69-70 style Ford) for  a front sump application, no extra bracing, no clearance issues at all. The pan I used is a stock depth ("T" shaped sump) from a 347 I had ( and worked flawlessly) after I cut off the last three inches and mated ( gas welded) a section from a 351W pan for the larger rear seal. I did a little "body work" while welding and have no rod to pan issues and a very inexpensive oil pan/pickup that performs well and doesn't leak after numerous dyno pulls. A 3.850 stroke will gain you .075 more clearance and will help. Rod type and bolt head length will play a part too as far as clearance. I used K1 rods on my build and they are not the typical chinese import dimensionally. Not for everyone , but it works for me.
       Randy
Logged
numbers/turtle 2  , just don't call me late for dinner
Kazoom
Guest
« Reply #187 on: July 17, 2012, 09:27:35 PM »

Thanks for the info guys, I bought a scott drake T pan and just want to find a windage tray to go with it for this block.

http://www.drakeautomotivegroup.com/Store/Product/C9ZZ-6675-ALUM.aspx?wid=141

I will be taking all my stuff into the machinist when the block gets here but just wondering about bearings. I have a few old 3.850 scat stroker kits I picked up a while back ment for the 351C block with bearings, would you guys know by chance if I can use the C main bearings in this new block?. Was also thinking if I should upgrade the 8740? rod bolts in these scat rods, anyone remember how much hp these bolts are ok for?.
Logged
Kazoom
Guest
« Reply #188 on: August 02, 2012, 05:32:07 PM »

Hi, did a plug-dowel kit come with your block?, I got nothing with this one. Parts guy here dont know nothing about it.

Logged
R.Olds
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1584

« Reply #189 on: August 02, 2012, 08:51:21 PM »

Yes, my Boss block came with all the AN plugs and NPT plugs
Logged
I was Anti Obama before it became popular.....
Kazoom
Guest
« Reply #190 on: August 02, 2012, 10:51:19 PM »

I will call the manager in the morning, thanks.

anyway block is a nice part. :punk:
Logged
Kazoom
Guest
« Reply #191 on: October 24, 2012, 08:27:26 AM »

I just wanted to double check... so you did not need to do any clearancing under the bores of the W block for the 6" rods with a 4" crank???... like needs doing on a cleveland block with a 4" crank and 6" rods?.

351C block with 4" scat crank/6" rods.
Logged
161854
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1094

« Reply #192 on: October 25, 2012, 09:56:23 AM »

     Kazoom,
         I only had to clearance when I used a 6.125 in a C block. Never needed on a 6" rodded 4" crank C block that I built.   Blocks and rods DO vary.
Logged
numbers/turtle 2  , just don't call me late for dinner
Kazoom
Guest
« Reply #193 on: October 26, 2012, 09:05:32 AM »

I have heard a few times some guys having to do bore clearancing on a C block so I just got to wondering with the W blocks shorter? water jacket if this kind of bore clearancing is even ever really nessassary?. Was just looking at 4.100"- 4.250" cranks and I guess I'm just wondering now about the + and - 'es of the W crank case vs the C crank case.
Logged
161854
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1094

« Reply #194 on: October 26, 2012, 04:48:22 PM »

     My 408W used an rpm (cheap cast steel) crank and K1 rods. No grinding at all. BUT not all rods have the same bolt spread and head length on the bolt.
         Randy
Logged
numbers/turtle 2  , just don't call me late for dinner
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 Print 
« previous next »
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 RC5 | SMF © 2006–2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!