more questions lol

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Nov 26, 2009 | 04:47 AM

cactus zach

Thread Starter

Freshman User

Joined: Sep 2009

Posts: 26

Likes: 0

more questions lol

so yes i have more questions so bear with me
so im in the middle of a "budget" rebuild/hot rodding of an I6 300 and ive heard and seen people talking about the use of SBC valves in a 300 head and was wondering the "best or most common" valve train set up. can they use the biggest or mid range or stock valves a chevy 350 uses? is there a specific year of 300 head that it can only be used? specific machine work? valve and valve spring combs ie 350 valves and keepers/ford springs or sbc valves springs and keepers? the reason i ask is because i have a HIPROf shop in town offering full race stainless valves for 56$ for all 16 plus keepers in all sizes from stock all the way up to the biggest monster you can pack in to a 350 head.so truely im just trying to get the detail work in line so i can get the best bang for the buck
next question i have 2 motors i have an 85 300 in AMAZING condition bottom end wise and a 75 300 still in working ofder but the bottem end is unworkable with out sleaving so i was thinkin would the head off the 75 bump up the compression on the 85 bottom end at all or would it make no difference at all ?
thanks
zach

Nov 26, 2009 | 01:36 PM

Harte3

Postmaster

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 3,603

Likes: 10

From: Spokane, WA

A machinist/engine builder would best answer your questions. 1.90 something intake valves and 1.60 something exhaust valves are a common upgrade IIRC.

Nov 26, 2009 | 06:13 PM

86sixbanger

Posting Guru

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 1,174

Likes: 0

The 75 head will have about the same compression as the 85 head. A 240 I6 or an EFI head will have more compression.

Dec 1, 2009 | 01:47 PM

muscletruck7379

Postmaster

Joined: Apr 2003

Posts: 2,703

Likes: 4

From: Harrisburg, NE

I would spend the money on an EFI head, more compression and a better shaped chamber.

Dec 1, 2009 | 09:05 PM

F-250 restorer

Lead Driver

Joined: Mar 2008

Posts: 7,182

Likes: 380

From: Near Los Angeles

I had that up grade done some months back. The valves are 1.94 intakes, 1.60 exhaust. Chevy valves are cheaper than Ford, unless repackaged by Clifford.

You also need to have new ARP rocker studs put in. Everything else, double springs, locks, keepers, are for that engine but HP. If you do the porting work yourself, and supply the new springs, etc., the machine work should be in the $700 range.

Step #1: Have the head magnafluxed.

<a href="http://s659.photobucket.com/albums/uu316/bobbyrogue/?action=view&current=P1010114.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu316/bobbyrogue/P1010114.jpg" border="0" alt="chebby valves in a FORD??"></a>

Dec 2, 2009 | 03:51 AM

cactus zach

Thread Starter

Freshman User

Joined: Sep 2009

Posts: 26

Likes: 0

thanks F-250 so just to clarify i need sbc valves and keepers but i can still use ford springs and retainers??
obviosly it'll all be new stuff
was it a good mod??
also wat type of rocker studs do the 85 motors take reason being is that ive got a set of 3/8 H/S roller rockers comming to me just making sure that they'll work and not be garbage

Dec 2, 2009 | 11:41 AM

F-250 restorer

Lead Driver

Joined: Mar 2008

Posts: 7,182

Likes: 380

From: Near Los Angeles

I would buy a cam kit. I believe Comp Cams sells one. Then I would take it all, including your rollers, to your machinist. You also need to be thinking about push rods. Depending on how much you are having your block decked/how much you are shaving off the head, the distance is becoming less. I used the stock rods, but I only took .020 off the block, and .020 off the head. Be thinking about whether or not you want to stay on regular gas. Compression above the low 9's will make you need a higher octane gas.

Are you using an already together block? with bottom end already assembled? If so, how many miles are on it? If I were you, and going that far, I think I would go the extra distance and have the block magnafluxed and machined, new rings, bearings, rods reconditioned.

I never drove my 300 before the build. I drove a 390 with a 2v carb, so I can't compare before and after. But I will say that the 300 is every bit as strong as the 390 was, and peppier to drive.

