Here's the car, just so you guys know I'm not a kid yanking your chain: http://www.britishv8.org/MG/JimBlackwood.htm I want to put a 200-4r in it with a full manual reverse valve body and lock-up converter. Since that bolts to '64 and later blocks I also want to upgrade the engine. There appear to be two possibilities: 1) 300 with '64 heads and 350 crank. For this I need pistons that will work with narrowed SBC rods, other details needed. I will need to adapt a 215 intake but understand parts can be bought or made from 1/2" and 1/4" plate. 2) 350 short block with '64 300 heads, if the heads will bolt up, 300 or 215 cam. For this to work I need to know the difference in deck height from the 215 to the 350. This seems the most elegant solution if the block isn't externally much larger than the 215, and the decks aren't a great deal taller. Obviously the intake will be even more of a stretch. I'm pretty well convinced the blower can handle any inlet port restrictions, and porting the exhausts would probably be a good idea, but I could see getting an easy 350-400 hp out of this engine, with dead solid reliability. Not that I'm after the horses particularly, just wonderin' what's out there. Any pointers you fellas could give me? Jim
I've picked up some more info, hope you guys will correct me where I'm wrong. Seems the 300 and 340 share the same bore size with the 350 being just .050" larger, a reasonable overbore on a rebuild. Also seems the 340 and 350 share the same crank. So it would seem that the combo I'm looking for is a 300 block for compatibility with the 200-4r and a low deck height, the 345/350 crank, and a suitable set of pistons to give about a 10:1 CR with the '64 aluminum heads, preferably something with some meat in the crown, and if obtainable, forged. Now I know some of you guys have looked into stroking a 300. I'm quite certain the big problem is the pistons. So has anybody cracked that nut? Thanks, Jim
i believe Nick is going to 355ci (on a 215 block?). "NixVega" is his avatar name i think. http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2357894 i would strongly suggest against the 300 heads on the 350 block as the 350 swapped valve order from all of the earlier engines. this means that the cam will not work (350 cams were purposely made with different size bearings so they couldn't accidently be swapped with earlier motors) as well as the intake and exhaust setups being incompatible. if you're going to do something like this just stay with the 340 block ... it's the same deck as the 350. also, the 64 300 head is the aluminum one, right? i believe the ports on that are WAY undersized for a 350. most of the 300 guys prefer to get the 65-67 4 barrel stuff because it flows better even though it's heavier even if they're staying at 300ci.
for you I'd get some custom forged pistons made to your specs by Venolia.. approx $65 per piston.. depending on where you live... 200-r4 builders... Len Freeman in Las Vegas is "da man" or CK performance racing transmissions... I believe they're located in new Jersey somewhere That is an AWSOME car by the way wes
Thanks guys. $65 a hole seems pretty reasonable. Makes it a tougher choice. I'm getting a little confused though, did Buick make an aluminum block 355? Not that I'd ever find one. I think Nick is using a Rover block, which has a bigger bore. Not sure how he's getting to 355 though. Anyway, with a blower the restrictions in the '64 heads won't be much of a problem. So now it looks like the deck height may be a big factor, due mostly to the custom headers which I'd rather not rework. I agree that the 350 is not a good idea, so that leaves me three choices, a 300, stroked 300, or 340. Clearly the 340 would be the most bang for the buck but I'm still trying to find out the deck height. The 300 would be the most reasonable choice, and I might even be able to find a reman short block for either the 300 or 340. The stroked 300 is attractive because of the lower deck (it *is* lower isn't it?) and because it would have stronger pistons. (Will narrowed early SBC rods work?) I do like an engine that can wind up a bit. But either is going to be more than enough power, especially with the blower. The sensible thing to do would be to go with the 300. But.... The jury's still out. Jim
did Buick make an aluminum block 355? no. Buick stopped making the aluminum v8's after 63 when they converted to the design to the iron block 300. they just sold all of the tooling to British Leyland / Land Rover and Land Rover used the engine from 1965 to 2004. the English have produced variations on the original 215ci up to 5.0L for the TVR Griffith although those are almost impossible to find. far more common is the 4.0 / 4.6L alum Land Rover block that Nick is using. Not sure how he's getting to 355 though. all aluminum blocks require iron sleeves in the bores. i believe that Nick has resleeved the block in a larger bore as well as stroking it. he frequent's the board, i'm sure he'll check in and verify that before too long. Clearly the 340 would be the most bang for the buck but I'm still trying to find out the deck height. everything i've ever read has said that the 340 is the same deck as the 350. i agree though, finding out info like deck heights and block spacing can be a huge PITA. I might even be able to find a reman short block for either the 300 or 340. the 340 was a two year only production run ( 1966-1967 ) so quantities are very rare. on the plus side, as with all Buick small blocks, there is no demand for them. so as long as you're willing to wait a of months for one to show up it's all good. The stroked 300 is attractive because of the lower deck (it *is* lower isn't it?) there are three (maybe 4?) different deck heights in the Buick small block family. a. 215ci and most Rover variants b. 300 and v6's c. 340 and 350 d. late production 350's may possibly have a taller deck yet.
