Substituting Shelby block for Iron SO

[Turk]

I believe, last time this came up using similar intakes, heads attachments etc. we had agreed the total difference was at 100 lbs. or so.
I could be wrong on this, and I am sure someone has the exact weight of an aluminum block and an iron block.

TURK

[weekendwarrior]

On an SC car, true to spec if the alum engine is 100 lbs less and the car at speed tends to lift the front, would not the alum engine car exacerbate the lift problem?

I would think going with an alum engine one would have to loose 100lbs of fuel to rebalance the car.

100lbs is a lot of weight difference in such a lite car.

I could see using an alum engine on a street car that only had 18gals of fuel but 42 gals of fuel and a lighter front end makes me wonder.

I am I missing something?

Gary

[Gary Morris]

One of the reasons I think that Southern Automotive is cheaper is the fact that Bill Parham has been collecting FE parts all his life and doesn't have to charge premium prices for everything. We have 2 local owners I know of 1 a SB and 1 a side oiler and both have been very happy with the service and performance. And if you stay away from a lot of the billet this and high upgrade options I think you can do a sideoiler reasonable but that' just my 2 pennies worth.

Gary
ERA #291

[Sizzler]

If you want a side-oiler, it's for 'originality's sake'.

If you're willing to go with a Shelby/Arias block, then you are no longer concerned with originality so much as with appearances...you can bolt on all the bits and pieces from an FE so that, at least from the top, the engine will LOOK like a sideoiler.

And what is a side-oiler but a version of an FE? So what you're really going for is the LOOK of an FE or a block that will allow you to paste (bolt) on FE manifolds, heads, pumps, whatever.

With the 427 side-oiler block, you can open your hood and truthfully state "it's a 427 side-oiler".

With the 429 Shelby block, you open the hood and start explaining.

With an FE block, you open the hood and can truthfully state "it's an FE" or "it's a bigblock Ford" or "it's a 427 bigblock Ford" if you have what is commonly known as a 428 (do the math - 2.065*2.065*3.14159*8*3.98=426.55).

What I'm getting at is that an NOS 427 side-oiler will set you back a pretty penny, and the ones that SA may provide may have one or more sleeves installed and these prices all make the Shelby block "reasonable". But, when you consider the cost of "lesser" FE blocks (390 and 428's), your overall cost could drop tremendously. If you don't get yourself caught up in the hype (heavy NASCAR rods, heavier steel cranks...) and choose your parts wisely, you'll end up with an engine that will cost you far less, look exactly the same, and outperform the ones built by experts from paper-thinwall-castings costing the earth. I've seen excellent 390 blocks for $300, long block 428's for $750. At those prices, a decent, "427" could be built for under $5K (including machining and billet this/that/and the next thing). I know this (personally) for a fact.

If you put a $800-$900 4.25" crank from SCAT in, you'll get plenty of displacement out of a cleaned up $150 390 block. If you're spending $25K on an FE, you're not getting something 'better' more than something 'flashy'. Think watches.

My opinion.

[Jamo]

Sizzler

The block is merely one part of the equation. Like watches--you need to look at what's inside. That's where a good portion of the money goes when a motor like this is being put together. Don't really see the damn block from the top anyway--and you sure as hell don't see the crank, pistons, etc.--just like you don't see the works of a watch unless you have a display back (hey--your analogy).

Me--no real flashy pieces on the outside--it's all in the inside. The only reasons I went with with the arruminum block were weight and the cooling aspects--availability also played a part. Don't know about SOs--originality is important for some and well worth it if it makes them happy IMHFO.

[PatBuckley]

Being as I substituted a Kirkham for a Shelby I thought I would substitute an aluminum block for an iron block...

I suppose if I had an original CSX car I would put a side oiler in it - but why not go for modern stuff.....I'm passing on the dual point distributor too!

Yep, that 429 Shelby aluminum block sure is showy.

[Lew Ledyard]

Gary asks a good question. I understand that SC cars had a 50/50 weight balance and the car was designed around an iron block. Of course, lighter is generally better, but would switching to an aluminum block adversely affect the car's balance? Has anyone had the pleasure of comparing similar cars having these two diffrent blocks? With an aluminum block, do you run different fron shocks and springs?

Thanks,

Lew

[decooney]

btsai,

Tom Lucus a.k.a FE/Specialties falls in the mid range on pricing, and high on quality and attention to detail. He's not cheap, and he's not outrageous. Tom (believe it or not) has an engine shop dedicated to building FEs alone. About 80% of what he builds are just FEs. He is certainly not getting rich on the level or work and attention to detail he provides to his customers. He has a passion for building FEs for people. He tries to remain competetive and could certainly charge more, but does not. I think he can charge more!

