New block

On Tod's remark about typing stuff in and getting timed out to lose it : I learned a long time ago that if I was going to enter any volume of text at all, I do it initially in "Notepad" and then "cut-n-paste' it when I'm satisfied. Saves a bunch of frustration.
 
Henry Floored said:
Another thought that doesn't have anything to do with this project technically but what would be a possible way to market and service this block?

Tod do you have plans afoot on this subject? Will you be assigning specific vendors or do you have the ability to do that inhouse?

From past experience having knowledgeable key people to handle any issues that might arise at with the consumers can really make a difference.

It might even be something that FoMoCo themselves would like to add to their performance parts department. In fact the having a Ford part number might even help the psychology of those desirous of using genuine Ford parts in their cars. (Even though a million guys seem to have no problem putting Gm power in their Fords) lol
Click to expand...

I need to be able to deal through builders. They can supply finished blocks to customer specs. One thing I learned early on in the FE projects was that I need to be able to supply a basic machined block that can be finished to stock and beyond. There are too many ways to finish a block for me to cater to individuals.

I doubt I will be doing anything with Ford.

Tod
 
Tod said:
I need to be able to deal through builders. They can supply finished blocks to customer specs. One thing I learned early on in the FE projects was that I need to be able to supply a basic machined block that can be finished to stock and beyond. There are too many ways to finish a block for me to cater to individuals.

I doubt I will be doing anything with Ford.

Tod
Click to expand...

I think you have the right idea - as there are a zillion ways to build a flathead Ford. There are many guys that will want a 'new' and reliable engine that is close to stock specs (bore, stroke, etc) - there are others (like me), that would only buy a block like this if it can extend the performance capabilities beyond what is possible with a stock block. The primary area where I'd want the ability to 'finish' the block is in bore size and cam bearing size.

The other area where I think you'll need to really think about and then make some firm decisions is the whole valve train "package" that comes with the block --> you should include a much better port design (intake and exhaust) - such that everybody benefits from better flow. Some 'performance hounds' like me will take the "as cast" port designs and port/blend them even further - for larger cubic inches and higher performance. With this said, I would probably think about what initial valve sizes you include "out of the box" -- like 1.72" intake and 1.6" exhaust. I would not want to have to bore out and put valve seats into every block - that gets expensive for every builder. So - you might as well go with a larger hardened valve seat from the get-go.


With the above said, I'd still like the option of buying a block without any valve seats at all (would think at a cheaper price) - as if I'm building an OHV conversion (like an Ardun), it makes no sense to pay for them or for you to invest the machine work/parts/time . . . only to not use them.

Another peak performance idea just came to mind: Would be interesting to explore the potential to move the intake/exhaust bowl/guide locations maybe just a bit further apart. I've not done any measuring, but I will look into it (to see how much room is available), impact on heads/studs, impact on cam lobes (if it can be done), etc.. I would LOVE to have a larger intake valve (if the port could support the flow) - beyond 1.72" with a hard seat - and the only way for this to work is to move the valves a bit further apart. Anyway - just pondering the 'ultimate' design a bit further in my mind . . . will look at my CAD models when I get home next week. Something fun for me to look at . . . LOL!
 
Tod said:
I typed up some stuff yesterday but yet again the site timed out and it all went away. I will do it again soon. Tod
Click to expand...

Hi Everyone, Tod, I'm following closely but don't have much other than to say, type your stuff offline in your favorite editor, then copy/paste to your posting here. Saves the timeout ARRRRggghhh! moment.

Edit to add. And now I see I'm not the first with this suggestion, so I'll go back to reading.
 
Bored&Stroked said:
I think you have the right idea - as there are a zillion ways to build a flathead Ford. There are many guys that will want a 'new' and reliable engine that is close to stock specs (bore, stroke, etc) - there are others (like me), that would only buy a block like this if it can extend the performance capabilities beyond what is possible with a stock block. The primary area where I'd want the ability to 'finish' the block is in bore size and cam bearing size.

