curious about SBB?????????????

Discussion in 'Small Block Tech' started by CarolinaDrifter, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. 300sbb_overkill

    300sbb_overkill WWG1WGA. MAGA

    Yes,a hybrid cam would be required,and probably offset lifters with 350 heads on a 300.:rolleyes:

    The flow potential on the 300 cast iron heads were maxed out on HRM build,@205 cfm on the intake.(don't recall the exaust) The max flow potenial on a 350 head is 280+ cfm,and better exuast flow also.:shock:

    Although the 64 300 alminum heads potenial is less,they are aluminum,and more likely weldable,as I will be exploring this avenue also. Can't make it flow,machine,and weld a different port on it,also will allow moving the valve locations,and angles with a TIG welder. :Brow:

    So if I am able to machine and weld the 64 300 al heads,I will then cut the bottom off of the 300 4bbl al intake and re-work the ports from the bottom,and the Doc mods on the top.(welding required,which isn't as weld friendly on cast iron pieces) So there you go,the 64 heads do have more room for flow,when you get the welder out.:bglasses:
     
  2. WV-MADMAN

    WV-MADMAN Well-Known Member

    Be warned that the '64 intake is tricky to modify:Dou:

    Its cast with water passages around around the plenum.

    If you do the ''doc'' mod, you will hit water:shock:

    Not saying it cant be done, just giving you the info I have on it.



    I was thinking about trying to cut the top section off of a '64 2v intake down to a valley-tub and intake flange.

    Then run a 215/Rover intake using the tub/flange as a valley-pan/intake-spacer:Brow:

    The cut down intake tub/flange could possibly be used as a base to fab a S/P intake:Do No:
     
  3. 300sbb_overkill

    300sbb_overkill WWG1WGA. MAGA

    I'm well aware of the water situation with the 64 al intakes,thats where the TIG welder will come in handy. When I cut the bottom that holds the water in,I was also planning on rerouting the water so it flows in the intake water passages,directly to the thremostat housing,like a sbc intake does.(basically) Also the plenum would now have more room to be made larger because there won't be water flowing around the inside of the intake ports,and plenum,which opens up a whole lot of realestate to make some air flow. Same thing with the Doc mods,the welder will have to come out to seal things back up,I might even cut the center divider out and weld a thinner one in that isn't hollow. There are a lot more details than this,but this is already the 2nd time I've posted this without starting it.LOL So If I don't decide to use 350 heads,I will post all the details when I do it with pictures.(but going to try and make the 350 heads work,becase unported ones flow as much,if not more than max effort 300/340 heads,and a lot less welding):Smarty:

    With the bottom off,the ports will be accessible for porting,by machining them open,forming,and sizing the ports how I want them,and welding it back together. This would create a stealth performance intake that would look close to stock,depending how much port altering is needed on the top.(and the intake ports will depend on how the head ports were altered to make some flow,i'm thinking a cathedral style port should work good within the confines of a 300 head design.:Brow:


    With your 2v intake,you can cut(machine) the top off and weld a 4v top on it,but if you are keeping the stock water flow,it may have to be welded back on in pieces to seal the water in?:Do No:
     
  4. WV-MADMAN

    WV-MADMAN Well-Known Member

    I dont think you got what I was talking about.

    I already have four or five alum 4v intakes lying around.

    No biggy, thats the trouble with trying to get crazy ideas across:Dou:

    There are many intake options for the 215/Rover, but to use them on a 300 you have to use spacer plates/valley-pans to adapt them.

    What I was saying is use one of my 2v intakes that Im never going to use and cut it up.

    I was thinking of cutting everything off but the bottom-floor and intake-flanges.

    All of it, ports, water passages, plenum...All of it.

    Leaving nothing but a flat bottom-plate/intake-flanges.

    Then use that as the valley-pan/spacer-plate for a 215/Rover intake:Smarty:

    With some welding, the same pan/flange could be used as the base for a S/P or tunnel ram.
     
  5. pmuller9

    pmuller9 Well-Known Member

    If you use the 350 heads what are you planning to use for an intake manifold?

    Paul
     
  6. 300sbb_overkill

    300sbb_overkill WWG1WGA. MAGA

    Yeah,if you get one of those Hufftakers I think they're called,then you would have the al 300 sized intake runners. But it would be easier just to make spacers to run one of those,than doing all that cutting on a 2v intake. Dealers choice. Of coarse the valley would need to be covered,so maybe all the cutting would be worth while:TU:

    ---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------

    Not really that far yet(need warmer weather),but if I can,I would use a sbc intake I have sitting around(RPM Air Gap) with adapter plates,and some sort of valley cover?

