[Wes Duenkel]

I was also pleasantly surprised after when I was finally able to step on the clutch pedal: the effort was about half of what it was with the OEM Valeo clutch. I think I'll like this one.

I'm very curious about this. I *hated* the high pedal effort of the OEM clutch. It quickly wore out my OEM cable, fork, and release bearing sleeve. I've learned the OEM Cobra clutch was around 500 lbs. TOB load. I believe the Centerforce is about 350 lbs. of TOB load, which jives very well with your assessment. I have a Centerforce DYAD, and the pedal effort is perfect. With a lower TOB load usually comes a lower clamping pressure, and thus lower torque capacity (all other things being equal). With that in mind, I'd like to hear how well your single-disc Centerforce holds up to your torque (once the engine and clutch are broken in, of course.) Please keep us posted regarding the clutch.

 

[Wes Duenkel]

At least 100 miles on this oil, but no solid decision yet.

I'd like to insert a plug for Miller's Nanodrive oil here. I've been following this product in the SAE papers, Racecar Engineering, and RaceTech Magazine:
http://performanceracingoils.com/engine-oils-nanodrive-engine-oils-c-3_26_24.html
The nanoparticle technology is not just marketing B.S.; there's actually something to this stuff. The particles act like little ball bearings, and when the come in contact with bearing surfaces, they "shed" like onion skins to coat the bearing surfaces. Pretty trick stuff:
http://performanceracingoils.com/about-nanotech-ezp-6.html
I'm not affiliated with them in any way...just a fan of their products. Harry King with Performance Racing Oils is also a former FoMoCo employee. I understand he is one of the "fathers" of the Coyote engine! I learned this after getting their 5-40 oil for my Cobra. Small world...

 

[eschaider]

...With a lower TOB load usually comes a lower clamping pressure, and thus lower torque capacity (all other things being equal). With that in mind, I'd like to hear how well your single-disc Centerforce holds up to your torque (once the engine and clutch are broken in, of course.) Please keep us posted regarding the clutch.

You are reading the tea leaves correctly Wes, for most situations. A diaphragm clutch uses a spring that is both a pressure application device and also the clutch release fingers the throwout bearing pushes against to release the clutch. The spring itself resembles a Bellville disc spring. Here is a link to the Bellflex website. Bellflex is the source of Bellville springs. This is a link to a video on their site about the springs and their behavior under load => Bellville Spring Vid. Click on the start demo button at the bottom of the frame. The springs are essentially a conical steel washer that is made out of spring steel. When you tighten a nut against the cone the deflection process exerts high frictional loads that prevent the fastener from loosening.

Our diaphragm clutches use a large diameter bellville style spring to generate their plate load. The designers also add internal fingers to the spring that move inward towards the center of the device forming the release levers the throwout bearing pushes against to release the clutch. To make the whole gizmo work as a clutch the diaphragm spring has to be fixed to the pressure plate cover. The ring of rivets or bolts on some aftermarket pressure plates is that fastening point.

Clutch manufacturers have long fought the battle between adequate clamping force and excessive pedal pressure. One of the approaches to the solution is to change the diameter of the bolt circle for those fasteners that secure the spring. When the anchor point changes so to does the leverage the throwout bearing has to release the clutch. Obviously higher leverage means lower pedal pressures. Ford used some of these lower pedal effort clutches over the years and so too have the aftermarket manufacturers. The lowest pedal pressures will come with the multi disc designs but we can get some surprisingly civilized pedal pressures from the single disc units today if we choose carefully.

Ed

 

[Wes Duenkel]

When the anchor point changes so to does the leverage the throwout bearing has to release the clutch. Obviously higher leverage means lower pedal pressures.

...and so does the TOB travel. Sure, increasing the leverage lowers pedal effort, but pedal travel increases. Which also sucks.

 

[jrgoffin]

I'm curious why the 0w-40 weight oil. I'm under the impression that the lash adjusters (primarily in a mod motor) determine the viscosity oil. Factory lash adjusters we engineered for 30 weight, while the GT500 lash adjusters were engineered for 50 weight weren't they?

If you ask ten different people their opinion on oil, you'll probably get ten different answers! Ford has definitely been all over the map with the viscosity of the oil they have used in these mod motors. The early Cobra 4.6 engines used a 5W-30 oil, which was relatively consistent until the 5W-20 came in to play to appease the CAFE standards that rolled in about 2001 (or was it '02?). Also, you have the Cobra R with the 15W-50, the '05/'06 GT which uses a 5W-50, and the variances of the Coyote engine using anything from a 5W-30 up to the 5W- and 15W-50 oils as well. Although I'm not aware of any specific differences in the lash adjusters (other than their physical size), I am sure the bearing clearances have been fairly standard.

For a break-in, it's generally accepted to use a non-synthetic oil, although opinions vary there since many new engines come with synthetic oil right from the factory. As for specific break-in oils, they typically contain higher levels of the "anti-wear" additives Zinc (Zn) and Phosphorus (Ph), which is something the Shell diesel oil has. Even better: it can be found easily. If it hadn't been a 40-weight, I would have been okay with that, but it just so happened to work out this way.

