351 Cleveland 2-V recreation

So, has anyone here tried to recreate this one (Ford 351 Cleveland, 2-barrel carb)?
I tried with extremely limited success, as torque figures seem to be off the chart compared to power (see here for reference: https://www.automobile-catalog.com/curve/1977/992345/ford_falcon_gs_hardtop_gt_power_pack_automatic.html)
Namely:
217 HP@4500 RPM
429 Nm@2700 RPM
The declared specs of the engine (the ones that must be observed) are:
Year: 1969 - 1970
bore x stroke: 101.9 x 88.9 mm
block & head: Cast Iron
head & valves: pushrod, 2 valves
crank: Cast Iron
conrods: Forged
compression: 9.0 (this is the early variant)
fuel system: single 2-barrel carb
fuel type: regular
RPM limit: 5000
exhaust: dual

Everything else is unclear, so I would say can be whatever.
The closest I got in terms of a curve was 219 HP @ 5000 RPM and 373.2 Nm @ 2400 RPM (which is still far away from the 429 Nm of the original engine).

Do you think it is even possible to more or less faithfully recreate this engine?

1 Like

Before anyone tries to remake this engine, I’ll list a couple of caveats: The quoted power figure is most likely given in SAE net horsepower, not gross horsepower, and the latter doesn’t take into account the effect of accessories that reduce the power output when attached to the engine.

Also, is the regular fuel of the unleaded variety or not?

Unleaded, though you can as well try the RON 91…it will just yield worse results.

Really? Unleaded in Oz in 69? Do you not remember being driven around in lead-spewing monsters until '86, in some cases much later?

Even my injected 4.1L '84 XE had a fit when I ran it once on ULP way back in '96.

@Raufbold, it’ll take a bit of testing. As ABG said, gross figures. Personally, I allow 10% on top of what Automation says, just as a rule of thumb.
Why are you mixing Hp and Nm, why not KW and Nm (or, conversely, Hp and Lb-Ft), make it easy for us dinosaurs in the forum.

In some places that’s the default set of units. IDK where Raufbold is from, but this is the case for example in Poland, where I live.

oops, my bad - I meant to say leaded - I used L92.

As for the units - that’s how it’s set up in my game, primarily because historically values like hp are easier to find than kW, and I wanted to avoid conversion… and I use Nm as a metric person :slight_smile:

From my experience with Automation, you might need to try increasing top-end quality on pushrod engines to replicate American engines. I don’t know how much you were using, but, I’ve heard anywhere from +5 quality to +10 quality to match what we were doing back in the 60’s. That said, I’ve also seen that some engines, no matter how hard you try, will not line up well in Automation.

3 Likes

it looks like this is one of them. Even with abg7’s comment about gross HP being higher, it is still almost impossible to achieve this level of torque at 2700 RPM with this engine.