    The Buick 300 has a 9.543 factory spec.ed deck height,a sbc has a 9.025 factory spec.ed deck hieght,so it should be feasible to adapt. Any port mismatch can be compensated in the spacer,if not I'll have to look at something else. Maybe even hollow out my 2v intake like WVMM is talking about,and cut up the RPM Air Gap to weld it to the hollowed out 2v.

    Before I think about an intake,I need to do a mock up with the 350 heads on the 300 block and see if offset lifters will make up for the misaligned push rods,if not,I'll have to fire the welder up.LOL
     
  7. pmuller9

    pmuller9 Well-Known Member

    If you look at how much pushrod angle there is on a BBC I wouldn't think that whatever misalignment you will have will be a problem
    as long as you can open up the pushrod holes in the head to get the clearance you need.
     
  8. 300sbb_overkill

    300sbb_overkill WWG1WGA. MAGA

    Thats what I'm hope in for,Jim Blackwood said there is about a 3/8" misalignment with the center push rods with the 300/340 style heads on a 350,but haven't come across a thread that has tried to do it the other way around,so we shall see. And if the push rod holes get opened up,it needs to not hit water. Its to bad the 350 heads weigh so much though,but the flow sure does make up for it. Hell,in the BBB section they talk about 260 cfm on ported BBB heads as flowing good,350 heads can do that no problem. I can't understand why people complain about the sbb 350 when flow numbers like that can be had.

    With fully ported 350 heads with titanium valves(6mm int.,and 7mm ex.),solid lifter roller cam,an RPM Air Gap intake,and 362 cid,it should put out some good numbers.(I'm hoping to get it to 401 cid,but its to soon for that discussion,4.00"bore X 3.990"stroke) All installed in a 64 Skylark with a 700R4 and 3.23:1 rear gears.


    Using the 350 heads will make the build A LOT less time consuming if I can get them to work,but won't look as good as a factory looking 300 that runs in the 11s.:Brow:
     
  9. pmuller9

    pmuller9 Well-Known Member

    With a roller cam, 350 heads and a single plane manifold you should be able to get 600 hp.
    Follow this thread. Heads flowed 270/185 @ .500. The 350 started at 400 hp and by post# 252 they got it up to 547 hp.
    The posts written by buick535 contain the information.

    http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?40660-She-s-Alive!!!

    It's never too early to talk about modifications for bigger. I did some preliminary figuring and it looks like a sleeve with an OD of 4.375 is about the max that can fit into the block. The inner 2 sleeves will have flats on both sides and the outer 2 only need one flat side.
    Once you bore out the block to fit the sleeves the original cylinder walls are gone and the deck is no longer connected through the middle.
    In order to restore deck integrity so the deck won't pull up when the head is torqued down the sleeves will need to be welded to the deck using deep "V" grooves for penetration. How are your cast iron welding skills?

    Do you see any other possible approach?

    Paul
     
  10. DauntlessSB92

    DauntlessSB92 Addicted to Buick

    I forgot about that build... It just goes to show that we do not need to do anything crazy to make decent power. The parts are there, it just takes a lot of money at this point.

    Imagine the kind of engine you could build with heads that flowed 300cfm? 11.0:1 compression, pump gas, full roller, plus with a light weight rotator, forged rods and a single plane intake I am sure there are a few members here that would agree 6500+rpm would be a possibility. I know I am just bench racing but that sounds like 500+hp to me....As for sleeving the motor, how thick would the sleeves need to be? That opens a whole new relm of possibility.
     
  11. pmuller9

    pmuller9 Well-Known Member

    According to Darton Sleeves, the minimum wet sleeve thickness for a Ductile Iron sleeve is .150".
    That is for N/A engines. Add boost and that thickness needs to be increased.
    With a 4.375" OD and 4.00" ID you end up with a .1875 sleeve thickness.
    With a partial fill to seal and support the bottom of the sleeve, there should be plenty of strength.

    Paul
     
  12. Jim Blackwood

    Jim Blackwood Well-Known Member

    I'd hate to see you guys pulling the deck off your new engines.

    Even with cast iron, once you break into the water jacket that's the end of any structural integrity in the block. We already have to use a block plate to counteract cylinder wall distortion from head bolt torque, what do you think happens when the cylinder is no longer connected to the deck? The LS engines get by with it ONLY because the head studs go all the way to the main web and the holes in the deck are only guide holes, meaning the liners get compressed between the crank and the head. And those are integrally cast liners. Once the deck starts moving all the block filler in the world isn't going to help.

