cleveland parts

ratio411 · Jul 1, 2007

mikethebike said:
Why then did the early 69 motors break cylinder walls? Then, after the T-A block was being used they broke pistons? And a short rod is the cause of scruffing cylinder walls. not weak pistons.

If any 69s did lose cylinder walls, it would be due to the weak piston breaking and taking out the block with it.
So, by your description, they went with a stronger block and the piston failure was contained only to the piston.

After TRW took over the piston production, the 3 little ribs on the inside of the skirt stopped all the failures. If it was rod ratio, the failures would have continued.
Correct?
All of this reasoning is using your description of what happened and it still comes down to pistons.

mikethebike · Jul 1, 2007

D.Hearne said:
That's strange, I've safely rev'd $350 reman 5.0 shortblocks topped with Canfield heads to 7500 with Hypereutectic pistons and no other prep work done, other than replacing the puny 5/16" rod bolts with ARP's (and installed one at a time in the assembled engine) And that was done daily for 4 months and the only problem that appeared was a 1/2" long crack in the #4 cylinder wall. Pistons looked like new even though they'd been subjected to 6500 rpm runs, daily for over a year before the switch in heads and intake. I chalked that up to the .040" overbore and the previous week's overheating episode, not the rod angle or excessive (in your mind) rpms.There are hundreds of others out there, who've done more than I have and what you say is impossible to accomplish with a 302. I guess they're all misguided too, huh? Once again, you've been proven to be posting nothing other than blather about your ficticious engines and racing career.

And opnce again, I do not believe you...except the broken cylinder wall part.

ratio411 · Jul 1, 2007

mikethebike said:
What would bolts have to do with breaking the tang ONLY on the non-thurst side?

My comment on the rod bolts was not tied to the piston issue at all.
I was just making the point that many folks build up a performance 302 and almost always change pistons, but don't change the weak rod bolts.

I don't know anyone who has rebuilt a 302 for performance use that has not bored the engine and used decent pistons.
However, many folks will not step up to stronger rod bolts.

The weak skirt issue in the 302 is not as accute in my mind as the B302 issue.
For the simple fact that folks get a 302 and know instinctively they must be built up. However folks get a B302 and expect it to be a bulletproof race engine out of the box. Therefore the pistons don't get changed and boom...

This is all in the past now.
I don't think folks today get ahold of a virgin B302 engine and start whaling on it.

D.Hearne · Jul 1, 2007

mikethebike said:
And a short rod is the cause of scruffing cylinder walls. not weak pistons.

Wrong again Jr. scuffed walls are the direct result of broken piston skirts. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. This guy's gettin to be more fun than dynamite fishin in a fish farm pond..................

180 Out · Jul 1, 2007

In an old issue of Vintage Motorsport magazine I came across this "as told by Sam Posey" sidebar. Posey might have been the only driver in the '69 Trans Am season to have driven both a Penske Z/28 and a Shelby American Boss 302. Here's Posey's take on the two cars:

"In 1969, Ford was coming off a poor showing in the previous year's Trans Am series, caused largely by problems with 1968's experimental 'tunnel port' heads. Because the Shelby American team's regular driver Peter Revson was busy with the Indy 500 on the same weekend as the 1969 Lime Rock 2.5 Hour, an up and coming local driver named Sam Posey was tapped to substitute for Revson. Posey not only substituted; he won. Here's what Posey had to say about his '69 Boss 302 race car:

'When I drove the Shelby car at Lime Rock in 1969, that one-off ride when I won? Boy, was I stunned by how good that engine was! The Ford 302 was far better than the Chevy. I would never have realized that, if I hadn't driven both cars. The Ford just moved out in the high rpm ranges in a way that the Chevy did not. The Chevy was torquey in the mid-range, but it didn't have the Ford's straightaway speed.

'The Mustang was so strong. It could take being over-revved, it could take beating on the transmission, it could handle whatever Parnelli [Jones, of the Bud Moore team] could dish out. That hadn't been true in 1967, but by 1969 they had learned how to build strong cars. Bud Moore built a car to suit Parnelli's aggressive, physical style. To his credit, Mark [Donahue, driving Camaros for the Penske eam] was willing to slug it out with him. Especially in 1969, it had become Mark versus Parnelli in cars that could go the distance without a breather.'"