I could probably do just fine staying with a 30-weight oil down the road, but in my opinion, the 40-weight offers a nice compromise, especially when the engines are operated "aggressively" (the oil will "shear" down with wear). Adding to that, the M1 0W-40 also has slightly higher levels of Zn & Ph, and I'm of the opinion that it is one of their better oils as the "Euro Spec", with the better "HT/HS" rating (High Temperature, High Shear). This goes the same for their 5W-50, and 15W-50, and partially so for their "High Mileage" formulas.

I've used Mobil1 going back 25+ years and it has never let me down, so I've stayed pretty loyal to them since they are a known quantity. Again, lots of opinions on brands, but M1 has always been fine by me, which has been documented with oil analysis. As an FYI, the M1 Product Guide has all their specs in it.

Adding a bit more to that, the "0W" part of the 0W-40 represents the cold-flow "pumpability", and an oil that flows better when cold is always a good choice for start-up, so even better (the lower the number, the better the cold flow). Granted, the Shell isn't there with the "15W", but it won't be in that long. Again, I would probably be fine with a 5W-30, and although I don't plan to beat the hell out of this new engine, I won't be granny-driving it either. I think the 0W-40 is a solid choice since I may have stepped up to something along those lines for any track outings. On that note, I had been using the M1 High-Mileage 5W-30 in the outgoing engine, even with less than 22,000 miles on it, and the lab reports always showed it holding up real well (it has similar levels of Zn & Ph). Hope that is a good start for my $0.02 on this.

I'm very curious about this. I *hated* the high pedal effort of the OEM clutch. It quickly wore out my OEM cable, fork, and release bearing sleeve. I've learned the OEM Cobra clutch was around 500 lbs. TOB load. I believe the Centerforce is about 350 lbs. of TOB load, which jives very well with your assessment. I have a Centerforce DYAD, and the pedal effort is perfect. With a lower TOB load usually comes a lower clamping pressure, and thus lower torque capacity (all other things being equal). With that in mind, I'd like to hear how well your single-disc Centerforce holds up to your torque (once the engine and clutch are broken in, of course.) Please keep us posted regarding the clutch.

Good things to think about, Wes, and hopefully Centerforce has made this easy. Adding to what Ed already wrote, I think the relationship between clamp load and pedal feel is something they addressed with the ball-bearing pivot points, and it appears to have worked. Since they also made used of the "puck" style friction inserts on the flywheel side to focus the clamping force, along with the centrifugal weights, it hopefully means this will be a decent clutch to use, even with elevated power levels. Once I'm on the road, I'll definitely report back!

 

[eschaider]

...and so does the TOB travel. Sure, increasing the leverage lowers pedal effort, but pedal travel increases. Which also sucks.

You're right Wes but the diaphragm spring manufacturers and the OEM guys in Detroit have worked out a pretty good compromise position. The Ford pressure plate I was referring to was their M-7563-C302N pressure plate that is no longer available through FRPP. If I am not mistaken the pressure plate can still be sourced through Valeo who manufactured it for Ford and others.

The increased leverage still allows for a very workable clutch release/engagement point for the clutch pedal. I have driven both the high ratio and standard ratio clutches and the clutch pedal behavior, other than effort, is essentially indistinguishable.

Ed

 

[jrgoffin]

A couple more notes that I forgot to add from Post #353 on the previous page...

Nothing real major here, but some trivial items, first on the air conditioning compressor. For anyone going to an aluminum block, the three bolts that hold the compressor to the block are actually shorter than those for the iron block. In the diagram below, the iron-block 113.5mm bolts are shown. For the aluminum blocks, these bolts are 110mm. Not a huge difference, but if you keep the OE bolts, you have to add washers under the bolt head to keep them from bottoming out. I was fortunate to get the original bolts with my Nemak block, so that saved me from chasing them down or digging up washers.

This next point - real minor - about the power steering pump, and of course assuming it (along with the a/c compressor) is not disconnected. It will become obvious for anyone at this point, but when unbolting the pump, the two lower bolts (3 &4) will not come out since the hose connectors will be in the way. Not a big deal since they won't fall out, but while the pump is left hanging, those lower bolts will be floating in the pump body. It's a bit of a pain to tighten them, but it still beats disconnecting the system and having to bleed it later!

I have been overly busy lately, and am out of town until Monday evening, but planning on priming the oil pump and turning the key for the first time on Tuesday. After that, it will be time to install the Vampire with more photos to come. Hopefully will get a video for the initial start-up, so back in a few days!

 

[Wicked46]

Didn't know about the PS bolts. Glad you mentioned that Joe!

 

[MattP]

Great thread, I will reference it often, thank you Joe! Thank you Ed for sharing your knowledge with the world.

