Register now to get rid of these ads!

The elusive 224/3.7 MerCruiser banger

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by tjm73, Apr 9, 2008.

  1. compared to a M90 supercharger, the engine is so much shorter that I put the blower back into storage until I get an idea as to where I can put it...a short snout would help a lot.
     
  2. for a single seat track car, the engine could be offset to the left giving room for legs. As this is a road car , I lengthened the car 2 feet to get room for driver and an engine down between the axles.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  3. block1.jpg support for open deck cylinders:
    I will be epoxying aluminum spacers around the cylinders. I made them to fit the cylinder outer surface and the flat outer part of the water jacket.
    It was not difficult : set a small surfacer to cut a groove with a 2.4" radius down a 1/2" aluminum plate...if you adjust it right, the block fits the outside of the cylinder with no modification. Otherwise it is time for Prussian blue and small file to remove the high spots. I will epoxy the blocks in place supporting the outer side of the cylinders.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2017
  4. The block shown above did not have to be cut to allow for water passages to the head. Its length was the length of the flat side of the water jacket and the length of the curved surface fitting the cylinder. Most of the blocks have to be cut and block3.JPG filed to match the head gasket coolant passages. The curve of the cylinder locates the small block in one horizontal axis. You can see a ridge in the water jacket outer wall which prevents the small block from falling down into the water jacket. The draft taper of the cylinder also restricts downward movement. (deck surface not yet cleaned)

    There are reasons for not using epoxy as a block filler common 2 part epoxies soften above 175 degrees F. Single part epoxies which heat cure are usually good to 350 F. Some block filling success was achieved with aluminum-filled epoxy. A concern with ordinary epoxy is its shrinkage during cure. If wet, epoxy looses a lot of its strength so it seems that a waterproof marine grade epoxy would be better in water jackets. Perhaps the best use of epoxy would be thin layers to make a perfect fit for the blocks I added.

    for your reference:
    JB weld extreme heat(paste)..........................2400F
    Duralco 4460 epoxy (fluid)............................ 600F
    Locktite 510 rigid anaerobic flange sealant.... 500F
    Duralco 4700 adhesive ..................................... 500F
    PC Fahrenheit paste ......................................... 500F
    JBweld 2 part original........................................ 500F
    JBweld high heat putty...................................... 400F (makes me wonder about the "original")
    locktite 2 part marine epoxy ............................. 302F
    locktite 518 flexible anaerobic flange sealant.... 300F

    Yamabond4 is a highly regarded flexible case sealant ( I have no heat figure for it)
    Threebond #1184 may be the same as they make yamabond and hondabond
    Yamabond5 is a rigid case sealant. the case sealants are said to resist vibration very well.
    It is important that loose fragments of any of these materials not plug radiator passages.
     
  5. beck
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Posts: 146

    beck
    Member

    dennis g,
    Originally I misunderstood the size of your cylinder support. I thought you were cutting a full plate like Boss9 Brian used, but using epoxy to secure it instead of welding it.

    I can see where your blocks would greatly strengthen the front and rear cylinders. I believe Brian's method is much stronger, but also much more labor intense. Welding also leads to warping. With epoxy you won't have to worry about that.

    I use Yamabond4 for gasket surfaces many times instead of gaskets. I like the stuff, but I don't think it sets rigid enough to work for this application.

    You are running coolant, so I think any on the products rated for 500F and above would work well. Since I am not running coolant I would research the JB Weld extreme heat with the 2400F rating. The tops of my cylinders may get hot.
     
  6. The tops of the cylinders will be hot but how hot is the question. As there is soot left in the combustion chamber, I checked and found that it oxidizes away between 375 and 500 degrees F. So this gives us a crude estimate of the cylinder maximum temperature...and as the antifreeze boils around 260F we have a second estimate of what the adhesive must stand. I grew concerned on reading that being wet cut the epoxy temperature rating by more than 50%.
    I once arrived home with a quart of coolant left by waiting to let the engine cool at 5 mile intervals so I was impressed at how well it managed it.