Where he seems to make up for the difference (in personal satisfaction) is getting constructive feedback from satisfied customers like me. Because of referrals over the last few years, he is now building motors for people in the U.S. and in other countries. His specialty is FE blueprinting, porting, and performance assembly for about the price of mainstream engine package shops. The result is that he gets return customers. He could make more money doing other things, but his passion for FEs keeps him at it. Good Guy, and he tries hard to please the customer.

[weekendwarrior]

Thanks for noticing. Ruff calc shows that the 42gal. in the SC would have to be reduced by 18 gal. to rebalance the car to spec. using an alum eng. The real world question is it necessary? Street Car only had an 18gal tank to start with so an alum eng. would give it close to the 50/50 as the SC.

Gary

[SFfiredog]

The Shelby 427 (427) IS an FE block. Just as much as Edelbrock heads and manifolds, Blue Thunder manifolds and valve covers, Erson or Dove rockers, etc. are FE. They just don't happen to be cast at a Dearborn Foundry in the 1960s. All of the above mentioned parts are direct (more or less) replacement for stock Ford FE parts.

I would be hanging with a REALLY tough crowd if I have to explain to them why I used a Shelby block!

BTW, my Shelby block is a "side oiler". The main oil galley runs next to the side of the camshaft!
As for the 390/428 FEs, they are good engines but I have sonic checked enough of both to know that they can be just as thin as 427 blocks.
The biggest drawback to a 390 block, and somewhat to the 428 block is the size of the cylinder bores.
While it is true that with the new Scat stoker cranks you can build a 433 ci 390, the bore is too small and the stroke too long unless you want a low rpm truck motor for towing.
The 390 has a bore that equals a .050 289 small block! (4.050)
A bore that small totally limits the valve sizing to a max of 2.09/ 1.66. If one trys bigger valves the cylinder shrouds the valves and actually makes less power. The main reason the 427 block is so desirable for making big power is the larger (4.23) bore. I realize not everyone needs a 550 hp FE and a 390 is more than capable of making respectable Cobra horsepower. But, if you do spend the big bucks for a 427 based engine, you're getting much more than just being "flashy". There ain't a 390 or 428 made that will outrun a 427 if both are properly built using the same quality components.
I cannot imagine why people are willing to pay the ridiculous prices ($5000, 6000, 7000!) for NOS side oiler blocks especially when most of them are service blocks that never were actually avaliable in a car from the factory. I could see if someone found a NOS PRODUCTION block and was restoring a R model Failane, GTE Cougar, R model Galaxie, Cobra or some other ORIGINAL 427 powered car,but to pay that much for a replica, CSX 4000, Kirkham etc. is kind of silly considering the Shelby 427 block is readily available and Genesis is just starting to fill production orderes for their 427 blocks.
As far as 'originality's sake', none of these cars are original.
Sorry guys. If the issue of orignality is to be contended, try taking your CSX 4000 or Kirkham to the Pebble Beach Concours or the next vintage car race at Laguna Seca and tell the people at the gate your car is original.
They will politely show you where the general parking lot is.
Of course, those cars are a lot more "original" than my So. African plastic car!
--Mike

Originally posted by Sizzler


If you want a side-oiler, it's for 'originality's sake'.

With the 427 side-oiler block, you can open your hood and truthfully state "it's a 427 side-oiler".

With the 429 Shelby block, you open the hood and start explaining.

With an FE block, you open the hood and can truthfully state "it's an FE" or "it's a bigblock Ford" or "it's a 427 bigblock Ford" if you have what is commonly known as a 428 (do the math - 2.065*2.065*3.14159*8*3.98=426.55).

What I'm getting at is that an NOS 427 side-oiler will set you back a pretty penny, and the ones that SA may provide may have one or more sleeves installed and these prices all make the Shelby block "reasonable". But, when you consider the cost of "lesser" FE blocks (390 and 428's), your overall cost could drop tremendously. If you don't get yourself caught up in the hype (heavy NASCAR rods, heavier steel cranks...) and choose your parts wisely, you'll end up with an engine that will cost you far less, look exactly the same, and outperform the ones built by experts from paper-thinwall-castings costing the earth. I've seen excellent 390 blocks for $300, long block 428's for $750. At those prices, a decent, "427" could be built for under $5K (including machining and billet this/that/and the next thing). I know this (personally) for a fact.

