|
|
Original Message
|
Nope. |
By Dave Shoe - 05/31/2001 8:35:15 PM; IP 216.243.158.57 |
I just picked up a 1958 Edsel 361 block two weeks ago, and it shows no signs of allowing any special overbore.
I'm rather certain an FE 332 will not sucessfully bore that far out unless you are willing to keep engine speed below 2500 RPM, run a really mild cam, and are willing to pony-up the bucks for appropriate offset boring (the "bucks" comes into play when the machine shop starts charging extra because of how slowly they must bore when some walls thin-out to .050") and an extra-capacity radiator.
Some people just plain dig overboring blocks. More power to them (so to speak). I prefer to keep the cylinders strong, because I'll blow by them (so to speak) with the extra horsepower and RPM made due to non-flexing, well sealed cylinders. Paper-thin cylinders eat lotsa horsepower due in part to poor ring sealing, and to greater friction during flex, and also to much greater heat loss to the cooling system.
Remember: 427 blocks have great difficulty being bored more than .030" over, and these blocks are designed with about 0.122" of water jacket between the cylinders (sand core limits, I think) with minimum .090" walls specified at stock bore (draft takes up the balance - someday I gotta measure the draft angle). I'm guessing the 332/352 block will likely have 0.300"+ of water between the cylinders at the parting line of the mold (about 2" below the cylinder deck). This is easily measured with a drill bit when the core-plugs are popped-out.
Remember also, the 427 inverts the parting line to move the "weak" area of the cylinders below the ring travel area, the 332/352 didn't need to. Later 427 blocks also went to "cloverleafing" the cylinders to improve transmission of headbolt clamping forces to the main bearing webs and also to stiffen the cylinders.
I'm just guessing. I've never seen a 332/352 FE block from early 1958. If you learn otherwise, please tell us.
Shoe. |
 |
|
This thread, so far...
|
|
Post A Response
|
|
|
|