    Jim
     
  13. DauntlessSB92

    DauntlessSB92 Addicted to Buick

    Now of course I am assuming the benefit of this is the abilty to run sbc 350 pistons correct? So if piston availability were the aim why not just bore the 350 .075" and use 283/307 pistons? I am disregarding pin size and compression height for the sake of discussion

    ---------- Post added at 01:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 AM ----------

    http://www.summitracing.com/parts/slp-w233p60/overview/make/chevrolet - .060" over Chevy 265 pistons.

    My point in bringing this up is what benefit is there to going to a chevy bore size? From what I understand you can get forged SBB pistons, it just costs some change.

    Going into this further, compression height is similar, with 1.810 for the Buick 350 and 1.800 for the 265 piston. I am not sure what the pin diameter is but if we are looking at building an engine for high rpms then custom rods are a must. This is something TA Performance does offer and I am sure few SBB enthusiasts here have taken advantage of that.

    Maybe I am missing the point here. I am not an engine builder, I lack almost any insight into this. I am just trying to brainstorm and get an idea of what you guys are thinking. It seems this thread is all over the place.

    To sum it up I think many will agree that right now given what we have the 350 is probably the best platform to start with. The rover heads are a great thing but I just don't see many people in the states warming up to modifying things to accept heads meant for a smaller engine when with a little work the 350 heads have great flow potential.

    So if we start with a 350 and max ported heads what is left? I think a safe way to spin high rpms is the next thing to look into. Rpm makes horsepower. that is a painfully plain statement but I am sure you know what I am getting at. There are several members who have stated their engines have seen well north of 6000rpm, but the stock rods just can't take that abuse for long. Forged rods are a necessity for a truly max effort build. Surely no more effort than sleeving a block.

    Then you run into piston availability. I am not completely positive what is out there for the 350 in terms of lightweight forged pistons but just as some 455s are overbored .038" to match the chrysler bore size (which I imagine is to take advantage of using chrysler rings) The 350 could be bore matched to use that same advantage.

    I think I need to go to sleep. I am thinking too much about something I don't fully comprehend:sleep:
     
  14. pmuller9

    pmuller9 Well-Known Member

    This discussion was based on previous posts where the sleeves would be welded to the deck to restore integrity.
    One of the problems is you can't weld a ductile iron sleeve without it losing some of it's original properties.
    If you fusion weld, the high heat reduces the shock resistance and if you braze weld you lose some tensile strength.
    Does it matter if it only effects the end of the sleeve? idk

    Just throwing out ideas and looking for solutions

    ---------- Post added at 10:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------

    The reason for the 4.00" bore was to have a 400 ci in engine with Stage 2 heads that would make 700+ hp. No Chevy pistons. This is not for the bugdet minded group.
    Just bench racing and looking at all the possibilities.

    Paul
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013
  15. 300sbb_overkill

    300sbb_overkill WWG1WGA. MAGA

    I know a guy that welds cast iron,and he has told me(a long time ago)before,that welding an end of something cast isn't that bad,but when the weld needs to be in the center,thats when things get tricky. I think he said that the whole thing would need to be heated up to get any kind of penetration. I'm going off of memory,so I might not be rememering things correctly,I'll have to ask him again. This is one of the reasons I wrote its to soon for this discusion,and I was really hopeing that when I sonic tested the bores that they would be at least .275" wall thickness and just over bore to 4",leaving me with .150" wall thickness,and block fill up to the freeze plugs.:Brow:

    64 being the first production year for the 300,they might of casted the cylinder walls thicker knowing that the heads and the intake would be aluminum,so maybe they didn't concentate on making the cylinder walls as thin as they could until the later blocks? Or they could be thinner in 64 to make it the lightest they could make it? Another reason its to soon for this discusion.:Do No:

    Its getting late and I'm tired,you side tracked me to that dissappointing thread about an engine that never propelled a car down the road but made "550" HP supposedly on a dyno. Paul,why would you send me the that thread,it sucked me in,then just disappointed the cr_p out of me in the end. The leaky intake was mentioned at the dyno shop that got "fixed" then the new guy finally starts it up and the intake is leaking again. Then we never hear from that guy after that.WTF!!:af:

    It may take a long time for me to build this,but unless I'm dead,I will at least post track numbers,or if it genades,I'll let everyone know.:TU:
     
  16. Jim Blackwood

    Jim Blackwood Well-Known Member

    SBB engines do not have thick casting walls, which is why they are so light. They also have core shift which limits the overbore. Sonic checking will show you your limits. With my 340 I was pushing it a little for a .050" overbore. I have one thrust wall that I think is right at .130" so there's no way that block is going any bigger than the stock 350 bore size. I think you will find this a common condition, some are worse. A few are better. Offset piston pins and long rods lessen the problem in my case.