Here's a post from an earlier thread on this same subject:

"In the 'Trans-Am' DVD that's out for sale right (basically a tribute to Mark Donohue and Penske). If you watch closely you can actually see the Boss 302's driven by Parnelli and Follmer pull the Z-28's and Javelins on the straightaways.

"The difference in top end power was astounding.

"I have a friend who has talked to Donny Araki about the series. He tells of Posey coming into the pits and the tattel-tail on the tach registering 10,500 rpm."

If two engines have the same displacement, it's unlikely that the one with the higher peak horsepower is the one with the lower redline. This would be even less likely if the high-hp unit had an intake valve of 2.23" and the other's was 2.02".

I also have a reprint of a road test of a '68 Z/28 from the November 1968 issue of Super Stock & Drag Illustrated. Jere Stahl -- who afterwards went on to set many S/S records with his own '68 Z -- took the car to the strip and got a 13.7 @ 107. That was with open headers and a dual point dizzie. All the 302 ci Z's came standard with a 11:1 CR, a 750 Holley DP, and the same "30/30" or "Duntov" solid lifer cam as the 327/365 Vette, so they didn't need aftermarket help in any of those departments. The test car also came with a 4.30:1 Posi rear end. Curious about the ability of the 302 to redline in top gear, Stahl did a banzai run starting 100 feet before the tree. He hit 117.53 through the lights. To quote from the 1968 SSDI story, "Stahl reported that at no time did the car show signs of giving up, though he was taching over 7000 rpm" at the lights.

I'm putting all this stuff up here just because I think it's fun and interesting, not to fan the flames. This whole thing started, after all, over the misuse of the term "pent roof head," by a guy who thinks it's important not to admit he has misused a term in an on-line message board. Kinda silly. We're all on the same side after all -- gearheads to the bone.

mikethebike · Jul 2, 2007

ratio411 said:
I might cheez alot of folks off here, but I will counter that with the LSx series of engines introduced in 97.
As pushrod engines go, the LSx is king. Period.

Well, hell...you may have me there.

mikethebike · Jul 2, 2007

D.Hearne said:
Wrong again Jr. scuffed walls are the direct result of broken piston skirts. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. This guy's gettin to be more fun than dynamite fishin in a fish farm pond..................

Hey, BOY, you need to read Fords own statement on scruffing cylinder walls and short rods. God, what an idiot...yeah...YOU....DS.

mikethebike · Jul 2, 2007

180 Out said:
In an old issue of Vintage Motorsport magazine I came across this "as told by Sam Posey" sidebar. Posey might have been the only driver in the '69 Trans Am season to have driven both a Penske Z/28 and a Shelby American Boss 302. Here's Posey's take on the two cars:

"In 1969, Ford was coming off a poor showing in the previous year's Trans Am series, caused largely by problems with 1968's experimental 'tunnel port' heads. Because the Shelby American team's regular driver Peter Revson was busy with the Indy 500 on the same weekend as the 1969 Lime Rock 2.5 Hour, an up and coming local driver named Sam Posey was tapped to substitute for Revson. Posey not only substituted; he won. Here's what Posey had to say about his '69 Boss 302 race car:

'When I drove the Shelby car at Lime Rock in 1969, that one-off ride when I won? Boy, was I stunned by how good that engine was! The Ford 302 was far better than the Chevy. I would never have realized that, if I hadn't driven both cars. The Ford just moved out in the high rpm ranges in a way that the Chevy did not. The Chevy was torquey in the mid-range, but it didn't have the Ford's straightaway speed.

'The Mustang was so strong. It could take being over-revved, it could take beating on the transmission, it could handle whatever Parnelli [Jones, of the Bud Moore team] could dish out. That hadn't been true in 1967, but by 1969 they had learned how to build strong cars. Bud Moore built a car to suit Parnelli's aggressive, physical style. To his credit, Mark [Donahue, driving Camaros for the Penske eam] was willing to slug it out with him. Especially in 1969, it had become Mark versus Parnelli in cars that could go the distance without a breather.'"

Here's a post from an earlier thread on this same subject:

"In the 'Trans-Am' DVD that's out for sale right (basically a tribute to Mark Donohue and Penske). If you watch closely you can actually see the Boss 302's driven by Parnelli and Follmer pull the Z-28's and Javelins on the straightaways.

"The difference in top end power was astounding.

"I have a friend who has talked to Donny Araki about the series. He tells of Posey coming into the pits and the tattel-tail on the tach registering 10,500 rpm."