If you put a $800-$900 4.25" crank from SCAT in, you'll get plenty of displacement out of a cleaned up $150 390 block. If you're spending $25K on an FE, you're not getting something 'better' more than something 'flashy'. Think watches.

My opinion.

[SFfiredog]

Originally posted by Lew Ledyard


Gary asks a good question. I understand that SC cars had a 50/50 weight balance and the car was designed around an iron block. Of course, lighter is generally better, but would switching to an aluminum block adversely affect the car's balance? Has anyone had the pleasure of comparing similar cars having these two diffrent blocks? With an aluminum block, do you run different fron shocks and springs?

Thanks,

Lew

Even an all iron 427 Cobra has a 47/54 F to R weight balance.
If light front end weight was such an issue how come every small block Cobra owner keeps reminding us dumb-ass big block Cobra boys that their cars are 10 times better because they are more nimble, better handling, quicker turning, on and on and on.
Where's Cranky when you need him?
--Mike

[weekendwarrior]

This Source shows 49/51 distribution. Now I would assume only Kirkaham and Shelby/Kirkham cars are anywhere close to the original weight and spec. Not to get in a pissing match, on a 2150lb car, does taking 100lbs off the frontend affect the handling of the car? I am not pro or con iron vs alum. just asking a handling question.

I agree the Shelby Alum is the better motor, no contest and your knowledge of engines, well I really enjoy all the free information that you share.

My question is more of chassis/weight distribution and how it effects handling.

Gary


http://www.carmemories.com/cgi-bin/v...erience_id=106

260, 289 and 427 Cobra Specifications
Author: Shelby American Cobras (more...)


COBRA Specifications

Engine
Early 260 Early street 289
Later street 289
Competition
289
427
427
Competition

Type V-8, iron block, water cooled
Head Cast iron, removable Aluminum, removable
Valves Overhead, pushrod/rocker-actuated
Max BHP @ rpm 271 @ 5,800 rpm 306 @ 6,000 rpm 425 @ 6,000 rpm 490 @ 6,500 rpm advertised, actual was closer to 520hp
Max Torque in lb.s-ft. @ rpm 269 @ 4,800 rpm 480 @3,700 rpm 480 @ 3,700 rpm
Bore 4.0" 4.24"
Stroke 2.87" 3.788"
Displacement 289cid, 4734cc 427cid, 7000cc
Compression Ratio 10.1:1 11.5:1 12.5:1
Induction system Single Holley four-barrel, 715 cfm Single Holley four-barrel, 780 cfm Single Holley four-barrel, 780 cfm
Exhaust system Standard, dual exhaust
Electrical system 12-volt distributor system with alternator
Fuel consumption 13-15 mpg who you kidding??
Chassis
Frame Tubular Type based on two parallel main members
Body Aluminum
Front & rear suspension

Independent by transverse spring with lower A-frame and upper arm consisting of tranverse leaf.Adjustable shocks and concentric springs Independent Coil springs with parallel arms Independent Coil springs with parallel arms
Tire type and size 6.70"x15" 7.35"x15" Front 9.90"x15"
Rear 11.90"x15"

Wheel Size 5.5" 6.0" Front 7.5"x15"
Rear 9.5"x15"

Weights and Measures
Wheelbase 90.0" 90.0" 90.0"
Front track 53.25" 56.0" 56.0"
Rear track 52.75" 56.0 56.0
Overall height 45.0" 49.0" 49.0"
Overall width 61.0" 70.5" 70.5"
Overall length 167.0" 156.0" 156.0"
Ground clearance 5.5" 5.5" 5.5"
Crankcase 6 quart
Cooling system x quarts
Gas tank 18 gals 18 gals 42 gals
Curb weight in lbs. 2,100 2,150 2,150
Weight Distribution 4951%
Clutch
Type Single dry disc
Diameter 10.5" 10 3/8" 11.5" 11.5"
Actuation Mechanical
Transmission
Type Four speed, full syncromesh, Borg Warner
Ratios First 2.36:1
Second 1.78:1
Third 1.41:1
Fourth 1.00:1
Reverse 3.54:1
2.32:1
1.61:1
1.20:1
1.00:1
3.54:1
2.32:1
1.69:1
1.29:1
1.00:1
3.54:1
2.32:1
1.54:1
1.19:1
1.00:1
3.54:1

Brakes
Girling discs on all four, Dual master cylinders Front 12"
Rear 12"
11 5/8"

