Mercury Cougar Owners banner

41 - 60 of 92 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #41 (Edited)
I ended up going with a Factory steel 427 crank, which was intended to be used in the SOHC 427 Nascar program. This crank has 2 additional counter weights added off the center main to help keep the blocks from cracking during high rpm running. As for the FT cranks they are an option and a quality piece, and their American Made. I went with the 427 crank because I want to stay away from the Chinese parts on this build if I can.

I am not looking to build a 700 HP FE, just A low maintenance daily driver with 450 to 500 HP will be more than enough, flat tappet cam good set of heads with a Sidewinder and a 750 - 800 Holley and a 2 1/8" Hookers, and I think I will hit my goal no problem. Here's another one of his builds:

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0811phr_427_fe_ford_engine/viewall.html

My friend Barry Robotnick built a 752 horsepower FE using an off the shelf stroker crank kit. I strongly recommend you go that route. There's no advantage to using an antique steel truck crank, you can't get the kind of stroke from one of those and it will cost you maybe twice as much too.
Call Barry: http://www.survivalmotorsports.com/
Read this:


http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/0608em_ford_big_block_engine/
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,977 Posts
If you truly have a NASCAR 427 crank it has wider than normal rod journals and needs an extra heavy (over 1000 grams each) rod that no one sells proper rod bearings for.


The more common 1966 - 67 steel crank intended for street use ( I suspect you have one of those) is fine, but you would be better off with a 428CJ crank because it would give you 450 cubic inches (assuming .030" overbore). Ford made some of the best cast iron cranks ever for the FE, and if you can't see using one of the excellent SCAT cranks that are designed and machined here in the USA then the next best thing is a 428 CJ (not SCJ) crank due to the 3.98" stroke and cheap (usually $400 - $500) price. There's no advantage to the 427 steel crank over a cast iron 390 crank. I would sell the steel crank and pocket the difference in price, or buy a 428 crank and again pocket the difference.


The SCJ crank has the same stroke but is undesirable for performance use because it needs so much external balancing or the addition of costly Mallory metal to balance.




I ended up going with a Factory steel 427 crank, which was intended to be used in the SOHC 427 Nascar program. This crank has 2 additional counter weights added off the center main to help keep the blocks from cracking during high rpm running. As for the FT cranks they are an option and a quality piece, and their American Made. I went with the 427 crank because I want to stay away from the Chinese parts on this build if I can.

I am not looking to build a 700 HP FE, just A low maintenance daily driver with 450 to 500 HP will be more than enough, flat tappet cam good set of heads with a Sidewinder and a 750 - 800 Holley and a 2 1/8" Hookers, and I think I will hit my goal no problem. Here's another one of his builds:

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0811phr_427_fe_ford_engine/viewall.html
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,577 Posts
...I had come across the Cleveland info in my bearing search, the only issues are the tangs on the Cleveland bearings are in a different location than the FE, so either the block and caps have to be re-slotted for the Cleveland bearings, or you grind the tans off. I choose to grind the tangs off...
If you have no tangs on the bearing shell halves what is to keep the bearing from spinning?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,577 Posts
No, the tangs are just for ease of assembly, to align the bearings in the saddles. The amount of bearing CRUSH is what keeps the bearings from spinning in the block saddles and rod bores.
:bs: on that notion.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,977 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,977 Posts
Jay Brown gave you the answer Barry prefers - "I'd go with the Federal Mogul 125M mains. They are a 3/4 groove design and according to Barry R they are the best main bearings to use for an FE."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #49
I have researched my crank and this main bearing issue quite a bit, and have found that there are NO Federal Mogul .020" under 3/4 125M mains available, furthermore according to Barry_R, Federal Mogul discontinued production back before 2011 and Barry had purchased and sold the remaining inventory, and he also says last time he needed .020 under half grooves he ended up going with mains from a Cleveland motor and that was in 2011:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/thread/1319542207/Main+bearings

I have been in no hurry on my build, since the crank is at Performance Crankshaft In Detroit, MI (Adney Brown) and the block is at Costa Mesa R&D Automotive Machine Shop (John Edwards) and if I was to even think I could time the two shops to do the work on the items they each have together, well I gave up on that idea...:evil:

I am just putting up what info I have found about my build, and have found there are others that have had the main bearing issues as well. And I am sure there will be others in the future that will need to go .020" under or more on their mains and will want 1/2 grooved mains, so here's an option other than fully grooved ones.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,577 Posts
Really, so you guys think it's :bs: about grinding off the bearing tangs ? Well, since your not going to take my word for it, how about from Barry_R ?

