Lonesome Ford Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 PAPA - I would think having around same valve size would make things more equal. I may be thinking too simplisticly, but it makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Papa, As stated before, I'm no expert on high performance motors, Fords or otherwise, but I do know a little about them from past research and practical knowledge and experience. If any of you out there can add to this, please feel free to do so. The Ford Windsor engine (named for its origin of manufacture), a Ford engine plant in Windsor, Ontario, Canada was developed in the early 1960's. Of note was its small size (small block), thin wall casting technique. It first appeared I believe in its 221 ci configuration in the 1962 Ford Fairlane midsize car. During the years to come it came out in 260 ci, 289 ci, 302 ci and eventually 351 ci displacements. The engine served Ford well for the most part in its passenger cars and light to medium trucks for many years, until they were replaced by the development of the 4.6 and 5.4L modular engines in the mid 1990's. The engine did and does have limitations when it comes to high performance applications. Simply put, the bottom end of the engine was not engineered to meet the rigors of high-performance applications. Of special note here should be the weakest link down there ............. the rod cap bolts. They are notorious for fatigue and eventual failure, sometimes even under only moderate street usage. I'm sure there are some 5.0 Litre enthusiests out there who would beg to differ with me, and thats ok, if they want to come on here. Ford recoginized the problems inherent in the windsors and sought to come up with a solution. They wanted something to compete with and/or beat the chevy small block. With that in mind, they developed the Cleveland engine in the late 60's. (Again, its name is derived from its origin of manufacture, a Ford plant in Cleveland, Ohio.) The Cleveland was produced in 302, 302Boss, 351 and 351Boss configurations. They indeed were VERY competitive with the Chevy small blocks. They first appeared in 1969 model ford vehicles in their various configurations. They were a great success, but for only a few years. Then, in 1973 came the double-whamy to the American Auto industry. First, there was the Arab oil embargo and second, new strengent EPA emission requirements. The Cleveland did not fair well. It was never meant to be an econmical engine to operate. And, Ford had difficulty meeting the new emission standards with the engine. For a time they produced low performance versions of it in the 351M and 400M configurations, before they quit producing it all together by the latter 70s. They found the Windsor was much better suited to their needs at that time. The Windsor was much more adaptable to "economy applications" and meeting emission requirements. For the reasons stated above, I would approach subjecting a stock block Windsor to the rigors of circle track racing with much trepidation. My position seems roundly supported by others, as evidenced by the lack of them on any circle track around. Clevelands on the other hand would be great for this, IF you could find one anymore. The only viable alternative currently available that I know of are the Ford Performance Racing Engines, that are based on the original Cleveland design. But, they are VERY expensive compared to the many readily available Chevy small block engines out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 budman Im like you, I dont know much about the Ford motors. Ive learned a lot about them in the last few days. Ive never built a circle track motor of any kind. But I do know that there are people out there that can do amazing things with the Fords. I feel we are very lucky to have a site like TXSZ that give us a forum to discuss this issue. And in time Im sure we will figure out something which will allow the Fords and Mopars to be back on the track in numbers. We have already discovered a few ideas and more will follow Im sure. The $$$ factor is very important. What ever combination is approved has to be affordable to the Sportsman teams. And everything has to be equal to all. Keep posting as much as you can on the subject. Its very very helpful and can only improve racing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1-Crew Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 All of this is anecdotal but from what I have read over the years the Windsor did/does not suffer from bottom end problems or at least nothing that can't be fixed by typical circle track tweaks like ARP bolts, shotpeened/stress relieved rods, etc.. The 351C on the other hand had oiling problems derived from a "top down" oiling scheme that fed the lifter bores first then the main bearings. I believe this was gone over in some detail earlier in the thread. The BOSS 302 was actually a standard Windsor block with Cleveland heads, a configuration that can be engineered still using the 351C, 351M or 400M head (with some machining to add a water port) on an existing Windsor block (affectionately refered to then as a "Clevor" engine). The Cleveland head has huge 2.19" intake valves but is restricted on the exhaust side. The combination leads to poor flow velocity at low speeds and poor exhaust breathing at the high end so in "stock" form, not ideal.. With this in mind, most modern performance applications have relied on the Windsor head or a derivation of the Windsor head (GT-40, Sportsman, etc.) using a Chevy 1.94" intake valve in place of the stock 1.84" and porting to take advantage of the larger valve size. That said, at the end of the day it still comes down to money. The common Generic Motors engine isn't better, it just has a larger market so is cheaper to build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 ya hit the nail on the head 1-Crew. I went through a few Cleveland engines when I ran my Torino, even with a "fix" on the oil issue. I wish I could have had a chance to run the 351W back then, maybe there wouldn't have been as many engine failures. Lets just say I did my part in using up some of the already scarce 351Cs from the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirttrackdemon Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 I raced a 360 Dodge engine in a Barracuda for three years at a 1/2 mile banked clay track. I had no trouble with it at all. I