Mustang and Ford Performance Forums banner

Aluminator Gibtec Build

448K views 789 replies 65 participants last post by  eschaider 
#1 · (Edited)
Thread update: Table of Contents

Since this thread has gotten long and I've received many PM's on Facebook and e-mail with questions about the build, I figured a ToC would help anyone searching. It is based on 15 posts per page, and is also broken down in groups and now with hyperlinked post numbers. In the event some quick info is needed, this should make it easy! Also, all hyperlinks, other than the obvious cut-and-paste links are bold so they stand out and are easier to recognize, especially when not logged in.

p.1 (Posts 1-15): Short block, pistons, heads, '98 Cobra cams, bearings, ARP parts list, oil pump & windage tray
p.2 (Posts 16-30): Oil cooler gasket, block heater, head gaskets, more on ARP
p.3 (Posts 31-45): Timing components, cam bolts
p.4 (Posts 46-60): Timing cover bolt modification (aluminum block), upgraded secondary tensioner
p.5 (Posts 61-75): Cam degree tools
p.6 (Posts 76-90): Misc. chat
p.7 (Posts 91-105): Oil slinger discussion
p.8 (Posts 106-120): Oil slinger cont., rear main seal
p.9 (Posts 121-135): Rear main seal cont.
p.10 (Posts 136-150): King bearing tech from Ed
p.11 (Posts 151-165): King bearing tech cont., GT-500 rockers, timing cover hole (Cont. from P.4)
p.12 (Posts 166-180): Degreeing the cams, '98 specs
p.13 (Posts 181-195): Degreeing the cams cont., timing cover, cam follower install
p.14 (Posts 196-210): Primary tensioner ratchet modification
p.15 (Posts 211-225): Primary tensioner spacer modification (update to P.14)
p.16 (Posts 226-240): Primary tensioner spacer modification cont.
p.17 (Posts 241-255): Valve cover mock-up, exhaust manifolds
p.18 (Posts 256-270): Tensioner spacer info from Ed, ready to pull "old" engine
p.19 (Posts 271-285): Oil cooler, PCV fitting for aluminum block
p.20 (Posts 286-300): Quick Seat info
p.21 (Posts 301-315): Old vs. new piston trivia, valve covers
p.22 (Posts 316-330): New engine installed, Centerforce clutch
p.23 (Posts 331-345): Crank damper, accessory belts
p.24 (Posts 346-360): Transmission install, accessory belts cont.
p.25 (Posts 361-375): Power steering pump and A/C install notes
p.26 (Posts 376-390): First start!
p.27 (Posts 391-405): First start cont.
p.28 (Posts 406-420): Notes on PTW clearances from Ed, Vampire introduction
p.29 (Posts 421-435): Rod clearance notes from Ed, block bore information
p.30 (Posts 436-450): OE piston trivia
p.31 (Posts 451-465): Misc. oil pan discussion
p.32 (Posts 466-480): Head stud info & torque notes from Ed, wideband install, PCM harness info
p.33 (Posts 481-495): PCM connector notes
p.34 (Posts 496-510): Gauge install, oil pressure sensor, billet oil filter
p.35 (Posts 511-525): Oil and pump discussion
p.36 (Posts 526-540): Head stud re-torque
p.37 (Posts 541-555): Head stud re-torque cont.
p.38 (Posts 556-570): Head stud re-torque cont.
p.39 (Posts 571-585): Project cost sheet, Vampire install completion
p.40 (Posts 586-600): Vampire adjustments
p.41 (Posts 601-615): AFR and piston notes from Ed, Vampire gauge addition
p.42 (Posts 616-630): More from Ed on detonation, new CAI
p.43 (Posts 631-645): Vampire gauge video clip
p.44 (Posts 646-660): Dyno tune results and video clip (11/1/16), new oil separator
p.45 (Posts 661-675): Switch to Mobil1 0W-40 & UOA, piston wrist pin discussion, updated alternator
p.46 (Posts 676-690): General alternator discussion
p.47 (Posts 691-705): Bolt torque & #5 thrust bearing comments, upgraded tensioner, Whipple 2.3 on the way
p.48 (Posts 706-720): Whipple talk, new intercooler, more fuel system chat
p.49 (Posts 721-735): More on the Vampire, 4.6 vs Coyote discussion, intercooler pictures
p.50 (Posts 736-750): Eaton removed, intercooler comparison pics, Whipple installed, intercooler tech
p.51 (Posts 751-765): Some e85 talk, first drive with the Whipple and new intercooler
p.52 (Posts 766-780): Visit to Gibtec, some info on Prolong
p.53 (Posts 781-): More on Prolong, new Explorer ST to go with the Cobra.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This project had been in the works for a while: started a few years back when I picked up a brand new set of FRPP heads and a like-new Aluminator block for less than $2,000, which sat in storage until now. The smart thing to do would have been to sell the goods and make some money, especially since my OEM engine only has 21,000 miles on it, but who can resist tinkering. Adding to that, when you can make something leaps and bounds better, might as well enjoy the fruits of your labor while you have the chance.

