My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Engine tech, for those engines, products, and technologies of yesteryear.

Moderator: Team

jsgarage
Expert
Expert
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:54 pm
Location:

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by jsgarage »

Anyone else see any significance in Ford hiring GM's Bunkey Knudsen in '68, about when all this went down?
MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by MichaelThompson »

Actually I think the 351 GT engines were already being tested early in 1968. These were the forerunners of the production 351 Cleveland I believe.
User avatar
frnkeore
Expert
Expert
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:06 am
Location: Oregon

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by frnkeore »

Pre employment deal with Bunkey? ;)
piston guy
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1029
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:55 pm
Location: Anaheim, CA

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by piston guy »

MichaelThompson wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:00 pm Actually I think the 351 GT engines were already being tested early in 1968. These were the forerunners of the production 351 Cleveland I believe.
More like '67 for the initial design stuff. The Ford engineers knew they had something with the 351GT engine design , but internal politics led to the use of the TERRIBLE tunnel port 302 design.
SchmidtMotorWorks
Vendor
Posts: 11003
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
Location: CA

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by SchmidtMotorWorks »

The copying process would take longer than some of your timelines imagine.

To make foundry tooling and production machining setups would be difficult to do in a year at an OEM, more likely 2 years.
Helping to Deliver the Promise of Flying Cars
User avatar
frnkeore
Expert
Expert
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:06 am
Location: Oregon

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by frnkeore »

The Ford, XE, SK and ASK engineering departments, can move very fast, when needed.

The way I look at this, is who took the heads to production first and who thought they may have been at a disadvantage, because of it.

I don't think that anyone can show a canted valve head, that Ford produced, before GM's first one, regardless of who invented canted valves. I'm a die hard Ford guy and wouldn't give GM anything. Another part of the system, is the offset valve arrangement, that came with the 348.

After WWII, there was a lot on innovation, in cars AND a lot of spying, between the motor company's. Engine development was moving fast. GM had several different OHV, V8 engine designs before Fords, in '52 but, Ford kept innovating there V8's. If weight doesn't matter, I still like the L/M 317-368!

The FE, is somewhat connected to the 368's design, also and I like that. With modern, after market, inline FE heads, there isn't that much difference in performance, under 480 ci when weight is taken into account, with the exception of all out, racing builds.

All that said, I do have a 460 in my F350 but, I would trade it, in a heart beat, for a 462 FE.
BCjohnny
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:07 pm
Location: Black Country, England

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by BCjohnny »

GLHS60 wrote:I think my mid 1963 date could be a realistic starting point.
As a starting point for serious development, could be

**************************************

All the major manufacturers were obviously well aware of 'canted' valve designs around in the fifties, the Chrysler Poly came out mid decade f'rinstance

Only when the 'need' for, and more importantly the ability to get it past the accountancy department, did a lot of designs become reality

Most likely already know this, but it's easy to underestimate the role of the bean counters in any decision ...... pennies were literally life or death for a part ...... and definitely in retrospect when considering performance :wink:

Who knows what was being sketched out in the various experimental depts that never saw the light of day, none of these separate places operated in a vacuum .......
MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by MichaelThompson »

You spitting’ a lot of truth Johnny! Case in point.......the shock tower Fords. Possibly had it not been for the existence of the Ford Falcon which in itself was a response to the VW Beetle, the Mustang may never have come to be.

As we know the Falcon was designed around a lightweight 144 then 170” inline six. The shock towers were no problem. No problem until the needs and wants of the American driver drifted to V8 power.

First the little 221,260 & 289 Ford V8’s were ultra narrow 8.2” deck engines designed this way in large part to fit into the Fairlane and Falcon engine bays.

The Mustang would never have gotten past the bean counters had it not been for the tooling already in place to build the Falcon which it is based on.