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=675.msg12526#msg12526
With all due respect to Barry and whomever, I would never run a bearing (or bearings) without the tangs, plain and simple it's asking for trouble. Lets say you did this, the sideways location would be strictly by eye (not that they always line up very well anyway) and if the forces harmonic or otherwise on the bearings from the crank are strong enough, the bearing shells could spin. I'd have the slots put in the caps, whatever it takes to run tangs. Your tolerance for risk however, may be different than mine so to each their own. I just could not help pointing out what I feel is sheer lunacy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #51

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #52
Let me ask you, what are you going to do when the bearing manufacturing companies re-tool the tangs away to save money, from what I understand it is in the works, manufacturing is always looking for ways to cut $$$$ on production.

I have no problem with the lack of tangs, back in the eighty's when I was stroking VW motors with Chevy rods & Buick bearings, it was easier to cut the tangs off then to re-slot the rods.


If bearings spin, it's because the housing was not machined correctly and the bearings were to loose in the housings and so there wasn't enough bearing crush, and the bearing tang couldn't stop them from spinning.

Here's an article on bearing crush: http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_14016602103118&key=4f25b5fc0f918f460ee6f2128efcdada&libId=9a05410c-c8dd-4a2a-ae3c-1128b3e48da2&loc=http://www.mercurycougar.net/forums/showthread.php?67161-Long-Neglected-Project/page3&v=1&out=http://underthehood.mahleclevite.com/?p=706&ref=http://www.mercurycougar.net/forums/showthread.php?67161-Long-Neglected-Project/page4&title=Long Neglected Project&txt=CRUSH






With all due respect to Barry and whomever, I would never run a bearing (or bearings) without the tangs, plain and simple it's asking for trouble. Lets say you did this, the sideways location would be strictly by eye (not that they always line up very well anyway) and if the forces harmonic or otherwise on the bearings from the crank are strong enough, the bearing shells could spin. I'd have the slots put in the caps, whatever it takes to run tangs. Your tolerance for risk however, may be different than mine so to each their own. I just could not help pointing out what I feel is sheer lunacy.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,577 Posts
Let me ask you, what are you going to do when the bearing manufacturing companies re-tool the tangs away to save money, from what I understand it is in the works, manufacturing is always looking for ways to cut $$$$ on production.

I have no problem with the lack of tangs, back in the eighty's when I was stroking VW motors with Chevy rods & Buick bearings, it was easier to cut the tangs off then to re-slot the rods.


If bearings spin, it's because the housing was not machined correctly and the bearings were to loose in the housings and so there wasn't enough bearing crush, and the bearing tang couldn't stop them from spinning.

Here's an article on bearing crush: http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_14016602103118&key=4f25b5fc0f918f460ee6f2128efcdada&libId=9a05410c-c8dd-4a2a-ae3c-1128b3e48da2&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurycougar.net%2Fforums%2Fshowthread.php%3F67161-Long-Neglected-Project%2Fpage3&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Funderthehood.mahleclevite.com%2F%3Fp%3D706&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurycougar.net%2Fforums%2Fshowthread.php%3F67161-Long-Neglected-Project%2Fpage4&title=Long%20Neglected%20Project&txt=CRUSH
I know about bearing crush so no ignorance there. And FWIW, I worked at a couple of automotive machine shops back in the day, one full service including crank grinding, line boring, balancing and other specialized operations so I have seen and had experience with more stuff than a lot of people. It is just a foreign idea to me that you would have nothing to locate the bearing other than your initial placement to start with and then the bearing crush to hold it there. Call me crazy, it would not be the first time I have been! :buck:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,950 Posts
I'll have to peruse that thread a little closer Rich - looks like some interesting reading. Sounds like your making slow but sure progress anyways......I'm thinking of some low budget options for an FE build myself.......turns out there aren't any!! LOL I wish I had access to a machine shop......but alas I do not. Keep us posted
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,977 Posts
Adney Brown, wow. It is going to be really expensive. I've regretted every 427 I ever built with a standard stroke crank (8 so far, 4 of them using a IU or IUB crank). The forged crank yields more expense. It won't help longevity or horsepower in any way.


