I picked up a 64 300 for parts to use in my 215. Apparently the larger crankshafts are good for more stroke in the smaller motor. Today I was looking at the 300 crank vs its junior and now wonder what is done about the big difference at the rear, in the area of the oil seal and flywheel flange? Also, it doesnt look like there is an excessive amount of overlap between rod and main bearing journals, which will get even less after turning the mains down to 215 size. I am wondering if the modifications will leave an overly weak crank. Can someone who has set up one of these strokers calm my new worries?
NixVegaGT is using a 300 crank in his Rover block. Quote from a Britishv-8.org article. The rear of the Buick 300 crankshaft is 0.56" longer than the 215 crank it replaces. Therefore both the stock Rover and the Buick 300 flywheels will interfere with the bellhousing. The extra crankshaft length also places the flywheel ring gear out of reach of the starter. D&D Fabrication has engineered a special steel flywheel which both fits well inside the bellhousing and places the ring gear in it's proper position. This flywheel is drilled for a 10.4" Chevrolet clutch cover. I believe that there is also a special rear oil seal. There is more information in an article here.. http://www.aluminumv8.com/tech/increasedisplacement.htm
Hoffbug, thanks for the pic and link. I have been to the D and D site several times but somehow missed the stroker info. It was very helpful!
Nic is pretty far along in his build.Hopefully he can add more details. He will most likely have his engine assembled and running next spring. Now I just have to talk him into breaking it in on "applied dyno technology's" dyno I am still learning and amassing parts. I am leaning on going the route of using the Rover 4.6 crank and having it offset ground to a 3.4" stroke.. or as near as I can get to it.
As you may have figured out I am new to the 215s, although they have had my interest for 2 or 3 years. The current plan is fairly basic, with the 300 crank, .030 overbore, 300 aluminum heads and intake, and stock 300 exhaust manifolds if they will fit my application. Cam will be something concentrating on low rpm torque with peak below 5500. Do not know about rods yet, or pistons or configuration. Much left to learn. Final objective is a 230 HP with lots of low end torque. It will go into a custom 46 Ford pickup, final weight between 2500 and 2600 lbs. These motors are really cool! Dont know what Nic is building, but the dyno numbers sure would be interesting irregardless!
There was an article in Hot Rod, Car Craft, or one of the magazines from around 20 years ago where they used a Ford 2.3 turbo piston along with the 300 crank and 300 aluminum heads in a 215. The guy's last name was Baker and he was from the Seattle area. His son did the work on my mom's 62 Skylark motor, although I don't know that he was as knowledgeable as his father was. If you can find that article, I'd recommend checking it out. It may have some tips on this combo. My dad may still have the article, but I'm about to head out of town for a couple of weeks and can't get it to you before then.
My dad tried to scan a copy but it didn't come out so well. It looks like the one he had was from Hot Rod March 1985.
71 thanks for trying. I will email Hoff later and perhaps his will come thru. After looking at the TA Perf. site, it has me wondering if a 231 V-6 exhaust valve, 1.425 in, will fit into the 300 head to replace the 1.375 in. exhaust. The heads are at a shop now being cleaned and surfaced. The shop told me yesterday that the solvent stained the aluminum badly and the only real way they had to clean the stain was to bead blast. I said not to blast the heads. Maybe there is some way to buff the stains out. Definitely would like the shiny surface returned! Sure hope they didnt mess up, because the alum block was cleaned at a diff shop 3 weeks ago and it didnt have anything but nice shining surfaces.
Sounds like the machine shop isn't well educated with aluminum parts, as it does seem they might have put those heads in a regular cast iron/steel hot tank. That EATS the aluminum right up, and if you get the aluminum out of it fast enough to have something left, "stained very badly". If you bead blast the heads, take them immediately to hot water and HAND dress them with a BRILLO pad, closes up the pores of the aluminum that the blasting opens. I used the latest model Corvair valves in my aluminum 300 heads.
