Big Blue's Transformation

[Gary Lewis]

Those are the set I got off a burned RV engine, mainly to get the later lower intake and fuel rail. They have the deep grooves and are just to cover things up.

Bill - I have a junk pair I used earlier to cover the heads up, so I understand.

As for what I did today, I PC'd the dip stick flange, the drain plug, and the 23 pan bolts using the epoxy primer. Decided I'd try it and see how well it holds up w/o a top coat. The epoxy isn't UV stable, but I doubt there will be much of that up under the truck.

Tomorrow I'll install the flange using The Right Stuff and red Loctite and then when the oil pump shaft gets in I can install the oil pump, pickup, and pan. At that point the engine is essentially done.

By the way, I checked on the Dana 60 on Friday and they don't even have the parts in yet.

[85lebaront2]

It turned out that the pan on Huck's engine uses the dip stick with an o-ring. So I'm using it. But I do have the one-piece pan gasket.

By the way, those valve covers look great!

It would, I suspect the change was in 1988 with the EFI introduction, the dipstick is moved back, changed from a screw in fitting to a push in with an O-ring and a one piece gasket. Be sure you have the reinforcements for the pan flanges, one for each side.

[ArdWrknTrk]

It would, I suspect the change was in 1988 with the EFI introduction, the dipstick is moved back, changed from a screw in fitting to a push in with an O-ring and a one piece gasket. Be sure you have the reinforcements for the pan flanges, one for each side.

Bill,

Do the pan flange reinforcements retrofit to the collet type dipstick pans, like my '87?

 

[ArdWrknTrk]

I'm surprised you didn't have Scott go with a Scat stroker crank.

521 sounds like a good number to me! 😉

And you wouldn't have to deck anything. The compression would be right up there. 👍

Remember that my goal is to drive the wheels off this thing, and gas consumption is a concern. (Notice I didn't use the terms "economy" and "460" in the same sentence.) I assume that consumption is somewhat proportional to cubic inches, all else being equal.

Scotty keeps assuring me that while I have a "built 400", and I've described to him what it is, I'm gonna like this 460 better. He knows how I'm going to use it and is confident that I'm not going to be wanting for more power.

Come on Gary!

Even at Canadian per liter prices you have so much into Big Blue fuel prices are a farce.

Besides, the 521 would be even less stressed, leading to less consumption.

460's slurp fuel when pedaling through the gears or held WOT.

An extra 60cc isn't going to make a bit of difference, except in torque, and therefore acceleration.

I know you are never going to drive it sustained at over 100. 😈

You can try to rationalize your choices to yourself, but everyone watching knows better.

That intake plenum reminds me of a cobra, reared up and ready to strike.

Shelby would be proud!

[Gary Lewis]

Come on Gary!

Even at Canadian per liter prices you have so much into Big Blue fuel prices are a farce.

Besides, the 521 would be even less stressed, leading to less consumption.

460's slurp fuel when pedaling through the gears or held WOT.

An extra 60cc isn't going to make a bit of difference, except in torque, and therefore acceleration.

I know you are never going to drive it sustained at over 100. 😈

You can try to rationalize your choices to yourself, but everyone watching knows better.

That intake plenum reminds me of a cobra, reared up and ready to strike.

Shelby would be proud!

Bill - I do have the reinforcements, and I'll post pics of them tomorrow.

Jim - I'll check and see if the pan Scotty sent has the collet-style flange, but I do know the reinforcements fit it.

As for a 521, Eli/Smokenchoken was in town yesterday and we went to lunch and talked about our projects. He showed me the spec's on a 521 Scotty builds, which made my mouth water. Wow!

But I don't buy that a less-stressed engine uses less fuel. One of the losses in a spark ignition engine is "pumping losses", which is at its peak the higher the manifold vacuum, meaning when the throttle is less open. There's a good discussion of it in Mechadyne, but this sentence is key:

This situation causes throttled SI engines to exhibit very poor efficiency under part load conditions compared to their efficiency under full load operation.

A 521 is going to exhibit more pumping loss than a 460, so its economy will be reduced.

On the other hand you are right that I have a lot of money in Big Blue. So at first blush it might seem that the MPG difference between a 460 and a 521 is moot. But what's not being discussed is the cost of the 521 itself. I'm guessing that we are talking an additional $4K to $5K over what I've spent on the 460. But Scotty assures me that I won't lack for power with what I have, and that I'll have a new all time favorite engine.

Anyway, I've thought that the intake resembles a cobra. And I'd bet Shelby would have loved the EFI for the Le Mans effort. I think I read that the GT40's 429 was kicking out 465 HP, which would have been easily w/in the realm of the EFI system with larger injectors.

[85lebaront2]

Bill,

Do the pan flange reinforcements retrofit to the collet type dipstick pans, like my '87?

Jim, I don't know, but I doubt it, the older pans were made for the 4 piece gasket and have ribs for helping to seal the cork gasket on the sides. The molded rubber one has metal reinforcements at the bolt holes and needs the backing to be sure the flat flanges don't warp.

[ArdWrknTrk]

Jim, I don't know, but I doubt it, the older pans were made for the 4 piece gasket and have ribs for helping to seal the cork gasket on the sides. The molded rubber one has metal reinforcements at the bolt holes and needs the backing to be sure the flat flanges don't warp.

I guess I'm going with the cork one... 😐

I'll be sure to "apply RTV here ->" 😉

[Gary Lewis]

I guess I'm going with the cork one... 😐

I'll be sure to "apply RTV here ->" 😉

Yes, apply RTV "here". http://www.garysgaragemahal.com/uploads/6/5/8/7/65879365/head-rotfl-57x22_orig.gif

As for the stiffeners, here's a shot of one of them, the one with the "crook" in it. The other side is straight with the curves on the end. But, I can't tell you about other pans 'cause the one Scotty sent is a rear sump that uses those stiffeners. You can see the imprint of them on the flange, although he didn't send those.

And here's a closeup of the only numbers I can find on them:

[85lebaront2]

Yes, apply RTV "here".

As for the stiffeners, here's a shot of one of them, the one with the "crook" in it. The other side is straight with the curves on the end. But, I can't tell you about other pans 'cause the one Scotty sent is a rear sump that uses those stiffeners. You can see the imprint of them on the flange, although he didn't send those.

And here's a closeup of the only numbers I can find on them:

That means it used on the MD truck engines and maybe HD, 4.1L = 370, 7.1L = 429 and as you know, 7.5L = 460.

[Gary Lewis]

That means it used on the MD truck engines and maybe HD, 4.1L = 370, 7.1L = 429 and as you know, 7.5L = 460.

That makes sense, Bill.

So here's the mid-day update while I await the delivery of the oil pump drive shaft. I got the dip stick flange installed using The Right Stuff and red Loctite. Fastenal says that torque for a 1/4-20 stainless screw is 64 inch-lbs and Permatex says to put TRS on and torque the fasteners to spec, so that's what I did.

However, the first step was to put the red Loctite in the threads of the flange and then coat the face of the flange with TRS. That way when I put the flange against the inside of the pan TRS came through the screw holes in the pan. So when the screws were torqued down there was TRS under their heads and between the flange and the pan, and red Loctite securing the screws.

So, it wasn't the Bridge Of Sighs after all. And I got across before the oil pump shaft got in.