The Cleveland didn't fail in Motorsports , in fact it dominated in pro stock in the 70's . The only problem with the oiling system is that it feeds too much oil to the top end , and it only causes problems at sustained rpms over 7k . The fix was always simple , builders install restrictor plugs in the oil holes in the main webbing .
@rogerveal133623 күн бұрын
I've seen a video of a Cleveland running with clear valve covers that ran std and high volume pumps and oil drained back with no accumulation. I don't think this is an issue.
@cbrouma8014Ай бұрын
Put lifter bore bushes and a restrictor kit in a cleveland and youll never have an issue.
@taylormach16992 ай бұрын
Hold the camera STILL, I'AM GETTING DIZZY.
@Burninhellscrootoob2 ай бұрын
So ford finally made a good breathing head, and port system, then screwed up on the oil going to the crank ,bearings and rods....... typical ford baloney.
@Jimeoin3512 ай бұрын
That's why phase 4 sumps had wings for added capacity.
@speakingthetruth98213 ай бұрын
Use a stock oil pump with a high volume spring to fix oiling issues, high volume oil pumps empty the pan too quickly, and cause issues...
@psychoholicslag48013 ай бұрын
The LS Chevy has a nearly identical oiling system. People used the wrong lifters causing excessive top end oil. I ran a 400 over 200,000 miles with 10PSI oil pressure idling and 35 on the highway in a 6600 lbs truck. Didnt even have to overbore it, just new pistons and rings. Same cam too with .525 lift. The drainback holes flow more oil than you can pour it in with a gallon jug. I've even ran it 3 qts low without damage. Machine work and assembly prevent all the "problems" with Cleveland oiling systems. Tim Meyer has a very effective "fix" for the block that works well if they scare you. The Boss motors and the old M/T valve covers have stubs on the top of the covers roof to concentrate oil and drip it onto the springs. These heads were run in NASCAR without all the fixes. Port the internal passages of the oul system and the pump and you'll pick up about 15 to 25 PSI of pressure and don't use a HV pump.
@psychoholicslag48013 ай бұрын
If you don't use a radiused inlet at the intake face your numbers will be incomparable with others tested flow and will not accurately indicate flow. A 4V head should easily make 330 on the intake with a cartridge roll bowl blend and performance valve seat. 350 @ .600" lift with a proper short side and bowl port is attainable. Overall you're doing well.
@crd-nz_0013 ай бұрын
Thank you. In my defense, I recognize radius entry will increase flow numbers. However, a radius entry doesn't copy how an intake manifold delivers air to the port entry. Some manifolds add flow where others reduce it. For me, as long as I am consistent, then the tests are comparable between other modifications and heads. As for comparison of my numbers to other benches, I am cautious. Just like dynos, it would be foolish to think that all numbers are what they say they are.
@psychoholicslag48013 ай бұрын
@@crd-nz_001 the radius is more important than you may think even at low lift flow. While manifolds do affect flow, they don't cause turbulence at the intake mating face, but most will reduce flow numbers. I've got 35 years experience with Clevelands and still run them today and if you don't mind reading search for George Pence Clevelands for a very good historical and developmental dissertation on them. He covers the history of them quite well. Keep up the good work, it's nice to see someone still curious about ancient tech.
@psychoholicslag48013 ай бұрын
The 28" number was derived by Smokey Yunich by averaging the depression in a small block chevy running on a flow rate device and the point at which a small block chevy head experienced turbulence due to flow becoming detached from the short side radius. It was generally accepted at the time that 25" was correct but he advocated for 28" and it reflects his reputations standing that the 28" became the standard. He did not know at the time that over 50" is easily reached by the piston depression and over 100" in a race motor at overlap. Cross flow is what you're talking about and canted valve heads are better than inline and quad valve is better still. Those are the major factors influencing cam timing requirements. Better cross flow needs wider LDA and that allows smoother idle as you find in Fords factory cams and in the modern Cleveland rip off, the LS Chevy. The design flaw in Cleveland heads is not the exhaust port, it's the short turn on the intake. The thought at the time was that there was a need to increase air speed to ram air into the chamber. While this aids in low speed output, proven Richard Holdeners testing, it limits top end output due to restriction. Notice the massive port area at the manifold face and then how much it tapers down to the bowl. That is the secret of success of the Cleveland design. This applies to both 2 and 4V heads and open or closed chambers. Small chevy builders trying to build Cleveland motors like they're Chevy's is the source of all Cleveland head complaints like no low speed torque and detonation on open chamber heads. You can run high compression on open chamber heads with a correctly setup timing curve and carb tuning without race gas.