I'd go with a Buick 350 and make another custom intake/plenum for the blower to fit. Even without the blower you could get 400 hp na with some head porting and a large cam so with a few psi 600+ would be easy. I think the deck height is 10.03" on the Buick 350. The 64 Buick 300 was a 4bb alum head and alum intake and will say 355 wildcat on the air cleaner.
I know exactly what he means when he says 355 block! Didnt some of the 300's produce 355 ft lbs torque? Kind of like the 445 (401ci)nailhead which the 445 actually ment its torque rating. or the 465 "425ci"... See what im talking about now? i remember seeing pics of a buick nailhead that had "355" on top of the air cleaner. Hes thinking the 355 is the engine size when its really the torque rating they are advertising.
That is true Jon but he knows all this believe me. Only he can tell us what cid his smallblock is and he does know all about the 300 and rover v8 Hopefully he will chime in here soon.
WOW there was a lot of posting before I finally got to this thread!!! SOrry for the confusion on the engine size. I'm actually building an aluminum 300 and attempting to duplicate the 355 ft/lbs torque rating that came with the rare "Wildcat 355" badge. Perhaps I'll get lucky and surpass it! Anyway that's my target. Since I started building this engine I've learned quite a bit about the engine and engines in general. A good example is this. My aluminum "Wildcat 355" will not act like the original 355. Here's why: Because I'm using the stronger Rover 4-bolt block I'm arriving at 300(299) ci with less deckheight. I'm using a much shorter rod from a SBC (5.7). That means the rod ratio will end up around 1.68. That completely changes the cylinder filling dynamics quite a bit. It will actually give me an edge on reaching my torque goal because the piston will be moving faster near TDC than the stock 300, which has a rod ratio of 1.75. So I'll get an edge for low RPM vacuum/cylinder filling. My engine will act more like a 350 but not have the same power output potential because of smaller displacement. Make sense? It's not an inexpensive proposition. I've just finished all the machine work: Blueprinting, custom modification of parts, head work, balancing. All the parts and machine work add up to $5272.57. I still need to purchase the valve gear and Carb. I'm planning on going with the Harland Sharp roller rockers ($530.39 summitracing.com) and the new Edelbrock E85 carb (not sure on cost yet... Not cheap). I'll hit around $6500 by the time I'm done. All for the sake of building a totally custom engine with parts from six auto manufacturers. It's a bit strange but I really love the buick small block and I wanted to build something as tribute to it. I also needed a lighter package for my application in the Vega because I didn't want to throw off the weight distribution. The engine I'm building will end up at around 345 lbs. Around 50 lbs. heavier than the original 2300. I just wanted you to know what you may be in for, Jim. All that said, it has been extremely fulfilling. Really fun to research the parts and build a real frankenstein. I really dig the spirit of your drive to build your own. If nothing else I'm glad there are more of us out here. The reason I put all that out there is you may be able to find parts from other engines to make this work. Like Chevy connecting rods and Ford pistons (as I did) or something like that. Here's some number to help: 300 Deckheight: 9.543 340 stroke: 3.85 (same as 350. Not sure of main journal size... 2.5"?) Rod journal: 2" (I think it's the same as 300) Stock 300 rod: 5.96 Resulting piston comp height: 1.658" Go to this site and look for some pistons that would come close: http://webpages.charter.net/beckracing/silvtoc.htm I found that 0.06 over Ford 255 pistons worked best for my set up. GOod luck. I hope you do it. I think a low-deck 340 with aluminum heads would be cool.