Why does this matter here? Well a decision to build Mustang around a six cylinder chassis greatly impacted the 351 Cleveland in that its exhaust side was compromised to fit in the narrow shock tower cars.
jsgarage
Expert
Expert
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:54 pm
Location:

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by jsgarage »

Changing focus from the valves a bit, any inside info (pun intended!) on the Cleveland oiling system being like it is? I always wondered if it stemmed from the block being originally designed for solid lifters only. When the total performance thing began tapering off, Ford management might have required hydraulic lifter capability very late in the game, so as to get at least some street use out of their 'next generation racing engine'. So they drilled an oil gallery through one bank of valve lifters with runners down to the mains, as a simple way to supply lifter oil while not changing core patterns?
MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by MichaelThompson »

jsgarage wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:48 am Changing focus from the valves a bit, any inside info (pun intended!) on the Cleveland oiling system being like it is? I always wondered if it stemmed from the block being originally designed for solid lifters only. When the total performance thing began tapering off, Ford management might have required hydraulic lifter capability very late in the game, so as to get at least some street use out of their 'next generation racing engine'. So they drilled an oil gallery through one bank of valve lifters with runners down to the mains, as a simple way to supply lifter oil while not changing core patterns?
The couple of things left undone on the Cleveland are almost unforgivable considering the potential of this engine design.

Just a little bit more meat in the cylinders, a priority main oiling system and a better exhaust port would’ve put the 351 Cleveland into the stratosphere.

The Cleveland was very much ahead of it’s time and in my opinion is the culmination of everything that Ford had learned through the Total Performance era.

To hobble the engine with three key Achilles heels is a major injustice.

I personally think the shock tower excuse is BS. To me it would’ve been far better to reshape the sheet metal shock towers in the Mustangs and Torino’s.

The cylinder wall thing is outrageous when you think a minor core change would have fixed that.

Lastly the oiling system. What can I say? It works but it gave the Cleveland a black eye. Should have done it right from the start. Bean counters be damned.
Geoff2
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:36 pm
Location: Australia

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by Geoff2 »

'Should have done it right from the start'. Done what?

Was it a race engine?
If so it was a failure because of the oiling system. The leading Cleveland racer in this country claimed they 'blew up on the starter motor'. Only after substantial oiling mods were made were they able to finish a race, let alone win.

Was it a street engine?
If so, the huge intake ports made it a sluggish performer on the street. It was topped over the 1/4 mile here by a Chrys inline 6 engine that made 303 hp. The Ch engine was more flexible everywhere in the rpm range, compared to the lumpy 351.

The Aussie 2v heads had reduced intake port volumes that improved performance.

I alsosaw many 4V Clevelands at the drag strip back in the day drop intake valves....& going home on tow trucks. If you design an engine with huge ports & big valves, wouldn't you expect the engine to see high rpm...& therefore require one piece, not welded, valves?

I don't know how any of this makes it a great engine because it didn't perform any function, as designed, very well. Lots of other brand engines were better designed & didn't have to be re-engineered to perform well or be reliable.

Ford seem to learn NOTHING from the big port fiasco, repeating it with the 429.
MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by MichaelThompson »

Geoff2 wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:35 am 'Should have done it right from the start'. Done what?

Was it a race engine?
If so it was a failure because of the oiling system. The leading Cleveland racer in this country claimed they 'blew up on the starter motor'. Only after substantial oiling mods were made were they able to finish a race, let alone win.

Was it a street engine?
If so, the huge intake ports made it a sluggish performer on the street. It was topped over the 1/4 mile here by a Chrys inline 6 engine that made 303 hp. The Ch engine was more flexible everywhere in the rpm range, compared to the lumpy 351.

The Aussie 2v heads had reduced intake port volumes that improved performance.

I alsosaw many 4V Clevelands at the drag strip back in the day drop intake valves....& going home on tow trucks. If you design an engine with huge ports & big valves, wouldn't you expect the engine to see high rpm...& therefore require one piece, not welded, valves?

I don't know how any of this makes it a great engine because it didn't perform any function, as designed, very well. Lots of other brand engines were better designed & didn't have to be re-engineered to perform well or be reliable.

Ford seem to learn NOTHING from the big port fiasco, repeating it with the 429.
Geoff I respect your opinion but I must say I disagree with your rear view mirror view of the Cleveland.

While I acknowledge the drawbacks each one of them was addressed eventually and by the 1980’s the 351 Cleveland stood above the rest.

Here in the States we appreciated the Aussie thicker wall blocks. They came in time to help the NASCAR Ford teams but they STILL had the normal oiling system. The NASCAR engine builders simply plumbed an oil tube through the valley to directly oil the center 3 main bearings. That fixed the problem.

So now we’re down to one issue. The exhaust ports. Ford fixed that too as soon as the first aluminum heads were cast.

The 1970’s killed the Cleveland due to lack of development.