The other area where I think you'll need to really think about and then make some firm decisions is the whole valve train "package" that comes with the block --> you should include a much better port design (intake and exhaust) - such that everybody benefits from better flow. Some 'performance hounds' like me will take the "as cast" port designs and port/blend them even further - for larger cubic inches and higher performance. With this said, I would probably think about what initial valve sizes you include "out of the box" -- like 1.72" intake and 1.6" exhaust. I would not want to have to bore out and put valve seats into every block - that gets expensive for every builder. So - you might as well go with a larger hardened valve seat from the get-go.


With the above said, I'd still like the option of buying a block without any valve seats at all (would think at a cheaper price) - as if I'm building an OHV conversion (like an Ardun), it makes no sense to pay for them or for you to invest the machine work/parts/time . . . only to not use them.

Another peak performance idea just came to mind: Would be interesting to explore the potential to move the intake/exhaust bowl/guide locations maybe just a bit further apart. I've not done any measuring, but I will look into it (to see how much room is available), impact on heads/studs, impact on cam lobes (if it can be done), etc.. I would LOVE to have a larger intake valve (if the port could support the flow) - beyond 1.72" with a hard seat - and the only way for this to work is to move the valves a bit further apart. Anyway - just pondering the 'ultimate' design a bit further in my mind . . . will look at my CAD models when I get home next week. Something fun for me to look at . . . LOL!
Click to expand...


B & S I'm intrigued with your idea of spreading the valve centerlines apart a little bit more. I think some careful thought should be given to not shrouding the intake valve more as a result of crowding the chamber wall.

Ford accomplished a similar thing some years ago when they were doing the GT40 and GT40P cylinder heads for the 5.0 engine.

Basically what Ford did was create a better exhaust port fitted with a slightly smaller exhaust valve which together outflowed the previous design.

Then that freed up some space for a larger more efficient intake valve and port.

Maybe a similar thing could be done with a Flatty.

I personally think but don't know for sure, that by moving the intake valve closer to the cylinder bore edge you could pick up a lot of flow.

It's all about relaxing that last nearly 180 degree turn the incoming charge has to make to fill the cylinder.
 
Now, I think this id getting out of hand. Moving the valves, means mpving the lifters, which means replacing the CAM. I try to think out of the box here and belive that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear..
Thicken the deck
re in-force the mains.
Remove the water jackets around the intake ports.
Raise the roof of the intake port.
Now you have a block that fit; all comers, You'll even be able to bolt on a 21 stud head. Something like this would please most people.
I really believe this is our only hope.

PS I have a block that I've been cytting up and I could send you some pieces.
 
Ol' Ron said:
Now, I think this id getting out of hand. Moving the valves, means mpving the lifters, which means replacing the CAM. I try to think out of the box here and belive that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear..
Thicken the deck
re in-force the mains.
Remove the water jackets around the intake ports.
Raise the roof of the intake port.
Now you have a block that fit; all comers, You'll even be able to bolt on a 21 stud head. Something like this would please most people.
I really believe this is our only hope.

PS I have a block that I've been cytting up and I could send you some pieces.
Click to expand...


Very true Ron but we're just talking right now.

On the other hand the "other" best way to improve the aspect ratio between the periphery of the intake valve and the cylinder bore is very simply by going to a larger bore which this block will do.

Let's don't forget though, Ford themselves played with valve positioning for different reasons. I wonder if cam manufacturers account for those differences?
 
I'm not moving valves. I have too much work in the center exhaust port alone to scrap that idea. The best I could do would be to provide a casting that is not machined at all in the valve areas and let the customer machine them where he wants. OR, I could do one (or however many) special order which would cost a ton to program.

Ron has pretty much hit what I'm aiming at. I am working on the ports a little as I finish the external details. Thickening the deck alone, and making blind deck bolt bosses is challenge enough with the limitations of the block parameters. Let me get something that is better and then I can always make reasonable changes after that prototyping is complete. If I can get 5 or 10 of these spoken for then we can think about other things if need be.