    Brian's method is stronger but was not an option as mine had to be done after the cylinders were bored. The advantage was that (1) it was easy to cut my blocks and (2) no distortion of the cylinders took place. I have blocks at the right and left sides of each cylinder ...no blocks were placed at the front or rear of the engine as the cylinders , cast as a group, were already secured fore and aft.

    Although mine would stay in place with no epoxy, I did not want vibration to move them down even slightly as that would place a stress on the cylinders, that is the main role of epoxy for me. That and getting a perfect fit.
     
  7. For your reference :

    Dowel pins to locate the head of this engine have become difficult to find. I ordered a set from Ford earlier this morning. They had 24 of them.
    the Ford part number I ordered is B9AE*6A008*A It does not appear on the computer but can be ordered as an obsolete part.
    There was no guarantee that it would fit, returns would not be accepted and payment at the time of ordering was required.
    I will tell you next week if it fits. They fit perfectly.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
  8. beck
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Posts: 146

    beck
    Member

    Now that I looked closer at your photos, I see your blocks were placed on the sides of the cylinders. When I responded earlier I thought your were placing spacers just on cyl 1 & 4 at the front and rear of the block. I haven't referred to a head or head gasket, are there coolant hole issues with putting blocks in front of #1 and behind #4?

    I am far from an expert, but it appears the weakest part of the block is the front web. It isn't very thick. all the other webs look much heavier. I can see that splitting cylinders could also be an issue.
     
  9. beck
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Posts: 146

    beck
    Member

    I retired 2 weeks ago. It has taken me this long to clean up the garage so I can really work in it again. I bought 3 sections of heavy duty shelving, ripped out some old cabinets, and reorganized. In the 2 weeks off I have attended 5 tractor pulls, with 3 nights spent in motels. That delayed the garage reorganization some, and put quite a few miles on my new truck.

    I just set up one of my already machined blocks on the motor stand. I have 3 of these motors apart. The latest one disassembled I have the still dirty parts in one place. The first two (all parts cleaned for reassembly) have been apart long enough I am trying to figure out which main caps go with which block. I know what cranks go with each cap set because one is10/10, the other is 20/20. I still have the bearings in the rods and the main caps. Old age sucks, I can't remember squat. I think the first one had the 20/20 bearings but my labeling doesn't agree.
     
  10. Indeed the areas ahead of #1 and behind #4 are thin. Coolant holes are not an issue with the blocks as it is easy to drill and file the passages to match the head gasket. I made my blocks as long as I could without working hard. Short blocks would not need coolant passages. It looked like the cylinders seem well supported fore and aft so I did not worry about the ends. The real factor is that the ends are really flat and lack curvature to keep a block from falling down into the deeper recesses of the cooling jacket. It seemed that there was less to gain and more at risk there.

    The other blocks probably could just be dropped into position and left but I thought some epoxy might give a better fit. It took more epoxy than expected, I think that most of it was just scraped away as the blocks slid into position. In retrospect an anerobic threadlocker might be an appealing choice.
     
  11. Great thread!! I'm working on one of these engines for of all things, a boat (but it is a 1965 Bertram, so would at least make the traditional cut-off date o_O). Short and sweet...Does the 429/460 Ford Timing chain fit? If not what does? I understand the 429/460 crankshaft pulley fits, is the key in the correct position (or does a timing dot need to be matched to the old gear and then be punched)? And lastly, is there a no machining option available for the cam sprocket?
     
  12. beck
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Posts: 146

    beck
    Member

    I have been searching for quality replacement timing sets. I called Mellings. They said they do not make a set for these motors. Falcon Global are the big E-bay parts guys for these motors. They tell me there are no timing sets available.

    I called Cloyes. They said they do not have the cam sprocket and never did.... BUT they gave me the part # of their chain that works, # 9-134. I then ask about the crank sprocket. They thought it was the same as the BBF. They have a 3 key BBF crank sprocket available, #S143B. The 9 key BBF crank sprocket is not available separately. For a hi-po build this is the best buy I think.... Part # 9-3622X3 is a BBF complete set with the 9 key crank sprocket & the correct chain. We would need to reuse our top sprocket. EDIT; looking online I think the last 3 in that part number means it has 3 keyways. Substituting a 9 for the 3 appears to be the 9 keyway lower gear part number.

