SAAC Forum

    Perhaps the lesson here is that there is a lack of absolutes, so be wary of making such? 

    Scott.

    The use of a bevel shaft drive system for overhead camshaft applications wasn't really new; for example take a look at this 1930's MG currently at auction:

        https://bringatrailer.com/listing/mg-n-type-magnette/

    In this example, though I acknowledge that with the shared use responsibilities that this involves less material usage and a resultant lighter weight, and of course a more compact packaging result, but I'm not so sure that the dynamo placement is really conveniently positioned for servicing?    

    B.T.W. John,

    The "bevel" shaft (as popularly termed, but more accurately more of a "worm-drive" here) gear train of the GAA has proven to be quite robust in quite abusive service applications. 

        https://www.flickr.com/photos/27666849@N04/6060962410

    Scott.

    For further study see:

    https://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/Ford-GAA-V8-Data-Sheet-beta13.pdf

    These engines (the GAA, GAF & GAN), though none of the engineering probably was truly new, nor had never been produced before, but was advanced over the engine examples it was originally intended to compete with (1650 R.R.) as a V12 aircraft engine. and for a true "production-type" engine (something just short of 30,000 units + spares were produced) not as a one-off racing engine example, were certainly of advanced engineering for the day, which wasn't picked up into American production vehicles until the later decade of the last century. 

    I always debate with myself, when someone states that the "Modular" engine program was Fords' first endeavor into the aluminum over-head cam field, whether I should thrust these examples into the conversation as a correction, but................    

    Scott.

     Back in the day, for race effort 289/302's, it was popular to convert the core plugs for screw-in type, and we did many of them; and this included the addition of the BOSS 302 windage tray also.   

     Scott.

Quote from: ShelbyBoss on March 26, 2024, 07:35:44 PM
Any thoughts before I give the Machinist his instructions tomorrow morning?

     In the past when I've been involved with providing service that involved the removal of these I would always take a measurement of where the seal was riding and then this would provide a guide as to were to target the seal ring in order to provide that the seal would be located on the flat of the ring.  If though your off in left field fishing for where they should go, then I would go to the axle housing and assuming that the axles are not installed but that the seals are pressed into place and acquire a measurement from the bearing stop machined on the inside of the axle housing end inward to the seals' sealing lip, what is this distance?  Now take this dimension and measure from the face of the axle bearing's outer race, that which contacts the stop in the housing tube end, to the point on the axle shaft as measured and make a mark (Magic-Marker  ), this is where the seal lip will ride, the sleeve needs to pressed on to a position so as to present the flat surface in the diameter for the seal to ride upon, actual distance for or aft is not critical.   

      Do be sure that if your R & R 'd the seals that you acquired the as originally proper for 31-spline axle application.   

      Scott.

        Although there often is more than one way doing things and acquire the same outcome, I always press the seal sleeve on separately.   

        First, the thin sleeve with it's radiused edge really isn't strong enough or intended as a pressing fixture for the installation of the bearing and retainer (which definitely should be pressed on together); and then the seal sleeve will in it's installation effort will stop either when it abuts the bearing retainer and the bearing is stopped in motion by the step machined into the axle for this intention, or, often when the radiused over edge contacts the necking up of the axle shaft from the narrower unmachined as forged surface to the larger in diameter machined surface intended as the relief for the next step up to the bearing locating surface and this length is not a well controlled dimension, and you don't want this to be dictating the bearings' position vs. the intended bearing shoulder stop as machined in the axle.   

        Look closely at the photo provided in the previous posting and one will witness that the sleeve appears to not be in contact with the bearing retainer ring.   

        Scott.   

Quote from: pmustang on March 22, 2024, 01:39:59 PM
So they won't, in theory affect the current balance of the rotating assembly.

     Correct.   

     Scott.

      Although the standard 390/428, that which is perhaps appropriate for the '68 mustang chassis application and should fit, but is of a greater mass, it still, like the one pictured which is of an earlier application intention, is of a "neutral" balance configuration an therefore swapping one for the other will not change the "balance" of the revolving assembly.   The greater mass, particularly that which is located on the inertia ring, is part of the "tuning" of the damper's torsional harmonic dampening effect by the manufacturer, but does not really have any function in the endeavor of "balance" in this case.     

       And yes, I would probably attempt to utilize the "correct" later style (bigger) damper as this will present increased options for success in acquiring pulleys of the compatible sheave count, diameters and offsets.  Though we also are not sure that the current water pump pulley, fan spacer, or cooling fan are "correct" or present acceptable placements with compatibility for..............

