|
By jepito - 13 Years Ago
|
|
Can 351w crank journals be turned down to fit a 312? I'm sure some one has already thought about this bt couldn't find any threads on it.
|
|
By charliemccraney - 13 Years Ago
|
Anything is possible. That's about a 3/8" difference which is quite a bit. You will also need to deal with flywheel/starter/rear seal and damper/pulley/front seal/timing issues. It's probably not worth it when a 312 crank can be offset ground for the same stroke or even a little larger.
It looks like a cleveland crank is 2.75." That's only 1/8" difference.
|
|
By Pete 55Tbird - 13 Years Ago
|
|
A lot of years ago I bought a 1966 Shelby drag car that had been given a replacement 302. In the trunk were a pair of hipo 289 heads and a Ford Yblock steel 292 crank that had been stroked and looked like it had been reground to fit a 289 block. I never pursued it and still wonder if it ever worked in the SBF block or not. Another one that got away. Pete
|
|
By jepito - 13 Years Ago
|
|
Speedway sells 3.85" stroke cranks for $400. Thought it might be worth the hassle for that. 351c only has 3.5 stroke
|
|
By charliemccraney - 13 Years Ago
|
Ooohhh. I think that could work out better than the otherwise required custom crank as long as there isn't a whole lot of other work required to make it fit.
An Eagle 3.85 stroke Cleveland crank is listed at Summit for $281.95. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ESP-103523850/
|
|
By jepito - 13 Years Ago
|
|
That's an even better deal. Rear main seal could be the main issue. But where there is a will there is a way.
|
|
By charliemccraney - 13 Years Ago
|
|
jepito (2/17/2012)
Rear main seal could be the main issue.
Pun intended??
|
|
By gekko13 - 13 Years Ago
|
|
I have wondered about the feasibility of a 351W crank too. I have no experience machining a crank to fit another application but, I think reworking a finished crank would not work due to the oil passages ending up in the wrong spot and also trying to grind in the proper radius in the shoulders of the journals. I think a better avenue might be to obtain an un-machined or even semi-machined casting and then finish it to size. Easy for me to say because I'm not doing work, right? Using a 2.00 or 1.88 rod journal could net some pretty big gains. JMO
|
|
By Hoosier Hurricane - 13 Years Ago
|
|
The thrust bearing on a Windsor is wider than a Y. The Cleveland is the same width. The snouts of both are much shorter than a Y, and I don't believe they have a flywheel flange, the flywheel pilots on the end of the rear journal and the bolts go into the journal. If you are going this way, you should probably start with a steel crank because you are probably going to have to do some welding, and welding a cast crank is not a good plan.
|
|
By jepito - 13 Years Ago
|
|
Any idea on 351 thrust width? Have a marine front cover to handle the snout issue. Trans adapter to overcome flywheel side. New rear seal mount can be made.
|
|
By Hoosier Hurricane - 13 Years Ago
|
|
Y block width, 1.120, 351 W is 1.118, 351 C is 1.133. The problem with the back of the crank is the rear journal is too short to extend out the back of the block. It also uses a full circle oil seal, which the block would have to be machined for. Without making the journal longer, the flywheel would not clear the back of the block. I'm not saying this can't be done, I'm saying it is probably not worth the effort.
|
|
By Hoosier Hurricane - 13 Years Ago
|
|
Oops! Got the numbers reversed. The W is 1.133, the C is 1.118. Sorry.
|
|
By 314 - 13 Years Ago
|
|
using a 292 steel crank was once the way to stroke a 289.
|