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

Sean has my engine dyno sheet from when I used the TA 510 cam which is not just a cookie cutter build and he also has the dyno sheet from the GSCA magazine I sent after I put in the Popular Mechanics cam made by Lunati. Maybe he will post it for ya. My handling suspension slows my car down, I know it does, especially when I had a 1.72 60 ft time with the pop mech cam and my loose 3500 convertor.

 

I still think it's hampered by the bore size and the long stroke from making max horsepower N/A. The engine is designed to produce torque. It makes no sense to me to use a pipe wrench when a socket wrench is clearly needed. Will it do the job? Yeah, maybe but it ain't gonna be pretty and it ain't gonna be easy. Why the insistence on proving that it is something that it isn't? Makes a lot more sense to me to just let it do what it is good at. One of the best ways to do that is to use one of the turbo kits these guys have come up with. Quick, easy, and just as cheap as a performance N/A build, it easily overcomes the limitations of the small bore size.

Otoh if all you care about is sanctioned racing then you are just stuck with the class rules, and I feel for you. I never was that much of a conformist.

Jim

 

All im trying to do is builda nice mid 13 sec car through the factory exh manifolds
But remember,im up in Denver,so that would need to be mid to low 12 seccar at seal level,on pump gas,again throught the stock exh while looking totally factory
My biggest concern now is the way the 455 will fit in my car,and if its too much trouble,and doesnt look 'FACTORY ENOUGH" for my tastes,then i may go back to a 350 build
You would think as many people on here,that have put 455's into Apollo's,that somebody would havea pcture or two or some info on what mounts they used,etc
Ive read alot of post on here,and they are all very vague it seems or the ones who know aretn talking?
Good day all
Happy Valentine's Day Sean :bla:

 

Thanks Larry
But i have yet to see a picture in any of those posts of a 455 actually in the car,yet alone what mounts were used
Ive read those posts over a bunch of times
One person says they used the stock pads,another say it sits in stock location,another says move it forward
Another says put a rack in it lol
No common patterns and noone has commented on hood clearnce,poss fan shroud issues,solutions, etc

 

Re: curious about SBB????????????? SBM ???????????

Why not a 340? One that will "really" run, an sbm. You guys hate sbc swaps, for just a little more hate, you can have a really strong Mopar in there. Will I be kicked-off now ? Cheers, roverman.:idea2:

 

Larry
Ive been looking at soem of the log in history of some of those guys ,and it appears they havent been on here in a long time

Maybe a new posts would help as well?
Thanks

 

Re: curious about SBB????????????? SBM ???????????

Hay get back on topic!!!

Wait... What was this thread about againo No:

The 340-SBM was a bad-a$$ little engine, with great flowing heads and race-level internals.

But the rest of the LA-engines are turds:boring:

A 360-SBM would breath better if you replaced its heads with blocks of cheese:laugh:

 

Those that can and do-read Engine Masters dyno results, of non-340 sbm's, may tend to disagree. Of course impressive results are achieved with after market heads from, EQ, Eddy, Brodix, and Ma Mopar. Hotter hyd roller cams with oem lifters, are a given. These are all things the sbb could benefit from, but very unlikely to happen. I tend to agree with others here, a better way is to turbocharge. Turbo's don't need high rpm, to produce impressive results. Have practically zero parasitic drag, and can be mounted, almost anywhere. Cheers, roverman.:Smarty:

 

I agree with the turbo. Look what the guy did with the nailhead he tuboed. 404 hp at 2800 rpm and cracked the 350 tranny. :shock:Turbo is my next project

 

Re: curious about SBB????????????? SBM ???????????

The only reason you should be kicked off is for bringing absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Saying it is a better engine doesn't mean much and doesn't help the cause of the SBB. What you just said about the 340 SBM could be applied to any mainstream small block compared to the SBB because of their greater appeal to the masses and therefore larger performance parts offerings. Do I even need to say SBF, SBC, LS, or even pretty soon the new LT? Tears of joy would be on the faces of some of the SBB supporters if they came out with a single plane intake manifold let alone aluminum heads. If you have some specific attributes that apply to the SBM that can be used in the SBB then fire away. We are all listening.