I'll actually begin with a shot of where I am as of the date I decided to start this thread (fall of '15), but will go backwards to the early stages and update it little by little with as much tech as I can. Since there are not a lot of Aluminator builds out there, hopefully this will be helpful to anyone considering this route. Here's the long block:

Automotive tire Motor vehicle Automotive design Automotive exterior Engineering


Before moving on, I have to pass on a world of thanks to Ed for designing the finest 2618 aluminum piston out there through Gibtec of Denver, and for his willingness to help out so many on this forum with the encyclopedia of knowledge he possesses!! For those that haven't seen the Gibtec "Custom ModMotor Piston" thread, here are my specs (0.002" oversize) and pics added from it:



Gas Circle Plastic Electric blue Liquid


Camera lens Camera Camera accessory Digital camera Lens


Helmet Sports equipment Automotive lighting Sports gear Audio equipment


I also intended to add an Aluminator build page up on my own site, but for now it just serves as a link back here since this got long. For anyone curious about the Aluminator block, this Castings page has a bunch of information on what makes it such a great choice! Stay tuned, more to come...
 
See less See more
5
#120 · (Edited)
Guys I have a question concerning this oil slinger debate. First, I bought my car new; the engine has been unmolested until now. I know that the guy who built my engine did not put in the oil slinger. I just paid him a visit to talk to him about this. He told me (and I will quote as best I can) "I've done many of these 4.6 engines and I've never even seen that slinger so I've never added it". I asked him specifically about my car since he just did it and it would be fresh on his mind and again he said no, the only thing present in the retaining plate was the rear main seal, that oil slinger wasn't there. I said are you certain? He said absolutely. Had it have been there I would have seen it and researched it to figure out what it was. And like I said, the motor has never been touched. Soooo, that means my car did not have one from the factory. Is this one of those things that a certain run number had and others didn't have?? For example, the 4 thread spark plug holes. My assembler had a 5.4 that he was building and he pointed out that the rear main on my engine was like the 5.4 and it has as lip facing outward that is a shield/guard against contaminants but no slinger. My engine is still on the stand and now would be the time to add the slinger but it clearly did not have one from the factory so I'm really questioning whether to add it or not now... You guys have any comments on this? Why was mine missing from the factory? Add or not to add?
 
#121 ·
I know for a fact my wifes 02 GT had a slinger and it was a Romeo engine. But all these cars was built by humans and some could very well not have got installed. Like Ed and others have stated, its not a necessity but it does help. Its a rough environment right there at the seal area. And its a inexpensive part so put it on while your there
 
#122 ·
The slinger/dust shield is essentially an elective installation, Jeff. Your engine is going to run fine either way.

The presence or absence of the slinger will have the most impact the next time you freshen the engine or more accurately the next time you use that crank in a fresh build. If you use the slinger the amount of time you will spend cleaning up the rear oil seal area on the crank along with the likeliness of an oil leak will be decreased if you use the slinger. The only other distinction is the engine is a little easier to disassemble when you don't have to remove the slinger first.

Bottom line — your call ...


Ed
 
#123 ·
The slinger/dust shield is essentially an elective installation, Jeff. Your engine is going to run fine either way.