I will post more details asap. Daily work will be getting back in the way now that the holiday is over.

Tod
 
I don't think the center exhaust port need any changes. Using a flow bench proves that it's the best flowing port in the block. Just check the firing order.
 
I applaud the idea of someone as Tod willing to cast a more refined Flathead and willing to satisfy a few different generations. My hat is off to you and those willing to share their expertise. I would also think Ford and all manufacturers had "Planned Obsolescence" in some of their engine designs, otherwise they would never sell their newer cars a few years later. I'm not sure if that held true to their drivetrains as much as newer body styles and the rusting of body panels. Never rebuilt a flathead but I have rebuilt a few overhead valve engines. So I wish I could make a suggestion or two. But I do love the sound and feel of driving one. Keep up the good work.
 
Last edited:
All great stuff!

Pushing the Boundaries: I love the conversation and that we're talking about things that are beyond where the new design should go (for purposes of being applicable for the MOST people). It is not that Tod should do all the things we're pondering, but by having the discussion we encourage critical and creative thinking. Sometimes thinking about things that stretch the boundaries of the design or working design envelope - help us make better design decisions for WHAT ends up being in the final design. I always try to think beyond where my design will go - as I tend to make better designs as a result. Also, it may be that 'Version 1' has features A, B, C . . . but I might leave room for features D, E in the future (as an option) - and by knowing that I MIGHT do them later, I just may make some provisions in my Version 1 to leave that future door open.

Valve Sizes, Ports and Bowl Work: There is probably not much of a reason why a bigger than 1.5" exhaust valve is needed . . . as a matter of fact, at the horsepower levels that are obtainable I'm sure even a 1.4" ex valve would work. Personally, I would love to try a 1.8" intake and a 1.4" exhaust - with good ports for both. I believe I can make more HP on the intake side of things . . . than I can get today. Of course, having better port designs and flow will be key. The idea of lowering the intake valve port floor and guide a bit - can surely help. Having more port width (in the intake) would also help. In the end the bowl area will probably be the most important as the stock design is a bit of a mess. I'd take stock guides diameters if I had a better shaped bowl and could contour the top of the stock guide to blend into a nicely formed bowl. JWLs book shows a lot of what can/should be done in the bowl area.

Keep the ideas and discussion going . . . it is awesome that we're all discussing these things to together as a group and that Tod is an active participant.

B&S
 
Folks had a completely different way of thinking back in that era. They were simply trying to make the best cars they could for the lowest amount of dollar value in order to get a price that would sell and a car that would attract as many buyers as possible. Obsolescence is there whether planned or not as time, the elements, and general design appeal changes.

The general design of the Ford flathead V8 has limits built in by its size. I think subtle changes is all you can get and still get the OEM stuff and to a limited degree aftermarket or hop up stuff to fit. It's worth checking to see what all the limits are. Folks just have to keep in mind that not much can be done to change that without a total redesign affecting all the fit of most of the OEM parts. A completely new design loses some appeal when many folks just want a usable near original type design. It's too easy to go back to a small block Ford or Chevy engine to get greater performance. Nostalgia types might look at the OHV Cadillac or Oldsmobile V8s of the era to get more performance as they did back in the day. The hold outs generally just put that blower on there to make the old flatty breath.
 
A lot of Jeeps were made during the war. The production figures are astronomical. Many Jeep types & derivatives made after the war too so it makes sense to manufacture a new one. Most of the old ones were rode hard and put away wet many a time.
 
That Jeep engine is interesting in the positioning of the intake and exhaust ports.
Notice that the intake port centerline is lower than the exhaust?

Well I think that was done to prioritize intake port efficiency. This gives the intake port added room to more gently rise up to the back of the valve head.

I imagine that a Flathead Ford's intake port could be designed such that it curves up to the intake valve more gradually reducing the abrupt turn the charge must make in the valve pocket area.

