Best Cleveland style heads?

[Rusty67]

Come on guys, the reality is that all the auto companies out there steal designs from each other by espionage or reverse engineering. I know Mike likes to ruffle our feathers some times but he has a point.

 

[Gud T.B. Blown]

Come on guys, the reality is that all the auto companies out there steal designs from each other by espionage or reverse engineering. I know Mike likes to ruffle our feathers some times but he has a point.

Then he needs to start his own thread in the talk section. The topic of this thread is "Best Cleveland style heads", not "Chevy first put a canted valve head on the BBC first."
My vote, btw, is for the CHI 3V, followed by their 4V street head.

 

[BlueBossS197]

CHI is what I will most likely the heads I will go with. I still have to wrestle with what CI the motor will be and what CR to run along with a cam.

 

[BlueBossS197]

Come on guys, the reality is that all the auto companies out there steal designs from each other by espionage or reverse engineering. I know Mike likes to ruffle our feathers some times but he has a point.

I also don't mind all the input and history thrown out in this thread. It always makes for an interesting read, whether it be Cheby or Blue Oval stuff

 

[bnickel]

CHI is what I will most likely the heads I will go with. I still have to wrestle with what CI the motor will be and what CR to run along with a cam.

for a road race motor i'd seriously think about leaving it at 351ci. (357 with .030 overbore) it'll come off the corners cleaner at higher rpm and not want to overpower the tires as much as a 408. but i guess if you built the 408 right you could kill some of that torque, but that wouldn't be the best solution IMO.

 

[mikethebike]

It's tough to say you're the best when you have to either make certain (Cleveland) stock cast iron heads illegal or add a greater weight penalty to people who use them.

Mike is such a troll; he must have had a tough Easter because almost every post on this thread was either an insult to Ford stuff, incorrect on the facts or both.

The facts? try this..1976..Pro Stock...'c' motor had to spot the BBC 38 CID at the same weight (assuming 351 cid)...did that stop Glidden...NO. Now go back to 1972...426 HEMI..10 Lb/per ci...SBC/Cleveland....9 lbs/per ci. Every time a HEMI won a race they added 100 lbs. total vehicle weight.

I hate to say it but I'm beginning to believe what a freind said about NASCAR years ago..and I quote:

"NASCAR looks at the cars in the parking lot of the races, estimates which brand accounts for most of the cars and THAT is the brand they favor. It's all about the money."

But on the street in the 60/70's when you had to spend YOUR money, the BBC was king. Because Chevy made sure the good parts were available AND affordable for the guy who worked for a living. Quite unlike the other guys.



And, Hack...YOU are old enough to KNOW that...even if you won't admit it.

 

[180 Out]

The facts? try this..1976..Pro Stock...'c' motor had to spot the BBC 38 CID at the same weight (assuming 351 cid)...did that stop Glidden...NO. Now go back to 1972...426 HEMI..10 Lb/per ci...SBC/Cleveland....9 lbs/per ci. Every time a HEMI won a race they added 100 lbs. total vehicle weight.

I hate to say it but I'm beginning to believe what a freind said about NASCAR years ago..and I quote:

"NASCAR looks at the cars in the parking lot of the races, estimates which brand accounts for most of the cars and THAT is the brand they favor. It's all about the money."

But on the street in the 60/70's when you had to spend YOUR money, the BBC was king. Because Chevy made sure the good parts were available AND affordable for the guy who worked for a living. Quite unlike the other guys.

And, Hack...YOU are old enough to KNOW that...even if you won't admit it.

The thing about these arguments about who did what 30 and 40 years ago is that those who have been doing it for that long have gotten a lot of practice, adding little bits of favorable trivia as they go, and ignoring the unfavorable ones. I have to ask, though, who cares what Chevy did for the guy on the street between 196x and 197x, compared to Ford, Dodge, Plymouth, AMC, Buick, Oldsmobile or Pontiac? Who cares what NASCAR did, or NHRA, 35 years ago, or why they did it? Such generalities are meaningless to us here in 2008.

And what about the '80's and '90's, when it was the Ford 5.0 alone that kept the flame of late model performance alive? The era of the 5.0 is a longer period than this earlier 10-year era of supposed Chevy beneficence, and one whose effects continue to live on today.