@Trump9853 ай бұрын
Ford had to make some compromises with these heads due to both mass production constrains and packaging issues as far as the vehicles it was installed in. However these heads are one of the best (at least for the time) production heads ever made. I’ve built 600 plus HP 10,000 rpm Clevelands using stock 4v head castings. These heads don’t need much other then major rework including port plates on the exhaust side. Unfortunately the Cleveland blocks leave a lot to be desired, and major work is needed to make one usable. There is supposedly an Australian block that’s supposed to be the cats ass however if they exist they are so rare your unlikely to ever find one. Let me tell you there is nothing more fun to drive then a AC Cobra with a 600 HP 10,000 rpm Cleveland with a close ratio 4 speed! If that doesn’t put an ear to ear smile on your face you are probably dead.
@gordonborsboom74603 ай бұрын
All those vacuums! Must be 100 HP in marketing BS. How to get 100 HP per cylinder on the flow bench...more vacuums!?
@paulkaakee13043 ай бұрын
The only fix I can think of is a Windsor
@l77scmaro24 ай бұрын
Btw, while you are correct it takes energy to draw air in but even if the engine dosn't fire it does recover SOME of that energy because air acts as a spring when compressed i.e. it pushes down on the piston until the exhaust valve opens. Its kinda how pneumatic valve springs work in Formula One.
@Samsgarden4 ай бұрын
Oh man, this was a long-winded explanation. You should have had a torch and camera tripod prepared!
@351nang4 ай бұрын
Restrictors in the right place increase pressure, a good thing. What is the Cleveland's difficultly is the crankshaft, I can't remember which journal maybe mains #3 to rod # 5? Which ever it is when the shaft spins it blocks off oil to the rod bearing which under duress causes problems. After market cranks correct this and grooved bearings help.
@AnnoyedCoastalBeach-nl4tm4 ай бұрын
I had a 71 Cleveland in a 69 mustang it had a 6 quart oil pan factory. It came out of a Torino.
@rossgirdeen32474 ай бұрын
4v Cleveland any good books there's alot of conflicting information on this engine.
@crd-nz_0014 ай бұрын
I wish I could say there was a solid book on useful information. The "How to Build" book of the 80s (contains 351C/M and 400), which sticks strictly to stock engine builds, is very good. Besides that, I have to agree. Most books are over 30 years old, and any new ones discard the 4V head as no good.
@rossgirdeen32474 ай бұрын
@@crd-nz_001 that's what I hear people say ?they seem to do good on the dynos though theres other folks online say the 4v is ahead above all engines of that era and displacement. They always seem to do well downlow in the rpm range on all the tests I've seen. What Head of that era is any good compared to all the aftermarket aluminum heads out now.
@markcrockford96794 ай бұрын
yep ! they don't drain the heads quick enough and they can pump the whole sump into the heads at constant high rpm
@craigbrown6035 ай бұрын
Hey mate I think they only do it on the bottom of Exaust side to get the gases away faster
@crd-nz_0015 ай бұрын
They did fill the lower section of the exhaust, yes. However, filling the lower and side sections of the intake port is well documented. Drag Boss Garage does a video on the insets for the lower section.
@waynecera44225 ай бұрын
take that he said.