10 3/4"
11 5/8"
10 3/4"

Differential
Ratios 3.54:1 3.77:1 3.77:1 3.54:1 3.77:1;3.09;
3.31;3.54
Drive axles - type Enclosed, semi-floating
Steering
Type
Turns, lock to lock 3
Turning circle 33'3"
ratio
Performance
0-60 mph 5.5 secs 4.3 secs
0-100 mph 13.0 secs 8.8 secs
Quarter Mile 13.9 secs 12.4 @ 106 MPH
Top Speed 138 mph (222 kph) 165 mph (265 kph)



Source of information are many of the books listed on the
COBRA books on the Table of Contents Page, including:

THE COBRA STORY by Carroll Shelby
Shelby's Wildlife by William Wyss

[wtcobra]

Mike- I admire your patience.

Wayne Turpin

[StephenC]

I just received confirmation of my order and deposit on a 427 SO from Southern Automotive. Base price is $11,900. With the options that most would want, $15, 300.

Headed for Ohio next week to take a look at the Superformance rollers.

Steve C

[Allan A]

I am concerned about my personal weight in the car, if I weigh 230# on a good day and most of that is in my lap what does that do to my car with an alum 427 and 42 gallon tank.

Give it a rest!

Allan

[SFfiredog]

I thought at least one person would catch that my weight totals added up to 101 %
I got my F to R weight measurements from a friend's very early Superformance (below sn#80 although I don' recall it at the time)
His car weighed 2490 lbs with a 1/4 tank of gas using a 4 pad weight scale. 47 F and 53 R
I know original Cobras have much different weights and the CSX 4000 and Kirkham cars are much closer to an original's specs.
To answer the original question I really don't have any first hand experience or any knowledge of wether removing 100 lbs would have any adverse handeling effects on an original Cobra.
As far as my aluminum engined car (SPF) is concerend, I will say that I plan to relocate my upper front shock mount 1.5 " higher and change my front springs to Eibach progressives with 50 lbs/in less spring rate, increase the rear sway bar .125", lower my tire pressure 5 psi in the front tires, and add 1/4 degree more pos caster in the front alignment specs.
I will then boldly go out and test my modifications to the limit of sanity.
If you fail to recieve an analysis of my experiments or fail to hear from me in the future, you all can assume that my changes didn't work as well as planned and what's left of my car should be for sale to the highest bidder
--Mike

[weekendwarrior]

My point exactly,

You have the expertise and experience to make the chassis adjustments to fit the engine combination that you are using, so the whole package works (how many guys have that skill). What worries me is guys dumping motor X into chassis Y without looking at the final result. I notice that the JBL is configured for one engine and the chassis fine tuned for that setup only, smart engineering I think.

It is more than HP in these lite cars, it is a balance of chassis and engine. One chassis setup does not meet all engine combinations without modifications.

Take the BMW E39 the inline 6 and V8 versions have two very different front suspensions. Now the V8 can’t weigh that much more than the 6 but the factory engineers put a much different suspension on the 540 to rebalance the car.

The 427 Cobra chassis/suspension was optimized for Xlbs of weight over the motor mounts, drop in an engine that weight 100lbs less and?

I have a 21’ hydrofoil cat sitting in my driveway. The steering/seating consoles move fore and aft on a track so the center of gravity can be adjusted for fuel and crew weight, flipping at speed can ruin your whole day.

All I read is this engine and that engine and which is better, rather than which engine/ chassis/horsepower combo works the best per a particular manufactures kit.

P.S. Really enjoy the pictures of your engine build, particularly interested in the FI.

Sorry Alan, standing down.


Gary

[SFfiredog]

Hi Gary,
Your hydrofoil sounds like an insanely cool ton of fun!
I have seen boats like that run and they are by far the quickest turning, fastest, balls out cool fun ever built; land, sea, or air.
I'll bet even an F1 driver's eyeballs would smash into the side of his head from the cornering forces your boat can generate. I can only imagine going upside down in one of those ain't much fun.
My hat's off to you. You are absoultley correct about weight placement in a high performance vehicle. When I was much younger, thinner, and less intelligent I use to road race motorcycles. Simply sitting 1 inch farther back on the seat would have a moderate to drastic effect on handling and braking. I would adjust my seating position to counter-act fuel consumption during a race. The lighter the vehicle the more drastic even the smallest weight shift can be.
I think why we haven't heard of any serious concerns in the Cobra community about weight movement is because very few drivers tax their cars to the limits of the car's ability. Those who do, or those who can afford an all aluminum powerplant usually have the sense to modify the chassis to take advantage of the lighter weight. Thanks for your kind words about my ride and I'll post more photos of the engine and car as work progresses.

