65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

If you find an engine, tranny, buck tag, build sheet, or any other documentation with a K VIN, post it here so it can hopefully be reunited with its Kar. You can also make an 'In Search Of' post with the VIN you're hoping to find.

65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby livetoride60 » Wed May 08, 2013 1:56 pm

Posted in Parts at link below:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1833
'65 K code Fastback, 4sp, San Jose
'66 C code Coupe, C4, Dearborn
'67 Fairlane Convertible, 3sp, 200 I6
User avatar
livetoride60
RidiKulous
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 11:52 am

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby GregS » Wed May 08, 2013 4:11 pm

.060 over. You can see the pistons from the outside. :)
Greg
65 2+2 GT, Purchased in June 65
User avatar
GregS
Kommitted
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:18 pm

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby proudKowner » Thu May 09, 2013 8:51 pm

What's the max a K block can be over bored?
proudKowner
Kommitted
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby C6ZZKGT » Thu May 09, 2013 9:36 pm

What's the max a K block can be over bored?


If you base things on the Ford parts manual, the Hipo 289 is the only 289 that does not have oversize pistons or undersize rod bearings available from Ford motor company. The engines were intended to run standard size only. I would think that would give the block more rigidity and integrity as well. All that said, I have been involved in Hipo 289 engines that are .060 oversize with undersize rod bearings and there were no obvious issues such as overheating. The engines were both raced and street driven for many thousands of miles.

I am sure that there are horror stories out there as well but I have not lived any of them.

-Fred-
66 K GT Fastback Silver Frost / Black Pony Interior
66 K GT Fastback Signal Flare Red / Black Pony Interior
65 K Coupe Phoenician Yellow / Black Standard Interior
65 A Code 4 speed Ranchero
64 289 4 Speed Falcon Sedan Delivery
66 Corvette 427 Roadster
User avatar
C6ZZKGT
Klassic
 
Posts: 7539
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:35 am
Location: Canyon Country, California

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby FXguy » Thu May 09, 2013 11:19 pm

proudKowner wrote:What's the max a K block can be over bored?


I had a block sleeved and over-bored .060. I have known other gear-heads that have run custom pistons well beyond .060. I had a sonic test done to determine that the block was suited to .060 first, and I had the work done by a shop/machinist that has done many of these operations. If you are trying to save a matching numbers block, sometimes you have to push limits and spend some extra money. Just find someone that has real documented experience.


-Scott
User avatar
FXguy
Kommitted
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:12 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby zray » Fri May 10, 2013 6:28 am

FXguy wrote:
proudKowner wrote:What's the max a K block can be over bored?


I had a block sleeved and over-bored .060. ......"


-Scott


just curious about the details. If you had to have it sleeved, why not not just go back to stock bore ?

Z.
zray
LunatiK
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:07 pm

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby FXguy » Fri May 10, 2013 11:15 am

zray wrote:
FXguy wrote:
proudKowner wrote:What's the max a K block can be over bored?


I had a block sleeved and over-bored .060. ......"


-Scott


just curious about the details. If you had to have it sleeved, why not not just go back to stock bore ?

Z.


The problem was that 6 of the 8 were severely rust pitted. The one that we ended up sleeving wouldn't clean up even at .060.

-Scott
User avatar
FXguy
Kommitted
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:12 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby zray » Fri May 10, 2013 6:03 pm

The cylinder sleeving process I'm familiar with always brings the cylinder bore back to the original size. If I was trying to save a valuable block I would always have ALL the cylinders re-sleeved so the bore would be the original size on ALL cylinders.

Of course this is not cheap.

Z.
zray
LunatiK
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:07 pm

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby FXguy » Fri May 10, 2013 9:45 pm

zray wrote:The cylinder sleeving process I'm familiar with always brings the cylinder bore back to the original size. If I was trying to save a valuable block I would always have ALL the cylinders re-sleeved so the bore would be the original size on ALL cylinders.

Of course this is not cheap.

Z.


True, but there is much more to think about than just having a standard bore block or saving a few bucks.

If the block was already over bored there will be a visible ridge where the sleeve bottoms if you go back to standard bore. We could have sleeved every cylinder and every cylinder would have the ridge. I preferred to see a nice smooth cylinder wall top to bottom, and know that we were minimizing the probability of any future mishap that might render the block completely useless. There are some thermodynamic and related structural concerns about sleeving an entire block, because you are removing much more of the original iron from block than if you just overbore. In the end with just overboring you are left with much more of the original iron and one piece structure of block. To me, I'd rather have more of the original iron at .060 than have standard bore with different type metal sleeves making up much more of the remaining block.

