CLEVELAND ENGINE TALK

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

Very interesting note that over looked us all,that engine is a early 400 ,air cleaner has a orange 400 2v sticker which means regular fuel (super),i found this one from america which is a match ,galaxie or grand torino sport,see decal on air cleaner then look picture i found,1970 to 1973 which means early 2v heads .

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

The rare smallblock bolt pattern is D3AE-3 for 1973 but dont be fooled by that big c6 ,some blocks were double drilled for both bolt patterns,heads are D1AE-A, 78.4cc,and DOWN THE HOLE AVERAGE OF 0.069 THOU,i will see if i can find a picture of the small and big block bolt holes together.

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

The rare smallblock bolt pattern is D3AE-3 for 1973 but dont be fooled by that big c6 ,some blocks were double drilled for both bolt patterns,heads are D1AE-A, 78.4cc,and DOWN THE HOLE AVERAGE OF 0.069 THOU,i will see if i can find a picture of the small and big block bolt holes together.

Good write up on clevelands forever about it also says towards end of 73 most were put in mercury or galaxies so getting interesting

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

more research has led to forgetting about putting a 400 in a xf ,the right hand rocker cover hits the brake booster as its bigger than xd xe style,and left side hits heater box gear and bulge in firewall,but xa to xe is the go,i even joined another site just to get info on a xa 400 build,but i found out the engine mounts that you need to go on our chassis plates have not been made since 1995,but i was spending hours trolling old stock ford parts and found many that are pretty close to being the correct mounts,no one can remember the part number i need to get an exact match as there is close to 20 types of 400 mounts,i have nailed it down to about 4 types and still doing homework on it.Now this one is real close except one slot is a bit shorter than the other as ours are inline.

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

hey i have an idea just unbolt the uneven bottom piece off that 400 mount and screw the crossy one into it and it should just bolt straight onto crossy mounts yeah ?

[gerg 10,871]

One way to find out.... Maybe some action man fab skills are needed to make it all work

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

gregaus is helping out too,he has done a few conversions.

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

ok i found more chunky info on this 400 engine,when the first 400s hit the market they were leaded and had 10.2.1 comp with flat top pistons and 76 cc 2v heads,then ford didnt do there homework and had problems with detonation,so the next 400s up to late 1973 had a 8cc dish piston and 78.4cc 2v heads which gave 9.2.1 comp still using leaded fuel,but the next generation of 400s  these engines started to get the bad reputation ,unleaded fuel with very low octane saw pinging and all the rest and by 1975 even bigger dish pistons were fitted and cam timing was retarded ,and it gets worse late 70,s to 82 saw a piston with 38cc dish with 7.2.1 comp,so this engine i am buying is in the high comp era and i would say its the 72 or 73 red sticker leaded engine at 9.2.1,quite rare in australia and maybe now well worth having a go at it for a future project,also there is 3 types of 400 castings ,avoid MICHIGAN castings as they are prone to crack in the lifter valley area,then there is the DEARBORN CASTINGS which could be a lucky dip but later ones the castings were fixed,but the one that is considerd the go is the CLEVELAND CF foundry blocks as all have a good reputation,i think the one im buying is a CF  as most early 400s were cast there.

[gerg 10,871]

They probably could have solved it all with a well thought out closed chamber along with a carefully dished piston to promote swirl (open chambers suffer from stagnant pockets and hot spots). They should also have pushed for further development of water injection. I like the idea myself... Water is pretty much free.

I know the first unleaded fuels were rubbish, including when they later introduced them here (Holden didn't even bother trying to get their own 6s to run on it). I think we started with 87 octane or something horrible like that.

Yet still, the 70s engineering approach to the problem of detonation was a case of diminishing returns... Keep decreasing compression to get around the fact that they used an inferior open chamber to decrease comp in the first place. They were really chasing their tails on that one.

I laugh when people talk about the 400 as if it's a dog of an engine, a boat anchor, etc. The only reason that they didn't produce decent HP is they came along just as the muscle car era was fading, and rode the smog era until 82 when that class of engine was no longer needed. Look at any other engine built in that time and you will find equally dismal performance. They're capable of great numbers if built up like any other donk.

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

[Boingk 862]

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

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

only thing im worried about is those std 8cc pistons are obsolete so hoping the std ones are ok or im in the shit,only choice is the $700 temeyer flat tops or late grand canyon ones,when i pop the heads off the cat will be out of the bag and lets hope it hasnt been rebuilt b4 .

[Boingk 862]

Call me crazy but these things (if its the actual photo) wouldn't be anywhere near a 38cc dish.

 

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1977-1982-Ford-Truck-Van-SUV-400-6-6L-OHV-V8-DISH-TOP-PISTONS-MOLY-RINGS/282616362975?hash=item41cd3f77df:g:zpAAAOSw5dNWqRyQ

 

Might be worth messaging the seller and seeing what the specs or part numbers are.

[gerg 10,871]

Bingo gerg, stroked Clevo, whats not to like?
 
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.

Throw some 302C heads at 58cc onto it, everything else the same, and you're looking at 10.4 to 1.

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

On a closed chamber, the quench area relies on a relatively tight piston-to-head clearance in order to get a decent quench or "squish" action. The accepted ideal clearance for quench just so happens to be the thickness of a standard head gasket (around 0.040"), so that's why zero-deck is often what they aim for.

Some hypertuners like to go even tighter by either using thinner MLS head gaskets or by going above deck, but the closer you get, the more you run into piston contact issues with valves and the head itself (at high rpm).

