Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 03:49:58 AM
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 03:49:58 AM
So I've pulled my old GT40P heads off today and found that one has a pretty nasty looking exhaust valve. I only know of this type of issue as possibly a cracked head? Input?
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/Head1.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/Head2.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/Pistons.jpg)
Gathering numbers from the engine today, the block was originally zero-decked and had a pretty large quench height (0.47-0.48) since the installed gaskets were PT9333. The new heads going on are TW measured at 56cc but I stopped since I wanted to pick up new dowels. I should have a quench height of 0.39-0.40 and ptv clearance appears to be a bit over 0.300. I'm guessing the motor is going to run much better using 87 octane at 9.7:1 compression on aluminum heads, than the 9.2 or 9.3:1 it was trying to do on the iron gt40p heads, and without what was going on in that one cylinder. Everything looked good otherwise. Going back to my Comp Cams lifters and using stud mount rockers, I'm hoping the valvetrain will be a bit quieter.
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/Head1.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/Head2.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/Pistons.jpg)
Gathering numbers from the engine today, the block was originally zero-decked and had a pretty large quench height (0.47-0.48) since the installed gaskets were PT9333. The new heads going on are TW measured at 56cc but I stopped since I wanted to pick up new dowels. I should have a quench height of 0.39-0.40 and ptv clearance appears to be a bit over 0.300. I'm guessing the motor is going to run much better using 87 octane at 9.7:1 compression on aluminum heads, than the 9.2 or 9.3:1 it was trying to do on the iron gt40p heads, and without what was going on in that one cylinder. Everything looked good otherwise. Going back to my Comp Cams lifters and using stud mount rockers, I'm hoping the valvetrain will be a bit quieter.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Kitz Kat on March 31, 2013, 05:25:05 AM
Post by: Kitz Kat on March 31, 2013, 05:25:05 AM
You may have some seepage around that head gasket ring?
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: TheFoeYouKnow on March 31, 2013, 08:55:58 AM
Post by: TheFoeYouKnow on March 31, 2013, 08:55:58 AM
I'd get your injectors on that bank flow benched. You may have on under-performing. I would have to interpret #2 exhaust valve as indicating a lean mixture relative to the others. I don't look at exhaust valves everyday, but that's how it seems to me.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on March 31, 2013, 09:28:04 AM
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on March 31, 2013, 09:28:04 AM
Due to the amount of carbon on the plugs it's probably worn valve guides allowing oil to enter the cylinder, #1 isn't exactly a beauty either... Pistons look good so I'll guess rings are OK, a compression or leak-down test would have been a good idea, but of course a little late for that now... I'd probably do one just after bolting on the new heads and setting the valves...
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 12:59:06 PM
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 12:59:06 PM
The heads just came off filthy after being thrown onto the ground after removal (too heavy). Much of what is all over the head is simply from laying in filth, coolant, and oil. Here is a better picture. The pitting is what caught my eye.
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/Orange.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/Orange.jpg)
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 01:04:47 PM
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 01:04:47 PM
I don't really care if the heads themselves were at fault, but a bad injector would be bad. The injectors have maybe 5k miles on them since being rebuilt and flow tested. The head itself, well I'm just curious what could have caused the orange, pitted valve. I have the following ready to go on after I get some new dowels. TONS of PTV clearance - it barely touched the ball of clay I placed on the top valve reliefs.
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/TW1.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/TW2.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/TW3.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/TW4.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/TW5.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/TW1.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/TW2.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/TW3.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/TW4.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/TW5.jpg)
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 01:10:53 PM
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 01:10:53 PM
Quote from: TurboCoupe50;412209
a compression or leak-down test would have been a good idea, but of course a little late for that now...
Yeah, this was nearly impossible with the (gt40p-specific) headers bolted on with the GTP heads. I did a compression test years ago without any bad numbers. A year or so later, I had a shop do a leakdown test and blowby test, with great sealing everywhere. I love that I'm going back to a normal spark plug angle so such tests are easy again. Too bad it will take me another hour to install the header studs (2-3 to remove them after many years...).
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on March 31, 2013, 05:37:26 PM
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on March 31, 2013, 05:37:26 PM
The TW heads are light years ahead of those old iron 40s, you'll think you have a new engine with a extra cylinder...
You're gonna need longer push rods with the TW heads, I wound up using stock length flat tappet push rods that are approx 1/2" longer than the roller push rod... That engine went together in '99 with no valve train problems at all, it finally expired due to a blown head gasket(2nd time, has deck issues) and the thrust clearance was way over spec...
You're gonna need longer push rods with the TW heads, I wound up using stock length flat tappet push rods that are approx 1/2" longer than the roller push rod... That engine went together in '99 with no valve train problems at all, it finally expired due to a blown head gasket(2nd time, has deck issues) and the thrust clearance was way over spec...
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 06:10:52 PM
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 06:10:52 PM
I have some 6.700" pushrods, but won't know if I can use them until the heads are on. Since TFS includes 6.750 with their kits I figured I may be good pre-purchasing some used (value) 6.700 since my heads were milled .030 and the deck was taken down a bit to get the pistons lined up. I'll know for sure in a bit.
On my previous heads, I've used three different sets of injectors so any cylinder-specific issue could have been any of many issues in the past. The valve seals were fairly new and there was limited play with the guides, but the P's weren't reworked before I installed them years ago. I don't remember there being any valves that looked orange and pitted though. I've been hoping that a slight stumble/rough spot at idle that felt like it was coming from one cylinder will be resolved after this work. Since the deck appears fairly even, as do the heads, it looks like each cylinder should be very close to one another in terms of combustion quality. It would be awesome to get back to a near perfectly smooth idle with the HO cam.
On my previous heads, I've used three different sets of injectors so any cylinder-specific issue could have been any of many issues in the past. The valve seals were fairly new and there was limited play with the guides, but the P's weren't reworked before I installed them years ago. I don't remember there being any valves that looked orange and pitted though. I've been hoping that a slight stumble/rough spot at idle that felt like it was coming from one cylinder will be resolved after this work. Since the deck appears fairly even, as do the heads, it looks like each cylinder should be very close to one another in terms of combustion quality. It would be awesome to get back to a near perfectly smooth idle with the HO cam.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: STANG8U on March 31, 2013, 06:25:03 PM
Post by: STANG8U on March 31, 2013, 06:25:03 PM
Make sure to use harden pushrods with the guide plates
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 08:26:55 PM
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 08:26:55 PM
While I don't think it will cause any issue, is there a reason why some gaskets seem to not be aligned well enough to a factory block? It's pushing it, but I think most of the "blue" ring around the upper left and upper right coolant holes will continue to seal.
I shouldn't have any issue with these gaskets, correct? Everything else lines up, and the fire ring sits pretty much even around the cylinders. I just haven't had alignment issues like this in the past.
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/gasket.jpg)
Of course. I have TFS 6.700" units to hopefully use. No expense was forgetting on this update. Fresh heads with new manganese bronze guides and new valves, aiming for 0.035-0.041 quench height, have a newer, freshly ported lower intake from Matt Moss, new PS bracket, March alternator bracket, etc. Hell, I even got ARP intake studs so I can get a more even clamping force, over the stainless bolts I've been using for years. I just want the long block to be good indefinitely. It already has near perfect external support items, like balancer, ignition system, distributor, etc. I just REALLY dislike the gt40p heads that I only got for their "efficiency". My previous GT40's did just as well, and burned cleaner, with over 100k miles on them, not rebuilt.
