460 Ford Forum banner

Thick web 429-460 blocks

14K views 41 replies 16 participants last post by  161854 
#1 ·
There is alot of information on different sites regarding thick web blocks its pretty common knowledge that Boss9 & D0VE A blocks are all thick web with Boss9 having 4 bolt caps at 1,2,3,&4 pos.Supposedly street boss blocks have the #1 cap with small outer bolts and Nascar blocks having the larger outer bolts (they were typically dry sump).Also the blocks maybe O-ringed on the deck surface,again depending on whether it was street or nascar one had the O-ring grooves in the block the other in the head.D0VE A blocks that had 4 bolt were at 2,3,&4 pos.Other variations on the D0VE block are the the front bulkhead which Paul Kane has covered in detail.The most controversial block is the D1VE-6015-AA some are thick web some are thin.If the casting number is all in one line as I typed it above then it is thin web,If the casting appears in 2 lines with D1VE in the top line and 6015-AA in the second line below it then it may be a thick web.If it has the 2 line casting number and DIF foundry mark chances are very good it is thick web and would warrant the effort of pulling the engine enough to pull the pan.This is not to say absolutely that only these blocks are thick web but all the blocks I have observed have been D1VE without 6015 thin web,D1VE 6015 AA in one line thin web,D1VE 6015 AA in 2 lines with any foundry mark other than DIF thin web.Any observations contrary to this are welcome to preclude someone possibly overlooking one in their search for a thick web block.Also I have seen thick web blocks used in almost all OEM pass. car applications so don't dismiss any cars in the early 70's I've never seen one factory installed in pickups but have seen them transplanted so look anyway.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I think the term "thick web" is something of a misnomer, and there isn't really any significant difference in strength between a "thin web" two bolt block, and a "thick web" two bolt block. It's really just the cap mounting surface being thicker/flatter to facilitate the installation of four bolt caps. The webbing itself is pretty much the same for all blocks. If you don't plan to install four bolt caps, there's no reason to go out of your way to find a "thick web" block in my opinion.


.
 
#8 ·
Like Carl said, if you look into the factory blocks, most all of them have the same actual block webbing thickness between the cylinder banks. The difference between them is the shape of the casting from the edge of the main register and the edge of the pan rail. A 'desirable' block (for four bolting) is one that has enough material from the main register and the edge of the pan rail so as it has been machined flat, as oppose to one that has a lower, cast area, that doesn't leave enough material (without extra machining, as Paul has pointed out a year or so ago).
Aside from the 'Boss' blocks that have more material around the front and rear mains and a beefier cam support in the rear.......I think that is the main difference.......someone correct me if I am wrong :)
Rob
 
#6 ·
Well, yeah. That's why I used a D0VE-A block for my own engine. Nothing says cool like that A in a box on the front of the block. Keeps em guessing about what's on the inside. In my case, it's a cast crank and 2-bolt caps. :)

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bajarick
#4 · (Edited)
The factory 4 bolt CJ blocks all have shorter bores, (so those webs are slightly taller), and also have thinner scalloped oil pan rails so it is weaker longitudinally.

EDIT: Just get an A460 block and forget any troubles.
 
#11 ·
Have you observed the shorter bores only in the 4 bolted blocks or do the 2 bolt D0VE-A and D1VE-6015-AA blocks also fall into this category?I checked my blocks after my post asking questions about arcs cut in bottoms of the cylinders for counterweight clearance but didn't see any evidence of that, must be a chevy thing to compensate for their small and inadequate crankcases.
 
#7 ·
So are the bores cast shorter or is it due to the cutter that machines the webs cutting an arc in the bottom of the cylinders,like the difference between early 283 blocks and 327's or early 427's and 454?I did notice that the cutter goes out closer to the pan rail on the thick web blocks versus the thin web,while I was looking at that I also noticed that the machined area on thick web blocks don't seem to have any low spots that are unmachined or as cast like you see on thin web blocks.I also remember back in the old days that the scalloped pan rails being touted as an advantage because it precluded the need for clearancing for stroker cranks,is that an old wives tale?
 
#9 ·
Cool "Boss Bulkhead" D0VE-A Blocks Explained

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The D0VE-A block comes in two primary configurations: 2-bolt mains and 4-bolt mains. The reason for the D0VE-A block's popularity is its thicker main webbing, and also because the main webbing is fully machined from the main caps all the way out to the oil pan rail, which facilitates the conversion of the 2-bolt main blocks to 4-bolt mains. (The standard-webbed passenger car blocks have a section of main webbing between the main caps and oil pan rail that remains as-cast/unmachined.) 4-bolting of the 2-bolt D0VE blocks is usually executed on mains 2, 3, & 4, while mains 1 & 5 remain in their 2-bolt configuration.

