| FAQ |
| Members List |
| Social Groups |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
04-29-2008, 05:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
#42
04-29-2008, 07:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Scott Roberts is neither my partner or my driver in relation to my nostalgia funny car project. I do consider him a friend however. As for people not involved in the suit, it's still public information, and as such is "free game" to talk about. As for not being able to talk about the suit, or anyone/anything in particular simply because you have not had any direct dealings is ridiculous. This board was created to share information, good or bad. As for Norwalk, I think you just bit off more than you can chew with loosely inviting me to your pit for a sandwich.  Mongo like sandwich.
__________________
Just a blind squirrel looking for a nut. Last edited by Brian Baker; 04-29-2008 at 07:50 AM. |
|
#43
04-29-2008, 08:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Let's face it- You have JBP, Spott's, Nunzi, Pontiac Dude, and other's I can't think of right now, all I'm sure have had disputs along the way, but what name provokes more anger than any other? You know the letters...
__________________
LIFT HEAVY, LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO BE SMALL! |
|
#44
04-29-2008, 11:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Just a blind squirrel looking for a nut. |
|
#45
04-29-2008, 12:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Maurice since 1954 it has been "Skipper" to friends, family, business associates,clients etc, Shortened to Skip about 20 years ago so YES it's my real name as much as Maurice is yours. James E Fix,Jr. D.V.M. if you want legal-something generally just the telemarketers use.
Are you involved in this suit that you can respond? Or can only the cheerleaders respond?? I think you are stepping into the deep end here. As I stated I started using KRE for stuff before there was an official KRE. You can see the previous thread about my block issues that were discussed here before I legally can not anymore. It had to go to suit to get resolved at least somewhat. Other issues not related to legal agreement you can decide if they are just customer service(as I politely put it) or a trend in quality control issues: First set of E heads to be ported wanted good flow. Came back with tubes in pushrods and head bolts we hadn't talked about. After 20 runs and a intake swap there was Loctite or whatever used for the pushrod tubes-chunks flaking off into the ports I had to cleanup so the motor didn't ingest more of it.Some folks of many makes have issues with head bolt tubes weakening the head.I wanted good flow, would have opted for no tubes but I did not communicate that specifically so some of that is on me. Pistons for that motor ordered from them assuming they would be the light weight that everyone else was using for flat tops 580 gms, only 20 lighter than TRW slug- "sorry wrong blank was used". Next set of CNC ported E heads they assembled to be ready to run for me. Unpacking CNC shavings poured out of ALL the coolant passages-"sorry must have not taped them off". No offer ship them back we'll clean them up and eat the shipping.Had to completely disassemble them blow/vacuum them out ,knock off the additional small flecks still in the ports from the CNC machine. Not just a 5 minute job. How could they not have been doing that when they were turning them over assembling them?? So every problem I had with every part I was "blown off" as not their problem. A local guy here that got some heads from Butler with shavings for porting they had him send it back for them to go through clean up and ship back. A different attitude. Stuff happens everywhere it's how you resolve it that matters. In Texas if you advertise one thing and give another it is actually "deceptive trade practices" and triple damages in the courtroom. As the old saying goes "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" I was a slow learner having faith in folks 
__________________
Skip Fix 1978 Trans Am original owner 10.99 @ 124 pump gas 455 E heads, NO Bird ever! 1981 Black SE Trans Am stockish 6X 400ci, turbo 301 on a stand 1965 GTO 4 barrel 3 speed project 2004 GTO Pulse Red stock motor computer tune [email protected] 1964 Impala SS 409/470ci 600 HP stroker project 1979 Camaro IAII Edelbrock head 500" 695 HP 10.33@132 3595lbs 1964 Corvette Coupe 327 4 speed |
|
#46
04-29-2008, 12:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I've asked this question before with no answers from the experts!
At what brinell rating is cast iron prone to failure and what tests have been conducted to support any failures? MR1 or any other after market block for that matter.
__________________
1969 GTO Judge Ram Air III 1968 Catalina "Darkside" Vert! |
|
#47
04-29-2008, 01:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
My pushrod tubes were ground through and epoxied over, then that all cycled through my engine 5 runs later, I guess I should have stated I didn't want that option on the complete, assembled, dynoed, paid for in full, engine that I bought from them.
__________________
LIFT HEAVY, LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO BE SMALL! |
|
#48
04-29-2008, 01:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Drunk'nInjun, what size bore did you order?