What about today? Chevy killed its only working man's performance car, the Cambird, what? about five years ago. Pontiac overpriced the GTO then killed it after only three model years. Meanwhile, Ford has been rolling out the V8 Mustangs nonstop. Chevy's bringing back the Crapmaro, sure, but look for the Z28 model to sticker for a $30K base price, and as always its performance will be artificially limited to avoid making the Vette look bad. Also, those big 5.7 and 6.0's are inevitably very thirsty. I will not be surprised if the Z tanks after an initial splash of 12 months or so. Emasculation and cancellation will surely follow. And Ford? The V8 Mustangs will continue to roll out, just as they have done for the past 43 years. Now that's doing something for the guy on the street.

 

[brianj5600]

But on the street in the 60/70's when you had to spend YOUR money, the BBC was king. Because Chevy made sure the good parts were available AND affordable for the guy who worked for a living. Quite unlike the other guys.

I was too young to drive in the 60/70's, but in the 80's I started. My first street racing car was BBC Chevelle. People thought like you. It was hard to get a race even though the car only ran 12's. It was ALL stock, but everyone was scared of it. I ended up building a MustangII with a 306 and no one took it serious at first even though it idled at 1200rpm's, had an 8 point bar and slicks. It ran 10.70's and looked like a race car. The exact same people that were afraid of the Chevelle wanted to spot my lowly MII. I beat plenty of BBC's. Was it because I made more power, I seriously doubt it. It is kind of hard to fit a BBC in a small light car. I bet my car was 500-800 pounds lighter than most of them. I loved the BBC is king mentality.

There was only one "fastest" car. It was a BBC, but this guy did not have a working mans budget. The working mans cars that were fast...2 nitrous Clevelands in 67-68 Mustang coupe bodies and a nitrous first gen Camaro with a BBC. Those cars ran low 10's or high 9's.

 

[mikethebike]

I was too young to drive in the 60/70's, but in the 80's I started. My first street racing car was BBC Chevelle. People thought like you. It was hard to get a race even though the car only ran 12's. It was ALL stock, but everyone was scared of it. I ended up building a MustangII with a 306 and no one took it serious at first even though it idled at 1200rpm's, had an 8 point bar and slicks. It ran 10.70's and looked like a race car. The exact same people that were afraid of the Chevelle wanted to spot my lowly MII. I beat plenty of BBC's. Was it because I made more power, I seriously doubt it. It is kind of hard to fit a BBC in a small light car. I bet my car was 500-800 pounds lighter than most of them. I loved the BBC is king mentality.

There was only one "fastest" car. It was a BBC, but this guy did not have a working mans budget. The working mans cars that were fast...2 nitrous Clevelands in 67-68 Mustang coupe bodies and a nitrous first gen Camaro with a BBC. Those cars ran low 10's or high 9's.

My 1966 SS/427 ran 11.80's on street tires and weighed 4k. I know of plenty of 68/69/70 Nova's that weighed right at 3000 with 494 cid engines. I'll bet no stock 390cid Fairlane could run with your Chevelle and I'd also bet your Chevelle was a 325 horse model. Am I close?
We didn't have 'bottle-babys' back then. No turbos or blowers. ALL MOTOR, true 4-speed cars.
But a friend of mine did build (on a salary of around $12,00.00 in 1975) a 69 Z/28 (true Z) with a 1/8" offset ground 350 crank,.030 overbore, solid roller with a 250 hp nitrous shot hidden in the heater hoses to sprayers under the manifold and the bottle hidden inside the heater box.
All those BB anything down in Columbia, SC just couldn't believe a matching number 302 Z/28 could do that in 1975. The car payed for itself.
Do you know of any factory head 3200 lb 287 cid all motor clutch car that would run 10.20 in 1975 and pass NHRA inspection? I'll find the pictures of Dan Perrins Modified Eliminator Z/28 that did just that.
I'm not taking away credit frpm Ford for what they did in the 80's. But they were going to cancel the rwd car and use the Probe...remember? Wasen't it Donald Peterson who listened to his hate mail and stopped it?
And just so you will know..no STOCK 95 Mustang EVER got by my 95 Z/28. I do believe it was a DOHC 4-valve motor that they needed to MAYBE beat an LT-1. And from what I experienced the driver had more to do with the outcome of those encounters than the cars.
But why am I wasting my not so good typing skills on guys who don't believe the truth. Go to NHRA and look at the records.