@zdravkomomci75705 ай бұрын
Good video i just cleaned casting dags and bumps on my VN heads in the ports, Got neway cutters, what do you recommend the 45deg seat in/ex width to be on a street engine? Thanks
@crd-nz_0015 ай бұрын
I try and aim for 0.060in seat touch, checked by machining blue for both in/ex. It's small, but with today's unleaded fuels, the seats are going to widen over time. I also used this as it was a starting point from Mr. Vizards' books about porting. So far, on the heads I have done, there are no troubles.
@zdravkomomci75705 ай бұрын
@@crd-nz_001 thanks for that info
@samerca15 ай бұрын
I would be more interested in the port velocity than the CFM #.
@dennisford20003 ай бұрын
And swirling
@hot429scj6 ай бұрын
25 min of dribble could have been condensed to 5 or 6 min. With a workshop like looking like that it doesn't look very professional. Then there is the forgotten fact that oil is draining back through the drain backs all the time. Big sumps are a must, but port matching the oil return holes in the head, gasket and block are equally important.
@crd-nz_0016 ай бұрын
The drain backs are small, which restricts oil flow from returning to the sump. This protects the valvesprings from overheating and failing. The test shows how much oil can be held in the rocker covers, which inevitably starves the oil pump, causing bearing failure. My apologies for the length of the video. As the internet has taught me, I have to spoon feed knowledge to the masses so it can be consumed and comprehended. Im sorry that bored you and gave you time to find faults in the only environment I have available to me.
@hot429scj5 ай бұрын
@@crd-nz_001 I have done a few videos, I come prepared and also edit them to keep them pertinate. Hot oil has a flow rate of water. Oil oil is just not relevant. I race a 351c in circuit racing at 7000 rpm. HV pump, big sump, drainbacks port matched, bushed lifter bores and oil restrictors. No issues. My mates race car has had only restrictors fitted and runs a HV pump and big sump. 7000 rpm, circuit car as well. Not even had the drainbacks port matched or th work mine has had. Again, no issues. People go on about oil starvation due to HV pumps pumping oil up the top. You have to engineer the whole system. There's a difference between theory and practice.
@copout8076 ай бұрын
Great video, save me a lot of time. After removing the left valve cover, I noticed a pool of oil at the back of the head. I was about ready to pull the head off. Thinking the oil return was plug up. Yours was the only video that address this issue that I could fine, and it help me out immensely. Thanks
@saajidahmed5326 ай бұрын
So a black top with the black top pistons and the silver top conrods Wil work nice
@saajidahmed5326 ай бұрын
Hi wat fly wheel is lighter? And can I make my conrods lighter at a enjineering shop and the bottem must be balanced rite?
@crd-nz_0016 ай бұрын
Blacktop is the lightest Toyota made. There are numerous makers like Jun and Toda that do lighter ones (under 5kg) Yes, it is preferred to rebalance the rotating assembly when making weight changes. In my case, I just did it and re installed it. I will probably pay for it later in uneven bearing wear, but until it is done, then it's just theory or second-hand information.
@yambo597 ай бұрын
I had a friend back in the day who had a Ranchero with a 351C 4 barrel carb and even though it was a kickass great running engine it always had oiling problems even in great shape at 56,000 miles, cams wearing out, high oil temps etc etc. no one ever figured it out in his case.
@neilhansen56637 ай бұрын
My closed chamber epoxied 4Vs flowed IN at 0600" lift 321 CFM EX 219 CFM
@matthewmoilanen7877 ай бұрын
63 yr old die hard Ford guy and Master ASE that always ran an extra qt of oil in the pan. It's only to much when it's off but as soon as the engine starts bingo bongo.
@ford-speed7 ай бұрын
Hi Buddy, i thought this may be interesting and it was just a little bit. I didnt watch it all sorry. i dont have 20 mins to spend on something like this. Im a bit oposed to ARP drive shafts as i beleive they are too stiff and shockload the distributor drive gear. The 5/16 OE type shaft is, for just about all appications, a prolem free oil pump drive solution. If it does fail then its not becuse it wasnt strong enough or good enough in any way, it was something else that caused its demise. You have not convinced me to use ARP shafts.