If two engines have the same displacement, it's unlikely that the one with the higher peak horsepower is the one with the lower redline. This would be even less likely if the high-hp unit had an intake valve of 2.23" and the other's was 2.02".

I also have a reprint of a road test of a '68 Z/28 from the November 1968 issue of Super Stock & Drag Illustrated. Jere Stahl -- who afterwards went on to set many S/S records with his own '68 Z -- took the car to the strip and got a 13.7 @ 107. That was with open headers and a dual point dizzie. All the 302 ci Z's came standard with a 11:1 CR, a 750 Holley DP, and the same "30/30" or "Duntov" solid lifer cam as the 327/365 Vette, so they didn't need aftermarket help in any of those departments. The test car also came with a 4.30:1 Posi rear end. Curious about the ability of the 302 to redline in top gear, Stahl did a banzai run starting 100 feet before the tree. He hit 117.53 through the lights. To quote from the 1968 SSDI story, "Stahl reported that at no time did the car show signs of giving up, though he was taching over 7000 rpm" at the lights.

I'm putting all this stuff up here just because I think it's fun and interesting, not to fan the flames. This whole thing started, after all, over the misuse of the term "pent roof head," by a guy who thinks it's important not to admit he has misused a term in an on-line message board. Kinda silly. We're all on the same side after all -- gearheads to the bone.

A double pumper STANDARD? I do believe it wasa 780 cfm Vacum secondary Holley. Basically a 3310. And since YOU know so much about those old cars...WHAT motor was the 3310 built as a direct replacement for?

D.Hearne · Jul 2, 2007

mikethebike said:
Hey, BOY, you need to read Fords own statement on scruffing cylinder walls and short rods. God, what an idiot...yeah...YOU....DS.

Ain't it funny that every time you're wrong, you never admit it, but you change the subject or the parameters of the question ? What an EF'in genius.

You're a legend in your own mind.

rbohm · Jul 2, 2007

D.Hearne said:
Ain't it funny that every time you're wrong, you never admit it, but you change the subject or the parameters of the question ? What an EF'in genius. You're a legend in your own mind.

180 Out · Jul 3, 2007

mikethebike said:
A double pumper STANDARD? I do believe it wasa 780 cfm Vacum secondary Holley. Basically a 3310. And since YOU know so much about those old cars...WHAT motor was the 3310 built as a direct replacement for?

This is self parody, right?

"Some men, you just can't reach."

ratio411 · Jul 3, 2007

mikethebike said:
A double pumper STANDARD? I do believe it wasa 780 cfm Vacum secondary Holley. Basically a 3310. And since YOU know so much about those old cars...WHAT motor was the 3310 built as a direct replacement for?

You are correct.
A DP wasn't used.
The 3310 was developed directly from the L78 Holley IIRC.

Edit:
Oh crud, we're talking Chevy 302 now...
It could very well have been a DP.
This is one 302 cubic inch engine I don't know about.

ratio411 · Jul 3, 2007

This was bugging me...
It took almost an hour of google and bopping around the net, but the 302 did NOT use a DP!

The funny part is that everywhere I looked, even folks that should know better, the carb was called "double pump". However, I think the folks were using the term in place of "dual feed".
It was a dual feed.
I eventually found the correct original part number then found pics.
The vac canister sealed it.
Variant of the 3310, without a doubt.
View attachment 378545

Platonic Solid · Jul 3, 2007

Totally OT

mikethebike said:
...YOU have NEVER owned the real thing...kind of like all those Honda 'Shadow' riders who REALLY want to ride a Harley SPORTSTER....why didn't they call it the Honda 'psuedo'. ...

WHAT?! Why would someone buy one and yern for the other when they're both in the same price range. No offense to Sportster owners, but the bike rides like crud on the highway. I actually like the styling of the Shadow better, but my legs are too long for it (hense I didn't bother taking it for a test ride). Sorry, but I have yet to see anyone drooling over a Sportster - now an $18,000+ custom Fat Boy, that's a different story.

D.Hearne · Jul 3, 2007

What you wanna bet we scared mercurycapri off the Classic forum forever? WOW! What a ride.

mikethebike · Jul 3, 2007

Platonic Solid said:
WHAT?! Why would someone buy one and yern for the other when they're both in the same price range. No offense to Sportster owners, but the bike rides like crud on the highway. I actually like the styling of the Shadow better, but my legs are too long for it (hense I didn't bother taking it for a test ride). Sorry, but I have yet to see anyone drooling over a Sportster - now an $18,000+ custom Fat Boy, that's a different story.