Hey Mike. I bought D&D's flywheel. It wasn't cheap but I think it's worth it. Well, frankly, There really isn't another option. I'm kinda digging Tony's offset grinding the 4.6L crank solution though. NICE! All internally balanced too. It also takes care of the flywheel problem. Good thinking Tony. It would still need to be turned down to the smaller main journal size. What's the stock rod journal size for the 4.6? I'm pretty sure the 231 valve is way too long. What's really weird is the 300 has the same really anemic 1.3" exhaust valves... Shrouding on the exhaust valve is a little less critical so going with something a bit bigger would be nice. The problem is these valves are a lot bigger at 1.496". Shrouding may be a problem with them. My other problem with the 300 head was the way the chamber overlapped the 3.5" bore a little. Most guys who do the stroker don't mind and I don't have any data to contribute here as to whether or not it matters. It just seems like it would... I've heard of some guys using Corvair valves. I'm using VW exhaust valves from Manley. The tough part there is the guides need to be bushed for smaller valve stems. You do get a flow advantage by going with a smaller dia stem though. Nice valves. Here's a link to my head build page: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2357894/2
The Rover 4.6 crank mains are 2.5", the rod journals are 2.1875" and the stock stroke is 3.22". Apparently it can be offset ground to just short of 3.4" I just have to figure out what to do with the extra long crank snout.
Nix, that workup of yours has some great information. It will take a couple visits to digest though. Nice heads!
You need to stop over and get with these guys. They know everything: http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Affordable-Stroker-V8.htm http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Porting-Buick-300-Heads.htm http://www.britishv8.org/MG/MichaelDomanowski.htm http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Buick-Crank-Pilot-Bush.htm http://www.britishv8.org/British-V8-Back-Issues.htm Greg
No doubt, Greg. I'm a new member there... Those are some really great articles. I actually didn't know a couple of them were there! Peep the forum if you get a chance: http://forum.britishv8.org/list.php?6 BTW ever since we talked about your buddies engine dyno, Tony, it went on my list as a "must do". SO I'm certain I'm doing that. It will help me tune the carb and I can find out what I've built.
As far as I am aware, the D&D flywheel is done for them by Trans-Dapt, here in California. These are the same people that make their bell housings. I use the P76 crankshaft exclusively. It doesn't take much to get the mains down to the right size, and I can buy cranks with some scoring on the mains, and not have issues with them, because they need to be cut down. I also use the Rover 4.9/4.6 blocks, simply because they are superior to the Buick blocks, and they only need a light bore/hone to get them out to take Chevy 305 pistons. I also bore the block to take a set of standard 300 Buick main bearings, and the P76 rear seal. This combination makes a nice 309 cu/in engine.
The motor is developing fairly quickly, maybe too much so. It needs to slow down so the checking account can catchup. The heads are finished except for installation of valve springs. Springs dont have to be too much heavier than stock so a set of stock Chevy 250 springs are on order. Will just have to see how they test at the installed height and open position. 75# on the seat and 185-200# open would probably work with the cam. The original springs are 65# on seat and 168 open. Heads were surfaced .010, which was the least they could do to get them true. Does anyone have a formula for surfacing and change in combustion chamber volume? The old Y-block heads I am used to have 1cc decrease in volume per .0055 in. in surfacing, but it doesnt seem like it would apply here. The cam is an old Crane grind, now obsolete, and is only good for 4800 rpm. It is perfect for my objectives. Intake lift .430 and Ex. .456. Duration 204 intake and 216 exhaust (I assume that is at .050). Stayed with stock 300 valves due to the cam. No sense in buying performance I cant use. The man at DandD, mark?, said that the CR with the cam should be below 10:1. So the target will be between 9.6 and 9.8:1. Newly ground 300 crank will be back in a week. Have a nice Thanksgiving!
Good info. Keep us posted. I know what you are saying about the cost. I spent 2yrs. building mine. What are you saying about the numbers 75# and 200#. is that pounds?
Yes Nix I meant pounds. Those numbers are subject to change after a little more figuring and comparison with other cams of similar grind. The exhaust side especially may be too low. Though a long ways off, the original weakened 215 springs will be used to break in the cam and then changed out. Mike
Don't get too excited guys......... The Rover 4.6 crank wont fit in the earlier 3.5 or 3.9 blocks as the counterweights are far larger than the earlier cranks. They can be offset ground and used with earlier rods in a late 4.0 or 4.6 block