Life should be pretty good with the new setup. 9.73x:1 static compression with an '89 HO cam should run fine on 87 octane with even a stock tune, but I'll adjust that a bit when the carpc is in, so I can't have to use a laptop all the time with Binary Editor. CarPC and custom fabricated audio system will be coming soon as the improving weather allows me to work with MDF and fiberglass outdoors.
I shouldn't have any issue with these gaskets, correct? Everything else lines up, and the fire ring sits pretty much even around the cylinders. I just haven't had alignment issues like this in the past.
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/gasket.jpg)
Quote from: STANG8U;412254
Make sure to use harden pushrods with the guide plates
Of course. I have TFS 6.700" units to hopefully use. No expense was forgetting on this update. Fresh heads with new manganese bronze guides and new valves, aiming for 0.035-0.041 quench height, have a newer, freshly ported lower intake from Matt Moss, new PS bracket, March alternator bracket, etc. Hell, I even got ARP intake studs so I can get a more even clamping force, over the stainless bolts I've been using for years. I just want the long block to be good indefinitely. It already has near perfect external support items, like balancer, ignition system, distributor, etc. I just REALLY dislike the gt40p heads that I only got for their "efficiency". My previous GT40's did just as well, and burned cleaner, with over 100k miles on them, not rebuilt.
Life should be pretty good with the new setup. 9.73x:1 static compression with an '89 HO cam should run fine on 87 octane with even a stock tune, but I'll adjust that a bit when the carpc is in, so I can't have to use a laptop all the time with Binary Editor. CarPC and custom fabricated audio system will be coming soon as the improving weather allows me to work with MDF and fiberglass outdoors.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on March 31, 2013, 09:24:14 PM
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on March 31, 2013, 09:24:14 PM
Quote from: Seek;412264
Life should be pretty good with the new setup. 9.73x:1 static compression with an '89 HO cam
How's you figure that??? Reason I ask is when I ran the TW heads on '86 HO flattops without valve reliefs, would pop 170 psi per hole, defiantly was up there in compression...
BTW that was with the Stage 1 TF cam that specks at 221*/225*@.050...
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 09:33:16 PM
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 09:33:16 PM
4.03 bore, 3in stroke (this may be a little lower), 56cc chambers, .039 quench, 4.1 gasket, 7.40cc pistons. 9.7 is a good rough estimate.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: TOM Renzo on March 31, 2013, 09:35:17 PM
Post by: TOM Renzo on March 31, 2013, 09:35:17 PM
Mechanical compression ratio is different from sweep compression. Compression pressures are directly related to cam selection not compression ratios!!
Static Vs. Dynamic Compression Ratio is entirely two different things.
I would check the Valve springs for fatigue and the seat contact area. It might be to THIN!!
Static Vs. Dynamic Compression Ratio is entirely two different things.
I would check the Valve springs for fatigue and the seat contact area. It might be to THIN!!
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 09:48:31 PM
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 09:48:31 PM
I understand that. Using the same cam though, I think 9.7xx:1 static on a stock '89 HO cam/TW heads should run pretty well with 87 octane. That is all I'm saying. I previously ran 87 octane with my gt40p's, which were a little over 9:1 static. I'd have to cc them to be sure what I was running, but I don't really care about them now.
Also, I didn't notice my buddy failed to put a towel in the exhaust hole on the side he pulled off yesterday and of course, I ended up dropping a nut down there today. It wouldn't be much an issue if I had a lift, but yeah, it connects all the way back to the lers as a single piece. I don't know of any good ways to fish that out from 3 feet of tube where I think the nut stopped, since there are multiple junk bends. I really need to take it to a good shop for a better quality exhaust.
Also, I didn't notice my buddy failed to put a towel in the exhaust hole on the side he pulled off yesterday and of course, I ended up dropping a nut down there today. It wouldn't be much an issue if I had a lift, but yeah, it connects all the way back to the lers as a single piece. I don't know of any good ways to fish that out from 3 feet of tube where I think the nut stopped, since there are multiple junk bends. I really need to take it to a good shop for a better quality exhaust.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 11:43:07 PM
Post by: Masejoer on March 31, 2013, 11:43:07 PM
Yeah, magnets on fish tape didn't work as it's in the cat. Unbolted the exhaust but it's too heavy to lift and pull solo. I will have to wait until tomorrow to get a helper to lower the exhaust.
So the head gaskets - run as is above?
So the head gaskets - run as is above?
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 01, 2013, 12:44:49 AM
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 01, 2013, 12:44:49 AM
Quote from: Seek;412288
Yeah, magnets on fish tape didn't work as it's in the cat. Unbolted the exhaust but it's too heavy to lift and pull solo. I will have to wait until tomorrow to get a helper to lower the exhaust.
So the head gaskets - run as is above?
Fel-Pro 1011-2? I've got a set on mine. They looked like that and sealed fine with the Edelbrock heads.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 01, 2013, 01:39:01 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 01, 2013, 01:39:01 AM
Quote from: thunderjet302;412298
Fel-Pro 1011-2? I've got a set on mine. They looked like that and sealed fine with the Edelbrock heads.
Yep. Expensive suckers, but will work fine NA.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: TOM Renzo on April 01, 2013, 05:45:57 AM
Post by: TOM Renzo on April 01, 2013, 05:45:57 AM
The CR is not the factor on weather you can use lower octane.(TO A POINT)My car has a true CR of 9.2 and i run high test and 23-24 lbs of boost. Reason being the cam decides the sweep compression pressures. Basically the easiest way to explain this is simple. If you have an engine with a true 10-1 CR and the valves never close you sweep compression pressure is ZERO!! basically you select the CR by the cam and induction system you design. You dont choose a CR then select a cam or induction system. Thanks!!
Example an engine with 10-1 CR at sea level should get 147 LBS of cranking pressure. But depending on the cam this might not be true and people dont factor in the cam profile. Using compression numbers does not factor out to CR. CR is a mechanical figure and a set number. Sweep compression pressures are totally different. Just saying.
Example an engine with 10-1 CR at sea level should get 147 LBS of cranking pressure. But depending on the cam this might not be true and people dont factor in the cam profile. Using compression numbers does not factor out to CR. CR is a mechanical figure and a set number. Sweep compression pressures are totally different. Just saying.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 01, 2013, 11:21:08 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 01, 2013, 11:21:08 AM
Quote from: TOM Renzo;412304
The CR is not the factor on weather you can use lower octane.(TO A POINT)My car has a true CR of 9.2 and i run high test and 23-24 lbs of boost. Reason being the cam decides the sweep compression pressures. Basically the easiest way to explain this is simple. If you have an engine with a true 10-1 CR and the valves never close you sweep compression pressure is ZERO!! basically you select the CR by the cam and induction system you design. You dont choose a CR then select a cam or induction system. Thanks!!
Example an engine with 10-1 CR at sea level should get 147 LBS of cranking pressure. But depending on the cam this might not be true and people dont factor in the cam profile. Using compression numbers does not factor out to CR. CR is a mechanical figure and a set number. Sweep compression pressures are totally different. Just saying.
The cam isn't changing. Moving up .5-.6 on the static compression ratio with aluminum heads should run on 87 octane as the irons did at the lower compression. All else being equal, the change in static compression will pretty much increase the dynamic compression linearly (about as close to linear as one can get).
So explain how the final compression isn't going up 6-7% is everything else stays equal?
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: TOM Renzo on April 01, 2013, 01:18:43 PM
Post by: TOM Renzo on April 01, 2013, 01:18:43 PM
IT WILL i know that!!! But i just wanted to point out the difference between sweep and actual. Some people dont realize the difference., just saying!!