The presence or absence of the slinger will have the most impact the next time you freshen the engine or more accurately the next time you use that crank in a fresh build. If you use the slinger the amount of time you will spend cleaning up the rear oil seal area on the crank along with the likeliness of an oil leak will be decreased if you use the slinger. The only other distinction is the engine is a little easier to disassemble when you don't have to remove the slinger first.

Bottom line - your call ...

Ed
Yeah issues like this there tends to be so much information and advice that it is almost too much. I talked to a guy I know here locally who has been and still is a service adviser at the local Ford dealership for the last 20 years. He said these weren't used until 2005. I'm not saying he's right or wrong. What I am going to go with is that my engine did not have this present when it came from the factory so I think I am just going to leave well enough alone. I know the engine will be fine with or without it. Thanks.
 
#124 ·
It's a $10 seal - why skip it?

Considering the part number originates from '96, I'd be skeptical of the claim that they "...weren't used until 2005". It's probably a matter of some engine builders on the Niche line leaving them off occasionally for whatever reason. For as inexpensive at it is, and for what it does, it's a no-brainer to pop it on.
 
#126 · (Edited)
I know this is about a build, but this thread is what got me to buy this tool... So I thought it might be appropriate to sell it here too... For someone else's build...

So I used my Cobra Engineering tool today to install my upgraded timing chain dowels... I have to say it is an amazing piece... Worked flawlessly.

So now I'm selling the jig tool because I don't anticipate ever having to do this again.

Asking for $100 shipped... Comes in the case with the drill bit and tap, as seen in the picture.

I'd prefer PayPal... Just send me a PM
Guitar accessory String instrument accessory Musical instrument Musical instrument accessory Electronic instrument
 
#128 · (Edited)
On the examples I've seen, the rear seal on our engines is a dynamic hydro-thread low friction design. It's a fully molded elastomer that doesn't use a Teflon lip, or a garder spring.

Looking at the sectional view below (not actually our seal, but a similar design), you can see that the seal is made up of two "lips," the primary sealing lip, (left) and a (likely non contacting) dust lip (right). The primary lip is what keeps oil in the engine while the dust lip (excluder lip) has a sole purpose of keeping dirt and debris from making contact with the primary lip.



Have a look at the photo below, in this photo you can begin to see the dynamic hydrothreads in our actual seal design:



Think of the seal as a nut and the crankshaft as the bolt. As the shaft turns, the seal is actually pumping oil toward the oil side of the seal:



With this type of design, the seal functions by it's dynamic function with an intent of reducing the overall friction applied to the shaft (As opposed to simply applying friction to a single contact point [ think garder spring / micro lip axle shaft design]) In doing so, it also becomes sensitive to contaminates as something foreign could raise the lip or creates a "bridge" across the hydrothreads resulting in leakage.

Most warranty failures I reviewed during my previous position were examples where a significant amount of debris had been ingested - luckily for our seal, most of us won't be exposing our car to situations where this could happen.

A slinger is designed to interact with an axial excluder lip to form a non-contact labyrinth. The purpose is mainly to direct the fluids (slurry, dirt and sand particles) from the exterior away from the seal face. A slinger without axial excluder lip on the seal still helps a little bit, but not as much. There are many applications which do not utilize a slinger, however, having a slinger in place most definitely supports the intent and keeps the seal clean and free of debris. Typically, it's seen as more beneficial on the front of an engine where the seal sees more exposure.

My Vote: use the slinger if you can, if you can't, it's no big deal. The most important thing to keep in mind when installing the seal onto the shaft is to keep the shaft seal from rolling over and to keep things clean :)

Now that seal designs have progressed, there are much better designs available - if someone happened to have the shaft OD and the rear cover / casting seal bore ID I could look into it a bit..
 
#133 ·
Okay this brings up another question:

Is the billet rear main seal retainer from MMR worth the money. I've read some negative comments about it. Specifically: It isn't machined properly where the bolt holes go through the oil pan requiring the use of generous amounts of silicon for sealing, rather than relying on the oil pan gasket. Secondly, it is advertised as increasing the strength of the block, but there have been no reports of stock unit failures.... So is it just eye candy?