I'm 5'11" @ 165lbs. and have been riding XLCH's for 42 years. Original owner of a 1977 RED that is presently getting a close ratio transmission at Pete Hills shop. NO, they are not good touring bikes.....hence the name 'SPORTSTER'!! I bought the BMW R1150-RT for that. As far as noone drooling over Sportys...they sold 70,000 of them last year. It is the longest running production bike in history and if you check it is one of the most reliable bikes you can buy. With the new fuel injection ond the rubber mounted engine there are guys trading in 'big-motor' bikes for them because they are so much more fun. A 'FB' is a very nice ride....if you know what to do on them you can surprise the hell out of some sport riders. NO, you won't keep-up with them......but they will be amased as how well that BIG bike will get around a corner.

mikethebike · Jul 3, 2007

D.Hearne said:
Ain't it funny that every time you're wrong, you never admit it, but you change the subject or the parameters of the question ? What an EF'in genius. You're a legend in your own mind.

How is that changing the parameters? I said short rods result in acute rod angle at the wrist pin and this caused the cylinder wall to scruff as the rod passed bdc and loaded the non-thrust side of the piston aganist the wall. Which it does and Fords own statement on rod-to-stroke ratios supports me on that.

Anyway...we probably did chase the other guy away.

Please, allow me to give you my outlook on cars in general....who makes the car does not matter to me....only the end result. Back in the 1960's I fell in love with the Mustang...the SS-396 Chevelle, ALL things Shelby, F.I. Vettes, BB Vettes, XKE's, those little RED cars from Italy(the 12 cylinder ones), turbo Corvairs. NEVER liked Porsches with the engine hanging out back. Didn't go for Fairlanes, Road Runners, or anything that appeared bigger than a Chevelle.
'Product Loyalty' is not one of my traits. NONE of the manufactures care about us.. only their bottom line. So, give me 350-hp in a 2800 lb car that looks right and I'm happy. Is that too much to ask?

D.Hearne · Jul 3, 2007

mikethebike said:
How is that changing the parameters? I said short rods result in acute rod angle at the wrist pin and this caused the cylinder wall to scruff as the rod passed bdc and loaded the non-thrust side of the piston aganist the wall. Which it does and Fords own statement on rod-to-stroke ratios supports me on that. :

No, you just STILL refuse to acknowlege the fact that broken pistons missing their skirts can and will cause them to scuff the walls. And please stop with the name dropping, it does nothing for me, I could care less who you know or claim to know. Probably goes for most people here and elsewhere too. Want people to like you? Don't put on "airs" as it used to be called.

mikethebike · Jul 4, 2007

D.Hearne said:
No, you just STILL refuse to acknowlege the fact that broken pistons missing their skirts can and will cause them to scuff the walls. And please stop with the name dropping, it does nothing for me, I could care less who you know or claim to know. Probably goes for most people here and elsewhere too. Want people to like you? Don't put on "airs" as it used to be called.

Exactly WHEN did I say a broken piston WOULD NOT scruff a wall? You said that was the only cause. I said that 1st B-302 broke cylinder wall until mid year 69 when Ford started using the T/A block and then they started breaking pistons. This lead me and other to believe the pistons were not the problem....that the rod-lenght was. Why then did Ford use a 5.4" rod in T/A race motors? And name dropping? Well, if you learned from the likes of Jake King, Ronnie Sox, Dan Perrin, and Pete Hill, I do believe you would quote them as references as did I.

I think we're done.

Decurion · Jul 4, 2007

I still dont understand the whole "Clevor" thing, and I guess I never will. Just put some good aftermarket heads on your 302 and be done with it. No messing with hard to find pistons, weird intakes, heavy old heads, 4 groove valve keepers, worn out seats/guides, etc. At least as much power (if not more), lighter, less work, and in the end barely more money. But thats just my warped logic.

cleveland parts

ratio411

mikethebike

Member

ratio411

D.Hearne

New Member

180 Out

Member

mikethebike

Member

mikethebike

Member

mikethebike

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

rbohm

180 Out

Member

ratio411

ratio411

Platonic Solid

D.Hearne

New Member

mikethebike

Member

mikethebike

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

mikethebike

Member

Decurion

Member

Similar threads

cleveland parts

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency