New block, a further discussion

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by flatheadmurre

Are you changing position/angle of the valve or just reshaping the runner and guide ?

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.

All this relieving business is done simply because it has been found that in a side valve engine we have have to encourage the flow to go sideways just as it passes the valve seat. Then we bounce the charge off the cylinder head to turn the rest of it down the cylinder.

I think I described this once as imagine taking your garden hose and spraying it full blast at 90 degrees to a solid wall. Messy!

No rotate to a 45 degree angle and do the same. What happens?

We are asking the intake charge to change direction of almost 180 degrees right when it's most important to keep momentum up and fill the cylinder.

We all know by first hand experience or by word of mouth that a supercharger wakes up a Flatty. They certainly do for the simple reason is a blower overcomes this basic restrictor in the Flathead's intake flow path.

With a supercharger the Flathead Ford starts to wander up near 1 hp per cubic inch where it should be from the get go.

Guys there is a reason why the best engine builders in the world are only getting 50 or so more hp out of a Flatty than me who sucks by comparison. If there wasn't something inherently wrong with side valve breathing the best would be wringing 300 hp out of a 276 incher.

The way to make any thought of a new block worthwhile to people is to give them the very best breathing they can get from a side valve engine.

Imagine a scenario where this "service block" if you will, just comes close to the best port job by a professional on a stock block. Combine that with being able to toss 100lbs of unneeded weight overboard. What impact would that have on average attainable performance for everyone?

[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?

[louisb]

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

--louis

[flatheadmurre]

Originally Posted by louisb

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

--louis

The cost is up in the sky...you pay by the gram.

[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.

[corvette8n]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

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.

[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.

[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]

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

[Ol' Ron]

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

[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.

[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 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?

[Ronnieroadster]

Originally Posted by Henry Floored

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?

While the SCTA will not allow a replacement flathead block the other timing associations ECTA and LTA allow the use of replacement flathead blocks on the East Coast. The French block is legal for the X class racers to use if they so chose. I was the guy who proposed this rule change to the ECTA and it was approved.
The last records I set running my XF/BGL Lakester at the Ohio mile was with a French flathead block turning just over 172 MPH the record set at the LTA event with the French block was 182 MPH. These records are the first ever set using the French block for land speed racing.
If and when a replacement block is produced there will be a place to set records and if its determined the improvements are an unfair advantage a class for the new block would be proposed and Im sure approved at least on the East Coast.
Ronnieroadster

[awelker]

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