good info
thanks paul for the myth buster , good going..., ED
thanks paul for the myth buster , good going..., ED
I remember reading that and along with what Paul has found is some excellent info.Thanks Paul this is some interesting and valuable data that also ties into what was found at the Block Summit while sonic testing many blocks: There are NO block casting numbers that are universally superior when it comes to overbore capacity. A D1VE, D9TE or other block can be just as good or just as bad as a DOVE-A etc despite claims/myths to the contrary.
Agreed, Dave, and by that I mean that if the 385 Series blocks are used within their means then they are essentially all equally good candidates for high performance builds, be they D9TE or D1VE, etc. By the way, while this thread's primary purpose is do dispell the myth about the "X" blocks, the fact is we've done other block castings as well (of different engineering revisions). I want to learn whether the iron alloy might differ between the three casting facilties (DIF, MFF, CCP) that produced these cylinder blocks. Sometime later, I might post a blurb about the overall analysis of all the different blocks, but I am still working on that portion of the study. It is a painstaking, time consuming process (just prepping the sample for the SEM takes over 24 hours) and the equipment is not always available.Thanks Paul this is some interesting and valuable data that also ties into what was found at the Block Summit while sonic testing many blocks: There are NO block casting numbers that are universally superior when it comes to overbore capacity. A D1VE, D9TE or other block can be just as good or just as bad as a DOVE-A etc despite claims/myths to the contrary.
Good eye, parklay, in fact I noticed physical differeces myself between the two X blocks. While the physical shape of the blocks is not part of this metallurgical study, I'll try to anwser your questions.Paul,
I have a question about the difference in the lifter Valley design on the Multi-X block and the single x block.
I think the multi-x block (that has fewer crankcase ventilation holes in the center of the lifter valley) is a later cylinder block. The two ventilation holes cast in the lifter valley (instead of the normal four) is perfectly adequate for crankcase ventilation and also minimizes the possibility of oil falling onto the rotating assembly. I can't say for sure why Ford would do that (and the big X's--structural?) but they seem to carry over from the A460 block....note that this is still just a passenger car block, though, and any block can have two of it's vent holes plugged by the builder if he cares to do so. The oil drainback holes at the rear of the lifter valley in this block are like most that I see.The center vent is missing as well as what looks to be material in oil return area at the rear of the multi X block. Is there any gain in having this?
This is the reult of just a different casting pattern being used when that block was poured. All the patterns are a little different. But you are correct that the transition from the floor of that block's valley to its china walls is more gradual and thereby has a lot more material in those areas F & R. (Drilling the front drainbacks in this blolck made for 1-inch galleries!). Is the block stronger because of its bulky form? Perhaps technically so, but in reality these blocks are not known to fail in that specific area, and so I don't know that they are necessarily any stronger. This was a personal block of mine for the every reason that you noted, but it ended up going into a customer's build who was going to make more hp than what I was planning for its use.It also appears that the rear oil return area is different in the single X block. The oil returns are in the raised portion of the block where the multi-X block has them in the the valley floor.
Not sure if any of this matters based on where the block requires additional strength.
750 hp and you need an Eliminator block? It certainly won't hurt and might be an advantage to have it....but we've built engines with that much hp, used strictly for drag racing (track only, not street/strip), and they were based around 2-bolt blocks. Keep it well tuned and you ought not have any problems. (If you want to discuss hp supporting capabilities of 2-bolt versus aftermarket blocks, please start another thread).Any advice would be appreciated. I do not have access to a large number of these blocks and I am starting to look for a new block for a 750 horse stroker. Based on this number I do not this I need an eliminator.
RmK57,Is there any nickel in the C9AE Boss 429 blocks?
Have you, or do you know of anyone who's tested what the brand x and brand y guys were doing in their big blocks?Also, based on the analyses thus far, I am beginning to believe that there is a specific reason that Ford did not put nickel in their blocks. I think they intentionally opted for a different iron alloy recipe. The jury is still out on this speculation, as we need to study more blocks and then discuss with people knowledgable in iron foundry casting (and also some Ford engineers from back in the day) that we know. Hint: CHROMIUM
Paul
p.s. We intend to analyze material from an A460 block as well.
Yes, we have analyzed a BBC block and will reference other brands as well. Again that might be disclosed in another report and not here where the emphasis is on th X blocks.Have you, or do you know of anyone who's tested what the brand x and brand y guys were doing in their big blocks?
interesting to see some of the the different metallugic approaches they took.
ALSO my old man worked in a foundry for years, its not always scientific about what is going in the big pot I/E there could have been some substitutes for certain raw material..... may find differences within each brands stuff, most likely negligible but you never know.
I have the name and contact info of a retired Ford 385 Series design engineer that was there. I don't feel I have yet garnered enough info for me to warrant calling him just yet...I don't want to begin pestering him with a multitude of phone calls from some crazy 460 wingnut, lol.This was interesting, a bit of actual rocket science. I wonder if we can scare up an engineer who decided what went into the iron recipe and why.
While it's a non-Ford question, do you know who used the hardest iron for gas engines? I've read (not tested in person) that it was International back when they made light trucks, then Cadillac and Oldsmobile of some decades ago.
There is a LARGE difference between "hardest" and "toughest"; (at least in alloy steel there is).This was interesting, a bit of actual rocket science. I wonder if we can scare up an engineer who decided what went into the iron recipe and why.
While it's a non-Ford question, do you know who used the hardest iron for gas engines? I've read (not tested in person) that it was International back when they made light trucks, then Cadillac and Oldsmobile of some decades ago.
Yep, and that is exactly to what I was alluding in my post direcly above yours, Randy. Characteristics such as hardness, overall toughness, lubricity, corrosion resistance, etc are taken into consideration when determining the alloy recipe used for the application.There is a LARGE difference between "hardest" and "toughest"; (at least in alloy steel there is).
Yes -- that's what matters. I didn't want to get too nerdy with the questions, but actually that's what I wanted to know. I was figuring that harder recipes would be used where quality was more important than cost, and where that was spec'd the full range of qualities you mention would also be pursued instead of "how fast and how cheap can we push these down the line".Yep, and that is exactly to what I was alluding in my post direcly above yours, Randy. Characteristics such as hardness, overall toughness, lubricity, corrosion resistance, etc are taken into consideration when determining the alloy recipe used for the application.
Thanks,
Paul