Fairmont engine poofed

Due to the spendiness of the Boss block (and my secret desire for an aluminum 302 block), I decided to dig out my old 302 that was a little noisy and see why. It looked like a broken top ring was the culprit. So, I'll get the crank polished, maybe some new rod bolts, new bearings and rings, and be back up and running more sooner than later.

So, the setup will be 302cid with stock bottom end, Comp XE270HR cam, GT40X (64cc) heads, Performer Air Gap RPM intake, Holley Terminator EFI.

It should run okay, and live through the rest of the season. I hope to have the 347 back in business by next spring. When that happens, the 302 will get transplanted into the spare Fairmont. See below:

So, it turns out that the 302 block needed bored. Now it's not worth it to build a temporary engine, so I'm back to the Boss block and reusing the 347 internals, provided that they check out at the machine shop. I really hope they check out at the machine shop.

I'm really impressed by that failure. Hope the internals work out for you.

Been a month, thought I would check in. Love Fairmonts.

@ floatingdoc: Nothing I ever do goes fast, or right.

All of the internals checked out okay, including the slightly dinged #4 piston. At this point, all it needs is a rear main seal, flywheel and clutch, thermostat housing, and valve covers tightened down (after double-checking the lock screws on the rockers), engine mounts, and it should be ready to throw it at the car and see if it sticks.

So, it ended up being a 347 with a Boss block, Scat forged crank and rods, Mahle pistons, Victor Jr. heads and intake, Anderson N51HR cam, etc. Maybe it'll make 500ish zebraforce. We'll have to see. I just hope it runs, is easier to tune with the single-plane intake, and lasts more than four years this time.

I'd post pics, but Photobucket's still being a vajajay.

Thanks for the interest.

Boss block IS spendy, but spending that money upfront is cheaper than the alternatives. Good to hear that your rotating assembly was largely intact.

Four years IS a pretty good lifespan for a high performance build, when you think about horsepower/time, if you really use that power. I'd qualify a 500hp 8.2 deck Ford as very high performance... you're in late 60s Trans-Am levels of power after all and there really hasn't been a lot different production-wise since then.

In reply to Knurled:

Oils and such have gotten a lot better since the 60s though, and also roller cams became a thing. Those both make a significant difference in longevity.

See if this works

It's back to making noise! We finally got it installed and fired up last night. It seems to run pretty strong, revs real quick, etc.

Now on to the tune.

In reply to snailmont5oh:

Nice! Sounds mean

rslifkin wrote: In reply to Knurled: Oils and such have gotten a lot better since the 60s though, and also roller cams became a thing. Those both make a significant difference in longevity.

Maybe so, but the main block structure in production 8.2 blocks, the part that is failing here, is largely the same as or weaker than the late 60s parts. Roller cams just allow you to make block-blamming power more easily, better oils allow you to make high power longer before oiling failures take something else out first.

In reply to Knurled:

My understanding is that the older blocks were stronger, heavier than modern 302 blocks. They also had a 28 oz external balancer versus the modern 50 oz. To the point, I have not heard of a old 289 splitting like the modern blocks. I am not saying it hasn't happened, but it just doesn't seem to be a common occurrence.

In reply to tester:

Reports from people who ran Boss 302s said they usually got maybe half a season in A/Sedan before the blocks were done. I figure the Boss 302 was the first engine that had heads that could flow enough to reliably bump up against the blocks' limitations. Leagues better than the non canted valve junk, especially the 60s non canted valve junk.

If only Ford made the Cleveland block with cylinder walls that weren't papier-mache... in the US. And it is very very bad for this Ford guy to note how cheap closed chamber 4v heads are on eBay now that the aftermarket is picking up on Cleveland heads in force, and blocks too now. Wanna make a bogus Boss.

In reply to Knurled:

I thought the pistons were the weak link in the old Boss motors. They certainly had heavier duty blocks that the standard Windsor blocks. They were 4 bolt mains and I have to think that they balanced them. Honestly, surviving for half a season in a top tier race series is better that I would have expected for the late 1960s.

I often wondered why Ford did not reintroduce a modernized Cleveland head. With fuel injection and relatively modern controls, it seems like it would have been the easy button in about 1990. Oh well, water under the bridge and all that stuff.

Ford definitely reduced the cost (read: strength) of 302 blocks, especially when they went to the roller cam. The bulkhead walls were very thin, and they basically reduced the metal content everywhere. They were lighter, which probably helped with fuel mileage and whatnot. But, hey, if you're building a 225 horsepower engine, you should make it as puny as possible!

All you have to do is look at the material around the lifter bores on the new Boss302 block to know that the next failure will be something else.

tester wrote: I often wondered why Ford did not reintroduce a modernized Cleveland head. With fuel injection and relatively modern controls, it seems like it would have been the easy button in about 1990. Oh well, water under the bridge and all that stuff.

I have it on good authority that something along those lines was the easy button and under development, they were doing LSx grade R&D on all of their pushrod stuff (including the 460) around that time but it was decided higher up that OHC was the only way to go.

tester wrote: I often wondered why Ford did not reintroduce a modernized Cleveland head. With fuel injection and relatively modern controls, it seems like it would have been the easy button in about 1990.