Also the same goes for a billet crank trigger wheel. The later model ones are stamped steel... I can't find any reported failures of the stock stamped steel piece... So once again... Is it just a "nice thing to have", or is it something imperative like a billet geared oil pump, or upgraded timing chain dowel pins?

Lastly, my Gibtec Pistons should be done this week. I'll post some pictures when I have them.
 
#163 ·
Okay this brings up another question:

Is the billet rear main seal retainer from MMR worth the money. I've read some negative comments about it. Specifically: It isn't machined properly where the bolt holes go through the oil pan requiring the use of generous amounts of silicon for sealing, rather than relying on the oil pan gasket. Secondly, it is advertised as increasing the strength of the block, but there have been no reports of stock unit failures.... So is it just eye candy?
I bought and installed the MMR rear oil seal plate. Your concerns are correct.

The bottom of the MMR plate is flat and straight across. If you look at the bottom of the OEM stock oil seal plate in has bosses cast into it to accommodate the oil pan bolts and thus the oil pan gasket in the rear steps in and goes around the rear oil pan bolts. So in my opinion the MMR plate requires silicone sealant across the entire bottom of the plate, not just at the corners like the OEM. Additionally the MMR plate does not follow the sealant groove in the back of the OEM plate. At the top portion of the OEM plate there are multiple paths for the sealant groove. The MMR plate has a single groove following the outside of the plate only which does not seal at the top against an 03' iron block.

I will be removing and re-installing the OEM piece. It's another case, of an aftermarket part being similar to OEM but not the exact same.
 
#135 · (Edited)
I just purchased a new rear main seal retainer from Ford and saw no need to get an "upgraded" version. Same goes with the crank trigger wheel (the earlier cast versions were the problem, not the stamped steel).

Need to degree the cams soon so I can add more to this thread, but all the extra insight from guys following this is still appreciated. Otherwise, I had the chance to borrow one of these over the weekend in the Detroit area and had a blast - don't want to get too temped:

Wheel Vehicle Car Plant Tire
 
#137 ·
Just had the Shelby for part of Sunday, actually, but enjoyed every minute of it. Went through not quite half a tank in not a lot of miles, so the fun factor was definitely up there. A nice way to wrap up this year's driving, but I'll be looking forward to the "new" Terminator in the spring once this new engine is in!
 
#139 ·
It ran! This is what a Mustang should be, and the 8,200RPM redline is no joke. Every bit of the car was a blast (especially with the cooler temps) and the brakes will scare the hell out of you - in a good way, of course. Now back to reality...
 
#141 ·
What was the low speed throttle response like Joe?

Ed
That was one of the first things I was interested in, Ed, especially since you had mentioned it earlier. I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised - there really was a decent amount of grunt right from the get-go and it just kept winding. For anyone with any apprehension about an N/A car, this one will still make you happy.

Having driven a '15 GT last year as well as a standard Boss and a Laguna Seca, the GT350 kept improving on all of them. I'm still partial to the Terminator (got to also drive a friend's '03 on Monday), and its low-RPM kick, but if I ever got rid of mine, I'd seriously consider the Shelby.
 
#143 ·
Well, I have the FRPP FR-500 (M-58) exhaust in my Terminator, and it gives off a bit more of an "exotic" sound. The FPC engine is right there as well, and perfect in my book.

Man, I need to get this thread back on topic soon!
 
#144 ·
I have something that's on topic:

I purchased King Bearings for my build. I got the MB5281SI kit for the mains, and the MB5219SI kit to eliminate the thrust washer set up. Lastly I have the CR868SI for the rod bearings.

All of the above bearings are bi-metal, aluminum based bearings. When you look at the technical information on these parts it indicates they are for medium duty applications with nodular iron cranks.

I am using a forged steel crank and billet steel rods... Not to mention I'm a supercharged application. So I called King Bearing (spoke to someone in tech named A. J. Orchowski) and he recommended a tri-metal bearing due to the extra load the supercharger places, and due to my anticipated horsepower level (about 700).