@crd-nz_0017 ай бұрын
That's a good point. I did cover it later in the video about how the shaft can contribute to spark scatter as the stock shaft twists easier. Its continuous wind-up and release caused by the pump would cause the force on the camgear to be uneven. However, I also spoke to someone about this, and they pointed out how this action helps alleviate harmonics in the camshaft. As with anything, risk ultimately falls on the end user. I am prepared to take that risk. But, I expect no one to follow. All things considered, the only things I can think of to generate +50lb/ft of force is either the pump bypass has to jam shut, the oil is too thick, or too high an rpm is trying to be achieved.
@chadkent12417 ай бұрын
The 351C was the most handicapped engine in PS racing for a reason. Bob Glidden dominated the field with his Cleveland powered 78 Fairmont and never lost a round, race, or event. The 500 in³ rule was a result of the most badass pushrod smaller in³ engine at that time. Current NASCAR Ford heads still retain Cleveland DNA to this day.
@shvrdavid6 ай бұрын
Bob dominated in 1979, and Ford had nothing to do with it.... At the end of the day the engine brand had little to do with it, and the team had everything to do with it...
@waynep3437 ай бұрын
Tip i have found over the past 45 years of spinning wrenches on cars. With all carbs. There is an low speed circuit. That supplies fuel from idle to around 1800 rpm all by itself. Limited by the idle feed restriction. Using a wide band air fuel ratio gauge look at no load on the engine 1,700 rpm. Are you at 14.7 A/F ratio. Continue up between 3,800 and 4,000 rpm how far off 14.7 are you.. At 1700 change the idle feed restrictions. Retest. At 3800 to 4000 change the primary main jets. After getting those both to 14.7 From idle. Open the primary throttle fast. If you get a backfire in the intake. Go to a larger pump discharge nozzle. Try again. Many holley performance carbs come with 0.031" idle feed restrictions that are just right for 330 cube engine. 347 to 360s need a 0.032 idle feed restriction. To tune the secondary mains must be done after the primary jetting is corrected. Do the secondary test close to wot but keeping the vacuum below the opening point of the power valve. Change the secondary main jets to get them dialed in. Then do a full WOT run to see if you need to increase the power valve restrictions.
@TheMajictech7 ай бұрын
They should have just put an oil pump in each head and used the valve covers as the sump and the bottom pump just puts it back into the heads like a dry sump system 😅
@raginroadrunner7 ай бұрын
that area is a trashed out mess
@raginroadrunner7 ай бұрын
why mess with these engines?They are not used by anyone in the US. Most dont even know what they are...
@crd-nz_0017 ай бұрын
It's what I enjoy, and the veiwers like to see. If you don't like that, it's a you problem.
@patrickterry7797 ай бұрын
I run the 4v heads with port stuffers in my Windsor. Or did, just now changing over to chi 3v as I messed up a head by breaking a couple valves. Love the 4v
@neilhansen56637 ай бұрын
Bob Glidden liked them
@kym3935 ай бұрын
I've got stock iron cc 4v's with a port mismatching dual plane that makes pretty good hp and tq for what it is. Both over 500 in my 393c. Good vid. 👍
@adamt44965 ай бұрын
Must be a chev guy has no idea
@joefell78458 ай бұрын
The big C didn't fail Bob Glidden.
@chrislyons29078 ай бұрын
Always errors?? Maybe you should have proven your theory before you published this video. Me? I’ll back Ford knew exactly what they were doing. The oiling “problem” only occurs on engines that sit at 7,000 plus rpm for long periods of time. I doubt that Ford had that as a design requirement when they designed their road car engine.
@arturozarate17528 ай бұрын
Sorry, I didn't realize you were passing on someone's material. I thought these were your ideas. I'll make a few contradictory statements in hopes that you'll search out what's right. Let's begin. Pressure is resistance to flow and they are directly related. The more pressure you have the more resistance to flow. The less pressure the less resistance to flow. So your statement ending at 3:42, "your pressure doesn't change....you just have more flow," is false. The oil clearances in the engine will determine the pressure reading you see. You stated that correctly. However, if flow is increased then pressure is decreased. Pressure being equal to resistance of flow. We'll start there.