The 351 SVO is the direct result of the 351 Cleveland. All of the best attributes of the 351 Cleveland combined with the best from the 351 Windsor produced an engine that was so good it required GM Mopar and Toyota to come up with versions of their own.
Geoff2
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:36 pm
Location: Australia

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by Geoff2 »

Michael,
I remember when the 351C was first drag raced, racers were slicing off a 1" thick section of the exh side of the head to get rid of the restrictive hump in the port floor. In place of the cast iron slab went a 1"piece of alum that angled the ports up for better flow.
Just another Ford failing: why have intake ports that flow huge amounts of air.....& choke the exh flow.

It is all very well fixing the problems AFTERWARDS. We can all do that......
But getting it right the first time?
Here is a great example of that. Chrys was losing speedway races. So C decided to design/build a hemi head to fit the existing 426 wedge block. Work started in July 63, & target was to be entered in the Feb 64 Daytona 500 race. Seven months. Pretty short lead time to cast all the heads, valve gear, test cams, manifolds etc....& reliability. Not many race engines I can think of that are designed for 500 mile races finish their inaugural race, let alone finish & win. But C did, winning the first 4 places.
MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by MichaelThompson »

Geoff2 wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:21 am Michael,
I remember when the 351C was first drag raced, racers were slicing off a 1" thick section of the exh side of the head to get rid of the restrictive hump in the port floor. In place of the cast iron slab went a 1"piece of alum that angled the ports up for better flow.
Just another Ford failing: why have intake ports that flow huge amounts of air.....& choke the exh flow.

It is all very well fixing the problems AFTERWARDS. We can all do that......
But getting it right the first time?
Here is a great example of that. Chrys was losing speedway races. So C decided to design/build a hemi head to fit the existing 426 wedge block. Work started in July 63, & target was to be entered in the Feb 64 Daytona 500 race. Seven months. Pretty short lead time to cast all the heads, valve gear, test cams, manifolds etc....& reliability. Not many race engines I can think of that are designed for 500 mile races finish their inaugural race, let alone finish & win. But C did, winning the first 4 places.
Well I don’t know Geoff. Certainly the 426 hemi was epic and absolutely was a great engine supercharged and on exotic fuel......but gasoline?

The 426 does not have high velocity intake ports it has giant sewer ports. They do not have much built in fuel mixing to their design. They are best at loading cylinders with gulps of air/fuel.

The piston domes required to attain compression inhibit flame propagation and are heavier than other designs.

The exhaust rocker arms are long and thus heavier. I’ve also read that one of the key Chrysler hemi designers admit that the early hemi was a better design with regards to valve train geometry. One can easily see why when looking at lifter bank angles.

The block on a 426 was heavy for its purpose in NASCAR an frankly it was a very expensive engine to produce compared to the engines it competed with.

The Boss 429 was a better engine in many ways for NASCAR and it was very effective in winning NASCAR races.

The Boss 429 bombed out in drag racing at first while the 426 Hemi found a home. (Interestingly the Boss 429 style head dominated mountain motored pro stocks for many years)

But Geoff you’re right the 351 Cleveland had so much potential it’s a shame it was hobbled by easily remedied corrections.

The exhaust port was a forced error due to the shock tower cars. The thin wall cylinder blocks were fine and high quality until you went to boring past .030”.

All those tales about furnace brazed blocks were not because the cylinder walls were too thin. (simply filling the block could fix and cylinder flex problems)

No the furnace brazed sleeves were used to put a bigger bore (4.080” or more) in a stock block. Glidden, G & R and Nicholson to name a few knew that the GM teams were coming with big bore/de-stroked big block Chevs to counter the Clevos.

There’s another thing too that the Cleveland brought and that was huge and that was getting the damn water out of the intake manifold. Water, air and oil all want to combine on those stupid wedge style intake manifolds.

I’d love to see the details of the Clevos that Alan Moffatt ran in Aussie endurance racing.
BCjohnny
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:07 pm
Location: Black Country, England

Re: My next debate: origins of the canted valve Ford cylinder head.

Post by BCjohnny »

I’d love to see the details of the Clevos that Alan Moffatt ran in Aussie endurance racing
Brocky 'round Bathurst wasn't exactly pedestrian either .......

The 'Cleveland' school of thought originally was a very rough diamond indeed .... only after the facets started to get polished did it shine
Post Reply