Thanks guys, that clears things up a bit. And I see where the 355 came from now. Well, the main reason I'm not looking at a 350 is the exhaust headers. May not sound like much, but I built those headers back in the '80s and optimized them for a 300 cu.in. engine, thinking I might bore and stroke the 215 later on. They will fit the 300 and possibly the 340 without having to be changed, and I'm relatively certain that the 340 will fit in the car. Then too, the blower intake can be adapted with some spacer plates, which is much easier than making up a new intake, actually a pretty big job with the intercooler and port injectors. Browsing the web I saw a statement that the 300 intake will not fit the 340 because it is wider. Guess that would mean a taller deck. I did see the writeup on a D&D stroker 300: http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/MonsterMotor.htm So that would be a possibility and at least they specify the piston (modified 258 Jeep). Though I'd have to come up with a repeatable way to cut the pistons. They said they ground them but I wonder about that. Possible but not simple. Maybe I should ask Dan or Mark what they'd charge for a set. I was planning on trying to use the narrowed 2" SBC rods I have on the shelf but that'd change the compression. How much I don't know. Don't know how it'd affect the clearances either. Since the compression they ended up with, 10-1/4:1 is about what I'd like to see, the Buick rods might have to stay. That extra .040" is bound to make a difference. The good thing is that I have plenty of time to sort this thing out, as the car is down for a tranny anyways and it isn't my primary transportation. But I would like to drive it this summer if possible so I may just have to replace the tranny and make the new driveline a longer project. Just gathering facts at this point, but in a few weeks hope to begin buying hardware again. I'll try to make a call or two today and get the deck heights. If I do that I'll pass the info along. Jim
1. My source for deck height shows a Buick 350 as being 10.18". 2. If this is a blower engine, 10:1 compression is WAY TOO HIGH. 3. A blower is not a suitable crutch for bad ports. Bad ports will still interfere with the flow. You'll make more power with less boost (and therefore fewer problems with detonation and wear) if you sort out the ports before you add the blower. 4. If this were me--and clearly it isn't--I'd stuff a bigger crank in the existing engine. Add better heads if you can find 'em. This eliminates all problems with deck height and intake manifold fitment. An iron engine will do nothing positive for the vehicle's road manners in any direction except straight forward. If you have to use an adapter plate to attach the overdrive trans, so be it. The overdrive trans will be a terrific addition to the car.
So it looks like the 350 deck height is about a half inch bigger than the 300. Not that that helps me any with the 340, but it's good to know. Also looks like the 300 and 340 used longer rods than the 215, also good info. But to address a few issues: I've been told that the '64 300 is about 80 lbs heavier than the 215. Not enough to get concerned over, and not enough to upset the handling of the car. There are enough of those and SBF MGB's out there to prove it, so that's not an issue. The blower runs quite happily pushing 16 psi through the restrictive ports of the Olds 215 and in fact there is a benefit to doing things this way for a street motor. Not building a drag car here. The benefit is that with high boost pressure the ports restrict the top end and prevent grenading the engine, but with the high drive ratio the boost comes in early and strong. Just what a street motor wants. Not conventional practice, but conventional practice was developed for dragsters and doesn't apply here. The CR: Olds used 10-1/4:1 on the turbocharged Jetfire engine and was successful with it. I've had one of these systems and understand pretty well what it is capable of. Here's what I expect to happen. Assuming I use the same or similar drive pulley for the blower it will put out a similar volume of air at any given pressure and somewhat more at a lower pressure, exactly how much more I don't know but nothing enormous I'm quite sure as it is a positive displacement unit. On the Olds 215 it puts out something around 300 hp at full boost, maybe a bit more. Cranking the same volume of air through the '64 300 heads it should produce a very similar output, but due to the displacement increase and the larger ports the pressure of the output should drop substantially, maybe down around 8 psi, meaning the volume should also go up some, resulting in more horsepower. The restriction of the ports should keep cylinder pressures reasonable at that level. To be honest, I don't really need more than 300 hp in that car, but lower boost pressure means I can run higher compression (Olds ran 10-1/4: with 6 lbs of boost, resulting in 215 hp), resulting in better fuel economy. Bear in mind that with that much power potential the engine will rarely see full throttle and the attendant heat in the combustion chamber. Several back to back 1/4 mile runs might damage it if it isn't set up just right, but I do have EGT, WB-O2, and other instrumentation to help stay away from those bad places, and in any event it will be less highly stressed than the Olds 215 I'm running now so it should be more reliable. Output should be somewhere in the 300-400 hp range which is more than plenty. I realize I could probably get more horsepower N/A from a 340 or a 350 with better heads. But I've already got the blower and the hole in the hood and everything is set up for it and I'm not changing that because I like the looks. Have to build it to suit me, and that means a blower and Enderlie scoop, end of story. I hope that doesn't sound too much like a rant. If it does I apologize, those are questions I get every time I describe what I'm doing. It gets a little irritating eventually, but I'm trying my best to deal with it. I appreciate all the suggestions. You guys know these engines better than anyone else around, that's why I'm here. Jim
Jim, Just another perspective on the crank clearence. I just finished dealing with this issue on my setup. Interference with the pistons by the 300 crank. IMO the safer way to approach this problem is to have your machine shop shave the counterweights, add heavy metal, and balance the crank. That way you retain the strength in the piston construction. Piece of mind... Answering the questions about your setup repeatedly will benefit the motorhead community as a whole. It is healthy to be challenged. It helps us all strengthen our understanding. Thanks for that. BTW cool pic of your engine. Do you have a cardomain page or something to peep your ride?