--Mike

[Sizzler]

My intent wasn’t to debate the merits of the various blocks, it was more about suitability for intended use.

If you’re racing, by all means build it to the limit; but if you do, then I hope you drive it to the limit as well.
Ask yourself what the real reason is for the engine…to impress, to fit in situationally (original), to perform and if so, perform in what venue? Impress…what would impress me visually I guess are the 2xPaxton’s, though your idea of impressive may simply be lots and lots of cubic inches and/or horsepower. Original, to me is some member of the FE family of engines, to others it can only be a 427 sideoiler (though remember the 428 cobras). Performance, to me would be overall, not simply drag racing, or track; there is no such all-around beast so if I was choosing, I’d choose road course performance. That means weight is a consideration (lightweight front wouldn’t concern me too much as I don’t drive fast enough for that to be an issue---just me), and engine performance within street rpm range. To me displacement is less important than usable power (thread on 14% wheel slip is very interesting, I assume that ties into the fact that when braking, locked wheels are less effective than ones only on the verge of lockup), in whatever engine family (3.5” steel, non-crossdrilled, FT crank all turned and dressed is about $1,000; 7” rods add $1,200; Boss 302 is made for this car, Tunnel Ports are the bomb). But that’s just my opinion and absolutely everyone else is different from me, have different drivers steering their course of actions, have different destinations in mind.

As for weight. It’s an issue on road courses. For drag-racing or street performance it’s probably better to have less weight. Just put in a brass radiator, an 8 gallon dry sump tank, or hang dumbbell weights up front (locked down)…considering the distance from the CG and moment arms, you wouldn’t even need to make up 100 pounds. If you want to get really persnickety, you could set up an arrangement of water tanks and pumps and lines to precisely balance out the four corners.

$20K engines may be desirable and doable by some, for others with fiscal limits, $10K may be too much. The whole point of replicas is getting something that’s virtually priceless, for a (to you personally) reasonable cost and I guess I didn’t like the direction this thread was taking: seemingly if you can’t afford a mid-teens engine, then don’t do it. And price, to me, doesn’t always translate 1:1 with value in this area, especially, again, if you’re talking cruising and not hard-core racing.

So going back to the original point, the actual cost of the upcharge for an AL block versus an NOS sideoiler;: they’re probably equal value pieces today, though you may find some vendors who have stockpiled an inventory of such blocks and are selling them on a FIFO basis, so you as the customer may benefit from their poor business practices. But to me, the actual cost of an AL block is like $7K by the time all the machining, special parts, and higher prices paid to the limited number of shops that actually work on them, is factored in (this may drop if Genesis blocks come in at the price and quality they say they will). And I look at that, and I look at the barn of old 390’s and 428’s at the T-Bird recycling ranch, and I don’t look back. “3 o’ them $150 blocks to go, there’s got to be one o’ them that’ll sonic to 4.125!” And when all’s said, done, built and the hood opens, most people won’t be able to tell what it is beyond big block Ford FE. (“that’s a 352 Ford son, we had one in our Country Squire…” real comment based on the block casting).

My opinion. As to watches, I sort of like that analogy. Some watches are good to like 20,000 leagues underwater. If you’re going down with Captain Nemo, then by all means, pay the money for that ability. But, if you’re just using it at or above sea level and the wettest it’ll get is in the shower, then what’s the point? I do have a watch that shows the movement, or at least the armature? that drives the electric generator…a Seiko that never needs batteries or winding. Amazing thing. I felt bad for its little dynamo while I was pruning trees what with the sweat and sawdust and pounding. Otherwise, any watch that keeps time is good to me, I put a Tissot into a pawnshop turquoise cuff, have a new (old-style) Hamilton. Worse thing about new watches is that you’re always replacing batteries or bands. The leather band on the Seiko for instance is $60, can’t be sourced from anywhere else, and takes 8 weeks to get. I’ve started ordering them 3 at a time. Which sort of ties into motors again, maintenance…solid lifters sound cool talking about things in a parking lot, but can be more than some people want to deal with. Ditto complicated induction (Webers). Point is, decide what will best please you in the real world, realistically assess your abilities and finances, don’t get all caught up in fashion (unless you hang with fashionista’s), THINK, run it all by your wife, then go from there.

fini

[Jamo]

Thanks for explaining your innermost thoughts with us.