Thank you Paul. Very good information!
Rob
Like __________________
Rob Hawes-Anchorage Rod Works-Anchorage, Alaska

??????? I would have highlighted the first part of the 2nd sentence if I knew how
 
#10 ·
Original post

The point of the original post really wasn't to debate the perceived superiority or lack thereof of thick webbed blocks or the correctness of the terminology, but more to get information out to help people identify them while still in the vehicle, to possibly prevent some one from having to pull it completely only to find it its not the block they are looking for. Regardless of the differing opinions a lot of people prefer these blocks for whatever reason. I personally can't drag home every 429-460 block I come across as much as I would like to I don't have the room or the permission. I would still like to hear from any people that have blocks that conflict with the information given in the original post. The D0VE blocks are pretty much a no brainer but D1VE 6015 AA's aren't so straightforward, but they could be if enough verified identifying marks are discovered.
 
#12 ·
ALL production blocks have the "shorter" bores except for the D9TE. For some reason Ford changed the patterns when the D9TE was developed and they made the cylinder walls longer by about 3/16 of an inch or so and this was also carried over to the SVO/Ford Racing castings. It is helpful in a stroker build but why it was done for a production 460 will probably remain a mystery.

The reason the Chevrolet design has notches in the bottoms of the bores is simply because the ends of the cylinders are closer to the crank centerline, deck height is shorter with similar length cylinders just like what is done on the Ford 351 C vs the 351W.
 
#17 · (Edited)
There was a plan to get the stroke eventually lengthened to 3.980" for truck engines, (prototype crankshafts made for this are out there), but, it never happened. Instead the V-10 mod motor became the plan ... unfortunately.

There was even a plan at one time to use iron B460 heads with CJ Ford exhaust flanges on those truck engines; there were actually 20 or so sets of those heads manufactured from aluminum. All those plans got shot-down, usually for money reasons or so called BETTER ideas.

EDIT: So many really good ideas were planned back then, even working prototypes which never made it to production vehicles.
 
#20 ·
I think the reason is pretty simple. For a given displacement having more cylinders is more efficient and "breathes" more effectively than fewer larger cylinders.
 
#21 ·
Yes if you are prepared to go with hemi chambers,or 3,4 or 5 valve cylinder heads and the attendant valvetrain,and maybe you can do it with with architecture ford chose but they don't seem to have gotten it done with the 2 valve mod motor NA.More cylinders mean unconventional layouts to fit the same space such as w12 & w16 engines though the w layout is hardly new dating back to at least the 1920's with the napier lion.I suppose if the solenoid operated valves become mainstream that will eliminate the valvetrain too.
 
#22 ·
No exotic layout is needed. It is just easier to fill a smaller cylinder than a big one and that tends to give the engine better volumetric efficiency yet the displacement is still high because there are a lot of cylinders.
 
#23 ·
This is absolutely correct.

Another component in the choice for a smaller bore 10 cylinder engine is emissions compliance. A smaller bore with smaller quench pad(s) is inherently cleaner than a large bore with a mongo sized quench pad.


In my research that was among the reasons the 460 was phased out.


S
 
#24 · (Edited)
There's no argument from me on all points,I fully agree that the that 460& sbf engine families were discontinued in favor of more efficient &cleaner burning designs ,but they do reqire more space in a conventional layout,hence the need to wait for the super duty chassis to come about in order to offer the large displacement engine in pickups or the lack of the 5.4 option in mustangs out of the gate.They just couldn't practically package those engines into the existing chassis.I fully agree that is the way going forward for new designs but unfortunately leaves alot of older cars behind,unlike the offering from the other brand.I know some are going to point out all of mod motor swaps into early mustangs but hopefully they will also point out all of the extensive chassis mods required.Believe me if I were shopping for a new ford i would want it with the engines they offer in them.I drive an older 5.4 2 valve,been a great truck lots of trouble free miles but not terribly impressive power wise or mileage wise,but maybe I have unreasonable expectations having driven my son's old powerstroke.
 
#27 ·
Actually that was not the entire reasoning.
It was because Ford put a European citizen in charge of making all those decisions and he mandated that smaller engines with slightly increased RPM and an overhead cam design was the ONLY way to go. Ford Motor Company is still crawling out from under some of those decisions which were made by Jack Nassar.
His end at FMC finally came when he disagreed with Bill Ford Jr. about the redesign and future further production of the Mustang. If he would have had his way ... there would no longer BE a Mustang as we know it.
 
#25 ·
I think you're totally right and I believe that the number one problem with the "mod" engines is their tremendously awkward and bulky packaging for a given displacement. They are very good engines that run well for a lot of miles but they are physically very large which makes swapping into a chassis designed for the older Ford engines difficult.
 