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 01, 2013, 05:18:46 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 01, 2013, 05:18:46 PM
Yeah, I agree. I do seem to see people bringing it up all over the place the last couple years, even in places where it doesn't really belong. It's better to have the information than not though.
As for this thing, I'm not sure I'll get it fired off tonight since I have numerous things to change and swap out before bolting the motor back together, but I'll get there. I plan on changing the oil immediately with the old filter left in there (using cheap oil). Then I'll change it again with my good oil after a few miles just because I hate the idea of ANY coolant mixed in there. It will smoke a bit though, as I've slathered oil on everything that isn't a gasket surface. Also haven't fitment-checked my valve covers. I want new ones, but I may have to grind the casting inside my stock Mustang covers a bit to get them to work for now.
I'm just hoping for a smooth idle - there's no reason the Mustang cam shouldn't be able to idle smooth without any detectable stumble anywhere.
Also, the orange colored exhaust valve wiped right off with a dry paper towel. It basically cleaned up while the other ones have a hard white film that would need chemicals. The orange valve was like a fine surface rust. It confuses me as it seems it'd blow right off in combustion, but the car was driven just 2 days before it was pulled apart.
As for this thing, I'm not sure I'll get it fired off tonight since I have numerous things to change and swap out before bolting the motor back together, but I'll get there. I plan on changing the oil immediately with the old filter left in there (using cheap oil). Then I'll change it again with my good oil after a few miles just because I hate the idea of ANY coolant mixed in there. It will smoke a bit though, as I've slathered oil on everything that isn't a gasket surface. Also haven't fitment-checked my valve covers. I want new ones, but I may have to grind the casting inside my stock Mustang covers a bit to get them to work for now.
I'm just hoping for a smooth idle - there's no reason the Mustang cam shouldn't be able to idle smooth without any detectable stumble anywhere.
Also, the orange colored exhaust valve wiped right off with a dry paper towel. It basically cleaned up while the other ones have a hard white film that would need chemicals. The orange valve was like a fine surface rust. It confuses me as it seems it'd blow right off in combustion, but the car was driven just 2 days before it was pulled apart.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 01, 2013, 05:41:56 PM
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 01, 2013, 05:41:56 PM
Quote from: Seek;412301
Yep. Expensive suckers, but will work fine NA.
I think I spent less than $40 for the pair. They work great NA but I've heard they have issues with boost. The 9333PT-1s are better in boosted applications.
Thinking back to when I pulled the GT40Ps off of my car I believe it had one funky looking exhaust valve as well. It was on cylinder #2 and it was a differnt color than the rest of the exhaust valves. I have no idea what it was as the engine ran fine and had good compression.
What cam were you running before? The Comp Cam I have idles pretty much as smooth as a stock HO cam and pulls harder up top. I've never had a hesitation issue with it.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 02:34:57 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 02:34:57 AM
I've only used this '89 HO cam since moving away from the stock motor. I was tempted by some cams a month or so ago, so I had NO idea what would fit since I had the heads milled quite a bit, and I didn't know where my pistons sat in the bore. I'd probably want to move up to a 408 rather than swap the cam. Also I found that Chuck's motor mounts appear to make the motor sit HIGHER than the stock hydraulic mounts, so that will make me need to re-think fitting a larger motor under the stock hood.
Anyway, I'm not sure why my intake valve's sweep is a bit off center versus the exhaust. Previously it was easy to shim in the difference with pedestals. Now I don't know with stud mounts? The below was with 6.700" pushrods and solid lifters. Very narrow sweep, but the intake valve is a bit off center.
The sweep is a pretty low 0.045".
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/ValveSweep.jpg)
Anyway, I'm not sure why my intake valve's sweep is a bit off center versus the exhaust. Previously it was easy to shim in the difference with pedestals. Now I don't know with stud mounts? The below was with 6.700" pushrods and solid lifters. Very narrow sweep, but the intake valve is a bit off center.
The sweep is a pretty low 0.045".
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/ValveSweep.jpg)
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 02:43:36 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 02:43:36 PM
I should also add, I forgot to use my reducer bushings that I purchased. Although these heads were supposedly drilled out to 1/2" and the 1/2" studs were included in the shipment, I pulled one nut and CANNOT get the 1/2 to 7/16 bushings to fit. I then tried the 1/2" studs and they also aren't even close to fitting in the hole. The hole appears larger than the ones in my GT40P heads, but also a lot smaller than a 1/2" bolt would take. I can't get my caliper to get me a good measurement since the jaw isn't long enough, but the holes in these heads appear to be closer to 15/32. They are exactly between 7/16 and 1/2".
What should I do? I have the dowel pins in for the centering and everything originally torqued well. If I pull the heads to have them opened up to the full 1/2" so I can use the reducers, I will have to re-purchase $85 in gaskets that I'd need to special order. Can someone provide real insight on the need for the reducer bushings? Looking on Google, it seems many experienced builders claim the reducers aren't needed, but they can't hurt - the dowel pins locate the head and the bolts just clamp the head down. Others that appear to know less on the subject say that you need the reducers, period.
My machine shop was more worried about the arp washers. He told me I should be fine without the reducers (he originally recommended I get them) with my information above, but recommends adding an additional grade 8 washer to each stud to make sure that the nut doesn't cause the washer to bowl into the hole.
Anyone with actual experience with engine building have any suggestions? Tom?
On another note, the machine shop also would like to see if I can get the wear pattern above closer to the center, even being only 0.045" sweep right now, and run two different pushrod lengths if needed. Many seem to think the above picture should be good to run as is. Since the TW heads have more of an angle on the intake valve (IIRC), the slight exhaust bias might help counter the side loading that the angle would produce?
What should I do? I have the dowel pins in for the centering and everything originally torqued well. If I pull the heads to have them opened up to the full 1/2" so I can use the reducers, I will have to re-purchase $85 in gaskets that I'd need to special order. Can someone provide real insight on the need for the reducer bushings? Looking on Google, it seems many experienced builders claim the reducers aren't needed, but they can't hurt - the dowel pins locate the head and the bolts just clamp the head down. Others that appear to know less on the subject say that you need the reducers, period.
My machine shop was more worried about the arp washers. He told me I should be fine without the reducers (he originally recommended I get them) with my information above, but recommends adding an additional grade 8 washer to each stud to make sure that the nut doesn't cause the washer to bowl into the hole.
Anyone with actual experience with engine building have any suggestions? Tom?
On another note, the machine shop also would like to see if I can get the wear pattern above closer to the center, even being only 0.045" sweep right now, and run two different pushrod lengths if needed. Many seem to think the above picture should be good to run as is. Since the TW heads have more of an angle on the intake valve (IIRC), the slight exhaust bias might help counter the side loading that the angle would produce?
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 02, 2013, 03:02:54 PM
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 02, 2013, 03:02:54 PM
If I remember correctly the Trick Flow heads have a smaller opening than ½” for the head bolt holes. The holes are stepped with the top being small and the lower part being larger. The idea is that the reducer washers won’t be necessary on 289/302 blocks. If you’re running a 351W all you have to do is bore the hole the extra ¼ way through to get the size to ½”. So basically if you’re running the heads on a 289/302 you don’t need the reducer bushings.
The Edelbrock heads I used had ½” holes so I used ARP bolts and reducer bushings. They fit right in the bolt holes no problem.
As for the pushrod issue it looks like you may need slightly shorter (6.650) pushrods to center the mark on the valve tip.
The Edelbrock heads I used had ½” holes so I used ARP bolts and reducer bushings. They fit right in the bolt holes no problem.
As for the pushrod issue it looks like you may need slightly shorter (6.650) pushrods to center the mark on the valve tip.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 03:27:20 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 03:27:20 PM
I assume you mean shorter pushrod, not longer.
I'm still not sure if any changes are needed? No matter the car, it seems we want the narrowest contact path and that the position shouldn't really matter. Narrow meaning that the rocker is pretty much perpendicular with the valve and pressing down on it evenly. To get a perfectly narrow contact path in the center of the valve, you need perfect pushrod length and rocker arms.
I will get some more checking done tonight, but there is a good chance that a shorter pushrod will make the contact path a bit wider.
I'm still not sure if any changes are needed? No matter the car, it seems we want the narrowest contact path and that the position shouldn't really matter. Narrow meaning that the rocker is pretty much perpendicular with the valve and pressing down on it evenly. To get a perfectly narrow contact path in the center of the valve, you need perfect pushrod length and rocker arms.
I will get some more checking done tonight, but there is a good chance that a shorter pushrod will make the contact path a bit wider.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 03:42:34 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 03:42:34 PM
I liked this example found of contact area versus contact point:
Lay a pencil on your desk, eraser end facing you. Push on it with the tip of another pencil, in the center of the eraser, exactly in alignment with the pencil. Which way does the first pencil move?
Now push on the eraser out near the edge, but still, in exact alignment with the length of the pencil. Which way does the pencil move?
How much did the pencil's motion change?
Now push on the eraser in the exact center but in some direction other than exactly in alignment with the pencil; say, 20° off its axis. Which way did the pencil move?
Conclusion: which change made more difference: moving the contact point, or moving the relative angle of the force?
Lay a pencil on your desk, eraser end facing you. Push on it with the tip of another pencil, in the center of the eraser, exactly in alignment with the pencil. Which way does the first pencil move?
Now push on the eraser out near the edge, but still, in exact alignment with the length of the pencil. Which way does the pencil move?
How much did the pencil's motion change?
Now push on the eraser in the exact center but in some direction other than exactly in alignment with the pencil; say, 20° off its axis. Which way did the pencil move?
Conclusion: which change made more difference: moving the contact point, or moving the relative angle of the force?
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 02, 2013, 03:49:42 PM
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 02, 2013, 03:49:42 PM
Quote from: Seek;412427
I assume you mean shorter pushrod, not longer.
I'm still not sure if any changes are needed? No matter the car, it seems we want the narrowest contact path and that the position shouldn't really matter. Narrow meaning that the rocker is pretty much perpendicular with the valve and pressing down on it evenly. To get a perfectly narrow contact path in the center of the valve, you need perfect pushrod length and rocker arms.
I will get some more checking done tonight, but there is a good chance that a shorter pushrod will make the contact path a bit wider.
Yes I meant shorter. I just had a brain cramp. I fixed my post. :hick:
You could try a shorter pushrod but I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 05:47:35 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 05:47:35 PM
Another thought - the checks above were with a solid lifter. If I were to use a 0.030" (3/8 turn) preload on hydraulic lifters, it would essentially move the mark that much toward the intake side, correct, and help the exhaust be more in alignment. This would provide a good average between intake and exhaust.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 10:11:34 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 02, 2013, 10:11:34 PM
So now that I have more information:
0.465" - Holes in gt40p heads (or 15/32)
0.490" - Holes in TW heads
0.435" 7/16" stud outer diameter
0.498" 1/2" stud outer diameter
0.526" 7/16" reducer bushing outer diameter
Between the 7/16 studs and gt40p heads, I can assume a 1/2" stud would typically have a ~0.03" clearance, which brings them to 0.528" (or 17/32). It does indeed look like my aluminum heads are exactly between 1/2" and 7/16" bolt holes. The previous head owner says that they were drilled for use on a 351, and he included the 1/2" studs, but only the threads fit in the head - not the shank. Safe to bolt on and go, or should I try drilling them out myself and use the reducer bushings? I'd do one at a time and re-torque as to not disturb the compressed head gaskets which I was unable to find for cheaper than $36/ea ($43 at the parts stores).
The stud looks like this with the clearances:
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/Studs.jpg)
0.465" - Holes in gt40p heads (or 15/32)
0.490" - Holes in TW heads
0.435" 7/16" stud outer diameter
0.498" 1/2" stud outer diameter
0.526" 7/16" reducer bushing outer diameter
Between the 7/16 studs and gt40p heads, I can assume a 1/2" stud would typically have a ~0.03" clearance, which brings them to 0.528" (or 17/32). It does indeed look like my aluminum heads are exactly between 1/2" and 7/16" bolt holes. The previous head owner says that they were drilled for use on a 351, and he included the 1/2" studs, but only the threads fit in the head - not the shank. Safe to bolt on and go, or should I try drilling them out myself and use the reducer bushings? I'd do one at a time and re-torque as to not disturb the compressed head gaskets which I was unable to find for cheaper than $36/ea ($43 at the parts stores).
The stud looks like this with the clearances:
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/Studs.jpg)
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 03, 2013, 10:07:34 AM
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 03, 2013, 10:07:34 AM
I've always used the ARP bushings on heads drilled for 1/2" studs. I found this online about installing the TW heads but it really does not address the head bolt hole diameter issue:
http://static.trickflow.com/global/images/instructions/tfs-dp-4%2C5.pdf
From everything I have read its only the last 1" or so that is 7/16". Alot of guys just flip the head over to the 1/2" side and drill them out to accept the 1/2" studs which will allow you to use the bushings. Mic the opening of the head stud holes on each side of the head and that should confirm it if this is what you have.
Darren
Darren
http://static.trickflow.com/global/images/instructions/tfs-dp-4%2C5.pdf
From everything I have read its only the last 1" or so that is 7/16". Alot of guys just flip the head over to the 1/2" side and drill them out to accept the 1/2" studs which will allow you to use the bushings. Mic the opening of the head stud holes on each side of the head and that should confirm it if this is what you have.
Darren
Darren
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 03, 2013, 10:58:32 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 03, 2013, 10:58:32 AM
I question whether this is even necessary though. The clearances aren't too bad, but they are also larger than the holes in the gt40p heads. The bushings won't fit unless drilled out to 17/32".
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 03, 2013, 12:00:41 PM
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 03, 2013, 12:00:41 PM
If he has 7/16" studs then its either hardened washers or the bushings. I would drill them if I already had the bushings just because its cheap and if I ever upped the anti to a 351W motor they would be ready to go or if I wanted to sell them they would be more marketable.
With them already on the car and gaskets in the equation some hardened washers from Fastenal would do the trick and cost less.
Darren
With them already on the car and gaskets in the equation some hardened washers from Fastenal would do the trick and cost less.
Darren
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 03, 2013, 12:17:43 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 03, 2013, 12:17:43 PM
I thought the ARP studs come with hardened washers? I picked up some additional grade 8 washers from the store last night.
I also understand that many people re-clamp down head gaskets multiple times and never have an issue on NA motors. These aren't graphite gaskets so it is possible that could also work, but I've never "reused" a head gasket before and not sure I'd trust it. Otherwise, I'd just pull them and run a 17/32" drill bit down each hole. I'm not sure I can drive them in straight from the top. If the bottom of the holes are 1/2" and not 17/32, there'd be no point in pulling them in the first place - I just need the top to be opened up enough for the bushings.
I also understand that many people re-clamp down head gaskets multiple times and never have an issue on NA motors. These aren't graphite gaskets so it is possible that could also work, but I've never "reused" a head gasket before and not sure I'd trust it. Otherwise, I'd just pull them and run a 17/32" drill bit down each hole. I'm not sure I can drive them in straight from the top. If the bottom of the holes are 1/2" and not 17/32, there'd be no point in pulling them in the first place - I just need the top to be opened up enough for the bushings.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 03, 2013, 04:23:03 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 03, 2013, 04:23:03 PM
Trick flow is also telling me to run it as is with the hardened washers that the studs came with. He couldn't provide me with the hole diameter at the top of the bolt holes when the heads are new. If I were to do this, I think I'd want to use a second washer since the grade 8 ones I purchased from the hardware store are a little larger on the outer diameter and fit nearly snug into the upper bolt seats.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 03, 2013, 05:26:01 PM
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 03, 2013, 05:26:01 PM
If you have a Fastenal near you get what is called a Williams Washer:
http://www.fastenal.com/web/products?searchmode=productSearch&rfqXref=&rfqKeyword=&rfqId=&rfqLineId=&r=~|categoryl1:%22600000%20Fasteners%22|~%20~|categoryl2:%22600089%20Washers%22|~%20~|categoryl3:%22600107%20Williams%20Washers%22|~
I run these on my lower intake with studs. We have used them with the ARP studs on heads when washers come up missing.
Darren
http://www.fastenal.com/web/products?searchmode=productSearch&rfqXref=&rfqKeyword=&rfqId=&rfqLineId=&r=~|categoryl1:%22600000%20Fasteners%22|~%20~|categoryl2:%22600089%20Washers%22|~%20~|categoryl3:%22600107%20Williams%20Washers%22|~
I run these on my lower intake with studs. We have used them with the ARP studs on heads when washers come up missing.
Darren
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 03, 2013, 05:49:58 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 03, 2013, 05:49:58 PM
Interesting - they must do retail sales? I've been wondering what company I could go to for retail fastener sales - all the ones I found by searching "fasteners" were wholesale only. We have seven in the area. What's the reason for those washers? I'm not sure the tiny clearance I have would be of any issue? They look nice with the bevel though.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 03, 2013, 06:21:44 PM
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 03, 2013, 06:21:44 PM
Yup, you can walk right in and buy off the street. If you know any contractors they usually have an account and get better pricing. You can use their account and pay cash. I believe Grainger also carries them but you would have to verify that. These washers are smaller OD and hardened versus what you buy in a hardware store.
Darren
Darren
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 04, 2013, 12:59:40 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 04, 2013, 12:59:40 PM
I will need to elongate the bolt holes on the lower intake to get the thing to clamp down to the heads - the .030 milled heads are just slightly too much. The port alignment is close sitting loose on top of old gaskets, but I think it will work out after clamping down the new gaskets. Got the new/painted power steering bracket installed (Thanks Vinnie!), although I was having problems getting the pulley on all the way - I will pull it again and lube it up better. I think I will be firing this off on Saturday. I figure re-check everything tonight, install intake, finish power steering, make studs for the accessory brackets into heads, torque down rocker arms, and install alternator/AC. Tomorrow do compression check, headers, hook up exhaust, reinstall radiator and fan, lower intake, button things up. Saturday fire off and perhaps try to get the tags updated so I can take the car out - they expired on the 31st. After cleaning up, I may try to finish the LED tail lights, but I don't see those being installed for another week, if the motor works out as planned. I would like to get them done so the lower lights are as bright as the high brake lamp.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 04, 2013, 01:08:55 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 04, 2013, 01:08:55 PM
Below I changed the intake valve to use a 6.650" pushrod length. Being shorter, it is more centered, but the sweep has increased greatly.
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/6700_6650.jpg)
The following contact widths were found last night:
6.650 pushrod - 0.045 sweep
6.700 pushrod - 0.039 sweep
6.750 pushrod - 0.041 sweep
The exhaust valve above had a sweep of around a ridiculously low 0.020" (it must be a little larger than the silver contact path, as that number is approaching impossible with 0.47x lift). The exhausts all look much better than the intakes.
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/6700_6650.jpg)
The following contact widths were found last night:
6.650 pushrod - 0.045 sweep
6.700 pushrod - 0.039 sweep
6.750 pushrod - 0.041 sweep
The exhaust valve above had a sweep of around a ridiculously low 0.020" (it must be a little larger than the silver contact path, as that number is approaching impossible with 0.47x lift). The exhausts all look much better than the intakes.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 04, 2013, 02:09:43 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 04, 2013, 02:09:43 PM
As a reference, this is compared to 6.700" pushrods:
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/ValveSweep.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/ValveSweep.jpg)
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 04, 2013, 04:48:18 PM
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 04, 2013, 04:48:18 PM
Looking at the pictures I would go with the 6.700" pushrod over the 6.650" pushrod. You're running 1.7 roller rockers correct?
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 04, 2013, 05:23:06 PM
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 04, 2013, 05:23:06 PM
I would have the intake milled to match the heads. Were the heads angle milled or just flat milled? I had my old 351W DOZZ heads angle milled and had to get the lower milled to match them up. It was around $100 but when it was bolted down the ports matched perfectly and it never leaked.
Did you just buy a bunch of push rods or did you get your hands on a push rod length checker kit? I finally broke down and bought one and its been used and borrowed a few times.
Darren
Did you just buy a bunch of push rods or did you get your hands on a push rod length checker kit? I finally broke down and bought one and its been used and borrowed a few times.
Darren
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 04, 2013, 06:45:06 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 04, 2013, 06:45:06 PM
1.70 RR's yes - they came with the heads. I picked up 6.700" pushrods since I assumes it'd be around correct for heads milled .030 and a shaved block (since TFS includes 6.750 with their kits on unmolested engines). I have an adjustable pushrod that I was using, and ended up needing to purchase a larger caliper to accurately measure the pushrod lengths.
Flat milled. The machinist thinks the intake is fine to run as is (and they were perfectly straight with his straightedge), and I think I'm of the same opinion. He has found these small differences in the port alignment to be undetectable on a dyno. I was using a wire and feeling around where the two met up and it just barely catches (more of the gasket hole than anything else). Since the head is opened up just a hair more than the intake, I think the catch that I am seeing on the end of the intake runner means it is sitting just about perfectly aligned to the head ports. Being near impossible to check the top of the ports, I can just go off of that, and how far it sits down without any gasket.
I am a bit surprised that my adjustable pushrod hasn't bent since I don't have lightweight checking springs. 130lbs seat pressure (330 open at 0.47 lift) is apparently fine for the lower quality TFS adjustable.
I will do some final checks tonight and make a final decision. I've done the measure 20 times, then bolt on method of rebuilding this topend :p
Flat milled. The machinist thinks the intake is fine to run as is (and they were perfectly straight with his straightedge), and I think I'm of the same opinion. He has found these small differences in the port alignment to be undetectable on a dyno. I was using a wire and feeling around where the two met up and it just barely catches (more of the gasket hole than anything else). Since the head is opened up just a hair more than the intake, I think the catch that I am seeing on the end of the intake runner means it is sitting just about perfectly aligned to the head ports. Being near impossible to check the top of the ports, I can just go off of that, and how far it sits down without any gasket.
I am a bit surprised that my adjustable pushrod hasn't bent since I don't have lightweight checking springs. 130lbs seat pressure (330 open at 0.47 lift) is apparently fine for the lower quality TFS adjustable.
I will do some final checks tonight and make a final decision. I've done the measure 20 times, then bolt on method of rebuilding this topend :p
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: TOM Renzo on April 04, 2013, 07:43:36 PM
Post by: TOM Renzo on April 04, 2013, 07:43:36 PM
Just a question if i may!!! Did you use a pre loaded lifter for checking the length. Just checking as you did not mention that.If not and i assume you did i would use a pre load of .035 just saying, And use the flank of the stem for a spot on setting!!