 

[brianj5600]

AA/S 9.90 135.29 02/02/08 Robert Pond - Riverside, CA
'67 Ford Las Vegas, NV
A/S 9.88 133.83 10/30/06 Steve Ficacci - East Hanover, NJ
'68 Chevy Atco, NJ
B/S 10.17 130.76 10/30/06 Tom Baird - Blue Point, NY
'69 Chevy Atco, NJ
C/S 10.40 128.11 01/02/07 Don Keen - Palmdale, CA
'69 Ford Las Vegas, NV
D/S 10.60 125.56 02/02/08 Curtis Coulter - Las Vegas, NV
'69 Mercury Las Vegas, NV
E/S 10.66 124.22 10/30/06 Dean Cook - West Warwick, RI
'71 Ford Atco, NJ
F/S 10.89 119.40 03/30/07 Donald Fardie - Lakeville, MA
'67 Chevrolet Atco, NJ
G/S 10.98 121.12 11/05/06 Rod Greene - Dunlap, TN
'72 Dodge Las Vegas, NV
H/S 11.80 0.00 03/25/08 Minimum
I/S 12.00 0.00 02/26/08 Minimum
J/S 11.12 119.60 08/22/06 Tony Hernandez - Denver, CO
'65 Chevy Acton, MT
K/S 11.59 112.62 10/13/07 Bob Gipson - Port Byron, IL
'65 Chevy Indianapolis, IN
L/S 12.50 0.00 03/25/08 Minimum
M/S 12.06 108.45 10/13/07 Jimmy Gower - Leitchfield, KY
'65 Chevrolet Indianapolis, IN
N/S 12.33 10/12/07 Bill Dyer - Port Byron, IL
'85 Ford Indianapolis, IN
N/S 106.01 10/14/06 Gary Summers - Franklin, KY
'85 Mustang Indianapolis, IN
O/S 12.25 106.41 10/13/07 Gary Summers - Franklin, KY
'85 Ford Indianapolis, IN
P/S 12.58 105.31 03/25/07 Jamie Summers - Franklin, KY
'85 Ford Millington, TN
Q/S 13.45 0.00 10/02/01 Minimum
R/S 13.75 0.00 08/27/02 Minimum
T/S 13.38 98.92 05/15/06 Paul Wong - Las Vegas, NV
'65 Ply Belvedere Eagle, ID
U/S 13.94 96.09 03/10/07 Mark Yacavone - Glendale, AZ
'80 Ford Tucson, AZ
V/S 14.45 94.24 04/25/07 Mark Yacavone - Glendale, AZ
'80 Ford Las Vegas, NV
W/S 15.83 82.27 07/13/07 Ellis Buth - Warrensburg, IL
'76 Pinto Madison, IL
AA/SA 9.71 134.24 03/08/08 Bobby De Armond - Gallup, NM
'69 Chevrolet Tucson, AZ
A/SA 9.93 132.78 07/11/06 Joe Sorensen - Woodburn, OR
'69 Chev Camaro Woodburn, OR
B/SA 10.18 126.97 05/11/07 Charlie Smith - Modesto, CA
'69 Dodge Eagle, ID
C/SA 10.33 11/05/06 Gene Buell - Hesperia, CA
'70 Dodge Las Vegas, NV
C/SA 126.51 10/30/06 Gary Richard - Bay Shore, NY
'69 Chevy Atco, NJ
D/SA 11.35 0.00 02/26/08 Minimum
E/SA 10.64 122.96 03/30/07 Tex Miller - Fayetteville, PA
'71 Ford Atco, NJ
F/SA 10.69 122.86 03/08/08 Leo Glasbrenner - San Dimas, CA
'68 Pontiac Tucson, AZ
G/SA 10.97 118.32 10/30/06 Jim Marshall - Scottsville, NY
'80 Chevy Atco, NJ
H/SA 11.11 10/14/06 Tony Goodman - Zeeland, MI
'77 Firebird Indianapolis, IN
H/SA 116.60 07/25/06 Ron Mattson - Cloquet, MN
'72 Chevy Camaro Great Bend, KS
I/SA 11.25 115.92 10/30/06 Bob Horgan - Tyngsboro, MA
'85 Chevy Atco, NJ
J/SA 11.38 116.47 05/15/06 Tommy Gaynor - Vancouver, WA
'85 Chevy Camaro Eagle, ID
K/SA 11.61 114.34 05/15/06 Bill Kost - Renton, WA
'77 Olds Cutlass Eagle, ID
L/SA 12.14 108.18 03/01/08 Sammy La Porte - New Iberia, LA
'87 Pontiac Belle Rose, LA
M/SA 11.78 02/17/07 Thomas Moock - Eagle, NE
'81 Chevrolet Baytown, TX
M/SA 110.11 11/05/06 Don Forester - Riverside, CA
'80 Oldsmobile Las Vegas, NV
N/SA 11.95 110.53 05/15/06 Don Forester - Riverside, CA
'80 Olds Delta 88 Eagle, ID
O/SA 12.15 108.71 03/09/08 Donald Sarrett - Hartville, OH
'81 Pontiac Tucson, AZ
P/SA 12.17 109.72 03/09/08 Chris Denton - Chandler, AZ
'80 Pontiac Tucson, AZ
Q/SA 13.60 0.00 08/01/06 Minimum
R/SA 13.85 0.00 05/03/05 Minimum
T/SA 13.52 95.48 10/30/06 Ed Fernandez - Old Bridge, NJ
'77 AMC Atco, NJ
U/SA 13.77 95.96 04/03/07 Clayton Wright - Newportville, PA
'65 Plymouth Atco, NJ
V/SA 15.30 0.00 03/25/08 Minimum
W/SA 16.45 0.00 06/28/06 Minimum
AF/S 13.65 0.00 02/08/05 Minimum
BF/S 13.97 94.14 10/14/06 Bill Owen - Grand Blanc, MI
'00 Pontiac Indianapolis, IN
CF/S 14.40 92.94 06/14/07 Bill Owen - Grand Blanc, MI
'00 Pontiac Joliet, IL
DF/S 15.40 0.00 03/13/06 Minimum
EF/S 16.25 80.71 10/13/07 Steve Polhill - London, ON
'82 Ford Indianapolis, IN

4 of the fastest 6 are Fords. I would hardly call that Chevy dominance.

 

[Hack]

The facts? try this..1976..Pro Stock...'c' motor had to spot the BBC 38 CID at the same weight (assuming 351 cid)...did that stop Glidden...NO. Now go back to 1972...426 HEMI..10 Lb/per ci...SBC/Cleveland....9 lbs/per ci. Every time a HEMI won a race they added 100 lbs. total vehicle weight.

I hate to say it but I'm beginning to believe what a freind said about NASCAR years ago..and I quote:

"NASCAR looks at the cars in the parking lot of the races, estimates which brand accounts for most of the cars and THAT is the brand they favor. It's all about the money."

But on the street in the 60/70's when you had to spend YOUR money, the BBC was king. Because Chevy made sure the good parts were available AND affordable for the guy who worked for a living. Quite unlike the other guys.



And, Hack...YOU are old enough to KNOW that...even if you won't admit it.

Ha ha, I may "read" older than I am, but I was born in the late 60s (old enough now, but not old enough in the 60s or 70s, that's for sure). I always thought that Chivy was more common and cheaper, but that's part of why I like Ford. I really didn't and don't follow drag racing.

My post above about weight penalties was referring to 351 Cleveland's NHRA super stock weight penalty versus the 350 Chivy and 340 Dodge. I remember someone posting that information and a link to the NHRA's web site a year or two ago. Also, many small circle tracks put a big penalty or outlaw the 4V Cleveland.

It does help to switch arguments - but I was comparing small blocks to each other - not to a Hemi or some such. The Hemi is a good motor, I won't take anything away from it. Since you brought it up though, remember that some people were going to use the Boss 429 for Top Fuel racing and the NHRA promptly made the motor illegal to use! I don't think they did it because the Hemi was superior and the Boss 429 could never beat it! Anyway, most race engines bear little resemblance to any factory build. IMO the factories would be foolish to actually attempt to make their standard offerings as fast as possible. That's for the aftermarket and for people like you and I. In my opinion the factory should be about making money. The great thing about the Cleveland head is the great breathing potential, it's much better than the 60s and 70s SBC heads.

Also remember that Nascar made the Ford SOHC motors illegal. Nascar always seemed to be anti Ford to me. When Ford made an engine the others couldn't beat, the rules were changed to stop them.