Most importantly we didn't want to lose the assembly date stamp and the original machining marks on the deck surface that protrudes from under the head. Had we sleeved every cylinder, we would've had to surface the deck on both sides, risking that the date would be wiped and certainly removing the original machining marks. We measured deck height and found that both sides were still well in spec, and instead of surfacing the deck on the side where the sleeve went, my engine guy meticulously filed the top of the sleeve and deck area immediately adjacent. Of the hundreds of restorations he's done only a few wackos like me where willing to go this route to preserve the original appearance of the decks that no one will ever see again - (uh yeah, very labor intensive even for one cylinder, to ensure no blown head gasket/leaks).

Still, it was a difficult choice for a purist such as myself - I really wanted to put std bore NOS pistons in. We took a very long time to decide what the best approach was, considering lots of factors in addition to the above before going this route. The motor is built to original compression with forged pistons. All other components are NOS or original. The goal was to rebuild the engine so it was the most original and felt to the driver like it did back in 1964, without having any unnecessary worries about blowing up if we decided to take it out and run it hard.

-Scott
User avatar
FXguy
Kommitted
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:12 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby SixT5HiPo » Sat May 11, 2013 12:04 am

FXguy wrote:True, but there is much more to think about than just having a standard bore block or saving a few bucks.

The goal was to rebuild the engine so it was the most original and felt to the driver like it did back in 1964, without having any unnecessary worries about blowing up if we decided to take it out and run it hard.

-Scott


Very interesting, Scott.
User avatar
SixT5HiPo
Enforcer!
 
Posts: 8245
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:17 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby zray » Sat May 11, 2013 3:28 am

FXguy wrote:
zray wrote:The cylinder sleeving process I'm familiar with always brings the cylinder bore back to the original size. If I was trying to save a valuable block I would always have ALL the cylinders re-sleeved so the bore would be the original size on ALL cylinders.

Of course this is not cheap.

Z.


True, but there is much more to think about than just having a standard bore block or saving a few bucks"................................." To me, I'd rather have more of the original iron at .060 than have standard bore with different type metal sleeves making up much more of the remaining block.................."

-Scott[/quote

this is the main point where we see the same thing differently. I have experienced too much difficulty over the years with small block Fords that had overheating issues with over-bores over 0.30". From my limited perspective, sleeving every cylinder, although there are indeed the risks you mention, offers more reliability and longevity.

But like you say, there are drawbacks with re-sleeving that have to weighed. Additionally you seemed to be in a situation where you were faced with multiple goals and requirements, making the decision process a very complicated affair indeed !

Z.
zray
LunatiK
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:07 pm

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby C6ZZKGT » Sat May 11, 2013 9:18 am

Here is an interesting insight into sleeving only 2 cylinders that are side by side. I also realize that I am speaking of a BB Chevy but the same can apply to any engine. When I ran the machine shop at Valley Head Service we tried to discourage sleeving of adjacent cylinders for the following reason. Keep in mind that BB Chevies are noted for their ability to accept fairly large overbores such as .125 and more. The particular block in this example is a 65 Hipo BB chevy which are the ones that accept even larger overbores safely.

When you sleeve adjacent cylinders you are weakening not only the bore itself but also, but very importantly, the deck surface. If the deck no longer has the structural rigidity of a strong bore casting, the deck can raise up off of the sleeve causing warpage of the head sealing surface. The sleeve will appear to have sunk in the cylider but only between the adjacent sleeved cylinders. What is actually taking place does not immediately come to mind. When the fuel mixture fires it is forcing the piston down the cylinder as the piston has the least resistance to movement. You would think that the head is pretty solid being as it is bolted to the block and is relatively heavy. What happens is that the head is trying to lift off of the block and the attaching points of the head bolts become lifting points for the deck surface. On a street lower performance engine this would not be as much of a factor but with higher horsepower engines the results are more dramatic. Sleeving all of the cylinders will even more aggravate the situation.

I had a friend with a 428 CJ car that he raced and he used 427 cross bolt blocks for strength for his racing. He would sleeve all of the cylinders back to a standard 428 bore size. It worked well for him as the bore size of a standard 427 is much larger than a standard 428 so he did not lose the integrity of the cylinder casting.

Our Hipo 289 engines are more of an issue as the blocks are thin wall castings and were never meant for large overbores such as necessary for sleeving.

-Fred-
66 K GT Fastback Silver Frost / Black Pony Interior
66 K GT Fastback Signal Flare Red / Black Pony Interior
65 K Coupe Phoenician Yellow / Black Standard Interior
65 A Code 4 speed Ranchero
64 289 4 Speed Falcon Sedan Delivery
66 Corvette 427 Roadster
User avatar
C6ZZKGT
Klassic
 
Posts: 7539
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:35 am
Location: Canyon Country, California

Re: 65 Hipo Short Block VIN 5F09K725851

Postby zray » Sat May 11, 2013 1:43 pm

I agree that re-sleeving all cylinders is not "desirable". But In my experience, it is often the best of several bad choices. I've never had a re-sleeved engine come apart. But have had issues of overheating with 289 block over-bores of more than 0.030". So I try to avoid that situation.

Z.
zray
LunatiK
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:07 pm


Return to Lost and Found

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest