which years were the stronger 351w block?
- Thread starter DarkoStoj
- Start date
1320stang
Founding Member
I believe it's the '69-'74 blocks as well, but I'm not sold on the whole nickel thing. I've been told that an 'X' stands for a high nickel content, but I know of guys that have testing capabilities that have proven there was no high nickel content. This was in FE blocks.
I think they were made with better iron and maybe have thicker main webs.
I think they were made with better iron and maybe have thicker main webs.
not sure about the FE's but all SBF's have some nickel content and to be quite honest i'd be really surprised if the FE's didn't have any nickel content. i think your friend is incorrect.
anyway, the early blocks did have more nickel content but i don't think it was enough to make that big of a difference. the strength of the early blocks does come from thicker blocks overall. the bores are thicker, the webs are thicker and basically everyting is thicker. that's why the early blocks weigh about 20-25 lbs more than a later model block.
anyway, the early blocks did have more nickel content but i don't think it was enough to make that big of a difference. the strength of the early blocks does come from thicker blocks overall. the bores are thicker, the webs are thicker and basically everyting is thicker. that's why the early blocks weigh about 20-25 lbs more than a later model block.
69gmachine
Member
There is no difference in nickel content, however there is a big difference in the amount of material in the main webs. At one time I had a complete list of casting numbers and what the running changes were, but it went into bit heaven when my last hard drive crashed. So from my memory, all I can tell you for certain is that the C90E (9.48 dh) and D1AE (9.501 dh) castings are the most desirable. They were cast with bosses for 4 bolt mains and thick main webs. Unfortunately they never received the 4 bolt caps from the factory, but they are easily converted. They weigh about 8-10 lbs more than the D2AE and D4AE blocks that followed. If you look at the underside of them side by side with the later blocks it's obvious how much beefier they are. There was an E3TE or E4TE truck block that came with thick main webs also, but I was never able to get any specs on it for comparison to the C9 and D1 blocks. The C9 blocks were used in '69 and '70 Mustangs, Fairlaines and anything else that got a 351W. The D1 was only used in full size cars in '71 only as the mid size sporty cars got the 351C, and in '72 they cast a new wimpy block, so they are pretty rare.
yea thats going along the lines of what i thought.
So my best bet is to find either a C9 or a D1 block then? Is there any way I would be able to visually identify which block has the thicker main webs(the ones that are convertible to 4 bolt mains)
So my best bet is to find either a C9 or a D1 block then? Is there any way I would be able to visually identify which block has the thicker main webs(the ones that are convertible to 4 bolt mains)
69gmachine said:
you left out the D0OE blocks which are basically identical to the C9OE blocks and even have the same 9.48 deck height. not sure where you got all your info but i believe some of it is incorrect. the D1AE blocks were used all the way up until 74 i have a 73 model windsor with a D1AE block casting and D0OE heads and D2A? crank. this was the original engine out of my great grandmothers 73 galaxie 500 and she was the orginal owner and I know the engine had never been changed.
as for the nickel content there is a pretty big difference in the amount that was used from the late 69 and early 70's blocks to the later blocks. there were also marine/industrial blocks that had the thicker webs as well and these were used all through the 70's and 80's, unfortunately i can't remember the casting numbers though. i'll see if i can find the info on the casting numbers for those marine blocks somewhere and get back to you.
as for the D4AE blocks being thinner than the C9, D0 and D1 blocks there isn't that much difference in them it's the later D6 and D8 and any of the E lettered (80') blocks.
1320stang
Founding Member
I've got a '69 block, but for the life of me, I can't find the main caps. I considered either buying a set of used main caps off Ebay (hard to find) or Pro Gram Engineering's billet main caps, the center 3 are 4 bolt, but the whole billet set would be $583.54!!!! And either way, you still have to have it line bored. If I could at least find the front and rear cap, the center 3 PGE caps are $240 which is much more reasonable, but line bore and machine and tap the outer holes for the center caps are still in order.
I know there is some debate here and I know I will be disputed but I had to weigh in as well. I don't have any technical backup, but do have some real life experience with the hardness issue. I agree that the thickness is a factor but when I had my 69 351W block bored out it was not the thickness that the machine shop was complaining about. The shop has some good experience and said that the normal boring tool was not able to get through the bores with a good finish and they had to use a different one to compensate for the harder metal.
1320stang said:
if you want stock main caps check with the local machine shops, chances are they will have some from a wasted block or something. it will still need to align bored and honed but a hell of a lot cheaper than aftermarket 4 bolt main caps. honestly i would be more worried about the bores splitting before i would worry about the mains. trust me i have split the bores in 2 windsor blocks and 1 cleveland block running basically stock motors. unless you plan on sleeving the block 4 bolt mains are pretty much a waste of money IMHO.
1320stang
Founding Member
Hmmm.... my .060 over '65 289 block with no grout has turned 8000 rpm regularly with a '65 cast crank and taken a 3000# car to 11.0s with a Jerico and 5.67 gears w/ 9x30 slicks with no sign of a bore splitting. Maybe I'm not running it hard enough? 
1320stang said:Hmmm.... my .060 over '65 289 block with no grout has turned 8000 rpm regularly with a '65 cast crank and taken a 3000# car to 11.0s with a Jerico and 5.67 gears w/ 9x30 slicks with no sign of a bore splitting. Maybe I'm not running it hard enough?
hmmm, maybe, but i'm just plain hard on engines, i can kill one without even sweating hard. LOL seriously though every blown SBF i've had has split the cylinders either because it was over-revved or because something else let loose, usually a rod. but i've only had one that did any other damage to the block besides cracking the cylinder walls. maybe i just have bad luck with that particular problem, who knows, but i'd still be more worried about the cylinder walls than the main caps, especially on a windsor with those 3.0" mains.
1320stang
Founding Member
IIRC, there is a company that makes bushings to use a crank with Cleveland mains. It may be PGE. Actually, it's half of a bushing as the main cap is already at the smaller size.
mustangdave said:
There could be something to what you're saying. The crank has a larger OD and therefore is traveling faster on the bearing at the same rpm as an engine with smaller main journals. An engine with a longer stroke is traveling faster on the cylinder wall than a lesser stroked engine running the same rpm. If you have ample oiling though it may not matter. Any ideas what size NASCAR main journals are?
1320stang
Founding Member
That's not theory, that's fact. The Nascar blocks have the 351c journal size. They also use Honda rod journal sizes.
Think about it, on a spinning round object, the outside turns at a higher speed than 1/2 the diameter, plus the greater surface of the journal would make for more possible friction, hence more heat.
Think about it, on a spinning round object, the outside turns at a higher speed than 1/2 the diameter, plus the greater surface of the journal would make for more possible friction, hence more heat.