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 04, 2013, 08:23:46 PM
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 04, 2013, 08:23:46 PM
In Post #30 he mentioned using a solid roller lifter up to that point so I would guess he is still using it?
Darren
Darren
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 05, 2013, 12:29:54 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 05, 2013, 12:29:54 AM
Quote from: TOM Renzo;412612
Just a question if i may!!! Did you use a pre loaded lifter for checking the length. Just checking as you did not mention that.If not and i assume you did i would use a pre load of .035 just saying, And use the flank of the stem for a spot on setting!!
Using a solid lifter and 6.660" pushrod, I get contact patches of .024" exhaust and .038" intake. It's a little different cylinder to cylinder, but I don't think there's getting much closer than that without going in between mass produced .050 increments. My numbers posted this morning were from last night on cylinder #3 while my tests with the 6.660" pushrod were on cylinder #2. I let sharpie dry on the valve tip before bolting the rockers down.
Flank of the stem?
I am picking up some 1250s3 gaskets tomorrow so I don't need to dremel up a stock one. My heads have ports 2.0"x1.2" while my intake is ~2.0"x1.13" (the intake ports have varying widths from 1.10-1.16. On the driver side, without gasket, the head sticks up slightly and with gasket, the intake sticks up slightly. The front sticks up more than the back. On the passenger side, the back sticks up more than the front, but in general the intake sits up higher overall on the passenger side. I have pictures I can post up later, but I think it's good enough for a street motor not having thousands in machine work, and without looking for every last ft/lb. I can assume my guide wear will be a little higher on the edge cylinders, but I'm not too worried with the contact patches I've found.
Now if/when the day comes that I build a 408, I'd likely be more picky and want the machine work to be much closer to ideal as a motor like that would be a bit more difficult to upgrade from. I'm not sure who around here I'd use for that work though.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: TOM Renzo on April 05, 2013, 05:19:38 AM
Post by: TOM Renzo on April 05, 2013, 05:19:38 AM
Darren if he uses a solid lifter and his cam is such that is fine. But he needs to add in the valve lash with it set correctly (valve clearance). But if in fact he is using a HYDRAULIC lifter in the final engine he needs to add in his PRE LOAD NUMBERS !!! Normally this is app .020-.045 just saying. Other wise he is setting it wrong!! Normally what i do for what it is worth. I use a lifter of the type the cam will run. Example a hydraulic lifter lets say and i measure the pocket to the roller or the flat tappet part if the cam is a flat cam. Then i gut the lifter add in the pre load (or should i say subtract the pre load) and that is the lifter that should be used to check the stem contact area. He will also have to check how much pre load will get him to this number with his final pre load adjustment. Another words how many turns it takes to get him in the BALL PARK!! I spend a lot of time with this at the shop when i build engines. It is very important because if not set correct the guides will GO SOUTH!!!!
NOW think about this how do you accomplish this on the 2.3 FORD!!!!! Talk about a problem WHEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
NOW think about this how do you accomplish this on the 2.3 FORD!!!!! Talk about a problem WHEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: TOM Renzo on April 05, 2013, 05:30:27 AM
Post by: TOM Renzo on April 05, 2013, 05:30:27 AM
If the push rod length is correct the mark should be located on the inboard third of the valve-stem tip. Or the FLANK!!!
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 05, 2013, 11:07:32 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 05, 2013, 11:07:32 AM
I'm not too concerned about the contact I see with a solid lifter and pushrods long enough for simulating a 0.040 preload. I will play with the preload a bit to see what the motor likes while staying quiet. IIRC, when I last had these Comp Cams lifters in a motor, they did better with less preload then the FMS product. If I can get by with 0.020, then I'll use it.
Solid lifter with 6.660" pushrods. I'd need to try 6.710 to see how a longer 6.750 pushrod would compare with a simulated 0.040" preload, and preferably on the same cylinder...I will get two more sets of tests done this evening on cylinder 3 before bolting on the lower intake.
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/6660.jpg)
For the good news, the third power steering pulley installer kit worked well. The first two kept pulling out of the pulley and the second kept separating between the pulley stud and clamping stud. My pulley was a bit tighter than I've ever seen press fit ones...
Solid lifter with 6.660" pushrods. I'd need to try 6.710 to see how a longer 6.750 pushrod would compare with a simulated 0.040" preload, and preferably on the same cylinder...I will get two more sets of tests done this evening on cylinder 3 before bolting on the lower intake.
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/6660.jpg)
For the good news, the third power steering pulley installer kit worked well. The first two kept pulling out of the pulley and the second kept separating between the pulley stud and clamping stud. My pulley was a bit tighter than I've ever seen press fit ones...
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 05, 2013, 11:47:52 PM
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 05, 2013, 11:47:52 PM
If the above picture is how it will look with a 6.700 pushrod and .040 preload I would run the 6.700 pushrod. Looks pretty good to me.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 06, 2013, 12:51:27 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 06, 2013, 12:51:27 AM
Quote from: thunderjet302;412709
If the above picture is how it will look with a 6.700 pushrod and .040 preload I would run the 6.700 pushrod. Looks pretty good to me.
I agree. I cleaned all surfaces well and did it again. 6.715" length with solid lifter was closer to .032-.033 in contact. It was difficult to do the camera (phone) work and caliper holding at the same time. The phone's camera lens does some huge warping off-center, but the caliper gets the point across. With solid lifter and 6.665" length:
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/finalpushrod_1.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/finalpushrod_2.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/finalpushrod_3.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/finalpushrod_4.jpg)
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 06, 2013, 12:59:42 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 06, 2013, 12:59:42 AM
I also spent some (a lot) time tpuppies the intake gaskets from a MS93334 kit. The 1250s3 were slightly too small for the ports so I figured if I need to trim something, may as well do it on the $10 gaskets instead of the $40 ones. I did accidentally start on one of the water ports on the second gasket, but nothing that rtv can't take care of. Minor pitting on the intake surface will require rtv anyway.
I will bolt the intake on and get everything done tonight except the accessory bracket studs that I want to make. Fire tomorrow if compression goes as planned!
I will bolt the intake on and get everything done tonight except the accessory bracket studs that I want to make. Fire tomorrow if compression goes as planned!
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 06, 2013, 03:34:16 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 06, 2013, 03:34:16 AM
Did an unfired compression check and found two cylinders that I wish were just slightly higher. Because it hasn't been run yet though, it could be due simply to chambers having more or less oil vs coolant washout on the cylinder walls, although they were cleaned out. Still great readings for having not started though. I don't have a leakdown tester/gauge on hand.
Cyl 1: 181
Cyl 2: 190
Cyl 3: 193
Cyl 4: 188
Cyl 5: 192
Cyl 6: 193
Cyl 7: 185
Cyl 8: 189
If it wasn't for cylinder 1, the range would be within 4% instead of 6%. Drop the second lowest and they are within 2.5%. There's always those that don't behave...
Adding a few squirts of oil in Cyl 1 brought it up to 184psi.
Cyl 1: 181
Cyl 2: 190
Cyl 3: 193
Cyl 4: 188
Cyl 5: 192
Cyl 6: 193
Cyl 7: 185
Cyl 8: 189
If it wasn't for cylinder 1, the range would be within 4% instead of 6%. Drop the second lowest and they are within 2.5%. There's always those that don't behave...
