New block, a further discussion

[corvette8n]

Cool discussion, I started the Edelbrock thread, because if we ever run out of rebuildable flathead blocks, I am hoping some manufacturer will step up to the plate so we can continue this hobby.

[itslow]

Originally Posted by louisb

Ther are metal 3D printers now. Might be an option.

They are not large enough to produce something as large as a flathead block in a single piece.

3D "printing" is great in theory, but not really practical for an application such as this as of yet.

[Ol' Ron]

Well if the first thing your gona do is improve the ports. I sugest you get a good flow bench, abunch of grinders,and allot of Bondo. Also remember the cylinder head is also part of the porting system (transfer area) and last but not least the shape of the valve. And the rules are: All stock Ford parts must fit. Now go for it. Here's a hint: remve the water arount the intake ports, but not the exhaust.

[Fordors]

Originally Posted by Henry Floored

A little of both actually. I have a couple sacrificial blocks. I would like to tilt the intake valve towards the cylinder wall margin. This alone will force the intake port to "stretch" a little. I then would like create a gently curved intake port with no air damn in the valve pocket and a much kinder short side radius.

Just wondering, how much would you like to see the intake valve angle changed? What would be done to compensate for the out of parallel between the deck and the valve seat, would a "mini-relief" so to speak, be required? What else would need to be corrected/changed?

[JM 35 Sedan]

While reviewing some of my old picture taken at the 2011 EFV-8C/A's Auburn, IN Meet, I came across this picture of Mark Kirby's 34 coupe test vehicle that had a running sample of one of his prototype "new block" engines installed. Seems to me he said he had somewhere between 40-60k miles on this engine at that time.

stay tuned....I thought this picture was filed in my tablet, but it must be in my computer files. Will add it to this post later today

[Tim Ayers]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Since this will be a from scratch build, would it be possible to make it so the transfer area and head can be shaped like the Harley KR (I think that is the model) flatheads? If I recall correctly, they were designed by Sir Ricardo and are an excellent design.

If I remember what 'Ol Ron said, the reason it can't be done know is due to stud location. This change would of course necessitate new heads to be cast as well.

[tubman]

Originally Posted by Tim Ayers

Since this will be a from scratch build, would it be possible to make it so the transfer area and head can be shaped like the Harley KR (I think that is the model) flatheads? If I recall correctly, they were designed by Sir Ricardo and are an excellent design.

If I remember what 'Ol Ron said, the reason it can't be done know is due to stud location. This change would of course necessitate new heads to be cast as well.

And there's the rub; costs go up by another large chunk and you lose the nostalgia factor all in one fell swoop.

[Tim Ayers]

Originally Posted by tubman

And there's the rub; costs go up by another large chunk and you lose the nostalgia factor all in one fell swoop.

Well, if the ultimate goal is more h.p., why not make it the best it can be? From what I understand, it would just require re-locating some of the head bolt locations.

If done well, the average on looker wouldn't notice re-located bolt locations.

From the reading I've done, that Harley combustion chamber shape is the best you can get in a flathead design.

[rotorwrench]

The old Harley 45, 55, & 61 CID type flathead motors are air cooled with no water ports to worry about and the intake & exhaust ports are way different. The KR type profile looks good on paper but the flow characteristics wouldn't help much in a Ford flathead V8 due to the ports.

[Ol' Ron]

Granetille made some heads with this chamber. I'll post a pic if I can find it. I used the heads on my Bville engine andit sits in a junk yard inCA

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by Fordors

Just wondering, how much would you like to see the intake valve angle changed? What would be done to compensate for the out of parallel between the deck and the valve seat, would a "mini-relief" so to speak, be required? What else would need to be corrected/changed?

Good questions and thank you for asking.

Yes moving the intake valve over towards the cylinder margin would require a minor notch or "relief" since (you're right) the valve head would no longer be parallel with the deck.

Imagine looking up through the cylinder from the bottom and actually being able to see the edge of the valve at or near max lift.

This, I feel would require a lifter bore machined inline with the valve stem. In other words the lifter bores would be staggered from intake to exhaust.

I realize this sounds a little "out of the box" but I don't think it's out of the realm of realistic possibility.

[Henry Floored]

Of course I think any new "service" block should take advantage of the biggest practical bore diameter possible. I think 3 5/16" is a no brainier and 3 3/8" or even 3 7/16" should be at least looked at.

You see at this point I feel that PTAW cylinder walls would be a great and reasonable way to do this in an otherwise aluminun engine.

This process is relatively cheap and very well perfected. Ford Motor Company used this process in production on their 5.8 liter Trinity engine that was built to produce over 600 hp.