I believe that if done carefully that the original intake port entrance could be maintained to line up with the stock intake manifold runners.

This would be a huge jump in volumetric efficiency in my humble opinion.
 
Tod said:
I'm not moving valves. I have too much work in the center exhaust port alone to scrap that idea. The best I could do would be to provide a casting that is not machined at all in the valve areas and let the customer machine them where he wants. OR, I could do one (or however many) special order which would cost a ton to program.

Ron has pretty much hit what I'm aiming at. I am working on the ports a little as I finish the external details. Thickening the deck alone, and making blind deck bolt bosses is challenge enough with the limitations of the block parameters. Let me get something that is better and then I can always make reasonable changes after that prototyping is complete. If I can get 5 or 10 of these spoken for then we can think about other things if need be.

I will post more details asap. Daily work will be getting back in the way now that the holiday is over.

Tod
Click to expand...


Tod, just a quick comment on cylinder head bolts, blind holes and deck thickness. I understand that Mark Kirby decided to go to, I think, 3/8" heads bolts for a couple reasons.

First and foremost he believed that the smaller diameter fasteners would deflect the deck less and actually the fasteners would "yield" thereby actually increasing clamping force.

The other reason was this change actually freed up a little space between the bolt holes closest to the cylinders to allow room for larger bores.

Just food for thought as if you don't have enough to think about already. Lol! Sorry
 
Henry Floored said:
That Jeep engine is interesting in the positioning of the intake and exhaust ports.
Notice that the intake port centerline is lower than the exhaust?

Well I think that was done to prioritize intake port efficiency. This gives the intake port added room to more gently rise up to the back of the valve head.

I imagine that a Flathead Ford's intake port could be designed such that it curves up to the intake valve more gradually reducing the abrupt turn the charge must make in the valve pocket area.

I believe that if done carefully that the original intake port entrance could be maintained to line up with the stock intake manifold runners.

This would be a huge jump in volumetric efficiency in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

My plan is to increase the intake port diameter and make the curve less abrupt and increase the window size going into the diameter under the valve. I have already done the increased size under the valve with the center exhaust port. The idea is to keep as close to intake manifold size as possible. The intake ports will drop straighter down and then curve upwards into the wider area above the valve guides.

Tod
 
I made a little more progress today despite having to mess around with one of my machines some and also doing some of the last 1st OP machining on a Cleveland block. I have a bunch of machining to do coming up so design work will take a back seat to cash flow.

Pics of the basic model so far. It is not finished so please be understanding. If you see what seems incomplete that would be because it is incomplete and do me the courtesy of assuming that I see it rather than figuring I'm a clueless moron (even if that much is true!).


Tod
 

Attachments

  • 20170530_201524.jpg
    20170530_201524.jpg
    36.3 KB · Views: 85
  • 20170530_201549.jpg
    20170530_201549.jpg
    37 KB · Views: 87
  • 20170530_201632.jpg
    20170530_201632.jpg
    36.6 KB · Views: 86
It sounds like the porting flow would have less of a sharp turn to make so that might do well as long as it still leaves room for valve installation and adjustment in the tappet valley which it should if I understand your approach to this.

Folks have done all sorts of stuff in the bowls over the years to reduce the right angle turn nature of them. They've added bondo, epoxy, and who knows what else to make a better curve in there. Some also braze up part of the contour of those large guides to get them to blend into the curve that they end up with as well as whittle a bit off one side of the guides to allow a bit more room to flow for an entry ramp. It will be interesting to see what you come up with.

Flow Bench and Dyno testing have been done by innumerable people for as many design changes as you can imagine for these damn intake & exhaust ports. JWL & Ol Ron are some that I'm sure have experience with this. It would also be interesting to talk to Kenny Kloth about some of his testing if he ever would. Many of the guys that did a lot of this like DJ "Flat Dog" on the HAMB are already gone to us so their secrets will remain except for those that new them well. Some changes even if just subtle might have better effects than others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top