Lonesome Ford Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 A ford can outrun a crate. It just takes more time, research and money. Maybe we could compare notes sometime Colt, I'd like for my 302 to be able outrun a 350. Good run in SA man, you were flyin'! txtom: When I started racing in 95, I ran a Ford Torino. I was running against Monte Carlos, Novas & Buick Regals. Going by the rulebook at the time, we chose to run a 351 Cleveland in hopes to make the power that the 350s were making. We had power, but it was in a big ole' boat & about 55 lbs. heavier in the front end. It was fun to run up front with those guys but the car never was as good as the others handling-wise. Torque was a different issue though, we had plenty but it took a couple of laps to get the 'ole thing wound up. As far as the new rule w/ the Sportsman class & allowing the ford combination & body on a 108" chevy chassis goes, I think it is a good idea & a step in the right direction. BUT it will still take some crazy ford lovin' folks to put a car together and there just aren't that many people willing to do so. JMO. I for one would love to see more Fords & Chryslers in all of the classes in Texas. A good person to ask about Dodge would be Audie Howell. He has been the "Dodge guy" for years at SAS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtom Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 John JR, I was wondering about your 351C. Did you have to do anything to get it to oil properly? If I remember correctly, that one oils from the top down, and getting the proper amount to the bearings was always an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jracer98 Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Tom, In a previous life, I drove Ford drag race cars and built a few engines along the way. I remember the problem as the lifter galleys also feed the mains. There were two common solutions. One was to bush the lifter bores and reduce the oiling hole. Another way to accomplish the same sort of thing was to tap and use screw in restrictors in the internal passages. (conceptually like restricting the flow on the back of the galleys in the sbc). The second was to use an external oil line from the filter pad (galley hole plug) up to the oil sending unit port. Some did both but I also seem to remember that you couldn't get a juice cam to work with the restrictors. Don't take any of this as gospel with getting an up to date Ford wrenchs opinion...just working from memory . Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtom Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 The second was to use an external oil line from the filter pad (galley hole plug) up to the oil sending unit port. Also called side-oiler, such as the 427? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jracer98 Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Oh so you're gonna make me work ! 427 had cross bolted mains. The sideoiler was internally machined in the block and was all about "mains first" as opposed to the fe's like 428 cj that was cam then down to mains. The 427 was a completely different bore and stroke from the 428. It is a stand alone...although I believe it's the same block as the sohc 427 cammer. What's next? 427 tunnel port heads, LOL. Have a happy new year. Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Is there any way to make the ford motors lighter? Like maybe alum.heads..or would that give them to much of a performance break? I know those heads would cost more but would they get the weight down enough to be closer to the SBC? Also, if the GM chassis was NOT used, what car could be used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtom Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 The 427 was a completely different bore and stroke from the 428. Now, I seem to remember you could put a 428 crank in a 427 block, with a set of chevy pistons, and get a stroker motor about 454 inches. The 428 stroke is .200 longer. Also something about you don't want to bore a 427 past about .030 due to wall thickness. And you are correct, the 427 and SOHC blocks are the same, with two differences. On the SOHC, a cast boss and drilled passage through the water jacket at the rear of the block drain oil from the cylinder heads. An accessory driveshaft is used in place of the normal camshaft, and only bearing locations #1 and #2 were used for this drive. The remaining three locations were fitted with steel bushings to seal off the lubrication system and provide oil passages to the overhead valve train. Dang, we've talked more about Fords in this thread than most all the others combined! Let's keep it going! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Tom We used oil restrictors at jracer98 mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 txtom Im learning alot about Fords. Its interesting I must admit. Besides the weight and oiling problems what else keeps these motors from showing up at the round tracks. I see all kinds of fords (new and old) going in a straight line. John Hamiltom and John Hart use to run Fords at Alamo and they kicked butt all the time. So I know there are people out there that can make a lot of HP out of them. I must sound like a broken record but I still dont understand why we dont see at least one or two of them at SAS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtom Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 PAPA, Think it is mostly a lack of good Ford Chassis to put the engines in. You might see some if they are letting the engines in a GM chassis, but you still have to contend with higher component cost, and a higher block weight. Also, the 351 Cleveland stuff is getting downright scarce, and that engine doesn't interchange with very much out there, I think a few things from the 351M and 400 series. I would think that anyone trying a Ford would be running something based off the 351 Windsor, but you will still have the weight and cost issues listed above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jracer98 Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 The 427 was a completely different bore and stroke from the 428. Now, I seem to remember you could put a 428 crank in a 427 block, with a set of chevy pistons, and get a stroker motor about 454 inches. The 428 stroke is .200 longer. Also something about you don't want to bore a 427 past about .030 due to wall thickness. Oh, I see how it is...it's a test! The 427 bore and stroke are just a few thousands difference from the classic GM 427's 4.25x 3.76 . A gm 454 is 4.25x 4.0 so it would take a "minor" oversize to get to the gm 4.25 piston to net 454 with a 428 crank ...I'm a little pressed on time so I can't speak to the piston's pin heights relative to the rod length and the deck height to see if how that would all need to work out at that stroke. I'll get it done as an exercise but I have to fly now. I am unsure if there was a 428 forged oem crank so you might trade down there but with the size and weight of those parts slinging around, you don't have any real business really spinning it up. What kind of a grade does it take to pass this course? Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jracer98 Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 btw papa, I apologize for hijacking your thread. Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtom Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 I am unsure if there was a 428 forged oem crank so you might trade down there but with the size and weight of those parts slinging around, you don't have any real business really spinning it up. True, only cast 428 cranks from Ford, but, like you said, you ain't turning it tight anyway. Probably made a good hauler motor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 jracer98 You didnt hijack anything. This is all good and it just might get some more Ford guys on here and maybe...just maybe....at the end we can get one of these thing out on the track. I really enjoy this. And who knows...I just might learn something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwracingmom Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Slick Yoemans won in a Ford lots of times. He even won championship in a Ford. Steve Rogers ran a Ford at Longhorn and THR in Street Stock. Come on now speak up ....................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thumper Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 I have run a Ford engine in my modified since 1995,after removing the 4 cyl engine.The problem I had was finding good heads.The Cleavland engine was a performance engine but was too heavy for modifieds.The 302 was gutless for torque and the 351 had 3" mains and 100#s more than a Chevy.With the same little heads as a 302.It was a slow rever.I found the best affordable engine was a Mexican 302 block with a 347 stroker kit and early 351 heads,69-73.It was a high rever with good torque on methanol.It was as good as any 350 Chev.Unfortunantly,the hot dogs were running 406s with aluminum heads.The Ford engine was illegal for many classes because it was a stroker.No problem with oiling,restrictors,hi volume pump and a 9 quart pan solved that.Heads are really scarce now,you need aftermarket heads,illegal in most rulebooks.You can make a good Ford engine for classes where very little stock parts are used.And the price is getting better.You just cant make a good oval track engine with a stock Winsor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Without refering to the rule book, could someone build a Ford that is competive with the Chevys without spending a whole lot more than the Chevys? The reason I ask is: What if the tracks allowed the Ford and Mopar guys some serious consessions to make them competive with the Chevys. If after a reasonable time they find that the Fords and/or Mopars have a overwelming advantage they could throw some weight at them. I going to drive everyone crazy with this thread. Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 NO WAY PAPA! I'm loving this! Finally some Ford / Chrysler talk goin' on around here. Honestly, if the Ford guys ( the few that there are) were allowed to run a 347 (302 block w/ 5.4" rod) you'd see new "John Kellys" & "Slick Yoemens" and more Fords at the races. The best OEM head for the Fords (that I know of) is the GT-40P head which is a Ford explorer head. The 347 engine combination is a good one, and can be built for under $4k for say a Sportsman or Truck engine. Man, I'm starting to get anxious...... I need a rulebook stat! rwracingmom - Indeed! Slick Yoemans & my dad both won a ton of races in Fords. But, sometime in the early 90s most of the latemodel rulebooks started allowing a wider choice of aftermarket heads for the chevys & made the Fords & Chryslers run either a stock production head or 1 particular aftermarket head. My dad for one always had good power; maybe not as much as the Chevy guys, but he made up for it w/ a better handling chassis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supertx Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 We ran a dodge with HE Naumann a few yrs ago at THR ran second in points almost won the championship alittle bad luck keep us from it.It was expensive engine to build.Yes there oiling system is bad I converted it to a chevy system and this was no little chore[remembering this maybe crate engines are the way to go ] But a Mopar can be made to run with chevys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHigdon Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 The reason I see many more Chevys being run then fords or chryslers seems to have a lot more to do with chassis then motor. By far the most popular motor at the drag strip is the 302, I have a hard time believing that a good ford 302 couldnt be built if the rules where right. On the same note, there are factory heads for the chrysler 360 that are better then almost anything chevy offered. But the suspension on the cars is the big difference. Fox body cars (Fairmonts and late 70's - 2004 mustangs) seem like the most obvious ford choice, but they have struts, which are difficult to tune like you can a shock and spring, and the biggest engine they where ever offered with was the 302 or later on the 4.6L mod motor, both at huge cubic disadvantages to the 350 unless the rules are written well. Chrysler on the other hand has had nothing like the Mustang or Camaro since the last cuda was made, and I dont think a lot of those will be getting cut up anytime soon. As far as a bigger car goes, I really dont know why more people havent used the diplomats, are they torsion bar cars? As far as most people are concerned, a torsion bar car is a pretty poor chocie for anything but going in a straight line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 supertx What chassis? And do you think we can get the Mopars back on the track? Do you know of anyone else thats into Mopars? Did you have any other problems besides the oiling issue? What about the weight of the motor? Did it pose a problem? Thanks for any info you can shed on this subject. I need all the info I can get. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REBELRACER Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 didn't jim blevins used to race a granada at one time and do fairly decent with it............would a grenada work with the current wheel base requirements? david martin also raced a torino in the sportsman class before he bought the camaro and before he sold it he did fair with it...........it was a heavy car but once he put it on a diet it was decent..........could you run a ford 351 in a camaro or nova in the sportsman class, because mission builds a pretty fast ford engine......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNC93 Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 We have looked at a Ford Sportman car since they opened up the chassis rules a few years back. It comes down to $$$ and sense. Sense being that there won't be many parts to borrow in the pits when your distributor or water pump take a dump. Last season I had the a 89 Thunderbird body ready to install on my Camaro chassis, but after talking with some knowledgable racers and the best Ford machine shop in town, we bowed out! At least we all have Rousch Racing to represent us Ford enthusiasts!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gundogC3 Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Donnie Moore used to have some fast a.. Ford's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Definitive Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 lol...I remember that yellow mustang...Fastest Chicken in Texas....but somebody told me he ran a chevy powerplant...does anyone know for sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.