An alternate method of heating up the motor/heads to simulate a thermal cycle that I learned of many years back, and have used, is to use a couple of heat guns or hair dryers. Flow the air over the heads, through the intake and exhaust ports, water ports, oil ports etc. You need to monitor temps with a temperature gun at various places. It takes some time and effort to move the heat guns around to get it thoroughly heated and deeply heated enough but it works. I usually let this process go for a hour per head, then let it cool overnight before the re-torquing. Watch out for overheating rubber/plastic items especially valve stem seals etc. You can also put a space heater next to the assembly to aid if the weather is cold.

I will also strongly agree that the J&S Safeguard is a priceless piece of kit. I've used them on several engines over the years with great results. John is a super guy and great engineer. I remember having him on the phone as I used a scope to look at wave forms on Nissan VQ coil trigger signals. He was very patient with me and we made it work. I highly recommend this for any boosted application!

 

[MattP]

Joe.Ed, Do you line hone the mains with the ARP main hardware? I've read that with the ARP Main hardware this is a needed because the extra clamping force deforms the main bores? Or could you under torque the hardware to avoid deforming the mains? This way you gain the strength of the fastener, but avoid the deformation?

 

[04DeadShort]

I've also heard this from some old school guys. Curious myself.

 

[eschaider]

I have heard of this but never experienced it, guys. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just has not happened to me. Irrespective of whether you change the main cap fasteners or not you always want to check the main bores for size and on unknown blocks the alignment also. The easiest no gauges check for undersize or misalignment is simply put a set of bearings and a crank in the block, torque down the mains and see if it spins freely. Crabs or tight spots mean massage is necessary. Even if the crank spins freely you should still measure the main bores to be sure they are not oversize.


Ed

 

[408Stang]

Just a quick note on rod bearings...

I found out the hard way tonight while anxiously assembling my own engine that I had overlooked the smaller rod bearing journal on my Kellogg stroker crank. Therefore, the King Bearings I had ordered will not work. Here's the details:

I had ordered the King CR868SI set, but those are for factory-sized crank rod journals.

My Kellogg 3.800" stroker crank has smaller 2.000" rod journals. King does not make a "SI" series rod bearing in that size. The correct King rod bearing is the CR803XPN.

These bearings are for a 2.000" crank rod journal with a 2.1247" to 2.1252" rod bore. The bearing thickness is .0622" with a bearing width of .7874".

My Manley Pro-Billet rods measured 2.127" across the bore... If I did the math correct this leaves an oil clearance of .0026"... Which is dead on the spec in the Hyland book of .0020 to .0030.

My Manley rods have a bearing surface width of .840" so these bearings are just a hair "narrow" by .0263" on each side, but it was the closest I could find without going out of the King brand. They are the same width as the Clevite (CB745H) by the way.

For those that are dead set on the "SI" series of King Bearings there is a CR811SI which will fit a crank with a 2.000" journal, but the specs are a little too loose for my taste. The wall thickness opens up to .0619" and the width is even narrower at .7402".

For a stock replacement bearing for the 2.000" crank journal King also makes the CR4423AM. These are not for high performance applications though.

 

[MattP]

This would apply to only the stroker, not the OE 4.6 Kellogg Cobra crank, correct?

 

[408Stang]

As far as I know... Yes... It only applies to the stroker. But a quick measurement would answer that for sure.

 

[04DeadShort]

Right. The stock cobra rod journal diameter is 2.0859" - 2.0867".

 

[jrgoffin]

Great thread, I will reference it often, thank you Joe! Thank you Ed for sharing your knowledge with the world.

I will also strongly agree that the J&S Safeguard is a priceless piece of kit. I've used them on several engines over the years with great results. John is a super guy and great engineer. I remember having him on the phone as I used a scope to look at wave forms on Nissan VQ coil trigger signals. He was very patient with me and we made it work. I highly recommend this for any boosted application!

Glad you like the thread, Matt. Ed is the real brains behind a lot of this, I just happen to be decent enough with tools to bring it all together!

You are also right about the Vampire - John has a fantastic product that has been around for a lot longer than I realized. Hopefully I won't have to bug him for anything, but I'm looking forward to getting it all wired in. I definitely is money well spent.

Joe.Ed, Do you line hone the mains with the ARP main hardware? I've read that with the ARP Main hardware this is a needed because the extra clamping force deforms the main bores? Or could you under torque the hardware to avoid deforming the mains? This way you gain the strength of the fastener, but avoid the deformation?

I can't be 100% sure, but I think the guys that did the machine work on my block used the ARP studs to check the mains. Their shop isn't too far away, so I can always stop by at some point to verify this. Hoping that I fire the engine up for the first time tomorrow, I'm sure they'll be glad if I drop in to report that it was a success. The fingers are crossed for sure.

 

[04DeadShort]

Good luck Joe

 

[MattP]

Good luck with the fire up! video?

 

[408Stang]

Here is the crank with the full length 3/16" square tool steel keyway and the ARP 5.25" long 9/16" stud. Beefy for sure.