Engine Combos

MikeD · 05-28-07, 02:24 AM

I'm considering one of three different combinations and would like to get some feedback as to which would be a better choice:

a)302/347 w/ TFS Twisted Wedge heads and TWM injection
-the simplelest and safest bet. I have read however that these heads may have some valvetrain geometry issues. Don't know how accurate this is as they seem to be quite popular......

b)302/347 w/ AFD or CHI Cleveland heads and TWM injection and custom intake
-would require some fabrication but I'm partial to Cleveland heads and would be a real screamer!!

c)351/377 w/ Fontana block, AFD or CHI Cleveland heads and TWM injection.
-Cleveland Weber intakes are available and would simplify things but will they fit a Fontana or Windsor block??

Any thoughts.....

Jac Mac · 05-28-07, 05:37 AM

Out of your three options I would prefer the last one. Since the coolant can exit the front of the cylinder heads any I/R manifold for a cleveland with a seperate valley plate can be made to work. Of course being me I feel obliged to tell you that a 4bbl type throttle body with injectors in each runner will make more power and be more user friendly.Longer rod ratios make the taller block a better option.

HOWEVER, if you were to spring for a 4.125" Bore block & 3.25" stroke crank to obtain your 347 cu in either of the first two combos or even the CHI or AFD heads on this combo would be lighter and more responsive due to less rotating weight.

Jac Mac

Paul Thompson 'Hooligan' · 05-28-07, 08:44 AM

Hi Mike -

On Roy Smart's GTD, we used an alloy Fontana 302, 4.125 x 3.25 with a Crower billet crank and flowed TFS heads. Water flow was from an electric pump and exited the front of each head. Fitted with Kinsler Throttle bodies / Motec, it gave exceptional torque from as low as 2000rpm which made it seriously good fun out of corners and off the line. Was far more tractable than the steel A4 block in 4.030 x 3.0 format although that was quite a handful (fun?) between 6000 and 8000..

Currently looking at a 9.5" alloy Dart 351 stroked to 427....

MikeD · 05-28-07, 09:38 AM

was wondering if a cleveland manifold will fit a windsor block or if anyone was having goemetry issues with the TFS heads?? i guess my above post was a bit too long......

Gordon Levy · 05-28-07, 10:21 AM

No it won't fit, at least well. There are much better intakes out there anyway.

Chas · 05-29-07, 08:23 AM

Mike and Paul,
Here are some alternatives to consider:
Man O'War 460 Cleveland Limited Edition Complete Crate Engine
BILL MITCHELL
BILL MITCHELL HARDCORE - Man O'War Aluminum Blocks
The TMW is a great intake system but we don't offer it at this time.

Joe Angers · 05-29-07, 11:04 AM

MikeD, I'm partial to the Cleveland too. It's different and they can make big power from a small package (anybody remember Jack Roush's Tijuana Taxis?).

Here's a combo I've been playing around with in my head....

Ford's new Boss 302 Block stroked to 331 cid, topped with Edelbrock 3V Cleveland Heads and Kinsler 3-piece IR EFI manifold. Haven't figured what kind of cam I would use, but any of the aftermarket 302W cams should work. I figure 331 is a nice size and keeps the rod ratio at a number I'm comfortable with, and the combination of EFI, 3V heads, and stroker should make up for the Boss 302's propensity to fall flat on its face at low RPM. My other choice is an aluminum 351C block punched out to 393 and the same combo mentioned above. The only problem I foresee would be finding good cam choices for the 351C.

Chas: I assume the 460C is based on a 351 block? I always thought 427 was the max you take out the 351 to for a street engine. I've always been told that anything with that kind of rod ratio should be race only.

Chas · 05-29-07, 11:48 AM

Joe,
To clarify, our 460 (either C or W) is our own 9.5 deck World casting, unique from the conventional Windsor. It's cast for the 4.250 crank clearance and max recommend bore is 4.200 iron (470ci) and 4.155 for the coming aluminum version (460ci). All attachment location are compatible with standard SBF parts.
It's a very popular seller at 460 (almost exclusively in street/strip use) and we have no problems with rod ratio issues.