Most of the people who are interested in the SBB know that a SBM intake can be heavily modified to work on a SBB and that is about that. My idea is for someone to come up with an intake manifold "adapter" that would allow a SBM or maybe a SBC intake to bolt onto the SBB. I'm not talking about 2 plates and a water x-over. I'm talking about a complete cast tub that would bolt directly to the engine valley and then the brand-X manifold would bolt to it. At that time any intake made for the SBM would be able to be bolted up. Only some minor preassembly port matching of the intake to adapter would be required.

I'm not the guy to do it but it seems to me the cost of the adapter would be half of what a SBB intake would be and then you have the option of bolting on a cheaper variation of intake up to a tunnel ram.

"Put a turbo on it." That's batted about way too many times on this site. They are a great option to make HP and they can can be added to ANY engine from lawn mower on up. Properly added, just like N2O or a belt driven supercharger, power will be great.

I ran N2O back in the mid 80's on my street driven 455 '65 GS. Drove it 120 miles (one way) to New Jersey and dipped into the 10's and prompty got booted out. Drove it even farther to Ohio and Bowling Green and hit the button. The point is while the car ran fast and really waved the Buick banner in front of the Brand-Xers it really doesn't do much to progress the development of the N/A BBB or SBB for that matter.

Don't get me wrong I like going fast just like the next guy and fully support anybody who wants to run a power adder to go fast. If you have to go fast for a reasonable amount it is the way to go. I'm just saying that unless you are pushing the limits with a power adder it doesn't really improve the breed.

 

Without cutting the mopar 340 intake into 4 pieces it is not going to match up even with an adapter. Have a look at the thread about "open plenum" intakes.

 

Hector made a nice "tub" which fit up the Mopar without splitting it up. The mismatch was made up for in the "tub" area. I'm sure there would be plenty of details to be worked out but the cost would still be alot less than buildng an intake from scratch and would allow you to use any available intake. Edelbrock, Weiand, and MOPAR have done all the research. A Buick V8 isn't that special that a whole intake must be designed around it. Why not use their experience with them to improve the Buick?

The Poston intake is one where somebody thought they had a new idea or that the Buick was special. Chevy has 5/7 firing next to each other and you can be sure that some manufacturer tried that idea and it didn't prove to be any better or maybe worse. If it was better for even 1% of the Chevy engines out there it would have been on the shelf a long time ago or they would have bought the patent rights to it making Poston more money than they ever would from Buick intake sales. I will give them credit for trying something different. Too bad they didn't spend the money casting up a single plane. They'd be going for gold right now.

http://www.buickperformancegroup.com/forums/showthread.php?6012-Intake&highlight=mopar+intake

I wish Hector would have gotten some testing in on it though.

 

Where did Pauls post go regarding stepped sleeving /filling the 350 block and also rod length/stroke ideas
Some of the best info ive seen around here and it disappears ???????

 

Sorry about that.

The 6.460 Eagle Rod for the LS with the 1.889 Honda rod journal can be used. These rods include the 2000 ARP bolt. $568
The SBB rod journal can be offset ground for a 3.950 stroke.
http://www.cnc-motorsports.com/connecting-rods/eagle-crs6460h3d2000-h-beam-connecting-rods.html

I looked forever for an off the shelf piston to use with these rods in a stroker combination but couldn't even come close to a usable compression height.
You will need to have custom pistons made with a 1.750 CH, .927 SBC pin and Spherical dish.
The spherical dish is the winner at making power at the track.

For maximum detonation resistance I would use a stepped dish that has a raised dome.
Our shop would set the head up in the mill and cut the combustion chambers exactly the same for all cylinders with a nice radius where the chamber meets the head surface. Here is an example of a chamber we did for a 263 Buick S8. Obviously the 350 SBB chamber wouldn't be as deep



Then an impression would be sent to the piston manufacturer for a perfect mating dome to the head. The quench distance would then be the head gasket thickness.
This would be mainly for street use especially in cases where combustion efficiency for fuel economy is the major goal.
It would look something like this only the dome would have rounded outside edges to match the combustion chamber radius.



