There's no back pedaling. I'm not here to generate business or offer referrals. I would have no idea what the skills of a member or their resources could be, only to offer that the same cross technology that gave birth to the entire aftermarket still has unheard of resources. There's probably 1000 castings a day in the US alone being welded, brazed, or otherwise normally done. One of the largest companies in the world doing this was started in a garage with a torch and some sand, lol. I realize that it's impractical for most. Obvious should be an understatement here.
Derek, apology accepted. No need to delete posts, I'm guessing maybe it was a bad day and willing to give the benefit of the doubt. You are an asset to the forum normally, any of us are going to be a bit off from time to time. I think it is worth taking a close look at Carl's project. Since we have the available stock stroke lengths, the next step should be looking at rod lengths. Consider: 300 is 5.960" 350 is 6.358" 340 is 6.387" So you have your 1/2" right there. With 340 rods, 0.427" and with 350 rods, 0.398" That increase in deck height over the 215 doesn't seem so large now going from 8.960" to 9.543". A difference in deck height of: 0.583". You still have to make up 0.156" or 0.185 with the 350 rods. 3/16". Use of a crank longer than the 215 at 2.8" should make it possible to find a satisfactory piston I would think. Jim
No issues here. I may have to break down & punch my Rover 3.9L V8 to a bore of 3.736 & cross my fingers on the liners. So glad Buick cast theirs into the block.
Jim, I wasn't having a "bad day" I just tell it the way I see it, and it looked doable but ridiculous to me so I commented as such. I'll try to be a bit more "politically correct" so I don't hurt your feelings again. Anyway; The sbb 350 rod info you have is a misprint, whoever printed that had a dyslectic episode when they wrote that, it should be 6.385" not 6.358". You really don't want your rod ratio above 2:1 or there will be far to much dwell @ top dead center and @ bottom dead center. Even with a 6.00" rod the ratio with a 3.22" stroke is 1.8633:1, getting up there VERY close to the 2:1 threshold. The more the rod ratio is increased the more degrees of dwell will be added to the top and the bottom of the stroke, going over the 2:1 ratio IIRC is the point where you start losing power. I wouldn't recommend using the factory cast iron sbb rods, not the best choice for an engine that he wants to spin. I would recommend aftermarket sbc rods that are rated for 8,500 RPM(but the rods only rated to 7,500 rpm may be the only ones available with the 2.00" rod journal?), then for sure they should live in the engine at higher revs. With the 6.00" rods the ratio would be close to what you have in your 340 with the 7.00" rods with the 3.850" stroke, which is 1.8181:1. With a 5.700" rod length would be even better with a 1.7701:1 rod ratio, close to what a sbc 327/307(3.25" stroke) had(1.7538:1), with a sbc 302/283(3.00" stroke) that had a 1.9:1 rod ratio :eek2: for comparison purposes. So, what's wrong with the AutoTec 4032 forged piston and ring kit? Those can be ordered in the compression distance and diameter needed for any of these applications, as well as be ordered with different wristpins to work with different rods. o No: Not to bad of a price for something like that if you ask me. They can be ordered with the 1.933" compression distance that Carl needs to run a 3.22" stroke in a sbb 300 block. Have you even looked at those pistons? Derek
Very interesting topic thanks Jim for starting this thread! I totally agree about the positive attributes of the 300 for vehicles with limited space under the hood and or light vehicles. In the skylarks there is room for a 350, two turbos and a dead body lol so it's easy to just stick with the 350. I was interested to see a few people talking about taking a stock 300 and adding a turbo, I think that would be great!! And yes all the stroker options are cool. I also agree that using a 300 for a serious hp build I would make it 350 cubes and cam it to my desired rpm range. One last thing... There was a fellow who put 7" long rods in his Buick 350 and with no other changes and the same compression ratio he made less power and ran slower in the quarter mile compared to his 6.300 long rods he had previously used. So there is something to say about the length of the rod and the ratios... Not sure if the 300 engine would react the same but most likely.