    The sleeve problem is one of tensile strength in the block. If you don't have both ends firmly attached you might as well not have either one. Yes. you may be able to clamp the top of the cylinder to the head if it is welded to the deck. But there is still nothing to keep the cylinder from lifting in the block except the deck itself, where originally the cylinder acted as a tension member tying the deck to the main web. Remove that and the deck becomes less rigid and begins to flex, which will ultimately lead to head gasket failure and possibly even separation of the deck from the block itself. The only practical way to make this work is if you can find a way to extend the head studs all the way down into the bottom of the water jacket and then create a step in the bottom of the bore for the sleeves to seat against so that the compressive force from the head studs can pull the head against the sleeve which then pulls against the step. Without the step, again you have the cylinder floating free and the block strength is compromised because clamping force cannot be maintained, and the cylinders will tend to drop towards the crank, again compromising the head gasket.

    This is the way diesel engines are made, and for good reasons. If you want to mess with wet cylinders, please do yourself a real big favor and go look at some wet cylinder engines. I think you will find that almost without exception this is the way they are made and any lesser construction is just an invitation to disaster.

    All of which is going to be pretty expensive. In the long run, the blower is probably a cheaper solution.

    Jim
     
  17. pmuller9

    pmuller9 Well-Known Member

    Thanks Jim

    This is exactly the type of feedback that is needed.
    I have a similar problem with another engine build we have to do in the near future.

    Paul
     
  18. 300sbb_overkill

    300sbb_overkill WWG1WGA. MAGA

    Thanks Jim,that makes a lot of sense,I will still investigate the possibility though.And we're not talking 340,we're talking 300,with a shorter deck height,and its a 64',so I'm hopeing they didn't thin out the walls until 65' when they made the heads and intake heavier?(keeping my fingers crossed):pray:

    If anyone has sonic tested a 64' 300 block,please feel free to chime in,the input would be appreciated.:Do No: Anyone?
     
  19. Jim Blackwood

    Jim Blackwood Well-Known Member

    Bear in mind that the 300 was the successor to the 215. So you have two things going on here. One, there was a concern about keeping the engine weight down. The 300 weighs 80 lbs more than the 215. The 340 weighs 82 lbs more. These are actual weights for the engine block itself, with the main caps in place. 60lbs for the 215, 140 for the 300 and 142 for the 340. That 2 lbs is mainly going to be the taller deck and the (possibly) deeper skirt. Nothing here indicates thicker walls in the 300, and I have never heard of any suggestion that the 300 block was ever redesigned in any way or for any reason. I do not think the '64 is going to be any different. During those years cars were growing vastly bigger and heavier so a redesign solely to reduce weight would have been counter to the main thrust of the day.

    Secondly, the 215 had cast in liners surrounded by cast aluminum but clearly by that point the engineers had a good idea of how thick the cast iron cylinder wall had to be in their new thinwall castings, as well as what they had to deal with in terms of core shift. The normal course of action would have been to derive the aluminum and iron sleeve thickness from the previously used iron engine designs and reduce the sizes for weight reduction. Then when switching materials back to iron, again refer back to the earlier designs, while calculating hoop forces and other factors in order to determine minimum safe wall thicknesses. In the process they specified a high nickel content cast iron, allowing them to reduce wall thicknesses and reduce weight even further. By contrast, Chevy was using a low nickel content iron with the result that they had to have thicker cylinder liners. So far as I've ever seen, no improvements in casting and core registration were ever made during the SBB engine's production life. So while it may not be impossible to find what you are looking for, odds are it would have to have been an experimental or test engine.

    I realize that's not the answer you are looking for, but the bore centers just aren't far enough apart for this. The web between the cylinders starts to get thin, making a blowthrough of the head gasket between cylinders more likely. Should it be desired to o-ring the bores it is questionable if there would be enough space to get a good effective seal with a 4" bore. Plus this was well in advance of the siamese bore design and Buick was already minimizing the space between bores and maximizing the bore size with this design, as evidenced by the small increases in later bore sizes.

    I'm not saying it can't be done. But to make a durable engine that way will be expensive.

    Jim
     
  20. roverman

    roverman Well-Known Member

    If you "must have" a 4" bore sbb, just send a FAT check to Wales,(rover). Wilcat Engineering has them, they work, bring lots of $'s. Regarding the 4.02" converted bore rover, from LaNocha Racing, it had aluminum colums welded in, from deck bolt bosses down to bottom of coolant passages, of block. Flanged sleeves are available and resonably priced. The hard part is making and sustaining powerleak free. All of this "outer limits" engineering, can be accomplished easier, with an aluminum block. Good Luck, you'll need it. roverman.:beer
     

Share This Page