Also what size bore for cam journals? 
__________________
John Wallace - johnta1 Pontiac Power RULES !!! www.wallaceracing.com Winner of Top Class at Pontiac Nationals, 2004 Cordova Winner of Quick 16 At Ames 2004 Pontiac Tripower Nats KRE's MR-1 - 1st 5 second Pontiac block ever! W.E.C moment "Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts." "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." – Socrates |
|
#49
04-29-2008, 02:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
What does that have to do with the price of milk? cam bores came for 50mm. cylinders 4.170 or so. |
|
#50
04-29-2008, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Written by Andy Finkbeiner Photos by Ron Valera If you ever want to start an argument at a Mopar gathering you can always ask someone which model year had the best engine block casting. There are more rumors and half truths floating around on this issue than Elvis sightings. One big issue that must be dealt with is the information that the factory published in its Mopar Performance publications. Over and over again, the factory has said that blocks cast after 1976 are "thin wall" castings, and should not be bored more than 0.020. It turns out that this statement isn’t completely true and that is the source of much confusion. Hopefully we’ll be able to clear this topic up some by pulling out some modern technology, namely, a sonic checker. Sonic checking was once an exotic, space age technology. These days, companies such as Dakota Instruments are selling hand held checkers for less than $1000. This might not be in the budget for the average Mopar fan, but it is well within reason for a serious engine builder. A sonic checker uses high frequency sound energy to measure material thickness in much the same way as a police radar measures speed. The sonic checker sends out a signal and then measures the time required to get the echo back. The longer it takes for the signal to return, the thicker the material. Sound travels at different speeds in different materials so the sonic checker needs to know what material is being tested, but that is an easy front panel input. The PR-8 model that Dakota Instrument sells is designed for measuring cylinder wall thickness as well as cylinder heads and other items which racers are typically interested in. We’ll use the PR-8 unit in this article to test a number of big block castings in order to see if there is any difference between early and late model castings. The PR-8 Sonic Tester used in this article was obtained from Dakota Instruments. THICKNESS We were able to gather up 20 bare blocks of various year, CID and casting numbers. While 20 blocks might seem to be too few to accurately tell what the factory did, it turns out that it is plenty. This is what a ton of Mopar big blocks looks like! We are actually measuring individual cylinders for wall thickness not blocks, so 20 blocks means 160 cylinders to measure. A good rule of thumb for statisticians is that if the sample size is greater than 30, then you can predict the total population with a fair amount of precision. Since the blocks we gathered up were a random sample of blocks built over a long period of time, our sample should be very representative of what you might find at a swap meet or wrecking yard. One of the first things you learn when using a sonic checker on a block is that the cylinder wall castings are not of uniform thickness. The cylinder walls are thicker on the sides facing the inner and outer parts of the block than on the sides between cylinders. (PICTURE OF CYLINDER WALL WITH LABELS) The thick sides are the thrust surfaces of the cylinder wall, named that since they take the thrust load from the piston. In a motor that rotates clockwise, the major thrust surface will be on the passenger side of the cylinder, the driver’s side of the cylinder wall is called the minor thrust surface. When looking for an ideal block, we want one with thick, uniform thrust surfaces. More material on the major thrust surface is a nice touch as long as it doesn’t come at the expense of the other surfaces. Pre ’76 Post ‘76 Average thrust surface thickness 0.204 0.220 Standard deviation of measurement 0.041 0.038 Minimum wall thickness 0.065 0.108 Maximum wall thickness measured 0.300 0.300 This 440 block cast in 1977 has wall thickness of 0.276. So much for that thin wall theory! So what do these numbers mean? From a first glance it appears that blocks cast after 1976 are actually thicker on average than blocks cast before 1976. A closer look at the numbers however tells us that since the standard deviation is so high, we can’t really say that these two numbers are very different from each other. For those who might have skipped statistics class in high school, the standard deviation is a measurement of distribution. In this case, it tells us how likely it is for one cylinder to vary in thickness from another cylinder. Given these numbers we can predict what percentage