Nevermind, I found your pix: http://www.britishv8.org/MG/JimBlackwood.htm That's cool. I can see why you'd want to keep your headers. That must have been a real challenge to build! Welcome to the list BTW. Thanks for a fun thread. You are no pussy when it comes to fabrication. I dig the fender/hood setup you built. I'm going to post the link to my Vega site. It might give somebody some ideas.
Thanks for the compliments Nick. The headers took 80 hours to build, and in about '87 I had $750 in them in materials and such. They are equal length within 1/8" on all 8 pipes and work extremely well. I've been thinking more about the 340. I'm starting to confuse which of three BB's gave what information, but the deck of the 340 is 1.190" taller than the 215, or about 1-3/16" That's going to make spacing up the 215 intake quite a challenge. However, the wide intake of the 340 has plenty of room to move the fuel rails out away from the plenum, opening up new possibilities. Did anyone make an aluminum 340 intake? Probably not. Likely as not the stock intake won't work with the '64 300 heads either. All of which makes things interesting. Another thought, with an inch or so to work with, the spacers could contain the injector bungs and could have countersunk bolts holding them to the head and threaded holes placed lower down to accept the bolts holding the intake. This could allow a much lower manifold position and a thinner spacer. Something to consider I guess. Jim
Jim, it sounds like the 300 is the way to go for you given you want to keep the blower. Keep us posted, this is one COOL car!
If you haven't found this yet then check it out. http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgu...channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=G
i remember seeing pics of a buick nailhead that had "355" on top of the air cleaner. sorry Jon, that wasn't a Nailhead. it was a 300 SBB. on the 215's and 300's Buick stamped the rocker covers so they would look similiar to the Nailhead rockers. Nailheads had a good reputation, dontcha know? the dead give away is distributor placement. all Nailheads have the distributor next to the firewall. all BBB's and SBB's have the distro at the front tilted to the drivers side, similiar to a Cadillac. you're right on about all the rest. Because I'm using the stronger Rover 4-bolt block I'm arriving at 300(299) ci with less deckheight. Good to see ya Nick! do you have a thread in here detailing exactly what you're doing? i know you've posted a bunch of bits and pieces but i'm not sure i ever remember seeing a full write up on it... anyway, is your Rover block a stock 215ci deck height or is it somewhere in between? and what's the actual #? i'm a whore for exact figures... :spank: also, are you using the stock Rover bore then and just stroking it? Schurkey do you have general access to deck heights on a variety of blocks? and if so, do you mind if i pick your brain? Jim I realize I could probably get more horsepower N/A from a 340 or a 350 with better heads. one problem. there is no such thing as an aftermarket head for these engines. the best it gets is the aluminum intake for the 350, timing covers and headers. pretty much everything else for all of our small blocks is one offs ... just like what you're doing. factory heads require a great deal of porting before you'll go over the 500hp mark. I hope that doesn't sound too much like a rant. not at all. we love hearing about people doing wild and crazy things with the small block v8's. Did anyone make an aluminum 340 intake? not at www.TAPerformance.com or www.PostonBuick.com and if they don't have it it's doubtful anyone will.