For racing I would seriously look at using a sleeve with a stepped bottom for a 4.00" bore.
Do a partial fill for sleeve stability and help seal the water jacket at the sleeve bottom.

Combine a 4.00" bore with the 3.950 stroke for a 397 cu in SBB engine

Paul

 

Hey Paul,those rods can be used without stroking with off the self pistons,I did a thread a little while ago about them;

http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?260092-Aftermarket-rod-possiblities-for-SBB-for-stroker-also

And when stroking a 40 year old crank,it should be at least .010" less than what is mathematically possible because of the tolerances back then weren't as precise. Back in the day the tolerance were + or - a couple of degrees on the stroke,todays tolerance is + or - .002" on the stroke. So whenever stroking an old factory crank, at least .010" less should be left on the table to insure the crank is cleaned up when it is INDEX ground(can be done withoutout idex grinding,BUT the stroke of all the rod journals WON'T be timed correctly,and would effect the TDC of the individual pistons). When having a virgin factory crank index ground,it will usually take more than a -.010 undersize,so the crank would have to be ground down to the next undersize of -.020.(the factory production machining tolerances back then were horrible,to put it mildly)
:Smarty:

And Nickev,you might of missed this post I did a while back about a 300 stroker build,its post number 144;

http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?191151-A-guide-to-building-the-lil-guy-The-Mighty-300/page6

I really need to get some heat in my garage,I've stockpiled a bunch of parts,I need to start turning some wrenchs now! I WILL have A/C in there this summer though. :Brow:

 

Thanks for the info.

You can find off the shelf 3.8L forged pistons with CH ranging from 1.800" to 1.850" in the Summit catalog.
For N/A use, a few thousands can be taken off the outer rim of the piston to keep the piston even with the deck. There is plenty of upper ring land.
The dish volumes range from 25 to 29.5cc which limits the compression ratio.
Even with Head milling and thin head gaskets it will be tough getting the compression ratio in the 10's
The only other obstacle is these rods are bushed for a floating .927 pin. The bushing OD is .972
It may be ok to open the pin bore to .940?

With a 1.889 rod size and a .100" increase in stroke I was leaving .0055" of journal material for clean up in hopes that it would be enough.
Either a person could find a crank that would work after looking through a bunch or you just offset grind what the crank allows and take what you get.
That that sound like a plan?

Paul

 

If you could find a crank grinder shop that would CHECK what the crank would be able to get away with before the grinding happened would be the way to go,and live with it.(it could get very expensive to go through "a bunch" of dwindling supplies of cranks that aren't produced any more,not to mention trying to get a crank guy to measure and see if a crank would be a good canidate)

Set up correctly off the crank keyway to index grind the rod journals,the grind shop should be able to set up and indicator to see where the rod journals are in relationship to one another. After doing this,they would know what stroke the crank can get away with. unfortunately most shops don't want to take the time to do this,they just want to center on where the journal is now,offset it,and grind,same with regular crank grinding,center,and grind(even when they're capable,they don't want to take the time and effort to do it!!).And if you find a shop that will index grind,they will set up to do it and start grinding,without checking,then call and say it has to go to the next undersize(unleess you want .0045" clearance on one rod journal,2 rods) to clean up!!(ask me how I know!)LOL

And remember,when you leave only .0055" on a diameter,thats only going to be half of that per side.(which isn't much at all for antique machining tolerances of back in the day) And really, .010" less stroke is only .005" more in the hole for the piston,which usually wouldn't matter much taking off an extra .005" off the deck to compensate,if needed.

 

I hear what you are saying.
We are fortunate in that our crank grinder shop is excellent and will do what we need or he will let us know in advance what problems there are.

The diameter difference between the 1.899 journal and the SBB 2.000" journal stroked .100" is .011".
The .0055" material left for clean up was 1/2 the diameter difference.

Putting it another way for a better visual: You would need a 1.900" rod journal to stroke a 2.000" crank journal .100"
The diameter difference between the 1.899" and the 1.900" is .011"
Half of .011" is .0055"
Am I looking at that correctly?

Anyway as you said, any loss in stroke for the sake of indexing and cleanup is insignificant

Paul