#31 ·
Generally correct Randy except Jac Nasser is a Lebanese born Australian not European. He started his career with Ford in 1968. The way his career with Ford panned out is not necessarily a point of pride for Australian Ford enthusiasts.

He is now the Chairman of the Board of BHP Biliton, the world's largest mining company
 
#34 ·
The Raptor engine being influenced by the "427 Cammer" engine was interesting. I don't know anything about the Raptor engine, but the one in our Raptor surely pulls the truck with authority. We installed a K&N cold air intake, MagnaFlow dual exhaust and a Scat tune. Still not happy with how the transmission works, but Paul at Paul's High Performance in Jackson, Michigan says that he has the tune for both the engine and transmission worked out nicely, so that is where the Raptor is going in Februrary. That truck weighs well over 6000 pounds and that 378 cubic inch engine pulls it amazingly well. Glad the "Cammer" finally made it into production and NASCAR can't outlaw this one. Think this engine will ever make it into Engine Masters Challenge?
 
#35 ·
I LOVE everything about the 6.2L... I think its fitting that ford called it the BOSS..!!I wish ford would do something with it.. but since for has dropped it in the F150 I don't see it happening. rumor is ford is going to drop the 5.0L in the F150 also... I guess im to old school. I like the simple engines. these ecoboost fart engines are too over engineered...
 
#38 · (Edited)
I have a block with the "DIVE" on one line then "6015 A " on the second line. NOT AA. The engine is a 429 Thunderjet in a '71 thunder bird. Is it worth my valuable time to pull the engine & check for thick webs?
Redeye thats a tough call,I can't say as I've ever seen a D1VE block with the number in 2 lines that wasn't a double A are you sure there is not a casting flaw that obscures the 2nd A,that being said if it is your car that you are parting out the 71 vintage 429 is definitely worth saving if in good condition even if it is a non thick web block.If in a wrecking yard if the starter is not already off pull it because it will prevent a good view of the casting number.Also you didn't mention if it had the DIF foundry mark,check for that also.The last thick web D1VE block I got came from a 71 lincoln mark III so they definitely used them in the luxury yachts.Maybe someone else has insight on a single A 2 line casting number?I'll check the blocks I have on hand to see what I can find out.Also check for a flaw at the position a second A should be I have seen instances where a portion of a casting number gets obliterated I don't know if this happens while handling the molds or if it is done intentionally.
 
#40 · (Edited)
The most controversial block is the D1VE-6015-AA...If the casting appears in 2 lines with D1VE in the top line and 6015-AA in the second line below it then it may be a thick web...
I have seen standard-webbed blocks with the number as described. Therefore this is not a tell-tale sign that a D1VE block is thick-webbed.

I have a block with the "DIVE" on one line then "6015 A " on the second line. NOT AA. The engine is a 429 Thunderjet in a '71 thunderbird. Is it worth my valuable time to pull the engine & check for thick webs?
...I can't say as I've ever seen a D1VE block with the number in 2 lines that wasn't a double A...
And I have seen 60I5-A blocks that are thick-webbed. Once again this is not yet a tell-tale sign that a D1VE block is thick-webbed.

And so nothing in this thread regarding standard-webbed/thick-webbed DIVE blocks is conclusive.

__________________________________

One thing is for sure: All thick-webbed DIVE blocks came from the DIF foundry just like the thick-webbed D0VE blocks. In every minute detail the thick-webbed DIVE blocks are essentially a D0VE block that simply has a DIVE engineering revision on them. Further, the standard-webbed DIVE blocks from the DIF foundry are identical in detail to a D0VE block except for the standard webbing--in other words they are essentially a "standard webbed D0VE block" and don't have the details of the 1972-1978 standard-webbed DIVE blocks.
 
#41 · (Edited)
Paul thanks for the clarification in my original post I tried to figure out how to make the "may" in bold letters or underline it but my computer skills are lacking.I had hoped to make it clear that this wasn't a surefire method of identifying them but more like guidelines to use to eliminate unlikely prospects.I also like your terminology to describe the non thick web blocks,looking back at the OP I can see where my terminology would imply inferior blocks,I by no means meant to imply that there were any weaklings out there as far as BBF's go.I blame it on my upbringing in a pre politically correct world
 
#42 ·
Nassar WAS an IDIOT and his edicts almost cost us the Mustang as Randy said. He created SO MUCH social unrest at Ford he gained a target on his back that took a bit too long to hit, GOOD RIDDANCE. HIGH PERFORMANCE SELLS!!!! Look at ford's latest ads showing a Mustang spinning the tires. That was a corporate NO NO in the past. Now it's a selling point like it was in the '60s.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top