@crd-nz_0018 ай бұрын
You are referring to flow out of a system. The pump, which I am referring to, is increasing flow into the system, which will cause the pressure to rise if that flow is not checked. Hence, the need for a relief valve. The spring pressure ultimately dictates the pressure as the bearing gap only changes with temperature, yet that is by a small amount. So, set restriction with variable flow into that system will equal rising pressure if the flow is not bypassed. In fact, there are numerous examples of exceeding 120psi at idle when a bypass valve is stuck shut. And you are right, this is nothing new. It's just a greatly misunderstood subject. I'm sorry my wording is not constructive to your understanding of it.
@thomasward45058 ай бұрын
Does any of this information transfer to the inverse such as a big block Chrysler head which has very bad flow characteristics?
@crd-nz_0018 ай бұрын
In general terms, if the port is large, then it should respond to an early intake valve closing. As I have no experience with Chryslers (yet), I can not give any form of opinion as I have no basis to give one. If it's related to the RB Wedge head (I think that's what Chrysler called its big block range - RB), then there could be other features in the port/chamber that give it bad flow. Until I have one in my hand, I simply don't know. I say this head as the Hemi has got giant ports, so it should fall under the same category as a Cleveland.
@jimmywarren66858 ай бұрын
For the record...Cleveland engines never failed at Motorsport...far from it...they were dominant for years.
@mikecranstoun22228 ай бұрын
Should have a radius entry to the port when testing.... either a radius plate or clay... not the sharp edge... 😉
@SpecialEDy3 ай бұрын
I agree. But, it should be as standardized as possible, if you're just putting clay on by hand you're going to get slightly different results each application. Better than a bell or trumpet would be the actual intake. Once the ports are matched, we are going to be flowing the head with an intake in the car, so the flow with intake matters more than without.
@mikecranstoun22223 ай бұрын
@@SpecialEDy There is no way I would flow a head like that without some form of radius entry , while I agree about flowing the manifold that doesn't shy away from this is flowing the head wrong on its own, when I'm doing development on heads they are flowed first, once completed then will flow the manifold and then with carb wired open to get correct results. , that's only after all area, length, shape etc etc is correct first, flowing a head on KZbin with no radius and posting numbers etc is misleading and wrong.
@overbuiltautomotive12998 ай бұрын
nice video
@three588 ай бұрын
Good thought experiment, thanks. I hadn’t thought about the restriction p Area but you may be onto something there. I do believe that the 4v heads were designed with high performance in mind,which is why they are a bit lacklustre at typical street trim and 351ci. They seem to work very well on 400+ inches. A couple of comments. Your CFM calculation overlooks the fact that the intake is only open on every second revolution, so the calculated CFM number is half of what you found. But on the other David Vizard teaches us that on a well built motor at peak torque the so-called 5th cycle actually brings in more air than the rest of the induction stroke. Anyway, I don’t think either f these points changes your conclusion.
@three588 ай бұрын
“Restrictor plates” not “restriction P area”
@crd-nz_0018 ай бұрын
Thank you. While the calculation is experimental, I didn't account for the 4 stroke (so half the rpm) because this is the theoretical demand the piston creates in the first 90 degrees of rotation at every induction stroke. Projecting the demand to 60 seconds fills in the Minute part of CFM. I also calculated this way as taking average piston speed would only give average cfm demand throughout the complete intake stroke and ignore the piston driven induction to ram induction. This would lead to conclusions that the 4V port is "too big".
@clevlandblock8 ай бұрын
I owned a 71 Boss 351. The factory forgot to install a thing called torque.
@superkillr4 ай бұрын
Yeah because FORD was concerned with building ragin street racers in the 70's.... ORRRRRRRR..... Ford was well on it's way to nerfing ALL it's engines to deal with emissions and EPA crackdowns as well as Insurance companies and performance cars and engines.