King Bearings recommended their MB5283XP kit for the mains on 2010 Aluminator block. And CR868XPN for the rods. King Bearings also stated that the thrust washer set up is absolutely normal, and they have seen it in use even with 2500HP vehicles (A Nissan GTR he kept referring to).

Any discussion on this?

Also their CR868XPN is a "narrow" rod bearing measuring 19.101mm. I need to measure the bearing surface on my Manley Pro-Billet rods but the overall dimension from their website is .940" / 23.87mm.

Anyone have input about this?

I am actually considering going with Clevite 77's as they seem to have a wider selection and better fitment options.

Clevite MS2259H (mains)
Clevite CB1442HK (rods)
 
#148 ·
I have something that's on topic:

I purchased King Bearings for my build. I got the MB5281SI kit for the mains, and the MB5219SI kit to eliminate the thrust washer set up. Lastly I have the CR868SI for the rod bearings.

All of the above bearings are bi-metal, aluminum based bearings. When you look at the technical information on these parts it indicates they are for medium duty applications with nodular iron cranks.

I am using a forged steel crank and billet steel rods... Not to mention I'm a supercharged application. So I called King Bearing (spoke to someone in tech named A. J. Orchowski) and he recommended a tri-metal bearing due to the extra load the supercharger places, and due to my anticipated horsepower level (about 700).

King Bearings recommended their MB5283XP kit for the mains on 2010 Aluminator block. And CR868XPN for the rods. King Bearings also stated that the thrust washer set up is absolutely normal, and they have seen it in use even with 2500HP vehicles (A Nissan GTR he kept referring to).

Any discussion on this?

Also their CR868XPN is a "narrow" rod bearing measuring 19.101mm. I need to measure the bearing surface on my Manley Pro-Billet rods but the overall dimension from their website is .940" / 23.87mm.

Anyone have input about this?

I am actually considering going with Clevite 77's as they seem to have a wider selection and better fitment options.

Clevite MS2259H (mains)
Clevite CB1442HK (rods)
Here is a comment Ed posted that might address this until he sees your post and comments specifically:

"Jon, apologies I did not mean to ignore your question. I got interrupted on my side and lost track of where I was. I refound your post while scanning old threads. Here is the answer; The HP and XP class bearings are high load race bearings designed for a sustained continuous high loading like an engine in a car on a high banked oval where the engine will operate north of 7000 rpm for hours. In that environment these bearings are unbeatable. For supercharged gas engines you want a bearing with increased embedability and resistance to oil supply interruptions. That bearing is the SI series out of King. I have attached a White Paper from King on bearing materials. It is not long and also quite a good read. Before you read the entire doc got to Acrobat page 7 and look at the graph. Pay particular attention to how the SI class bearings and the hard race type bearings behave when lubrication is interrupted. Initially they are about the same, over time (longer than we would allow) the hard bearing seizes before the SI bearing. The SI bearing provides increased embedability and comparable life under adverse oiling conditions we are likely to encounter. The increased embedability is important to bearing life in a supercharged engine. Ed"

I too noticed King states the application for the SI class bearing was suited for a nodular cast iron crank but didn't think it was a reason not to use the bearing on a steel crank. Maybe when Ed sees this he can give us his .02
 
#145 ·
Cool, thanks:)

I avoided those other bearings because they are narrow. A rep at King I talked to a while back said they are planning to "correct" that at some point. Otherwise, your first choice is absolutely correct, but the use of the one-piece thrust bearing is just personal preference.

Expect Ed to chime in since he is the bearing guru (along with so many other areas). The bi-metal bearings are perfect, and the tech paper from King will convince you of that. I think I linked it in post #1, but if not, Ed will definitely provide it.
 
#146 ·
Thanks Joe,
The link to the bearing document seems to be broken. I would appreciate a re-post, and I'm also going to do some googling.

Another question for everyone about main bearings clearance. You posted that your clearance was . 002. I was wondering if that was the clearance on just one side with a dry bearing (assuming you used plasti-gauge) or is that a calculated clearance based on overall physical dimensions. What I'm asking is if you have .002 clearance on both sides of the crank, or on just one side of the crank?

