modern 5.2 FI roller engine cylinder ridge ?

Yes, if you think for one minute that casting processes don't improve over time, you got another thing comin. The quality of the actual process has improved, but I would be very surprised to see some kind of high nickel content anything. Before anybody disagrees with that again, stop and think for a moment just how expensive nickel is. Nickel welding rod ain't cheap. Mass production of cars is all about saving money and cutting corners.

A little bit about blocks from 440 Source.

Btw don't forget the magnums use low tension rings besides they being thinner.

"There was also an article from Mopar Action magazine by Andy Finkbeiner of AR Engineering in which they sonic check 20 blocks and come up with the same findings we did. They also explain how statistically 20 blocks is enough of a sample to estimate the rest of the 440 blocks out there. We've tested over 50 with the same results. This article also has some great info regarding hardness of the iron used, in which they find that the earlier blocks do have slightly harder cast iron, by about 10%.

Another issue is block weight, or the quantity of cast iron which is actually used in the block. Like the Mopar Action article, we have weighed many blocks and have found later blocks to weigh more, or have more cast iron in them. Since the reasoning behind thin wall blocks is that the factory used this practice in the late 70's to save money on iron (which is a known fact with SB Chevy engines), the fact that later blocks weigh more shows that Chrysler had no intention of using less iron to save money. Which is great news for us racers and performance enthusiasts.

So, the bottom line? Save and use those late model blocks. And go .060" over with 'em all day long. Also on that note, we know of several machine shops that have been going .060" with late model blocks for over 20 years with no problems."

Would that be our own @AndyF? I do believe it is.