@rondye93988 ай бұрын
Some consideration on intake closing point is the quality of the fuel. If the cylinder goes into detonation because you have trapped too much fuel/air charge, and end up with a too high dynamic compression ratio, you cannot utilize the additional charge of a later intake closing. So the closing must be tailored to the fuel available.
@V8Lenny8 ай бұрын
You can not trap "too much" charge, thats the whole idea of making power.
@superkillr4 ай бұрын
@@V8Lenny He's correct, you absolutely can advance a cam to the point the dynamic compression will detonate the motor if the octane isn't there. One of the reasons the early high compression factory motors all ate crap when they took lead out of gasoline. Also terrible chamber designs didn't help.
@V8Lenny4 ай бұрын
@@superkillr then retard ignition or lower compression. But you want to trap as much charge as possible, thats how engines make power.
@stevenJEDI38 ай бұрын
Pretty good demonstration to watch. I’d like to see you do an L67 supercharged V6 head.
@crd-nz_0018 ай бұрын
I don't have access to the supercharged one, but I do have an n/a one kicking around...
@stevenJEDI38 ай бұрын
I think it’s pretty good with the flowing and porting that you’re doing. I reckon the factory V6 heads would flow roughly the same so it would be a good comparison to see the difference between your porting and then flowed.
@dominostang8 ай бұрын
Hi it 's a nice video .i've got a 71 CLEVELAND with quench 4v heads with the 2.19 intake valves. do you think that the blue ls spring could do the trick replacing the stock spring with the cobra jet cam?
@crd-nz_0018 ай бұрын
I am exploring this option myself. Unfortunately, the problem lies in the Cleveland 1.72in installed height vrs the 1.8in for the valvesprings. The spring saddle is also too big and needs machining to accept the smaller diameter spring. I haven't found a seat cutter that will do this, other than ones that will cut for the pressed steel seat locater ones designed for aluminum heads. This takes up a further 0.060. If a valve with an extra 0.14in in height (that's assuming the collet location remains the same measurement from stock - measured from the valve tip down), then it's possible. Or, there are +0.100tho valves and machine the heads by 0.040in. I have no info on if the heads will crack over time from the removal of metal. +0.200 plus a shim could also be done. Next, a pushrod length change will be needed. I would assume that raising the valve will need an equal length increase in the pushrod and a shim of similar thickness put under the pedestal. Not really a problem if they are adjustable stud type arrangement. Once set for 1.8in valvespring height, other, stronger beehive springs with more lift become available other than a standard LS. In short, as of today, I can't see how an LS spring can be made to drop into a Cleveland head as cheaply as demonstrated in this video. I am not saying it's impossible. Even if the machine work can be done at home, a full set of valves, collets, retainers, and pushrods are still needed. However, once I do, I will be sharing the procedure.
@crd-nz_0018 ай бұрын
Opps! I re read what you were asking. As above, but to run your idea a different way. If memory is correct, 0.60in was max lift from the blue valvespring (with 0.020in coil bind gap) Minus the 0.080 seat difference, and we are down to 0.52in As long as the CJ cam stays under this lift point, and the spring seat can be machined to accept the smaller I.D. of the spring, plus a collet/retainer change... then it's possible. Obviously, there is risk with how close to coil bind it will run, but I am assuming you are no fool and will check all this yourself. Just be aware that Beehives prefer closer coil bind numbers than 0.050in. How much under 0.02in is the risk I leave to you.
@1magnit8 ай бұрын
Why did you delete the block squirters? It's something that should be added.
@crd-nz_0018 ай бұрын
There are some in the rods, so the pistons are not completely "dry". Due to the smoke plumes from a previous build, they were deleted to help the rings maintain oil control.
@1magnit8 ай бұрын
@@crd-nz_001 They're for cooling the pistons, reduces knock and allows it to run tighter.
@neilhansen56638 ай бұрын
Find all the info that you find is crap. The same info is in the ford performance book, tend to believe the book, sorry