By the time I bought my first car it was the mid 80s and I wanted a Mustang because I always liked them and thought they were cool. Camaros and Generic Motors B-bodies were as common as dirt and didn't interest me. Out in ND farm country where I grew up Ford pickups were common and lots of people had Chivy cars.

 

[D.Hearne]

Around here in the early 80's there were dozens of Camaros and Fireturds hungry to prove themselves. They quickly learned to steer clear of my "lowly" 390 GT 67 Stang(even with it's stock 3 speed manual trans) . And after the 390 was replaced with the 427, I couldn't get ANYONE to race. All those loud mouths wanted to run 1/4 mile for cash, but quickly backed off when I agreed to their terms, only on the condition that we race under MY terms when done. My terms were balls to the wall 20 miles to the next town and return. EVERY ONE of those GM boys refused to run. The big block & dual fours under the hood was like pulling an "A" bomb out.

 

[BlueBossS197]

Ha ha, I may "read" older than I am, but I was born in the late 60s (old enough now, but not old enough in the 60s or 70s, that's for sure). I always thought that Chivy was more common and cheaper, but that's part of why I like Ford. I really didn't and don't follow drag racing.

My post above about weight penalties was referring to 351 Cleveland's NHRA super stock weight penalty versus the 350 Chivy and 340 Dodge. I remember someone posting that information and a link to the NHRA's web site a year or two ago. Also, many small circle tracks put a big penalty or outlaw the 4V Cleveland.

It does help to switch arguments - but I was comparing small blocks to each other - not to a Hemi or some such. The Hemi is a good motor, I won't take anything away from it. Since you brought it up though, remember that some people were going to use the Boss 429 for Top Fuel racing and the NHRA promptly made the motor illegal to use! I don't think they did it because the Hemi was superior and the Boss 429 could never beat it! Anyway, most race engines bear little resemblance to any factory build. IMO the factories would be foolish to actually attempt to make their standard offerings as fast as possible. That's for the aftermarket and for people like you and I. In my opinion the factory should be about making money. The great thing about the Cleveland head is the great breathing potential, it's much better than the 60s and 70s SBC heads.

Also remember that Nascar made the Ford SOHC motors illegal. Nascar always seemed to be anti Ford to me. When Ford made an engine the others couldn't beat, the rules were changed to stop them.

By the time I bought my first car it was the mid 80s and I wanted a Mustang because I always liked them and thought they were cool. Camaros and Generic Motors B-bodies were as common as dirt and didn't interest me. Out in ND farm country where I grew up Ford pickups were common and lots of people had Chivy cars.

It's cause the Shotguns are superior to Mopar Hemi's! That and everyone hates the Blue Oval for no reason.

Mike does have a good point with Cheby having lots of aftermarket support for our favorite car era. Alot of mopars and Fords use chevy rods and pistons because you could grind the cranks for the Chevy rods. Recently within the past decade or two, Ford and Mopar spec parts were cheaper to manufacture because aftermarket companies relaized that there was a big market to be had. I cant say what I just said is the complete truth, but it sure seems like that's how its been going.

Also D.Hearne, I will be staying within the 351-383 Ci range for my motor.

 

[Gud T.B. Blown]

It's cause the Shotguns are superior to Mopar Hemi's! That and everyone hates the Blue Oval for no reason.

Mike does have a good point with Cheby having lots of aftermarket support for our favorite car era. Alot of mopars and Fords use chevy rods and pistons because you could grind the cranks for the Chevy rods. Recently within the past decade or two, Ford and Mopar spec parts were cheaper to manufacture because aftermarket companies relaized that there was a big market to be had. I cant say what I just said is the complete truth, but it sure seems like that's how its been going.

The biggest reason Cheby parts are cheaper is because of commonality. Cheby only had two engines back in the 60', 70, 80's and into the 90's; the SBC and BBC. And they put these in literally millions of cars and trucks.
Now look at Ford. You had the SBF (don't forget the 351 with the higher deck), FE, 335 (and the higher deck 400), and 385 series with virtually no interchangablity between the series.
Can you imagine what the Cleveland could have become if it would have been in production for more than 3 years (I'm not counting the 351m or the 400)? Or if Ford would have only had 2 engine families and put all of their engineering might into them instead of 4 different families at the same time. Even doing that look what Ford came up with; the 427 side-oiler, 427 SOHC, 427 Tunnel Port, Boss 302,Boss 429, 428 CJ, and 429 SCJ just to name a few.