Joe Angers · 05-29-07, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manowar

Joe,
To clarify, our 460 (either C or W) is our own 9.5 deck World casting, unique from the conventional Windsor. It's cast for the 4.250 crank clearance and max recommend bore is 4.200 iron (470ci) and 4.155 for the coming aluminum version (460ci). All attachment location are compatible with standard SBF parts.
It's a very popular seller at 460 (almost exclusively in street/strip use) and we have no problems with rod ratio issues.

Chas: Thanks for the info.....I've always been a believer in no replacement for displacement. This warrants serious consideration.

MikeD · 05-29-07, 08:09 PM

Paul, thanks for the lead on the Kinslers.....
Joe, were thinking along the same lines and for the same reasons. The Cleveland heads flow so well that a smaller cam can be used further bumping up torque. I agree entirely with your thoughts on EFI, and stroker also adding torque. The EFI will make driveability fantastic. Rod ratio is still within reason adding to longevity....
Why not bore it out to 4.125" and go to 347"? I've been told by several engine builders that the 302/347 combo will easily pump out 550-570hp. Not bad for a 2400lb car. Regarding the 351/393, or even the 351/460 how much power does one really need with these cars......There comes a point were you simply can't use it.....

Doug Sainlar · 05-29-07, 10:08 PM

Good to see someone else considering a "Clevor", a Windsor block with canted valve Cleveland heads.

My dream motor--a 4.125" bore 8.2" SBF with a 3.25" stroke crank, fitted with AFD 2-V heads to retain some streetability. Essentially, your #2 motor.

IMHO, the use of the Cleveland heads would address the low end torque problems Windsor motors have. To ensure high RPM capability, I'd use a Mass-Flo rail type FI system with a dry flow throttle body. It has the capability of 1,000 CFM and great low RPM throttle response. To "adapt" the Cleveland heads to the Windsor block, you need a unique intake manifold, called a Track Boss, and they are just now being cast by the only source I've found. That isn't the route you're taking, with the TWM injection, but it is an available piece. Mass-Flo tells me they can drill and tap the Track Boss manifold to use their fuel rails.

If you were to use an all aluminum block, I think you'd have all the power you want and less weight to boot. From what I've heard, on these already low weight replicas, reduced weight is worth more than power.

Like you, though, I like the Cleveland, too. It's my favorite motor Ford ever produced, that's for sure. At least one forum member has shoehorned one into an ERA replica--he says he's glad to have 1/4" clearance between the pulleys and the frame. If you want more info, check out the member info for Dave Wharren. You'll like his build!!

LOVE those canted valve SBF motors!!

Doug

Ron Earp · 05-29-07, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YerDugliness

IMHO, the use of the Cleveland heads would address the low end torque problems Windsor motors have.

Do Windsors have low end torque problems? If so, what are they? I've always thought they felt great on the low end! And middle too!

Ron

Joe Angers · 05-29-07, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

Do Windsors have low end torque problems? If so, what are they? I've always thought they felt great on the low end! And middle too!

Ron

I always thought it was the other way around...i.e. the Cleveland suffered from lack of low end of torque.

Doug: The Boss 302 is the original Clevor! Ford basically took the 289 Hi-Po (4-bolt mains, Mechanical lifters, forged rotating assembly) block, stroked it to 302, and mounted the 351 4V Cleveland heads onto it. The only reason you need the Track Boss intake is if your doing the 351W to Cleveland "Clevor". If you're going to build you're own 302 Cleveland, you could take a 302W block, modify the water passages, and bolt up the Cleveland heads to it. Any Boss 302 intake should then bolt up no problem.