    Another guy put a Cloyes chain in his motor and thought he used an undersized chain. The above Cloyes chain does come in .005 and .010" undersize. I am unsure is those are needed or not.

    EDIT: This Cloyes chain (9-134) does not work! See Post # 1733 below for the correct part.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
    anothercarguy likes this.
  13. beck
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Posts: 146

    beck
    Member

    Talk about timing... My post above was not in reply to your question.... I saw it after my post.

    You ask about the 429/460 crankshaft pulley, and ask about a keyway. If you are asking about the harmonic balancer? I used a SBF balancer on mine. I think that dimension is the same on the BBF also. The timing marks are NOT in the correct location.

    If you are asking about the lower timing sprocket then see the above post.

    The timing sprockets are the snag for the whole timing set. They not interchange with anything and is no longer made. I currently have 3 of these motors disassembled. All of my top sprockets look to be in very useable condition. I am planning on that. There are a couple used timing sets on e-bay currently, but probably are in no better condition than what you already have.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018 at 9:35 AM
    anothercarguy likes this.
  14. Excellent...great timing apparently. Indeed I was thinking (and meaning) crank sprocket...not pulley. Thanks
     
    zbuickman likes this.
  15. beck
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Posts: 146

    beck
    Member

    I need to buy a set of main cap studs. Does anyone know if these are the same as the 351C? (ARP154-5404)
    I was guessing they were since half of the bearing shells are the same.
     
  16. Hey Beck (and anyone else with suggestions)...started to assemble the old 488 armed with my new Cloyes #9-134 timing chain...it doesn't match the stock sprockets. The chain links are too close together relative to the size of the sprocket teeth. Any other ideas?

    Thx Tim
     
  17. The chain spacing seems correct...I think the difference is related to the diameter of the rollers on the links. The stock chain and sprockets are double width but not roller.
     
  18. Ok...after looking more closely at the Cloyes catalogue, it appears the timing chain most likely to work with the stock crank and cam sprockets (at least on the motor I have) is the C168. It has the needed 66 links, is double wide, and has .200" diameter link pins (not a true roller timing chain). It is considered their "heavy duty" stock style timing chain. Going to give it a try and will advise if it fits or not.
     
  19. beck
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Posts: 146

    beck
    Member

    Hmmm... Just last week Cloyes told me that was the right chain.
    I was going to order one today.
    Please keep me posted on what you find.
     
  20. Does anyone know what the overbore limit is on these cylinders?
    I have a block back from boring and one cylinder is 4.40
    They were supposed to be 4.390.
     
    Sprinter37 likes this.
  21. beck
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Posts: 146

    beck
    Member

    Just one is bored to the wrong size, or all 4?

    As you know, the 4.390" is a .030" overbore which pistons are easily available for. I have not seen any pistons advertised for the .040" (4.400") size. Custom pistons is an option for that size.

    I have a block here which I had to bore .060" oversize to clean up. I have not built it yet, but it is on the engine stand with all the parts next to it except the pistons. I think that is a pretty big overbore for these motors. I have a 2nd block that needs to have the same thing done if it is going to be rebuilt.
     
  22. Phil1934
    Joined: Jun 24, 2001
    Posts: 2,612

    Phil1934
    Member

  23. Ok...anyone looking for a timing chain to be used with the stock crank and cam sprockets. I am officially confirming that the Cloyes C168 fits! (Woohoo!). No need to add .005 or .010" (unless your crank centreline has been altered as a result of line boring the mains).
     
  24. beck
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Posts: 146

    beck
    Member

    anothercarguy, Thanks for correcting my earlier post with the right part number. I put an edit on that post to hopefully lead future readers to the correct number.

    Phil1934, After seeing your .040" over piston post my memory was refreshed. I do remember seeing those available. Now I recall that another 10 thou' wasn't enough for my block, so I put them out of mind.