started with a '77 360 block. I had to bore the block .060 so I installed KB hyperutectic pistons, rated at 9 to 1. Great pistons. Next I used full grove tri-metal mains and rod bearings. My cam was a factory Purple Shaft 292/509. This cam makes HP to around 6500 rpm. I used a High pressure Not a High volume oil pump, with a racing 6 qt. oil pan. I painted the inside of the block to allow the oil to flow to the pan better. No modifications were made to the block The heads were the stock big valve early 360/340 head. Stock springs but a 3 angle valve grind. The only modification I made to the heads was to install a small piece of copper tubing in the oil hole that fed the valve train. This kept a lot of the oil in the pan and not in the valve cover where it won't do any good. We had to run cast iron manafolds with at least 42" of exhaust pipe, no mufflers. My intake was a stock 340 square flange cast iron. I used an off-the-shelf quadrajet, with a 1" spacer. I also used an electronic distributor with the light springs. I used a orange spark control unit(Chrysler). 8 mm. wires with one step Cooler spark plug than stock. My trans was a 904 auto. with a Cheetah manual reverse valve body. That trans. held up until I lost all the fluid after a vicious drivers side hit, which knocked the dipdtick out of the trans. Everytime I turned to the left I lost fluid. The rear end was a 8 3/4" stock unit that came in the car. I changed the axle bearings, installed a mini spool and a 5.57 gear. Never lost an axle or anyother rear end problems. The car had a full cage made of 1 3/4", .095 wall. The car had to weigh at least 3400 lbs. My car was heavy at 3560 lbs. That car would pull a chevy coming out of the corners like they were standing still. On my track all the chevy's ran high, because of the coil springs they had to use. Since my car had leaf springs I could run at the bottom of the track. This came in handy during the A feature because of the track being dry slick up top. I still had some moisture at the bottom. As far a the engine I never got hot or lost oil pressure. The gear I used had the engine runing at its upper rpm range. I ran at 5900 rpm all the time with no problems. A lot of chevy's blew up trying to keep their rpm range up. These are just a few thoughts I had on the Circle Track subject. I hope it helps someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rocketdog15 Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 All that I can say is, my dad being a Ford man, planned on us running a Ford body and 351C on one of our Chevrolet chassis last season when SAS put that rule into effect. He started the ball rolling with our Machine shop man. Clay, our machine shop man, thought that this would be a great idea, because the 351C could run longer rods, longer stroke onthe crank, bigger valves, and 1.6 rockers. By the way, the chryslers have that same advantage. But anyway, he set out to find the parts, and was supprised to find the price on the 351C parts. The cheapest he could find a stock bore block, uncut crank, and a set of the four bbl heads, was $2000.00. The worst part was this was just the castings. No rods, pistons, valves,or springs. Just the castings! I dont know if this is the norm, but, He can get me the same for a 350 chevrolet for about $500 to $600. Big difference! Needless to say we built a new 350. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 Let's keep this topic alive! It's good to see more Dodge & Ford peeps posting their experiences good & bad. Thanks guys! Good work PAPA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 OK, I talked to Wayne yesterday about this. He agreed to look into it. He is working on the Truck rules right now as well as a few other things. So it wont be right now. He mentioned that the trucks and sportsman run about the same motor. And this is good. It lets us come up with a few more ideas and discuss them on here. Im composing a letter to email to Ford Performance, Rouch, etc. asking the for help on this matter. Maybe Im going overboard on this but what the heck? I talk to Danny Webb @ Mission about this and he agrees with the 347 idea. He said the 351W has the big mains and therefore wont rev as quick as the 347 and the Chevys. Ive been all over the net looking into the Fords and I must admit....Im starting to like them....ALOT. Is something wrong with me? John Your right! Lets keep this thread going. We can only learn and make racing better. I posted on another site about the Mopars and I want to thank and welcome dirttrackdemom. Thanks for the info. Please stay in touch. Im sure we'll have some questions for ya. And we have a lot of fun on this site. King Nick really is a great guy. Are you still racin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 No PAPA, nothing's wrong with you. Once educated in the dark side (Ford) you must give into temptation and use its' power. LOL ....Sorry, I've been watcing Star Wars again...hehe Well, I still say a 347 engine for the Ford guys would be a step in the right direction. Also, the Dodges would benefit from the 360. I guess that would be the best combination for them ( not knowing much about Mopar). I hope they go forward with both, it should make for even more competetive racing & better shows! It'll get the ole' rivalries going again, man that's what we need! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 How many of you out there would be interested in building one of these cars if the 347 was allowed? How many would concider the Mopar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 PAPA, I have my USRA truck & a Sportsman type car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Oh well, guess I'm rebuilding my 302. I haven't heard anything from anybody about rules. <shrug> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 I wish the Chevy guys would voice their opinion on this. Getting the Fords and Mopars back on the track means more cars with means more peps in the stands with means more $$$. Im begining to think that maybe your SKEERED!! Affraid a Ford or Mopar might beat you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Papa, looks like to me you can go to Wayne with your proposition about the Dodge 360 and the Ford 347 stroker and truthfully say NONE of the chevy guys have voiced any objections to it whatsoever. Go for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonSenseRacing Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 