I can't fault your choice of machinists on either end. You won't regret either one of those choices. Just sayin - more stroke is better, noticeably way better in fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #56
How much is good crank work worth ? Actually his prices are very reasonable, so I am having him give it a good work over, bull nose & knife edge the weights weld the grooves, grind the mains to my specs then have it nitrided, but if he reads that I said his prices are reasonable, he'll probally raise them...:evil:

I chose this crank for several reasons, and over time it will pay for it's self. As for stroke, I really don't need more, the 390 when it was running was a blast, and it had a problem hooking up, it would go down the street sideways frying the tires, even after I shifted to 2nd, so now I'll have atleast 40 more C.I. and probally at least 150 more horses just going to a 427, so I don't Need Or Want any more.


Adney Brown, wow. It is going to be really expensive. I've regretted every 427 I ever built with a standard stroke crank (8 so far, 4 of them using a IU or IUB crank). The forged crank yields more expense. It won't help longevity or horsepower in any way.


I can't fault your choice of machinists on either end. You won't regret either one of those choices. Just sayin - more stroke is better, noticeably way better in fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #57
This build is just for a nice daily driver for me, so I have been playing around with one of the engine programs to get an idea of where I end up with the componet choices I am going with, and I understand it's just a tool like the cam programs and exhaust programs, that a lot of the engine builders and parts manufactures use. And it's very interesting, it recommends valve lift, cam lobe separation and intake center lines and exh durations and exhaust sizes, for just a few of the recommendtions.

Here are my eng specs I am inputting:

Bore: 4.250
Stroke: 3.780
Cam: [email protected]" Flat Tappet
CR: 10.5
Int valve: 2.200"
Head Flo: [email protected]"
Manifold Dual Plane 100% Divided

And I end up with 539HP & 491 ft-lbs of torque, if I change it to a solid roller, it bumps it hp 40 more, if I change the manifold to open plenum it will bump it another 30 or so hp so now over 600 HP. If I change the stroke to 4.250, it's only a 14hp increase but there is a 54 ft-lbs increase in torque.

Playing around I changed only the head flow to 360 CFM and it gained 70hp & 38 ft-lbs of torque. So it's easy to see where gains can be had.

So it seems I will have no problem hitting my 450 to 500 HP mark. And I will still have a problem of hooking the car up...:evil:

Here my reasoning on my build, so I choose the flat tappet to keep spring pressures down to around 400pds over the nose, my cam choice was from 30 years ago, and I don't know how old it was even then, but it was a nice cam with a nice lope and pulled really strong, but the program recommended that it should have 6 more degrees of duration, so I'll choose a more current dual pattern cam with around the Int duration I have with a little more exh.

I am going to run my Sidewinder, in Jays Intake shoot out, even though it's over 45 year old tech, and it wasn't even ported let alone even port matched, and it made a really good showing considering, so I will have it worked to the heads and it should perform even better.

As to heads I won't have any problem finding some with the CFM I want to run, from what I have seen.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,577 Posts
I would not go over 10:1 CR unless you are going with aluminum heads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #59
I have already ran this cam with cast iron SCJ heads at 10.5 to 1 and it came out to a 7.23 Dynamic CR with no detonation issues because of it's overlap.

But I already intended to go with aluminum heads with quick burn chambers with around the same size cam or maybe slightly larger, and will probably bump the CR up to 11 to 1, cause the Dynamic will only raise to 7.56 to 1, and heard of others running as much as 8.5 to 9.0 Dynamic on pump gas. But thanks for your suggestion.

I would not go over 10:1 CR unless you are going with aluminum heads.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,577 Posts
Alrighty then Richard! Sounds like you are very familiar with just what my concern was. Carry on!
 
41 - 60 of 92 Posts
Top