 

[D.Hearne]

But don't you find it funny now, with Chevy's latest offerings having more in common with a small block Ford? The LS series heads will bolt on a Windsor block with minor mods, their Nascar motor looks ALMOST EXACTLY like the Cleveland Ford, as does the Toyota Nascar engine. Looks like we've got the last laugh on the Cheby guys.

 

[mikethebike]

But don't you find it funny now, with Chevy's latest offerings having more in common with a small block Ford? The LS series heads will bolt on a Windsor block with minor mods, their Nascar motor looks ALMOST EXACTLY like the Cleveland Ford, as does the Toyota Nascar engine. Looks like we've got the last laugh on the Cheby guys.

That's assuming Ford will be around much longer...which I have my doubts. The only units they offer that make money are the Mustang (what is their follow-up) and the F truck. Hell, they were smart enough to buy Jaguar for multi BILLIONS of dollars about 15 or 16 years back without even touring the factory first. Then they found the foor leaked onto the assembly line, they poured billions into they and never made a dimes profit. Then they bought Volvo for Christs sake...same no profit result, then they were smart enough to buy Rover from BMW after BMW said pubilicly they could not turn a profit on them. They still have not gotten it.
And what part of Chevy built the canted valve head 4 years before Ford do you not get? Does the new Chevy have only 4 head bolts around each cylinder or 5?

And Hack...I remember when I first joined nthis forum you saying yo were around 59 years old and I posted a reply that sombody eles here was older than I.

 

[D.Hearne]

That's assuming Ford will be around much longer...which I have my doubts. The only units they offer that make money are the Mustang (what is their follow-up) and the F truck. Hell, they were smart enough to buy Jaguar for multi BILLIONS of dollars about 15 or 16 years back without even touring the factory first. Then they found the foor leaked onto the assembly line, they poured billions into they and never made a dimes profit. Then they bought Volvo for Christs sake...same no profit result, then they were smart enough to buy Rover from BMW after BMW said pubilicly they could not turn a profit on them. They still have not gotten it.
And what part of Chevy built the canted valve head 4 years before Ford do you not get? Does the new Chevy have only 4 head bolts around each cylinder or 5?

And Hack...I remember when I first joined nthis forum you saying yo were around 59 years old and I posted a reply that sombody eles here was older than I.

In case you didn't know, Ford sold Jaguar and Land Rover today. And the New Chevys have 4 head bolts per cylinder.(I guess you're not as up to date on these engines, or you'd have known that ) What part of "Chevy heads will bolt onto a Ford Windsor block" didn't YOU understand ? And what took Chevy so long to realize the benefit of using canted valve heads on a small block ? HUH? And moving the distributor to the front of the cam, where it's not affected by cam twist? How about finally learning to space the intake and exhaust runners apart (like Ford did) Or learning to change the firing order to the "Windsor" F/O? (in case you hadn't heard, the SBC/BBC F/O is the same as Ford's older F/O, just the cylinder numbering is different) And if the SBC and BBC's were so superior, why'd Chevy kill both? Your best tactics here are either "baffle em with B.S." or "change the subject" What's your problem, can't you concentrate on a single arguement, or is this due to your A.D.D.?

 

[Rusty67]

TAKE IT TO TALK. <---- that is a PERIOD

 

[Hack]

And Hack...I remember when I first joined nthis forum you saying yo were around 59 years old and I posted a reply that sombody eles here was older than I.

Goes to show you how good your memory is. No wonder the "car facts" you post sometimes make me think.

I'm 40.

 

[NasaGT]

Hell, they were smart enough to buy Jaguar for multi BILLIONS of dollars about 15 or 16 years back without even touring the factory first. Then they found the foor leaked onto the assembly line, they poured billions into they and never made a dimes profit. Then they bought Volvo for Christs sake...same no profit result, then they were smart enough to buy Rover from BMW after BMW said pubilicly they could not turn a profit on them. They still have not gotten it.

News flash - sometimes companies buy other companies with no expectations of making money. They buy them for intellectual property rights, patent rights, engineering plans, etc. They transfer ownership of patent rights and other items to the parent company, and then they sell the company, or sell off the pieces.