I was bored today so I spent a few hours searching online about stroker engines. I went to the Mopar and Ford forums, reading all I could to see if there was a way to introduce something of use to this discussion. The stroker engines have a lot of good points to them, but when I look at the cost and apply that same cost to a SBC, I feel I’d have a better engine. Just my opinion. Also, I remember breaking a transmission during practice years ago, I didn’t have to go far to find someone with a tranny I could borrow. If I had the same problem with a Mopar, I’d be up sh#ts creek without a paddle. I think it would be pretty cool to see some Fords and Mopars out there, but when you say Ford they add a zero to the price and when you say Mopar they add two zeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLegend96 Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 In my dealings with Ford dealers all day long, day in and day out, I have spoken to a couple of them on the subject of cost. Its a unanamous descicion that the Ford is much more expensive than the Chevy from all aspects. We compared OEM Ford vs OEM Chevy. Chevy wins hands down. He also showed me his costs on multiple Ford aftermarket items as well as Chevy aftermarket items. Chevy wins hands down. FYI...This dealer is the # 1 Ford motorsports dealer in the nation by sheer dollars, wich means that thier price reflect the deepest discounts available from Ford. Now add the higher initial costs of parts to your labor. I feel that there is only a handful of qualified Ford engine builders vs. qualified Chevy engine builders. This creates a premium demand for the ones that have mastered the Ford craft, in adition they can (but dont have too) charge more. Wheather it be in billing more by the hour, job, or billing more hours at the same rate, it just takes more moolah to make a Ford go fast. I also agree with Common, that when you break something it is easy to find replacements. You can also argue that with the 9-1 and the concept engine. I have seen people that ran a concept needing spark plugs and cant find a set but if they had a 9-1 there was 12 sets available right then and there at the track. It is all in specing common parts. They dont have to be the fastest parts available b/c when you dont have a part available it sure brings your average down with a big DNS of DNF in it. Great thread by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REBELRACER Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Its a unanamous descicion that the Ford is much more expensive than the Chevy from all aspects. you get what you pay for, and quality is not cheap.............tehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Thanks for the input guys. This is the kind of discussion we need. Your right about the cost. If I remember right its always been that way but the Fords and Mopars were on the track anyway. And yes it would be very hard to borrow parts. That is until the Ford/Mopar car count gets larger. Its not going to happen overnight. But it WILL happen. As far as builders...well, I dont think there is a problem. Machine work is going to cost the same no matter what the make. The one shop I talked to says labor is labor. They have a reputation of building quaility motors no matter what the make. I would think that there is a lot of you that did. do. and will build your own motors. So labor doesnt effect the cost. I know its a little scary to take on building something that is not the "NORM" but if you look at what is already out there youll see your already taking chances with your money. PLEASE keep this thread going!!! You guys/gals are the true "STOCK CAR" racers in my book. Lets really try to make all this happen. Thanks again! PAPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 My family has built their race engines since the beginning for the most part PAPA, And they've always been Fords. Finding parts at a race can be frustrating if not impossible let me tell ya. It would be nice to have a few fellow Ford guys out there w/ me, but for most going Chevy is too easy to pass up, almost commonplace. Hopefully some changes will come about to where we can have all makes back on the track, in all the series / classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford12 Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 I would pick a 347 over a 351w anyday due to the fact that it will pull more rpms. and make just as good a tork. If your racing a big track like SAS then you need horse power. Of coarse a 351 will make some power but the bottom end with such a longer rod isnt gonna take the abuse and RPMS like a shorter rod in the 347. And besides just like someone already said you can use intakes and other stuff for the 302 on the 347. As far as heads there all the same on the SMB fords you can use the 302 head on 351w just drill the heads bolts hole out to 1/2. Gt 40 p heads off the explorers really arent any better than the stocks heads on the 302. Nothin your gonna notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 ford12 Thanks! Do you have an opinion about the cost compared to Chevys? Do you have any ideas on what might conveince more people to build a Ford? Anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Papa, I've always wondered myself why some of these local ford dealerships wouldn't put up a little sponsorship money to get someone to run a ford at the local tracks. Are they really that tight fisted? I remember back when Donnie Wilson won the Romco championship in that T-Bird that he should be able to go out and get at least a little from one of these dealerships. Never got the chance to talk to him about it though. Don't know if he ever tried. Speaking of Donnie, that's somebody Terry D. ought to try to get back to racing down here. Those "sooners" were some really nice folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 I'm not feeling too good about the Fords & Dodges getting help in the engine department in the truck series this year. I dunno, just don't think it will happen. I'm spending my money on wheels & tires now anyhow....hehe go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RandyBorlace Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 you know Jr, I think that truck of yours would make one real good LLM on dirt lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.