of cylinder blocks will be thick enough for high performance use. According to Bill Jenkins book, The Chevrolet Racing Engine, he prefers a minimum wall thickness for a racing engine to be 0.215 thick. He goes on to say that the Chevy specification is .223 average on the thrust sides but he doesn’t say what the tolerance allowed is. Given that the average thickness is less than this 0.215 figure, what chance is there that a Mopar big block would have all of its thrust surfaces greater than 0.215? Actually, this isn’t too hard of a problem to solve. Since the odds of any thrust surface being greater than average thickness is 0.500, the probability that all 16 surfaces are greater than average is 0.50 times itself 16 times. The same exact odds as flipping a coin 16 times and having each flip be heads, or about 1 in 65,000. If we lower our standards a bit it might be easier to find a block which will work. For instance, if we will accept 0.160 as the minimum wall thickness on the thrust side, what percentage of blocks will be acceptable? Since 84 percent of the cylinder walls are going to be thicker than 0.160, 0.840 times itself 16 times will tell us the number which are going to be acceptable. That is, if you have a 84% yield for each thrust surface, and you need 16 good ones, what are the odds of getting 16 in a row good? Turns out to be 6%, or 6 blocks out of 100 are good enough for racing if you use 0.160 as the minimum thrust thickness. LOW DECK VS. RB MOTOR Another variable that should be touched on briefly is the length of the cylinder wall. Any mechanical part is going to be weaker as it gets longer. A simple test with a yard stick versus a ruler will show you the dramatic difference in deflection as the unsupported length increases. By sliding a rule down into the water jacket of a block, you’ll see that the unsupported section of a B block’s cylinder wall is about 5.25 long, while a RB cylinder is about 6.0 inches long. This means that the unsupported length for a RB motor is about 14% longer than on a B motor. A 14% increase in unsupported length doesn’t sound like much, but when you crunch the numbers, it turns out to result in a xx% increase in deflection for the same load. Fortunately, a racer can solve this problem with the use of Hard Block or other water jacket filler. By filling the bottom of the water jacket, the length of the cylinder wall which is unsupported becomes shorter and therefore stiffer. HARDNESS One item that people rarely discuss is the hardness of the cast iron itself. But the hardness of a cylinder block is actually quite important since a harder block will be stronger, and more resistant to wear. Since the thickness of the Mopar blocks seems to be the same over the years, we were curious to see if the hardness of the blocks had changed during that time. Folklore among machinists is that the blocks cast in the 60’s and early 70’s are much harder than the later blocks. A small sample was taken from each block in order to test the hardness. It is fairly easy to remove one of the transfer lugs from the side of the block with a hacksaw and then this material can be tested in a bench mounted hardness tester. If your engine builder has a hardness tester like this, pat yourself on the back! The hardness tester uses a calibrated load to press a small ball into the material. The softer the material, the further the ball is pressed into it. The hardness value is then read directly from the scale. The numbers for the big blocks was interesting. All of the material samples tested at 200 or more on the Brinell hardness scale until we got to the 1976 and later blocks, then the values dropped more than 10%. This would indicate that the material strength was reduced in 1976 by about 10%. Hardness samples from six of the blocks. Some Typical Hardness Values 1964 413 HB 200 1969 383 HB 205 1971 400 HB 205 1974 440 HB 205 1976 400 HB 180 1977 440 HB 181 As a reference point, according to the 2000 GM Performance Parts catalog, the GM big block race engine has a hardness specification of 210 to 230 on the Brinell scale. In Bill Jenkins book , "The Chevrolet Racing Engine", there is a picture of a block being hardness tested. Evidently, sharp racers such as Grumpy were using this technology many years ago to select the best blocks. WEIGHT The weight of the various years should also give us a clue as to the thickness of the cylinder walls. For some reason the MP book doesn’t provide us with accurate weights for the various years so we arranged for some quick testing on a large scale. The 1977 440 block with the thick cylinder walls weighs in at a porky 234 pounds! The following results are interesting. Bare blocks with main caps 1964 413 block 220 lbs 1966 426W block 227 lbs 1977 440 block 234 lbs 1969 383 block 220 lbs 1972 400 block 218 lbs It is interesting to see that in the case of the 383 motor, it weighed the same as the 413 block. According to the MP engine book the B motor should weigh 225 