Jump to content

Boingk

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    594

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Posts posted by Boingk

  1. Posted

    Looking good mate, and yeah always punt them down into the block when you can. The mushroomed edges (even on a microscopic level) will mar the lifter bores.

     

    I use old pushrods and a plastic mallet, seems to do the trick pretty well.

     

     - boingk

    Thom, bear351c, gerg and 1 other reacted to this

  4. Posted

    Nice mate, very cool! Love the renewed stickers and decas available now. I was only watching a Hagerty rebuild on youtube the otherday and he was putting a repro 'Thriftpower' decal on an old Chev 6cyl motor.

    CHESTNUTXE reacted to this

  6. Posted

    Yeah don't mess with a trainwreck mate, it might be a good shed or historically accurate reco piece but I wouldn't try chucking it on an engine.

     

    Get a used 600 core and put a kit through it for the vacuum diaphragm, accel pump, seats, o-rings and bowl gaskets. Squirt the rest out with carb cleaner and compressed air. You'll be into it for about $200.

    gerg reacted to this

  8. Posted

    Just jam a $600 nitrous kit onto her and go to the track, she'll be right!

     

    In all seriousness, the Motortrend 'Engine Masters' segment did a good shootout for the Performer RPM, Weiand and Procomp high-rise dual plane manifolds. The RPM and Weiand traded blows with about 1hp between them, and the Procomp was about 10hp down... mind you it was on a 450hp engine so probably fine under 400hp or so.

     

    For $280 shipped the Procomp listing looks like a steal.

     

    https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Ford-SB-260-289-302-Windsor-Eliminator-Intake-Manifold-Satin/372403843878?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

    CHESTNUTXE reacted to this

  9. Posted

    Ah, right you are. Probably won't matter to much in that case. If you're super anal about it you could trim them but if the main overlap is in the head to manifold water passage you should be fine from both a leak and performance point of view.

     

    Mind you if you've got the correct ones coming in I'd wait for them. Hell, you paid for them right? Unless you want to do an intake swap in the future, then use the current ones and stash the proper set.

    CHESTNUTXE reacted to this

  10. Posted

    I'd go the ones in the top picture, the ones that clear the ports a bit all around, looks like they fit better especially around the coolant passage. I haven't dealt with wet manifolds before but presume you want a pretty good seal there to save leaks and stuffing around later.

    CHESTNUTXE reacted to this

  11. Posted

    As for firing order I believe there was a concern that the frontmost cam bearing was copping too much of a flogging, what with the chain and firing order and all. So they changed it to the 351 order with the next major redesign and that was that.

    gerg and CHESTNUTXE reacted to this

  12. Posted

    Nice one mate, an original carb would be worth running on it even just for simplicity sake. I wouldn't use a 350 Holley as they are really only a 250cfm job by 4bbl rating standards, and the 500 is a 375cfm by that measure. Check for yourself and you'll see the 500 has the same venturi diameter as a 750cfm 4bbl.

     

    I've used 350's on Ford 250's and Chrysler 245's and they don't work too well there, needing substantial rejetting and tweaking. If you can get a 500 go for that, otherwise a 4bbl with an adaptor would be better than a Holley 350.

     

     - boingk

    gerg and CHESTNUTXE reacted to this

  16. Posted

    Cast don't work with P heads to my knowledge mate, the plugs have dramas with them. Factory headers or modifying tube steel aftermarket is the best bet. Factory headers for the AU sucked though, spindly buggers designed out of the US to cope with about 220hp from the Mustang GT. We need a tad more for our application. I'm looking for a 'clipster' style header that may work with modificiation.

     

    For the dizzy I've been able to find this:

     

    ***

    "It turns out that, no matter what the guy at the Ford parts counter and the kid at Schucks tell you, 302 and 351W distributors are NOT interchangeable, and the diameter of the distributor shaft in the 5.0 H.O. varies -- the 1987 and up 5.0, and 351W, shafts are .51" diameter, and the pre-1987 5.0 and 302 shafts are .49" diameter. The later dizzys will NOT fit the earlier blocks. Period.

