Hot Rod Magazine 300" Stroker Buildup!

Discussion in 'Small Block Tech' started by No Lift, Jan 14, 2011.

  1. Mark
    the 300 shares the same deck height and bore spacing with the v6 and it is entirely possible that 3.8 roller lifter would interchange. there was some discussion on the rover board about it and the only issue they found was dog bones or intake spider to keep the lifters from spinning in the lifter bores. I have found a sbc H beam rod that works along with the forged GN turbo pistons for a bottom end that is very strong yet inexpensive. do some digging and it's amazing what there is to hotrod the little 300. Bob
     
  2. 401Eric

    401Eric Active Member

    Hi all, brand spanking new here.

    Could the engine's builder or the engine's owner please post more pictures of the tear down and build? Specifically pics of the bottom end of the 300 showing it's main webbing and pics of the mods done to the insides of the stock 300 intake manifold? Other pics would be cool too though. I do have the Hot Rod article so the pictures that are already there aren't needed.
    Regards, Eric
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2011
  3. 401Eric

    401Eric Active Member

    5.96 inches, just like the 225/231/252 V6. (From the Stan Weiss site. http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablersn.htm#Buick)
    Regards, Eric
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2011
  4. dynodave349

    dynodave349 Member

    Jim
    I appreciate your imput and I would likely use a forged piston and a aftermarket rod on a higher RPM, higher H.P engine and especially one with a power adder.
    Although the newer generation of forged pistons can be set up tighter than what was previously possible, they still require significantly more skirt clearance than a modern Hypereutectic piston because they are not as thermally stable ( expand more under power ) and the oil consumption will be higher, especially when crusing around town.
    If a Hypereutectic piston with a coated skirt makes noise for more than about 30 seconds after a cold start, then the machinest set them up too loose in the first place. The compression height and the dish volume of the Olds piston was very close to what I would have ordered with a custom piston with either a stock length or 6.0 in. aftermarket rod.
    David
     
  5. dynodave349

    dynodave349 Member

    Mark

    Yes, the head of the rod bolt closest to the camshaft had to be ground and the amount needed depends on the offending cylinder, camshaft grind specifics, and how the cam is phased. The integrity of the bolt will not be adversly affected if done properly, but it should only be done to a high quality aftermarket bolt.
    We a looking at the different possibilities as far as running either a mechanical or hydralic roller cam in our next project.
    As we did with our Stroker 349, we are trying to think outside the box
    Thanks for your interest
    Dave
     
  6. dynodave349

    dynodave349 Member

    Thanks for the offer, if the manifold is available, at the time we would need it, we would definitely like to test it. Is this manifold specificly designed for a 300? Can you give more specifics on it and maybe post a picture of it.

    Dave
     
  7. dynodave349

    dynodave349 Member

    I beleve that the Stroker 349 has some performance advantages over a 340, even if it had the same displacement and combination of cam, head, compression and carburation. I wouldn't try to make estimate as to how much better it might be, I would rather find out through testing. But if you have a 340 and want to build a similar engine, I wouldn't discourage you from doing it. I am sure you would get good results.

    Dave
     
  8. 401Eric

    401Eric Active Member


    I know I'm new here. Is it my breath or something?? :Do No:
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2011
  9. Jim Blackwood

    Jim Blackwood Well-Known Member

    David,

    Did you ever say what rod it was that you used? I looked but didn't see it. Sounds like maybe the SBC rods since you had to trim the rod bolts to clear the cam. How did that work out with your deck height and compression ratio using those Olds pistons? Are they flat tops?

    The stock 300 rods are plenty good for a mild performance build, I was just wondering if you used them.

    JB
     
  10. dynodave349

    dynodave349 Member

    Jim

    We used the stock 300 rod, maged and fitted with ARP bolts. The Olds piston has a 14 cc dish, which worked out fine with a deck clearance of .020 and a steel shim gasket. On the Dyno we made several pulls up to 6300 RPM, but I have to admit that I would prefer aftermarket rods if this engine would see this RPM frequently or for sustained periods ( circle track,road race, land speed use ).

    David
     
  11. dynodave349

    dynodave349 Member

    Eric

    As it is, Hot Rod disclosed a lot about this build, both in pictures and text. There was no extra grinding in the crankcase to fit the 340/350 crank, as the crankcases are the same on all three engines, but the crankshaft required modifications to the main and rear seal journals and a general clean up of the counter weights. A lot of time was spent verifying and correcting piston to counter-weight and connecting rod to camshaft clearances.
    As far as the modifications to the intake and heads, unless a person has a lot of experience porting heads and using a flow-bench, it's unlikely they would get the same results no matter how many pictures I posted or secrets I disclosed. It you do have this experience and access to a flow-bench, then put the time in, as I did, and go after it.
    We can duplicate our Stroker 349 head package and also provide valve train and rotating assembly kits or a complete motor.
    We are considering a separate web sit for Buick/ Rover engines and performanc parts and will likely have it up soon.

