7 replies to this topic

[Bob Riebe]

https://www.enginela...gine-in-racing/

 

 

 

 

Edited by Bob Riebe, 18 December 2024 - 19:30.

[Greg Locock]

Your links a 403 forbidden

[Bob Riebe]

Link is basic Engine Labs, and works for me.

I tried to shrink the picture but could not.

[GreenMachine]

Your links a 403 forbidden

 Works for me.

[Greg Locock]

I must be special!

[Catalina Park]

You must be lucky.

[Magoo]

"Most outlawed" seems like a dubious claim. 

[Lee Nicolle]

There is a section of the world that think the Clevo was very special. Very fragile yes as most Ford runners in GpC Tourers here in Oz well know. When they did not blow up they usually fried the tyres!

A heavy engine with VERY heavy heads.About 29 kilos each. The factory intake weighs 25kilo. So quite top heavy.

I currently own 2 Clevos and one Big Brother the tall deck M engine 400.

Everyone is ooh aah about those useless 4V heads which are simply way too big and have poor velocity. Coupled with big block size valves. As a stock or near stock engine they are ok,, far better the 2V heads with far better port velocity. I recently shut down Richard Holdner on YouTube touting 4Vs as good. BUT Everyone racing them filled the floors in to basically 2V size for the last 40 years that I know of. The basic head design with canted valves etc is good. Just way to big. The CHI 3V range of heads is a game changer. fixes all the **** ups from Ford. They lift the intake about 1/2" and use basiclaly a 2v port then with a modern chamber. And use 2 V size valves. Designed by John Kaase.

What sold me is a friend with a Falcon GT that had all the trick bits, 4Vs with tongues, Parker intake, 2" primary headers etc. Made maybe 450 at quite high rpm and was a bloody awfull thing under 3500. He bought the SMALLEST 185CC intake 3Vs. And their intake. Out of the box it made 500 whp and is so much more tractable, with a very large cam.

I was using 302 2Vs on my Falcon race car [yes I know I love the Cleveland so much I had to buy one!!] With a 6.030 [302] rod and around 11-1 with a very nice baby hydraulic race cam, Holley intake and 750 Holley it made about 440hp,, quite good BUT had so much mid range torque it was a struggle to get moving without wheelspin.

Currently building a little baby 5 litre based engine that has cost way too much BUT should be excellent. 3.4" stroke, 5.4 rods. All premium Scat,13-1  comp on race fuel,  208cc 3Vs, solid roller cam, CHI intake and the new Edelbrock 4150 style carb. 850cfm.Which I think will be better than any similar Holley. Engine will live between 4000 -7500 and probably have very little under that but it is a race engine. And will be close on 200lb lighter than the Cleveland anchor.

The 5 litre style engine are a bit fragile but less fragile than a Cleveland at a 1000rpm less. They oil better, cool better and everything is so  much lighter, crank, rods, pistons are substansially lighter and far smaller mains and rod bearings. Less bearing speed, less heat in the oil. Look at a Chev!

Having built and raced Chevs in the past they are a LOT simpler to get power from and more reliable. 

Just as an aside,, the 400 with its 3" mains and tall deck with 6.55" conrods is a limo engine,, mine in a limo,, well a LTD anyway. All that mass flailing around inside would scare me at high rpm. I doubt mine [with mild mods] has ever seen more than 5000rpm. But a big engine to drag around a big car,, a 429/460 would be nice but very hard here in Oz. I could have had one when I rebuilt mine but it was a long bare engine. No accescory brackets etc at all. The cars bugbear is a r/h exhaust manifiold with a number ending AM. Australian Modified,,it exits about 2" further back than the US one, Aussie Falcon one etc to clear the steering box. The manifold broke, was brazed up and is further cracked. So I could be in trouble!