    If someone is wanting a 3 key crank sprocket with the C168 chain the part # for the full set is C-3079X. It doesn't appear that 9 key sprockets are available from Cloyes to fit that chain. I didn't look up the set # with a single keyway sprocket.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018 at 1:58 PM
  25. So Beck 060 scares me because I experienced a burst cylinder on a 030+ merc 470. Short of winding the cylinder with piano wire you may need to fill the water jacket completely with Hardblock to get some support for the thin cylinder walls. I think it would be ok for your pulling as the engine will not run very long at a time. A more difficult(is it even possible?) option would be to cut the cylinder away and machine the block for wet sleeves (support would also have to be welded in at the top for them.)
    The machinist was trying to do a precision job for a boat motor and bored the other three .005 beyond where he should have stopped (4.390) but the worst is 9.5 thousandths beyond 4.390 .
    I showed him the compression ring end gap 42 thousandths and he said "that sucks" and offered to rebore the block (for free) to any piston fit I want.
    Pistons allegedly come sized from the factory to work in standard overbores. But the accuracy depends on the manufacturer.

    Thanks Beck and Phil for your replies
    I still do not know has anyone successfully run a 040 over bored Mercruiser 470?
     
  26. drtrcrV-8
    Joined: Jan 6, 2013
    Posts: 752

    drtrcrV-8
    Member

    This is not a plug for any particular Company, but has anyone considered either DARTON SLEEVE out of Carlsbad,CA or L.A. SLEEVE out of Santa Fe Springs, CA as ways to address this "thin wall" problem? Especially if the block is modified to be a "closed top" instead of the production "open top", it should be no problem to bore & install a thicker wall "free standing sleeve" of reasonable oversize(or back to std, for that matter), as it would have location support by the "closing" of the top of the block. Several years ago I say a story in one of the magazines where an early LS-1 motor was bored out to make a 427 by boring cylinders 1 &3 on each side , inserting the sleeves, then boring cyls 2 & 4 & installing their sleeves. This was done to give some location support to the boring & sleeving operation which would not have been there if they had just bored all 4 holes on each side then attempted to install the sleeves. Actually it was rather clever of them to retain location support in that way!! It did end up with a very definitely "Siameezed" block in 3 places on each side, but did hold up to produce some impressive Dyno Numbers!
     
  27. There is a dry sleeve that should simply press in but the bore would then be so small to be a significant disadvantage.
    Mercruiser sleeves, being cast together, have mutual support from each-other. ( making winding on external wire support impossible.) Stanley Steamer boiler were all wound with piano wire the story is that the factory tested one without the wire and it burst.

    I have Alis Chalmers wet sleeves which could be flanged out to meet the water jacket but they are so thick that close Mercruiser bore spacing makes a fit difficult at best.

    Perhaps there is more to gain by just filling the water jacket. Ideally, the fill would have strength to add to the cylinders. Epoxy has some tensile strength but softens when hot. Cement has little tensile strength. so neither is ideal.
     
  28. beck
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Posts: 146

    beck
    Member

    I talked with LA Sleeve over a year ago. They did have an "on the shelf" sleeve that could be modified to work with the 3.7, or they could make a custom sleeve for it. The "on the shelf" sleeve was much cheaper but would require more machine work. If I recall it was too long and would require flats added to the sides.

    I don't think this is a reasonable priced fix for anyone wanting to stay with near stock bores. The only time I see this as being an alternative is if the builder was wanting to make maximum cubic inches. The bore size could be opened up to the 4.5 to 4.6" sizing with those sleeves. It would be much cheaper to purchase a different engine than put the sleeves and top deck on your current block.
     
  29. beck
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Posts: 146

    beck
    Member

    I am planning to build my block that has the + .060 bore. Only time will tell how it holds up. My motor will be a short run time competition setup. I am considering (not yet purchased) Speed Pro/TRW .400" domed pistons. I will be running methanol for fuel so the high compression would work for me. This will put a lot more stress on my cylinder walls. With my smaller chamber aftermarket heads I expect the compression ratio to be about 11 to 11.5.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2017
  30. please explain "flats added to the sides".
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2013 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.