       As far as for the "cookie-cutter" type seal sleeve/spacer as currently mounted on the crank snout behind the damper assy., I would leave it in place as one will just have to "assume" that it was accounted for in any previous balancing intention.    

       Scott.

     

Quote from: Special Ed on March 22, 2024, 07:57:10 AM
That is most likely a remanufactured distributor sold thru service department in a reman box ........ probably Fred Jones or another reman business.  The stamps on that distributor were done on a machine look at how straight lined up and spacing is perfect.

       +1   

       Scott.

     Excellent tutorial, particularly with the inclusion of photographs!   

     Scott.

       I would believe that a 400C engine block as the foundation for a NASCAR 358 or 366 cu. in. intention would have been a poor choice for a number of reasons.   

      If one looks at the basic structure layout it just isn't efficient for the purpose; first, why would one want to have mounted in the chassis an engine that presents a 10.300" (+/-) deck height, with the added weight and creating a higher center of gravity effect when the 9.200" (+/-) deck height of the 351C was already proven to be adequate?   

      Then as engineered the main bearing bores are for a 3.00" main bearing application which although does provide greater support with the increased bearing surface area, and as designed with a 4" stroke originally, increases the crank-pin to main journal overlap area resulting in a stronger crankshaft, but I doubt a 4" stroke was an intention for a NASCAR 366/358 engine; and not to mention the bearing/crank surface speed relationship issue.   

      Now, I understand that there are "inserts" or "bearing spacers" that could be utilized to reduce the main bearing bores to something more acceptable, but these present problems of their own; and I realize that Ford Motor Co. could have just "tailored" the manufacturing process to provide for this also, but the further the engineering gets from the original design intention the greater the costs become; and this was still the era of things being at least 'somewhat' representative of production stuff.   

      And as far as striving for a larger capacity, as initially allotted for in the rules at the time, the 400C isn't really a "Big-Block" either, and wouldn't lend itself well to being blown-out to the 430 cu. in rule limit, not without major reworking!  And why would one even tread down this path as there was already the canted-valve 385 series engine family to draw from which I think it could have been made very competitive, that is if it would have been given the development time and effort necessary to bring this to fruition; and had NASCAR not been in mood to move everyone to the smaller cubic inch engines.  After all, this is basically just a 351C, but bigger!   

      Scott.

       

      I think the problem for the Ford teams was that the 427 was not going to be permitted in NASCAR competition for much longer as it was out of production as far as "in chassis fitment" by the O.E.M. and Ford was moving away from the FE series anyway, and as stated the BOSS 429 though good on the long tracks wasn't so good otherwise, the rules still stipulated a maximum of 430 cubic inches so it was thought that something was needed in this capacity range; hence the development effort put forth on the canted-valve 385 series engine.

      But just as things got started, by 1970/71, NASCAR enacted a handicap break at the 366 cubic inch size with the intention of forcing the teams to smaller cubic inch engines (slow the cars down) and this pretty much ended the canted-valve 385 engines' competitiveness (not so sure because it was a "Turd"!  ).  And with Bud Moore moving over from Trans-Am racing to the NASCAR scene, he brought with him the experience gained with the BOSS 302's, but enlarged into the 335 series 351C (don't know about the 400's, but then there's a lot that I don't know about , heck, ask anybody!); this with the "Australian Block" Cleveland, perhaps (I wasn't there!  ) punched out to the 366 rule limit. 

      And so was the end of the "Big-Block" racing era in NASCAR!   

      Scott.

      P.S. Besides, this also happen to please GM as they felt they might be more competitive in the "Small-Block" world! 

     

     

       I believe the "canted-valve" head version (vs. "Crescant" or "Hemi" BOSS 429) was introduced into the mix in maybe '71 or '72 but was put out to pasture permanently with NASCARs' 358 cubic inch rule change in '74, though I think most teams were already utilizing the 351C anyway.   

       Scott.

   

Quote from: TA Coupe on March 13, 2024, 04:12:01 AM
They didn't ....................     

      Are you sure about that!   

      Scott.

     A period of time ago I was aware of a shop in this area that provided a "service" to their constituents, that being of first, snagging ones' car out of their driveway in the middle of the night (with the keys being supplied to the perps. to aid in efficiency); then they would strip your car of enough parts to create a significant payout by the insurance company, but not to much being removed as to cause the vehicle to be "totaled" (their "know how" value in the relationship); then park the remains at a location for easy recovery, and then after you received your check from the insurance company, you selecting their shop for the restitution process, they would reinstall the parts they had removed and you split the monetary gains.   

     Not saying that that is what has taken place here, just relaying a different scenario for discussion.   

     Scott.