Adding a few squirts of oil in Cyl 1 brought it up to 184psi.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 06, 2013, 10:37:48 AM
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 06, 2013, 10:37:48 AM
So hopefully you get it fired off today!
Darren
Darren
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 07, 2013, 04:40:34 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 07, 2013, 04:40:34 PM
I got stalled on my oem mustang valve covers not quite clearing the rockers. I'm going to pick up some parts to more quickly grind away the casting ribs. Using cutoff wheels were taking forever last night.
I have the valve covers, intake, and coolant left. Drained the oil, pulling some coolant out that fell down when the heads were pulled. Put new temporary oil in that I will start it with before switching back to my more expensive oil. Primed the oil system. Cranking the motor with the starter, the engine seems pretty even across the cylinders. I think my previous one shook a bit more with an uneven sound when cranking. Getting the second of Chuck's motor mounts installed undoubtedly is also holding the motor more firmly in place.
So yeah - I will hopefully get the clearance I need with some new angle grinder discs today and then get it started. They were the only real issue I ran up against. I also hope I have no vacuum leaks as my poorly-built exhaust made getting the passenger side on a huge hassle that took many hours for the two bolts...
Also, I'd like to ask, my lower intake arp studs don't have enough length to allow the alternator and A/C steel brackets to have their support braces installed. Are either of these really needed? I couldn't use my March alt bracket as the 6" bolt wasn't long enough with maybe 2 threads into the block so I'm using the stock bracket until I get that resolved. The A/C has the huge steel bracket that bolts to 2 waterpump studs, then the aluminum bracket that has 3 head "accessory bracket" bolts which I used stainless steel studs for. Should I really use the additional rear brace to the lower intake, or just leave it out? I'd need to pull the stud and run a factory one otherwise, if I can. It just seems the aftermarket brackets never use the front to back lateral brace, although I do see them as having a tiny advantage. Did Ford just over-engineer the accessory brackets in this way also? Rigid is good, but if it can just be left out, why bother.
I have the valve covers, intake, and coolant left. Drained the oil, pulling some coolant out that fell down when the heads were pulled. Put new temporary oil in that I will start it with before switching back to my more expensive oil. Primed the oil system. Cranking the motor with the starter, the engine seems pretty even across the cylinders. I think my previous one shook a bit more with an uneven sound when cranking. Getting the second of Chuck's motor mounts installed undoubtedly is also holding the motor more firmly in place.
So yeah - I will hopefully get the clearance I need with some new angle grinder discs today and then get it started. They were the only real issue I ran up against. I also hope I have no vacuum leaks as my poorly-built exhaust made getting the passenger side on a huge hassle that took many hours for the two bolts...
Also, I'd like to ask, my lower intake arp studs don't have enough length to allow the alternator and A/C steel brackets to have their support braces installed. Are either of these really needed? I couldn't use my March alt bracket as the 6" bolt wasn't long enough with maybe 2 threads into the block so I'm using the stock bracket until I get that resolved. The A/C has the huge steel bracket that bolts to 2 waterpump studs, then the aluminum bracket that has 3 head "accessory bracket" bolts which I used stainless steel studs for. Should I really use the additional rear brace to the lower intake, or just leave it out? I'd need to pull the stud and run a factory one otherwise, if I can. It just seems the aftermarket brackets never use the front to back lateral brace, although I do see them as having a tiny advantage. Did Ford just over-engineer the accessory brackets in this way also? Rigid is good, but if it can just be left out, why bother.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 07, 2013, 05:34:25 PM
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 07, 2013, 05:34:25 PM
Can you post up a picture of the brackets in question? I'm not sure I know what you are referring to.
Darren
Darren
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 07, 2013, 06:25:23 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 07, 2013, 06:25:23 PM
Pulled from a search on this forum:
(http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/jdschrader/TurboCoupe/TC005.jpg)
The alternator and A/C both have bracket to front lower intake black metal bars as additional support.
(http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/jdschrader/TurboCoupe/TC005.jpg)
The alternator and A/C both have bracket to front lower intake black metal bars as additional support.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 07, 2013, 08:17:25 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 07, 2013, 08:17:25 PM
Looks like only one rib was causing the problem on the passenger side. The driver side doesn't have it. I tested bolted to the car without gaskets to check for clearance. I think they'll be good for now, with gaskets, until I get get more desirable valve covers.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 08, 2013, 01:41:04 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 08, 2013, 01:41:04 AM
Other than missing by a tooth on the distributor, everything seems to run fine. Missed a hose clamp, but only heard noise escaping from there when I shut the engine off. Something is rattling down below, so I will probably just take it some place to a) fix the front exhaust at minimum and b) install the correct studs back into one of the headers as they pulled out. It has a slight diesel sound so I'll get that addressed.
Other than that it pretty much idles the same...not smooth, but every few seconds a slight stumble (it has been this way on the p heads and way back whenever with 19lb injectors and stock mustang tb/maf, so who knows what it is - I really don't care at this point).
I'll have to get the hood back on (it's easier with two people - I've only done it solo once) and take it for a test drive. So far nothing bad in oil or coolant on quick checks. Fuel pressure was fine before bolting the intake on. When I get my tubular intake finished, I will re-torque the lower intake and do anything else I need before hopefully keeping the motor together for the foreseeable future.
Other than that it pretty much idles the same...not smooth, but every few seconds a slight stumble (it has been this way on the p heads and way back whenever with 19lb injectors and stock mustang tb/maf, so who knows what it is - I really don't care at this point).
I'll have to get the hood back on (it's easier with two people - I've only done it solo once) and take it for a test drive. So far nothing bad in oil or coolant on quick checks. Fuel pressure was fine before bolting the intake on. When I get my tubular intake finished, I will re-torque the lower intake and do anything else I need before hopefully keeping the motor together for the foreseeable future.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 08, 2013, 01:43:51 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 08, 2013, 01:43:51 AM
Oh, when I primed the oiling system, there was one rocker that was just gushing oil while the others were only seeping like normal. Any idea what this would mean?
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 08, 2013, 01:50:45 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 08, 2013, 01:50:45 AM
The over-achiever that just flows oil:
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/RockerOil.jpg)
(http://masejoer.com/Images/Thunderbird/Engine/Heads/RockerOil.jpg)
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 08, 2013, 10:47:27 AM
Post by: Aerocoupe on April 08, 2013, 10:47:27 AM
Can you move the push rod to another location and see if it follows the push rod?
Darren
Darren
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 08, 2013, 04:13:55 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 08, 2013, 04:13:55 PM
So anyone think the bracket to intake braces are needed?
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 10, 2013, 12:24:23 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 10, 2013, 12:24:23 PM
Well anyway, something is rattling under the car, but otherwise, the motor cranks right up and seems to run pretty good. I'll get it on the street when my new tags come in the mail. I figure I'll drive it to a shop to fix the terrible exhaust (or rather, midpipe) that's on there and it'll also fix whatever is loose.
It sure has a different exhaust tone. The valvetrain is much quieter now, getting away from the 1.7 pedestal mount Crane rocker arms.
It sure has a different exhaust tone. The valvetrain is much quieter now, getting away from the 1.7 pedestal mount Crane rocker arms.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 12, 2013, 11:53:19 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 12, 2013, 11:53:19 PM
I am sticking with the stock alternator bracket. I just don't like how you have to loosen waterpump/timing cover bolts to remove/install an alternator. While the March units look nice and everything, it'd be a huge pain to swap an alternator or belt outside of a garage.