Here's why this came up in my mind....

Ed recommended to me that I have .0040 piston to wall clearance. However, I found my original build sheet for my CP pistons which state they only have a .0020 piston to wall clearance. Both my old CP pistons and the new Gibtec pistons are 2618 alloy. This prompted me to call Nick at Gibtec and ask. He explained that .0040 is the total piston to wall clearance across the diameter, therefore, only .002 on each side of the piston.

My new found piston information has caused me to doubt all my other clearance information.

So let the discussion begin.
 
#147 ·
Gibtec calls for a .0045 PTW clearance according to my tech card. As you've pointed out, thats overall clearance (.0020 on both sides). I believe that was the same with my Manley Platinum series pistons as well.

I'm also interested to hear Ed explain more about the King bearings since I purchased the same sets as Joe. One other point I'd like to make is crank end-play. Correct me if i'm wrong but, that should be in the ballpark of .004-.006.
 
#151 ·
I am not sure of the exact reason they say what they do about cast cranks, Jeff. I have asked them and the answers took a little effort to get and did not make as much sense as I would like. I think the belief may have been that the cast cranks were not finished as precisley as the forged cranks and the softer bearing was more 'forgiving', which it is. However in our engines at least, the cast crank has to be as finely finished and as straight as a forging or you have immediate engine failure.

Bottom line I can't provide a rational explanation. I can tell you the SI bearings are real sweethearts for our engines and we get an extra bonus free for nothing so to speak - the SI's are less expensive by a significant margin!

Ed
 
#153 · (Edited)
Thanks for the reply Ed.

What about bearing clearances... . 002 total? (.001 on each side)... Or just put my plasti-gauge on top and look for .002 crush.

Also, can we chat about ring end gap.. I've read a lot of stuff and I know there are calculations based on bore diameter. For example : bore Dia. x .0045 for the top ring and bore Dia. x .0055 for the second ring. For my application that would be 3.557 x .0045 = .016 ring end gap for the top ring and .019 for the second ring. But I would like to hear what others are doing and what Ed's input is.
 
#154 · (Edited)
Thanks for the reply Ed.

What about bearing clearances... . 002 total? (.001 on each side)... Or just put my plasti-gauge on top and look for .002 crush.

Also, can we chat about ring end gap.. I've read a lot of stuff and I know there are calculations based on bore diameter. But I would like to hear what others are doing and what Ed's input is.
The rods like to be right at or as close as you can get to 0.002", Mike. The rod manufacturers, especially Manley because of their tier 1 Ford status, usually hit the housing bore dimensions right on the money and the bearing manufacturers are comparably precise. If you have concerns the easiest thing to do is use a little plastigauge and it will put your mind at ease in a NY minute. I would bet you dollars to donuts you will hit 0.002" within a cat's whisker.

Basically the same story for the mains except the numbers change a little bit. There is a low side limit of 0.0008" and a high limit of 0.0018" for mains. Essentially the same story as the rods in terms of reliably reproducing those numbers. Both Ford as the crank manufacturer and the bearing companies are very fastidious about their sizing technology and technique (temp controlled environments etc). When you assemble it, it will easily fall within their limits. Don't worry about being on the high side or low side. As long as you are inside the limits you are good to go.

Rings will bring all kinds of opinions. What I am about to tell you will work, will not butt ring ends and will produce very good reliable power. For a street driven car you want to be between 0.023" and 0.025" for your top ring. Shoot for the low limit without going below 0.023". For your second ring you want to be 0.020" to 0.023" and your oil ring requires no gapping they are good to go right out of the box.

A race only engine can go a whisker tighter but in my opinion there is a better way than a "whisker tighter." My preference for a race only engine especially on the top, is to use a steel or tool steel top ring and a TotalSeal second ring. The top ring is gapped at, you guessed it, 0.023"! That is all you need! your second ring is a gapless TotalSeal. The engine will leak to zero percent. On a bad day it may get to 1 or 2 percent. You will not butt ring ends, your engine will be happy and you will be even happier.

Ed
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top