I found a few things on some site you might be interested in:

****** http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">****** name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">****** name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12">****** name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cbobby%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cbobby%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cbobby%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format

ther; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Century Gothic"; panose-1:2 11 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:647 0 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority

9; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]--> A number of AERA members report they are finding high timing gear noise levels on Ford 240 and 300 CID engines. Timing gear whine is normally associated with insufficient lubrication or insufficient gear lash. While gear train noise may not cause any mechanical problems, it may lead to customer dissatisfaction.<o></o>
Increasing the amount of direct lubrication to the timing gears will reduce or eliminate timing gear noise.

This can be accomplished by inserting a 1/8 X 1/2 long roll pin into the oil galley orifice at the front of the block, just above the camshaft timing gear. Maintain a 1/8 clearance between the tip of the roll pin and the camshaft timing gear. <o></o>

The roll pin directs oil onto the gear teeth, thus reducing noise levels and possibly extending the service life of the timing gear set.<o></o>
The recommended timing gear lash for these engines is .002-.004. This figure should be maintained even though lubrication to the gears is increased. Insufficient lash may lead to increased gear train noise level and early failure.<o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>
4.9L CAM BEARING HOUSING BORE CHANGE<o></o>
Revised Cam Bearing housing Bore On<o></o>
1985-87 Ford 300 CID (4.9L) Engines<o></o>
The Form Motor Company has revised the cam bearing housing bore on Ford 300 CID (4.9L) engines manufactured after June 4th, 1985. <o></o>
<o></o>
Previously all four housing bores measured 2.1440. The late style<o></o>
block with the casting number E1TE-6015AA, has the following cam<o></o>
bearing housing bore dimensions: <o></o>
<o></o>
Location Part # Bore Diameter<o></o>
1 E5TZ-6261A 2.1590<o></o>
2 E5TZ-6262A 2.1440<o></o>
3 E5TZ-6262A 2.1440<o></o>
4 E5TZ-6261A 2.1590<o></o>
<o></o>
AERA members are cautioned to check each cylinder block's cam<o></o>
bearing housing bore for positive identification. <o></o>
<o></o>
At this time the revised design cam bearings are available only<o></o>
through Ford Motor Company. They will be made available through theaftermarket during the 4th quarter of 1987. <o></o>
<o></o>
Guidelines For Crankshaft<o></o>
Thrust Flange Surface Finish<o></o>
<o></o>
The AERA Technical Committee offers the following information regarding guidelines for crankshaft thrust flange surface finish. Failure to follow these recommendations while remanufacturing crankshafts may be one leading cause of premature thrust bearing failures.<o></o>
<o></o>
Correct surface preparation for bearing surfaces has been changing through the years. The current requirements for the thrust surface of 12 Ra and less (smoother is better here) must be met with the use of today?s commonly found lightweight oils. Many engines now have smaller thrust bearing surface areas than 20 years ago. Those smaller surfaces are still expected to carry the load or even higher loads per square inch than years ago.<o></o>
<o></o>
Most current, original equipment service manuals, do not supply thrust surface finish information. Looking at service information published 20 years ago when we didn?t see a lot of thrust failures occurring we found several listings. Remember also, this was before lock-up torque converters, hydraulic clutch systems and small thrust bearing surfaces. <o></o>
<o></o>
Occasionally, the required thrust flange surface finish is published in factory service manuals with a RMS number. Below is such a listing of specifications from an original equipment 1977-78 Ford engine specifications manual. Those older specifications are no longer suggested for engine rebuild practices.<o></o>
<o></o>
Engine Application Thrust Flange Front Rear Finish <o></o>
<o></o>
300, 302, 351 W car & truck 35 25 RMS<o></o>
351M, 400 car & truck 25 20 RMS<o></o>
361, 391 truck 20 10 RMS<o></o>
460 car & truck 25 20 RMS<o></o>
477, 534 truck 20 20 RMS<o></o>
<o></o>
To convert into Ra multiply RMS by 1.11 <o></o>
<o></o>
In the middle 80?s Michigan 77 called out in their failure analysis guide, rear thrust surface finish of 15 Ra or less for passenger car applications. They also suggested a 10 Ra or less when applying to heavy duty or highly loaded thrust surfaces. The higher the load, the smoother the surface finish requirement. The smoother the surface finish, the more bearing surface available. <o></o>
<o></o>
AERA shops that produce a thrust surface finish of 6-8 Ra consistently, report no premature crankshaft thrust wear problems. <o></o>
<o></o>
Note: It may be advantageous to recommend using the same brand of engine oil in an engine. Doing so is one method of eliminating the possibility of a negative reaction between the different additive packages from each oil company.<o></o>
<o></o>
The AERA Technical Committee<o></o>
<o></o><o></o>

Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath

Verdad Gallardo

Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer

Joe Kucinski

2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)

Brett Foote

Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies

Joe Kucinski

AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make

Brett Foote

Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!