pounds. No data is provided by MP for the RB motor but it appears that the RB is maybe 0 to 20 pounds heavier, depending on the individual casting. The 1977 440 block that weighed in at 234 pounds was the heaviest block the author has seen. When sonic checked, this block proved to have very thick cylinder walls with all thrust surfaces well over 0.200 thick. But the hardness for this block was only 180 on the Brinell scale which showed it to be made of the late model cast iron. Probably still a very good candidate for a healthy output motor. As a point of reference, the big block Chevrolet Bow Tie racing blocks all weigh right at 270 pounds bare. Of course, that is for a block with cylinder walls which are 0.400 thick, so the comparison isn’t exactly fair. Shortblock weights – these are bare blocks with crank, rods, pistons but no camshaft or lifters. 1970 383 361 lbs 1978 400 351 lbs 1974 440 376 lbs 1978 440 376 lbs. CONCLUSION Well it appears that the factory information on big blocks isn’t the whole story. While the blocks cast after 1976 do not appear to be "thin wall" castings, they do appear to be cast from a material which is inferior to the earlier castings. It could have been this knowledge that led the MP engineers to caution racers against using the later blocks. If you don’t have access to a sonic checker you might just rely on block weight to help you decide. While a heavy block isn’t guaranteed to have the material in the correct place, at least it is a start in the right direction. For a high horsepower application, a heads up engine builder should consider having the blocks hardness tested as well as sonic tested. It isn’t readily clear as to the value of the later blocks versus the earlier blocks. While the later blocks appear to be just as thick or thicker, they are also constructed of a material which is softer. I suppose it comes down to individual testing of various blocks for all of these properties and then picking the one that is the best available choice. Obviously, no one should pass on a 440 or 400 motor just because it has a casting date that is 1976 or later. And if you can get one cheap because the seller doesn’t read Mopar Action, then all the better! Entire contents copyright 2000 by Harris Publications, Inc., New York, NY, and Andy Finkbeiner. All right reserved. Protected worldwide under the terms of the International Copyright Convention. Printing, retransmission, e-mailing, copying, distributing, etc., by any means, is unlawful. Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law |
|
#51
04-29-2008, 02:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Quote:
4.375 minus 4.170 = .205" add that to the cyl #'s posted above: HOLY CRAPPOLA Looks like you have as much wall thickness or more than an IA II block.  What else haven't you told us? 
__________________
John Wallace - johnta1 Pontiac Power RULES !!! www.wallaceracing.com Winner of Top Class at Pontiac Nationals, 2004 Cordova Winner of Quick 16 At Ames 2004 Pontiac Tripower Nats KRE's MR-1 - 1st 5 second Pontiac block ever! W.E.C moment "Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts." "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." – Socrates |
|
#52
04-29-2008, 03:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
he is suppose to have over .250 wall thickness at 4.375 not 4.17 they advertised it that way, of course the walls are thick at a 4.17 bore! duh!
__________________
D.S.R.E. Your NW Pontiac Street/Strip Engine Builder, Specializing in Cylinder Head,Intake Manifold,and Exhaust Manifold Porting services and Building the Most Efficient stock rebuilds to Hi HP Pump Gas and Race Combinations for Pontiac,Buicks,Olds,FE Fords,385 Series and HP Gen 3 and 4 LS engines! 2006 silvy Z71 4X4,383 LS 600+hp NA Shared Toy-66 Lemans 470cid by me 537hp 580tq-manifolds, 570hp 590tq-2"headers,custom cam,rpm intake, mild e-heads, Looks stock ;-} |
|
#53
04-29-2008, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#54
04-29-2008, 03:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#55
04-29-2008, 03:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Bill one of the CNC heads was ground through and had epoxy in the hole that was peeling out after the dyno. Luckily I could peel it out whole and shove a tube in that one on the engine stand before it went in the car. The heads do flow good and made power
Chris alot of the issue that started the current problem in this thread was it was advertised in magazines as a specific grade cast iron and was measured as something softer, and a spec.And advertised all machine work being done in house for quality control, and a specific wall thickness at a specific bore. If you look at the ads for the Ford and GM factory aftermarket blocks some advertise an even stronger cast iron so I would guess the "big boys" have seen the need for a different grade also. Some of it depends on the design of the block how the mains, cam/lifter area is and what Hp they start failing.