    Plus, the diameter of the hex driver for the oil pump varies from year to year, as well. Because of the sump location in the 1978 pan -- I had to use the '78 oil pan because of tranny clearance issues in my Mustang II -- I had to use the 1978 oil pump, which uses a 1/4" drive shaft, not the 5/16" shaft on the 1987-up blocks. Mallory et al do not appear to make a small-shaft 5.0 distributor; much less one that fits the 1/4" oil pump driver. At least, not that I'm aware of."

    ***

     

    So earlier shafts are smaller, later ones are larger, and the oil drives are slightly different. But if looks like for our application all that should be the same.

     

    Again, I don't see why we can't simply stab a dizzy in. Why would they change the block, from a financial mega-corp 'cent save is dollars earned' point of view, when they have to make a new part anyway and can simply design it to suit to existing block?

     

    I think the biggest issue we have is the steel gear - make sure you have the right gear for the (hyd roller) cam, as per usual.

    CHESTNUTXE reacted to this

  18. Posted

    2 minutes ago, CHESTNUTXE said:

    will a dizzy even fit or is it the same as e series ?


    I don't see why not mate, mic the stab hole and check the hold-down. I think they're the same from memory but may be wrong.

    CHESTNUTXE reacted to this

  20. Posted

    2 hours ago, gerg said:

    It says comp ratio 7.9:1.... Is that really what you're after?

     

    Yeah thats why you need the specs. Without a listing for a direct part number, or failing that a compresison height and head volume, you can't tell jack.

     

    Often these things are a generic listing for 'part X' that will work with most combinations no matter the year - take the $200 piston set in my crossflow for example. Its designed for a stock mid 60's non-crossflow motor but because of the compression height and mild dish it works a treat. I think it was advertised as a "9.0:1" piston but in my combo it's more like 11:1.

     

    2 hours ago, gerg said:

    One problem with such an arrangement is that 10.7 is a lot for an open chamber. Let me explain that....

    <SNIP>

    Once you start going over 0.060", the quench action is pretty much negligible, so you then treat it as an open chamber, with all of the disadvantages that come with that.

     

     

    Fair enough. Still, I'd be tempted to run it anyway. Like I said, I've done it on the 351C and had no dramas at all running around on Caltex 95. Its cheap compression and had plenty of performance for what it was. I think I was into the whole combo for about $1000, being for 302C heads & tanking/machining, gaskets, lifters & cam, intake and ignition. One thing I did need to do, though, was set the timing so it only ran to 32' total timing. Any more it pinged when hot.

     

    For the 400 a 10.4 ratio is a 'best case scanario' with 8cc pistons and 65 deck. If the piston is actually 80 down the hole then you're at 10:1. If the pistons aren't 8cc items then you're lower again. I'd go with the smallest volume head you can and go from there - it just opens up a lot more choice with the other components.

    gerg and CHESTNUTXE reacted to this

  22. Posted

    Bingo gerg, stroked Clevo, whats not to like?

     

    Sounds like a decent score there with the block year ChestnutXE, a shave of each surface and you'll be over the magic 9.5 number, or alternatively see what 302C heads would do to her.

     

    Screw it, saved you the time. With a 4" stroke and bore, pistons .065" down the block, .040" gasket, 78cc chamber and an 8cc dish you're looking at a stock compression of 8.65 to 1, which is about a factory "9.2" I suppose. Hell, look at what Chrysler 318's were rated at and what they delivered...

     

    Throw some 302C heads at 58cc onto it, everything else the same, and you're looking at 10.4 to 1. Much nicer, and you'd be getting the most out of the E-907-P I mentioned - my motor in the clip was about 10.7 to 1.

     

     - boingk

    gerg and CHESTNUTXE reacted to this
×