The reason why I describe that combo as an open chamber (despite the 302 heads) is that once you start going away from that 0.040" clearance, it acts less like a closed chamber. 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.

So in that scenario, you add 0.040" of head gasket to a piston 0.065" down the hole, and you're at 0.105" quench clearance, way outside the point at which any quench action would occur. It's effectively an open chamber with the valve shrouding issue of the 302 closed chamber casting.

Just on that subject... without back-to-back data, it's hard to compare them directly but different flow figures I have seen over the years tells me that there is a good 20 CFM difference between open and closed 2Vs (200 vs 180 respectively), largely due to said shrouding effect.

I feel that (depending on what cam is used), keeping an open chamber below 10:1 is a good move. Build it as a closed chamber (all else being equal) and you could get away with 11:1. My little 302 is running around 10:1, runs 94 E10 and still has shitloads of timing dialled in (mid 30s under load) Granted, it's a long-rod motor with lots of TDC dwell (less sensitive to knocking), but I believe it's the closed chamber effect that allows it to run as such.

Anyway, all this is to basically say that open chambers don't care about zero deck, how much dish, etc just keep the comp reasonable if going this way. Unless you have a dedicated set of pistons that will work with closed chamber heads and get the target comp you're after, I'd build it as an open chamber and go from there.



Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

well spotted ,thats the place i was gunna buy the master rebuild kit from,those pistons are probly spot on,but you can see by the casting they are the cheap made in india ones but ok for a std rebuild i guess,i will message them and see what cc they are,or maybe they can make me a kit to suit the actual year of the engine,but i do not like the std factory timing chain kit as its proberly retarded,some where ,some were not.

[gerg 10,871]

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

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

i have heard kieth black do a 400 piston or it could be the temeyer one,just swapping deck chairs on the titanic,by the time i buy a set of good 2v closed and get them all done it will cost as much as the temeyer piston set so ummm ?

[gerg 10,871]

i have heard kieth black do a 400 piston or it could be the temeyer one,just swapping deck chairs on the titanic,by the time i buy a set of good 2v closed and get them all done it will cost as much as the temeyer piston set so ummm ?

Probably should check the condition of the heads on it first.... If they need doing, you're in the same boat anyway.

I couldn't see anything on that page about them being 38cc, maybe that's adding the below deck clearance of those rebuilder pistons into the equation?

I reckon you can't go wrong on the T Meyer pistons as they've done the homework for you. Those other stock replacement ones are a good price but they've left out a lot of useful info, including what brand you'll be getting (could be this, that or the other). T Meyer specialise in 400s so they will know what works.

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

on the t meyer page it says fitting their pistons will give near zero deck on a factory block that has not been machined  so i guess just a slight skim of the block surface,some interesting gear on there web site,like the track boss blocks

[Boingk 862]

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 10,871]

Yeah that seems like a very reasonable approach if you are to go with 302 heads. One thing with the 400 is that despite its similarities with the Clevo, it has a limited amount of go-fast parts available, so you're forced to work with what you've got. The point I was trying to make is to not expect it to behave like a closed chamber motor even if you go bolting the 302 heads on.

I would personally stretch my budget for the right pistons rather than work with an unknown just to save $. I have been down that path and have learnt for myself what the saying "the poor man pays twice" really means. Chestnut was worried about the 400 smog heads having that bump in the exhaust but I think that would give minimal restriction. If it was a choke point, it's not hard to smooth it off.

I also reckon, from pics I've seen of the ports on US 2Vs vs my own set of 302s, that the bowl area is better finished on theirs. Mine had horrible ridges around the throat and a really shitty short turn. I did a very basic port job on mine and I reckon 10% would be a conservative guess for a flow increase.

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

the smog port didnt start until later unleaded 400s,this one has std 2vs but larger chamber 78cc id say.at that stage of the conversation i did not relize it was a early 400

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

UPDATE,i meesaged grumpys performance in usa and they only provide the big dish pistons in all of their rebuild kits,also the timing set is a single chain that looks like a plastic cam gear like the ones factory clevos used,they did not no if it was the retarded set or not,but still a good price at just under 700 landed ,i added up same parts here and would be close to 1000,but choosing a quality double roller chain and better parts.

[gerg 10,871]

Forget that OEM replacement rubbish, do it once, do it right.

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

[FORD_MAN 1,026]

The T Meyer pistons are Keith Black/KB "Claimer" pistons. 1.710" pin height, 0.975" pin, 13.3cc. TMEYER catalog lists them as TMI/KB2347

searching KB site found silv-o-lite 3327H is a Ford (AUS) 250/4.1 flat top 1.530"pin height, 3328H is dished 8CC

google search also came up with another KB piston that apparently suits is KB2334 flat top, 1.720" pin height,

also found flat top forged 4032 pistons, 1.700" $578US,

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/FORD-400-400M-MODIFIED-FORGED-FLAT-TOP-HIGH-COMPRESSION-PISTONS-/253088573838

 

[CHESTNUTXE 7,299]

thanks for that if i had unlimited budget i would buy those tmeyer ones but i want to check the factory high comp ones that are in it already ,and if the bore is ok and no piston movement,a good chance its ok cause it was sitting in a warehouse for 17 years that we know of,and its all there nothing missing,rags put in every open place,hell i reckon it would fire up,but i cant get to it until he re opens after time off for holidays,im also hoping my engine stand wont fold ,i have had a couple of clevos on it b4 with iron intakes n all,so it should hold ,i think it says 400kg .