__________________
Skip Fix 1978 Trans Am original owner 10.99 @ 124 pump gas 455 E heads, NO Bird ever! 1981 Black SE Trans Am stockish 6X 400ci, turbo 301 on a stand 1965 GTO 4 barrel 3 speed project 2004 GTO Pulse Red stock motor computer tune [email protected] 1964 Impala SS 409/470ci 600 HP stroker project 1979 Camaro IAII Edelbrock head 500" 695 HP 10.33@132 3595lbs 1964 Corvette Coupe 327 4 speed |
|
#56
04-29-2008, 03:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Drunkin,
That was a good read, but it merely stated that a harder block is a stronger block! I already knew that! My question was, in other words, at what point will a block of less hardness fail as apposed to a block with more hardness. Hypothetically speaking, will one fail at 1000HP and the other fail at 700HP? Will the one with less hardness come apart or will it just move around causing premature wear on other components? Or will both blocks survive the intended use, regardless of hardness? What test have been done to support this???? Just some food for thought.
__________________
1969 GTO Judge Ram Air III 1968 Catalina "Darkside" Vert! |
|
#57
04-29-2008, 03:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Skip,
I missed your response, but same question for the big boys!
__________________
1969 GTO Judge Ram Air III 1968 Catalina "Darkside" Vert! |
|
#58
04-29-2008, 04:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
"he is suppose to have over .250 wall thickness at 4.375 not 4.17 they advertised it that way,"- Yep that was the deal!
So let's see John a manufacturer advertises a product to be specific specs(let's say a gun) that are not in reality the specs(different caliber plain steel not SS), you add something else like a scope so now they are off the hook for incorrect material, incorrect size and if you bring that out in public you are defaming them?? I see! Going back to your Ford Explorer example the logic should be the same-Ford is completely responsible for a subcontractors product that the owner may not have kept inflated correctly(a fact that was published here as a factor). Same logic puts it all back on KRE! I sleaved 1 hole,(not one of my complaints),Re-did the lifterbores(not one of my complaints), And bored the block to 4.350(not one of my complaints). My complaints were the brinell, the lack of thickness in the cylinderbores, and the oversized cam bores. Rek claimed, as you read I caused the defects I complained about by the work I had done. Anyone know how that is possible? John and Maurice please answer the question!! Don't duck it, please tell the rest of us how the hole sizes,thickness and hardness changed with routine machine work.
__________________
Skip Fix 1978 Trans Am original owner 10.99 @ 124 pump gas 455 E heads, NO Bird ever! 1981 Black SE Trans Am stockish 6X 400ci, turbo 301 on a stand 1965 GTO 4 barrel 3 speed project 2004 GTO Pulse Red stock motor computer tune [email protected] 1964 Impala SS 409/470ci 600 HP stroker project 1979 Camaro IAII Edelbrock head 500" 695 HP 10.33@132 3595lbs 1964 Corvette Coupe 327 4 speed |
|
#59
04-29-2008, 04:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Chris my point on the hardness needed to prevent failure is it probably block design related. Different blocks have more redundancy in the number of fasteners(2 bolt, 4 bolt,cross bolted mains), the size of the fasteners the other cross supports that all affect the loads on the block in specific areas. Why our Ponchos need a lifter bore brace with big cams.
The Brinell is a hardness test and the engineers can correct me but is an indirect measure of tensile strength of the cast iron.Most are using good cast iron blocks with brinells in the low to mid 200s,as was mentioned the BBC 210-230. .So some of the ads are for the tensile strength not the Brinell number but there is a conversion factor.The IA2 is listed at 235 Brinell and 35,000 tensile strength.I believe a Ford ad for the new Boss block was for an even stronger steel than most of the other aftermarket blocks are, I want to think 40-45,000 tensile. You can do a search for the actual numbers these blocks in the discussion came up with. So if the big factories "race blocks" use a higher tensile cast iron than their passenger car blocks I'll bet the engineers had a reason- as Tom V says
__________________
Skip Fix 1978 Trans Am original owner 10.99 @ 124 pump gas 455 E heads, NO Bird ever! 1981 Black SE Trans Am stockish 6X 400ci, turbo 301 on a stand 1965 GTO 4 barrel 3 speed project 2004 GTO Pulse Red stock motor computer tune [email protected] 1964 Impala SS 409/470ci 600 HP stroker project 1979 Camaro IAII Edelbrock head 500" 695 HP 10.33@132 3595lbs 1964 Corvette Coupe 327 4 speed |
|
#60
04-29-2008, 04:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
Just a blind squirrel looking for a nut. |
| Reply |
|
|
The PY Online Forums is the largest online gathering of Pontiac enthusiasts anywhere in the world. Founded in 1991, it was also the first online forum for people to gather and talk about their Pontiacs. Since then, it has become the mecca of Pontiac technical data and knowledge that no other place can surpass.
Linear Mode
