Well the motor has been completed, and even though it is not yet in the car, the call for a sanity check is as legitimate as ever. But I will insist before the team of psychiatrists that it has been a great experience, that the time spent (significant) and money spent (not insignificant) has been more than an investment in the car, it has been an investment in my own knowledge of today’s small block Ford technology. From the design phase and part selection last spring to the final pull on the engine dyno on August 20th, this has been a great project filled with critical decisions, discussion, validation, learning, discovery, and problem solving. And yes, I’d do it again.
But let’s start at the beginning.
Objective: Using a 1964 289 block, build a motor designed for autocross and “spirited touring” using new, but not experimental, engine technology. This is not to be a racing motor. It has to be well behaved in standard use on the street, but will also need enough high performance built in to produce over 300 h.p. with ease.
Result: 362 horsepower at 6,000 rpm, and 355 ft lbs of torque at 4,400 rpm.
Approach: With the working 260 in the car, there was no reason to rush through decisions or assembly. There was also no reason to use radical or unproven parts or combinations. All the technology needed was clearly available. It was mostly a matter of making sure that the chosen combination was going to fit and function together correctly.
Design validation: So, how do you make 100% sure that the combination you’re selecting is not self-restrictive, over even more spectacular, self-destructive? My background was with small block Chevy’s, with builds that happened in the late 1980’s. Things have changed. New stuff is out there. And of course, it’s a Ford.
There are a few decent books…SA Design’s “How to Rebuild a Small Block Ford” (SA-102, published by Car-Tech) is informative and very clear. But better still is running your decisions past a few people that have been down the path before. For me this meant: Mike Newton at Ellsworth Machine, Bill Martin at Roote’s Group Depot, Dale Akuszewski at Dale’s Restorations, Don Gardyne of DG Motorsports, and longtime friend and Saab mechanic Tim Erskin, who co-built the motor with me, and made sure I didn’t screw up the assembly. They didn’t always agree on everything, but their knowledge combined with a bit of my own kept me on track for a successful build.
At the heart of the design is the decision to use a roller hydraulic Competition Camshaft grind FW XR282RF-HR10 (which provides 282/289 duration and .513/.526 lift), a set of AFR 165 cylinder heads, and a 302 rotating assembly with a forged steel crank and aluminum pistons that would peg the compression ratio at about 10.4 to 1.
Once those decisions are made, many others fall into place.
With the design complete and parts arriving, the block, rotating assembly, clutch and flywheel were sent to Ellsworth Automotive Center and Machine in Mountain View, where Mike Newton took on the work of boring, line honing, decking, balancing and blueprinting. Mike’s input and design validation was key, and his energy and enthusiasm is infectious. In less than a month, the work was done and we were ready to begin assembly.
Problem Solving: One of my friend Tim Erskin’s best quotes came long ago in response to someone’s complaint that things with an engine build were going wrong. “Don’t be like that,” he said. “If everything were going right, we’d be in more trouble than we could ever think.” While this seems completely counter-intuitive, his point is that there will be problems to solve. It would actually be spooky and weird if there weren’t any. The key is to solve them correctly and completely.
Our first came with the rotating assembly from Eagle. The crankshaft, designed for use in a modern block with a one piece rear main seal, did not have an oil slinger at the back. This slinger protects the rear seal from direct oil spray, a condition that with a two piece seal would sooner or later lead to leaking. And yes, the 1964 289 block has a two piece rear seal.
We had two choices: 1) somehow install a slinger onto the crank, a dubious exercise which would mean a complete re-balancing job, or 2) have the block machined for a modern one-piece seal. Option 2 was best, as it upgraded the seal and meant we didn’t have to touch the crank. Mike at Ellsworth suggested S & S Machine in San Leandro, knowing that they had a mill big enough to handle the job. I contacted them, and they instantly knew what was required.
“We’ve done a bunch of these in the past few years,” they said. They told me exactly the right Felpro seal to use, it arrived the next day from Summit, and two days later the machine work was done.
So that was one problem solved. But it was to strike a theme that would be repeated several times. That being, when newly minted aftermarket parts interface with old school parts, differences pop up.
The following had to be addressed as the build went forward: timing cover to balancer clearance, valve cover to rocker clearance, windage tray to crank and oil pump clearance. None of these were difficult to resolve, but it does point out that all aftermarket parts don’t fit perfectly with all OEM parts. There are so many 5.0 builds going on that many manufacturers simply state (often wrongly) that their part “fits all SB Fords”. Blindly assuming that they will is not wise. Dry-fitting everything and closely checking for complete clearance and sealing is fundamental, and was required.
However, slowly but surely the motor was coming together. My list of parts to buy was getting shorter. And the test run day was getting nearer.
Next month I will continue with the completion of the assembly, running on the test stand, and the test day at Cal Dyno in San Carlos.