    More to come

    Dave
     
  12. Big Matt

    Big Matt Well-Known Member

    Looking forward to seeing more on the valvetrain kits.
     
  13. Dynodave,
    check out this thread. there are pictures in it. essentially it's an intake made for the rover P76 with runners the same size as the 65 Buick 300 manifolds. all i have to do is fabricate a valley cover.

    http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?t=221783
     
  14. 401Eric

    401Eric Active Member

    Dave, thanks for getting back to me.

    Yes, I do know and understand that Hot Rod covered the crankcase modifications sufficiently, I just want to see shots showing the main webbing as I want to know if the main webbing is as strong as the 340/350's main webbing is. In most ways, the 300 is more related to the 225 than it is the 340 in that the 225 really is a 300 with two cylinders missing. The 225's main webbing is way thinner than the 340's is and I'm wondering where the 300's main webbing falls in all this. With the crank overlap being reduced so much, I feel the support structure takes on an added importance. Especially if one wants to tweak your formula slightly with forged pistons and N2O. Even pics of the stock 300's tear down would help.

    I'm hoping you can post pics of the intake manifold mods not to instruct me how to do it, but more as a way to see just how far you had to mod it to get to the power level that you got to, and also as a way of seeing just how far one can mod that manifold. (In other words, how far would it allow you to mod it.) I do have a fair amount of experience successfully porting stock intake and exhaust manifolds (and heads of course but that's not the focus here), dating back to the mid-80s, on various stock looking street sleepers, including but not limited to a completely bone stock looking and sounding (right down to the stock cam for a stock idle) 401 Javelin AMX that ran low 13s with a 3.15 rear gear on real street tires. (What could be a better sleeper than a lowly AMC? I was into dragging "Pure Stocks" long before there was an actual venue for them.) Later, my handiwork showed up on a few "Factory Stock" cars that raced at El Cajon before it closed a few years ago. Also, I'm not just asking for myself, I'm asking for the up and coming young ones. I learned a lot about porting stock manifolds from David Vizard's first, original, "How To Build Horsepower" book and from a Circle track article on Bresenski (probably misspelled that) modified stock intakes. I took those two pieces and built on them. It was a good beginning. A good words and pictures article could go a long way towards getting the next generation started and I would like to see it taught to the next generation rather than this: "go buy an Edelbrock" mindset that the kids are being taught today. It's an art that needs to be kept alive. It's super fun spanking aftermarket stuff with stock iron junk! It's the second best activity there is!
    Regards, Eric
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011
  15. Jim Blackwood

    Jim Blackwood Well-Known Member

    Thanks David, so your compression ratio should be pretty close to 11:1 I take it? That's about 10cc less dish that I'm running at zero deck with a .040" gasket for a 10.6 ratio. Unless the chamber in the iron heads is bigger than in the aluminum ones that is. It's a pretty sweet combination but I can see you are sort of on the fringes of a big power build.

    JB
     
  16. dynodave349

    dynodave349 Member

    The chamber on our cast iron head ended up at 56 cc for a C.R. of 10:1.
    What head gasket did you use ( brand ), usually standard replacement compsition head gaskets are around .050 compressed.
    David
     
  17. Timo

    Timo Active Member

    I assume you used 350 balancer?

    From D&D website...
    Felpro 8172-PT Head Gasket – .040 composition for 300” Buick.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2011
  18. Jim Blackwood

    Jim Blackwood Well-Known Member

    My heads were 52cc. To be more precise about it, I had planned on a zero deck and .040" copper head gaskets (with o-rings) for a 10.6 calculated CR. After assembly, piston rock put me slightly above the deck and I went with a .050" gasket instead. So I'd guess I'm probably closer to 10.5 CR actual. But I'm running a 22 cc dish so I don't see how you could be at 10:1 with a 13 cc dish unless you're below the deck. (edit) You used shim gaskets and were a bit below the deck right, 20 or 30 thou as I recall?

    SCE made the gaskets, they now have patterns for all the SBB heads but I had to send the first set back for having holes in the wrong places.

    JB
     
  19. 401Eric

    401Eric Active Member

    The Hot Rod article is incorrect when it it says that "no Buick engine ever had slipper skirt pistons". :Dou: Starting with the Series II 3800, Buicks did have slipper skirt pistons. This gives us yet another piston option. A Series II piston for a supercharged application would be a good option to explore. I'm gonna find out what the compression distance is. I would venture a guess that it is a bit tighter than the Olds piston used in the build. That would leave us room for a slightly longer rod for a better rod ratio. Also allows us to replace an only "adequate" rod with a much better one. There are so many inexpensive yet strong, quality aftermarket rods out there that it is worth it to be able to have some peace of mind and an extra margin of safety for things like the occasional accidental over rev (hey, it happens!), and the option of adding N2O later on if one wants too.
    Regards, Eric
     
  20. Timo

    Timo Active Member

    From Silvolite catalog...
    85-90 307 olsdmobile comp height 1.605
    96-01 Buick 3.8 supercharged 1.197
     

Share This Page