Michael S. Palmer

Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home

Verdad Gallardo

10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!

Joe Kucinski

2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?

Brett Foote

2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!

Michael S. Palmer

Dec 3, 2009 | 04:17 AM

cactus zach

Thread Starter

Freshman User

Joined: Sep 2009

Posts: 26

Likes: 0

P.S. im mostly just slaming this motor together. i know i know thats not the way to do it but really im just trying to see wat these motors are capble of with minor "cheap" mods
bassically my plan of action is to put ARP main studs rod bolts and head studs in to give it a lil more rigidity, new rings new bearings and gaskets truely i know every one will call me dumb on this but words and pictures truly cannot capture how perfect the block and rotating assembly is bottem end was never opened ZERO coppering of the rod bearings hell the crosshatch is still beutiful. any other person would have just said hell with it and ran it. so all in all this is a freshen up with a lil twist a shave and a haircut build more or less
zach

ps.s ive got a turbo charged 300 blueprint in the works ill spend my money there

Dec 3, 2009 | 09:19 AM

#10

F-250 restorer

Lead Driver

Joined: Mar 2008

Posts: 7,182

Likes: 380

From: Near Los Angeles

Then save your $ and don't bother with the ARP bolts/studs.

Dec 3, 2009 | 12:33 PM

#11

91Bronc300

Elder User

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 708

Likes: 1

If you truly are going to turbocharge then I would bother with the ARP bolts and studs. And use nothing less than forged pistons. TRW has, or at least had, them available.

Dec 4, 2009 | 12:02 AM

#12

cactus zach

Thread Starter

Freshman User

Joined: Sep 2009

Posts: 26

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by 91Bronc300

If you truly are going to turbocharge then I would bother with the ARP bolts and studs. And use nothing less than forged pistons. TRW has, or at least had, them available.

ya im gonna use arp every were, mainly cause with most older apps ARP studs dont streach after several uses and as for forged every thing ive already got a set of crower billet steel forged rods to star with and thinking about goin wiseco or ross for pistons as for the crank? well im not exactly sure wat the boundries of the stock crank are and shootin in the dark as to who makes aftermarket cranks but im pretty certin with a good balance and industrial chrome job, with main studs and strapped main caps it should hold rather well at only 14 psi of boost

Dec 4, 2009 | 12:49 PM

#13

Harte3

Postmaster

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 3,603

Likes: 10

From: Spokane, WA

FORDSIX PERFORMANCE • View forum - Turbo, Supercharger, and Nitrous

Lots of info there on boosting an I6.

http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=59409

Your 14# of boost goal might be a bit overly optimistic.

Dec 4, 2009 | 12:58 PM

#14

91Bronc300

Elder User

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 708

Likes: 1

You've thought out a lot of your project already. Nice work. I think chroming the crank and adding straps to the main caps could safely be deleted from your build though as unnecessary expenses. Just my 2 cents.

Dec 5, 2009 | 04:52 AM

#15

cactus zach

Thread Starter

Freshman User

Joined: Sep 2009

Posts: 26

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harte3

FORDSIX PERFORMANCE • View forum - Turbo, Supercharger, and Nitrous

Lots of info there on boosting an I6.

FORDSIX PERFORMANCE • View topic - Supercharger on a 300

Your 14# of boost goal might be a bit overly optimistic.

thank you for the awesome info but truely if i go mpfi if i get the correct combo of parts, good intercooling, and my fueling set up right im thinkin with either 55lb/h or 75 lb/hour injectors, 14psi should be a cake walk as long as i dont blow the head off the block in doing so but that being said i plan on starting with like 7psi and periodically upping the boost . but i also plan on lowering the compression to 8.0:1 via either a head shim or modded pistons, also the turbo is very similar the the one off my race car but with a 3inch waste gate rather then a 4inch waste gate and the race turbo spools VERY FAST even tho its off of a cummins.
take a peak

www.therealpictures.com/zach
and be fore the purests com in and start hollerin ITS NOT AN IMPORT
it is an 88 chrysler daytona shelbyZ