That's 'cause Chevy reintroduced a modernized Cleveland, in 1997.

The Cleveland design looks like what you'd expect from the 1960s. Lots of volume, not enough velocity. The Aussies did it better with closed chamber heads with the 2v ports. The 4v ports were really too large for just about anything and they were shaped really badly, especially the exhausts. Thus why you could gain power and economy by blocking off the bottom third of the ports with port plates/tongues.

And there's what the Pro Stock guys did to the exhausts, milling them completely out flush with the valve cover rail, and putting in a big plate that raised the header flange a couple inches. Don't try this in a chassis with shock towers.

Latest update:

I still haven't had it to the dyno for a comprehensive tuning session, and to see what it measures the power at, but it's had some good road tuning, including several wide open uphill third gear pulls with a pretty sharp fella on the box to make sure it was safe for the road course, a weekend of autocross, and, most recently, a track weekend.

The Holley Terminator seems to really like the single plane intake manifold, as it has better control of its idle and mixture. The low throttle, 1500 rpm surge isn't as bad as it was, and it can pull out just by letting the clutch out. I actually loaded it onto the trailer without needing the throttle. It gets slightly unhappy trying to drive under 1700-1800 rpm, but what do you expect with a single plane intake, a 211cc intake runner, a 2.02" intake valve, and a 226/234° (@.050") cam? I'm surprised that it clears up at 2000 or so. There's a definite power increase at about 3500, though.

The build seems to be holding together so far, it is amazingly smooth (apparently, the last engine builder trusted the balance of the "balanced" kit, and my machinist had to take off 40g (rear) and 28g (front) to actually balance it), and makes enough power to keep up with a 2015 Z-06 on the straights.

It also seems to run cooler. I'm trying to understand that, and all I can come up with is that the thicker cylinder walls of the Boss block must be transferring heat more evenly.

Anyway, I knew you guys were dying to know what happened with it, so there ya go.

In reply to snailmont5oh:

Thinner cylinder walls can run hotter because they flex more under load (both cylinder pressure and RPM load) and allow more blowby. I don't quite understand the mechanism between increased blowby and increased temps, but I theorize that it is because the relatively cool edge-gases (that usually insulate the combustion from the cylinder walls) blow out into the crankcase, so more "hot" gases are in contact with the cylinders.

I've seen it on several occasions where a dicey overbore to save a valuable block led to increased coolant temps. That's the price of wanting numbers-matching sometimes.

Knurled, if that's the case, then I'm good, because my cylinders are 4.030", and Ford sells these blocks bored out to 4.125, and I've heard of guys running them bored out to at least 4.160. This block's shipping weight (with the stock 4.000" bore) was 12 pounds heavier than the 4.125" block. So, 12 more pounds of cylinder metal. :)

I've heard of them run out to 4.185, or "400 Chevy with a .060".

Certainly one hell of a lot better than a 302 that is sketchy with a .040. Or a Cleveland with any overbore at all

I'm kind of surprised that it's only 12 pounds. I thought the Boss block weighed about the same as a 351W. Ford put something like 40-50 more pounds of iron in the 351W block than they did the 302. Way more than 1.3" more deck height should require. A 351W block is a poor man's high-po 8.2 block, and you get more displacement as a bonus. (Unless you're a REAL hardcore perv and get a crank made that strokes a 251W-journal crank down to 3", or get spacers made to run a 302 crank in a 351W block)

You are correct. The 8.2 deck Boss block is 40# heavier than a 5.0 HO block. I was only talking about the difference between the 4" bore Boss302 and the 4.125" bore Boss302 block.

I'm actually thinking about building a low performance 392 for my '96 F-150 4x4. I just found out that you can use factory 302 pistons and rods in a 351W block with an aftermarket stroker crank, and you have a 392(3?) cubic inch engine. If I use my E303 cam, my GT40x heads, and my 1.7 roller rockers, that would be a torquey-as-berkeley tow beast.

I wouldn't doubt if it wasn't a destroked 400 crank. Allegedly the 351W crank (with really long rods) falls in to a 400 to make the "351M", and turnabout is fair play. Offset-grind a worn 400 crank to 302 rod journal size, drop into a 351W block, and presto you have a 392.

One interesting thing about 4" bore V8s in this general size range is that the displacement is the stroke times 100 minus 2. A 4" bore 2.87" stroke Ford is 289. A 4" bore 3" stroke Ford or Chevy is 302. A 4" bore 3.25" stroke Chevy is 327. 3.48" stroke is 350. 3.5" stroke is 352. (Yes, yes, 351C and 351W, and 351M, but it's a 352) So I assume that the 392 has a 3.90" stroke, which you can easily do with cutting a 400 crank down, but the deck heights don't seem to add up.

Hmm.

In reply to Knurled:

I'm pretty sure that rule should be plus 2, not minus 2.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the 400 crank internally balanced?