DeTomaso Mailing List: May 99, Message #114

Cal,

    I'm with you!

    Let all of the others put down the Cleveland.  Let them go to the Windsors.  I still think the Cleveland
Is a heck of a motor.  Frankly, I buy up any good deal I can get on a Cleveland in good, rebuildable condition.  I don't like to look
at one that's complete.  Just extra junk to get rid of.  Let me see inside the block, crank, heads, etc.  If the motor is complete and
I have to break it down, the price I'll pay goes down.  Word in the area is that I'll buy these up and the "kids" that come buy
looking for money understand "how the game is played".  I've got four (4) good blocks of various "flavors" (2 bolt, 4 bolt) sitting
In the corner of the shop.  To say nothing of all the heads that goes with them (open and closed chambers).  

    I have theknowledge of a couple more "down the road".  I haven't started "mining" any of the junk yards - yet.

Bud

-----Original Message-----
From:	Eustaquio, Cal J [SMTP:cal.j.eustaquio@lmco.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, May 05, 1999 3:21 PM
To:	Multiple recipients of list
Subject:	RE: 351C versus 351W

Hi Dan and company:
All I can say is "GREAT"! You, I and the rest of us cat-heads realize a good
engine when we have one. Of course, that will make the rest of the MM
readers *think* that the Cleveland is a bunch of trash, bypassing this
treasure on the way to making junkyard pulls. That will preserve the
remaining supplies of 351C's available for us Clev-ophiles for many more
years to come. Cal #????

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Daniel Jones [SMTP:djones2@mdc.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, May 05, 1999 12:12 PM
> To:	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:	351C versus 351W
> 
> Anyone see the 351C versus 351W article in the May issue of Mustang 
> Monthly?  It held some promise but they managed to muck it up by not
> knowing how to build a Cleveland.  While the 351W engine tested is a 
> reasonable selection of parts (essentially an Edelbrock Performer RPM 
> package with a bigger hydraulic roller cam), the Cleveland engine is 
> not.  They saddled the 351C with a low rise Edelbrock Performer intake 
> manifold but allowed the 351W to use a high rise Performer RPM.  A 
> Weiand Xcelerator would have been a much better comparison.  They chose 
> Aussie closed chamber 2V heads but use dished pistons (from what I can 
> gather from the pictures - no compression ratio is given), ruining 
> the quench effect which is the whole reason for using the Aussie heads.  
> Then they cam it all wrong.  The hydraulic roller cam specs out at 246/256
> 
> degrees duration @ 0.050" lift, 0.560"/0.585" lift and an LSA of 108 
> degrees.  That's way more cam than the intake and compression can 
> support.  Furthermore, the big lift is wasted on the 2V Aussie heads, 
> which start leveling off after 0.500" or so.  The cam also has a wide 
> dual pattern meant to crutch up a 4V head's poor intake-to-exhaust 
> flow ratio.  With an excellent exhaust port, 2V heads have a good flow 
> ratio and don't need a wide dual pattern.  Given that they chose to 
> install 4V valves, the heavy hydraulic roller lifters will probably 
> limit rpm to 6200 rpm or so.  I also question whether or not the 4V 
> valves do anything for flow without extensive porting.  No dimensions
> are given but they state the the headers are different.  No information
> is given on carb calibration or ignition curve but they do state an 
> Edelbrock 700 cfm carb was used.  I assume they meant 750 cfm, since 
> Edelbrock doesn't make a 700 cfm version.  They also only made one 
> pull per engine.  No tuning whatsoever but they claim they will make
> more runs in a later issue.
> 
> Even with all the mismatch, the Cleveland was able to make within 6 hp 
> of the Windsor if the numbers are to be believed.  However, if you look 
> at numbers printed:
> 
>              351C     351W
>    RPM      HP  TQ   HP  TQ
>    4500     348 410  373 409 
>    5000     380 389  390 369
>    5500     384 357  386 320
>    6000     376 319  366 266
> 
> they show the Cleveland making more torque at every point above 4000
> rpm but making less power.  Last time I checked that was impossible
> since horsepower is a direct function of torque and rpm.  Damn magazines.
> 
> FWIW, the relationship between torque and horsepowe can be expressed as:
> 
>    HP = (TQ*2.0*PI*RPM)/33000.0
> or
>    TQ = (33000.0*HP)/(2.0*PI*RPM)
>  
> where:
>  
>    TQ  = torque in ft-lbs
>    HP  = power in horsepower
>    RPM = engine speed in revolutions per minute
>    PI  = the mathematical constant PI (approximately 3.141592654)
>    Note: 33000 = conversion factor (550 ft-lbs/sec * 60 sec/min)
> 
> They also instruct the reader to use a "copious line of of RTV" instead 
> of the rubber end seals.  While I don't like the rubber seals either,
> loading it up with RTV is bad too.  When you torque down the manifold,
> the RTV has to go someplace, most likely into the oil supply so it can
> stop up the lifters or pickup.  Cork gaskets, a peened surface, and some 
> contact cement or gasket sealer is the way to go. 
> 
> I question their selection of parts as well.  The Windsor was totally
> aftermarket - SVO crank and block, custom pistons and rods, etc.  All
> for a motor that peaks at 5000 rpm.  There's a bunch of other stuff 
> wrong with the article but the above will do for starters. 
> 
> Dan Jones