The Modular platform that the "Trinity" is based on are very limited in bore spacing. Thus it is tough to get a bigger bore by conventional means i.e. a steel sleeve. The PTAW process leaves a very durable surface on the cylinder wall and it's only a few thousands thick.

They did not have to overbore the block in order to accommodate a thicker walled sleeve in this aluminun in block.

If you doubt the process I suggest you read up on it. Engine rebuilding companies are beginning to use this process to refinish worn engines to original bore specs.

[Ol' Ron]

I thought we were building a replacement block. Not a one off racing engine.

[awelker]

I've been following along with this discussion and thought I'd add a few thoughts.

In regards to the need for vintage racers, for the SCTA all non oem production blocks are not allowed. Not even the French blocks. This may change someday but who knows.

If I were to approach this task with sufficient funds I would use the 3D printing process which can directly print sand molds and cores. This would allow you to create test motors without shelling out for casting patterns that may just need to be thrown away. The 3D printed sand patterns are expensive but I feel could be justified to avoid pattern rework.

On the design side I feel you need to keep compatibility with most all components you can. As soon as you stray from the original design you are losing out on some of the demand. Your idea of lowering the intake valve to the bore is the difference between pre war and post war blocks. Starting with the 59 series blocks the valves and lifter bores were rotated up around the cam bore. This moved the valve heads .090" further away from the bore at the deck surface.

Ultimately it all boils down to demand unless you are independently wealthy and have the means to do this just for fun. I consider myself in the younger crowd in the flathead world and being a racer I have the opportunity to ruin my fair share of blocks in the future. That being said I feel I have already squirreled away at least 50% of my lifetime supply of tested, crack free blocks. So even at the right price I don't know if I would ever have the need for one, even though I would love to see this happen.

Andy

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by Ol' Ron

I thought we were building a replacement block. Not a one off racing engine.

No not at all Ron. Just proposing ideas on how to get the very most from the basic architecture.

I feel that it is very important that any and all exterior parts such as intake manifolds and cylinder heads should interchange directly.

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by awelker

I've been following along with this discussion and thought I'd add a few thoughts.

In regards to the need for vintage racers, for the SCTA all non oem production blocks are not allowed. Not even the French blocks. This may change someday but who knows.

If I were to approach this task with sufficient funds I would use the 3D printing process which can directly print sand molds and cores. This would allow you to create test motors without shelling out for casting patterns that may just need to be thrown away. The 3D printed sand patterns are expensive but I feel could be justified to avoid pattern rework.

On the design side I feel you need to keep compatibility with most all components you can. As soon as you stray from the original design you are losing out on some of the demand. Your idea of lowering the intake valve to the bore is the difference between pre war and post war blocks. Starting with the 59 series blocks the valves and lifter bores were rotated up around the cam bore. This moved the valve heads .090" further away from the bore at the deck surface.

Ultimately it all boils down to demand unless you are independently wealthy and have the means to do this just for fun. I consider myself in the younger crowd in the flathead world and being a racer I have the opportunity to ruin my fair share of blocks in the future. That being said I feel I have already squirreled away at least 50% of my lifetime supply of tested, crack free blocks. So even at the right price I don't know if I would ever have the need for one, even though I would love to see this happen.

Andy

Excellent post, thank you for your input Andy.

I would like to ask you if say a new block is never approved for competition in any current vintage engine classes, would there be any reason why a racer couldn't just run this theoretical new engine just to get a "personal" record for instance?

If said engine could simply bolt into the same place as an original Flathead Ford what would prevent someone from running this engine in an "open" class?

[Henry Floored]

BTW, the point that Andy made about the later engines which had the valves moved away from the cylinder margin is very interesting.

I have heard multiple people express how well their early 221" V8's run. My '41 which is stock except for dual exhaust has no trouble keeping pace with later and larger Flatheads. (yes we run 'em for fun sometimes)

Could it be that the 81A breathes a bit better due to the proximity of the valves relative to the cylinder margin?

[awelker]

The SCTA would allow an engine such as this to run for "time only" and not be qualified for any records.

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by awelker

The SCTA would allow an engine such as this to run for "time only" and not be qualified for any records.

I see thank you.

[38 coupe]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lancaster

Oh yes...some good stock looking iron heads done like Denvers, with tightened up chamber volume and decent transfer area! That would be a neat starting point and fundraiser for a block project...

I am not interested in new blocks. I have a couple in the barn myself (a lot of us seem to be the same). However, new cast iron heads with the "Denver" chamber and stock exterior would really get my attention. My personal request is for the 1938 only 24 stud head exterior...