Anyway, I have a chirping noise at idle, but it goes away with just a little gas. I will have to check to see if I have any type of vacuum leak anywhere (I reuse upper to lower gaskets), but beyond that I'll start looking at a rocker arm sliding against valve cover or pushrod. I removed the belt and it remains. It is pretty quiet, but a motor shouldn't be making that noise. Since it only happens at idle, it makes me initially think it's vacuum related.
Anyway, I have a chirping noise at idle, but it goes away with just a little gas. I will have to check to see if I have any type of vacuum leak anywhere (I reuse upper to lower gaskets), but beyond that I'll start looking at a rocker arm sliding against valve cover or pushrod. I removed the belt and it remains. It is pretty quiet, but a motor shouldn't be making that noise. Since it only happens at idle, it makes me initially think it's vacuum related.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: jrad235 on April 13, 2013, 12:43:37 AM
Post by: jrad235 on April 13, 2013, 12:43:37 AM
Uh oh! The intake leak is back!
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 13, 2013, 12:59:35 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 13, 2013, 12:59:35 AM
It's not an obvious whistle, so I don't know. It's a faint chirp on every rotation. Whatever it is might "clearance itself", but I'll spray around and then pull the valve covers tomorrow to check for any contact spots.
The higher vacuum could easily cause this noise in many areas.
Speaking of vacuum - do you have a gauge? I don't remember if mine's up in Seattle, or somewhere in my garage.
The higher vacuum could easily cause this noise in many areas.
Speaking of vacuum - do you have a gauge? I don't remember if mine's up in Seattle, or somewhere in my garage.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 13, 2013, 01:18:01 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 13, 2013, 01:18:01 AM
It sounds like it's coming from cylinder 3/4 in the valve cover. Very high pitched. Dumping water to fill the area on top of the lower intake didn't change anything, so it isn't vacuum. Luckily that is the easy valve cover to pull. At this point I'm thinking valve cover contact or excessive guide plate contact.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 13, 2013, 10:54:21 AM
Post by: thunderjet302 on April 13, 2013, 10:54:21 AM
I used ARP intake bolts when I swapped the Edelbrock heads onto my Thunderbird. I ended up reusing those two bolts for the brackets that attach to the alternator and A/C compresor as there wern't any in the ARP kit.
You mentioned a change in exhaust tone with the new heads. I noticed the same thing when I went from the GT40Ps to the Edelbrock Performers. The exhaust got slightly louder and a little more mellow sounding at idle. It almost sounds to me like the exhaust is less restricted. It might have something to do with the larger exhaust valves (1.60" on the Edelbrocks, 1.45" on the GT40Ps).
You mentioned a change in exhaust tone with the new heads. I noticed the same thing when I went from the GT40Ps to the Edelbrock Performers. The exhaust got slightly louder and a little more mellow sounding at idle. It almost sounds to me like the exhaust is less restricted. It might have something to do with the larger exhaust valves (1.60" on the Edelbrocks, 1.45" on the GT40Ps).
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 13, 2013, 08:25:40 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 13, 2013, 08:25:40 PM
I think the chirping is gone. I'll need to reinstall the valve cover and do further testing since after about a minute the oil starts to overflow, but I can't hear it anymore. With the valve cover off, it sounded like both cylinders 3 and 4 were making the noise and I believe the push rods looked like they had some fresh wear (they were used push rods, so they had some black finish already worn). Adjusted the guideplate, and sounds fixed.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 13, 2013, 10:07:21 PM
Post by: Masejoer on April 13, 2013, 10:07:21 PM
Yep, chirps are fixed. The valvetrain in this thing now is probably half as loud as the gt40ps with the Crane Energizer rocker arms. Now I just need to find what's rattling under the car. I can't pinpoint it yet as the exhaust gets too hot to continue probing.
About those braces - I'm really thinking I should go back and install them. Mustangs use steel brackets so it's possible we need the brace to help stabilize the aluminum brackets. I will probably install the stock front two studs, do another oil drain and fill with temp oil, run for a few minutes and drain again. I don't trust coolant to not get into the oil if I loosen any bolts. Hell, the one I had to remove for the March alternator bracket left me uneasy as the end of the bolt goes straight into oil. The last thing I want is coolant helping me wear some bearings.
About those braces - I'm really thinking I should go back and install them. Mustangs use steel brackets so it's possible we need the brace to help stabilize the aluminum brackets. I will probably install the stock front two studs, do another oil drain and fill with temp oil, run for a few minutes and drain again. I don't trust coolant to not get into the oil if I loosen any bolts. Hell, the one I had to remove for the March alternator bracket left me uneasy as the end of the bolt goes straight into oil. The last thing I want is coolant helping me wear some bearings.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on April 13, 2013, 11:57:07 PM
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on April 13, 2013, 11:57:07 PM
Arggghhh I'm late to the completion celebration, congrats on mostly getting it sorted out...
Did the over oiling condition on that one rocker correct it's self??? Usually that indicates a issue inside the lifter, but can be temporary...
I removed mine and have had no issue...
Did the over oiling condition on that one rocker correct it's self??? Usually that indicates a issue inside the lifter, but can be temporary...
Quote from: Seek;412892
So anyone think the bracket to intake braces are needed?
I removed mine and have had no issue...
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 14, 2013, 12:29:54 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 14, 2013, 12:29:54 AM
Quote from: TurboCoupe50;413248
Arggghhh I'm late to the completion celebration, congrats on mostly getting it sorted out...
Did the over oiling condition on that one rocker correct it's self??? Usually that indicates a issue inside the lifter, but can be temporary...
I removed mine and have had no issue...
The flow was even when I had the valve cover off. It would likely spill over the edge near immediately if that one was still gushing like it was. I went back to my Comp Cams lifters that I had previously used for only a couple thousand miles years ago. I went back to stock lifters, and did preload changes, in an attempt to quiet down the previous valve train. Since these other ones were sitting for years, who knows what could have found its way inside the lifter, although they were bagged and boxed on the shelf.
Changed the oil again with a few droplets of water coming out on belt loosen. I will change the oil once more time after I actually drive the car for a few miles. I figure two drains should get most of the crud out from when the head was pulled. I'm not expecting to see ANY drops of water on the next drain. Better to be safe and waste $30 in oil. I haven't touched the filter yet.
Know what's great? Autozone has oil/filter sales but you can't get the sale price for just the oil. The filter must be on the purchase. This is dumb since I only use FL1A filters, with a box sitting in my garage. They'd rather lose more money. I was tempted to just set the filter down and walk out with the oil, but I figure why not - I'm sure someone I come across will want a fram filter for free.
Title: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)
Post by: Masejoer on April 14, 2013, 01:04:58 AM
Post by: Masejoer on April 14, 2013, 01:04:58 AM
The rattling is coming from the driver side cat. We had that out after dropping a nut down there and I know nothing else fell in there. Perhaps the cat has broken and needs to be replaced. They should be installed up closer to the front without the air pump though...
Now that everything is taken care of engine-wise, now I just need to finish up the LED tail lights. The painting is the hardest part, getting an even coat to block all light through the louvers/fins, but not have it too thick in places which won't be durable. It's hard on used lenses. Hopefully I can carefully finish them soon after having sprayed 4 thin coats over them today. I'd like to get the bottom LED conversion complete! The top is done/installed and it's beautiful.
Now that everything is taken care of engine-wise, now I just need to finish up the LED tail lights. The painting is the hardest part, getting an even coat to block all light through the louvers/fins, but not have it too thick in places which won't be durable. It's hard on used lenses. Hopefully I can carefully finish them soon after having sprayed 4 thin coats over them today. I'd like to get the bottom LED conversion complete! The top is done/installed and it's beautiful.