Why are you limiting yourself to the 2V heads? From what I've seen and read, the Edelbrock 3V offers the best of all worlds. The streetability of the 2V, the high rpm breathing of the 4V, without the price and rarity of Aussie 3V's.

Mike: The 347 might not be such a bad idea....I just checked Ford Racing's website and they have a Boss 347 shortblock in the pipeline.

Russ Noble · 05-29-07, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeD

Regarding the 351/393, or even the 351/460 how much power does one really need with these cars......There comes a point were you simply can't use it.....

Long live that day!

Doug Sainlar · 05-30-07, 01:57 AM

Ron--I've always felt that the Windsor lost low end torque when cammed, but all the Clevelands I've had (which were all 2-V headed) had great low end grunt. Perhaps my friends didn't know how to build their Windsors??? I agree about the midrange, though--when they come on they come on like gangbusters!!

Joe--you are right, the 4-V Clevelands had such large ports that they couldn't keep the port velocity up and didn't fill the cylinders well, and the Q coded 351 HO, with open chambered heads, was a real pig. Low end torque suffered on all the 4-V heads, but they ran like stink at high RPM's. The 2-V heads, however, had intake ports larger than any SBC and decent sized valves, but except for some of the Aussie models they were open chambered. Put a set of Aussie 2-V closed chambered heads on a Cleveland and watch it come alive. The Boss 302 was even worse on the street, with those large 4-V ports and lower CID. It was and still is a great race motor, though. Boss 302 parts are getting pretty pricey these days, and this Track Boss manifold does the same thing for around $400--plugged water passages are an option on the AFD 2-V head. I want the 2-V head for better low end torque--my build will be a street motor and while I'll be living in a very rural area, I will still use the car quite a bit, so I want the most steetable combo I can build. The AFD 2-V heads are reported to support 600 horsepower out of the box and I don't want anywhere near that much--350 to 400 is OK with me. Essentially I don't care if the car ever sees over 120 MPH, but I sure like that G-force of accelleration. And.....IMHO canted valve headed motors can't be beaten for a great torque curve.

Doug

Ron Earp · 05-30-07, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YerDugliness

Ron--I've always felt that the Windsor lost low end torque when cammed, but all the Clevelands I've had (which were all 2-V headed) had great low end grunt. Perhaps my friends didn't know how to build their Windsors??? I agree about the midrange, though--when they come on they come on like gangbusters!!

No matter what the engine flavor you'll allows lose something wherever a the cam is not designed to work. The best we can do with our motors and no variable valve timing, variable intake tracts, etc. is compromise. Displacement can mask the non-optimal areas though, but Chevy, Clevland, or Windsor - no matter what you have to pick your range of operation.

I think a pushrod motor with two in block cams, one intake and one exhaust, each with variable valve timing would be pretty cool. But that is digression.

R

Chas · 05-30-07, 04:16 PM

In the matter of torque production: Since we're discussing Cleve/lands/ors, I've attached the final pull of our prototype 460 Clevor.
Now I know we're discussing engines 120+ inches smaller-so I'm not comparing outright max torque figures. I only wish to show that torque production with these parts is reasonably flat (and substantial) from 3500 (lowest we pull) to 5700 RPM with a gentle peak between 4200 and 4400. Yes - the 4.25 crank is a major contributor here.

Here's a pull of our 8.2 deck World Man O'War Windsor (no CHI parts) 371 which shows a small torque drop between 3900 and 4400 RPM, then goes on to pull comfortably over 400 lbft. to 6200. But even this is making 400 lbft. at 3500. This is a 4.125 x 3.470 combination and produces 1.27 HP/CI. Excellent for 2400-2600lb cars.

Quote by MikeD:"I've been told by several engine builders that the 302/347 combo will easily pump out 550-570hp".
At 1.6 HP/CI that's certainly possible (but not easy IMHO) but in N/A,track only race-gas form- that's a very snotty combination to live with. And there's a torque deficit because you'd need big RPM to get there.