I can tell by your tone you are still feeling prickly. Suit yourself, but it's doing you no favors. A word to the wise is sufficient. I looked at those pistons and they are pretty nice and reasonably priced but not so much cheaper than the competition to justify not looking at them equally. Regardless, it's Carl's build so it's his decision. I get the distinct impression you want everyone to just agree with you instead of making their own decisions. Not gonna happen. He also expressed concerns some time ago about the rod ratio. Let me post the following quote from Engine Builder magazine: "Using longer connecting rods with the same stroke reduces the side loading on the pistons, which reduces friction. It also increases the piston dwell time at Top Dead Center. Holding compression for maybe half a degree of crankshaft rotation longer at TDC improves combustion efficiency and squeezes a little more power out of the air / fuel mixture. Typically, an engine with a higher rod ratio will produce a little more power from mid-range to peak RPM." However other engine builders feel the influence of rod ratio is generally overstated. I really don't know from personal experience how much would be too much or even why, other than for physical constraints but you yourself pointed out the 1.9 ratio of the Z28 302 which was a true race engine in street clothing, and since the ratio with the 4.2L Rover crank would be 1.925 I doubt he would be giving anything up. But please feel free to elaborate on just exactly why you think a higher rod ratio would cause a loss of power. With some references please if you don't mind. (btw you are right about the 350 rod length, as I remember now. I knew those numbers, just didn't remember. TeamBuick was the source of the bad info) Jim
"I can tell by your tone you are still feeling prickly. Suit yourself, but it's doing you no favors." Name calling isn't doing YOU any favors either, good thing for you my feelings don't get hurt as easily as yours. In none of my posts have I stooped to this level, it was more of a jokingly tone FYI and still I wrote a lot of helpful information on that ridiculous subject. Not sure I even want to post this info for you because of YOUR tone, you're asking me after basically calling me a not very complimenting name, but I will give YOU one last chance, now speaking in a firm serious tone. "I get the distinct impression you want everyone to just agree with you instead of making their own decisions. Not gonna happen." I am simply offering a free advice on the internet its up to whoever reads it if they want to use that information to which I can care less if they do or don't. If you don't like the info I write, feel free to not use it. ou: Speaking in a carefree tone. "I looked at those pistons and they are pretty nice and reasonably priced but not so much cheaper than the competition to justify not looking at them equally." Who are the competition for those pistons? As far as I know the only competition to those would be a full on custom piston that would cost almost twice as much as those. Breaking it down a custom set of pistons are around $800 which does NOT include wristpins, so add another $100 to $250 + depending on the application. Then you have to buy rings, another $100 to $300 + depending on the application. The price for the AutoTecs include wristpins and rings. o No: Who are their competition? Would like to know so I can post more than one choice, I feel like a broken record sometimes with the AutoTecs even though they are really nice pistons. Speaking in a questioning tone. The rod ratio thing I was going by CRS memory, but I do know when doing a stroker build that I try to get at least a 1.5:1 ratio minimum if at all possible within the confines of the platform being built. Did a bit of re-reading on the subject and Carl can probably get away with a longer rod with what he wants to do because the longer the rod the more it will kill low end torque. Perhaps using 7.00" rods like you have in you 340 with one of those 3.03" stroke cranks? For a 2.310:1 rod ratio, but the compression distance gets kind of short at 1.028" with this combo. The link below says that full on race engines use very high rod ratios, so he can get away with a higher ratio I believe, but maybe not that high because of other factors. Speaking in a informative tone. What concerns me about a combo like this would be cam clearance. A shorter rod will actuate away from the cam more as it rotates around than a longer rod will(you have experienced this on your build), with that short of a stroke would even compound that effect or lack of per say. Speaking in a concerned tone. Here is some rod ratio reading for you; http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/rod-tech-c.htm The selection of rods for a 2.00" rod journal size are limited with the longest 2.00" aftermarket sbc rod maxing out I believe @ 6.125" long. There are longer LS rods that are 6.460" and 6.560" long, but the big bore is for Honda size rod journal of 1.889". The 3.03" stroke crank can be destroked or stroked an extra .090" or even left where its at to use these rods with the crank's rod journal cut down. Speaking in a informational tone. If cutting the rod journal down on the crank doesn't bother you, (it shouldn't, gsjohnny revved his sbb 350 to 10,000 RPM once and didn't break it, while running nascar take out rods with the Honda rod journal size of 1.889" with 7,000 RPM being the normal for his engine IIRC) then that will open up a lot more rod choices. With these kind of rods with the bolt to bolt closer together than the 2.00" journal rods there should be zero cam clearance concerns as well. There are even 6.450" nascar take out rods on eBay, very light weight and strong for next to nothing, but they are for the 1.850" rod journal size; http://www.ebay.com/itm/181969787105?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT If you have a good machinist they could bore those rods out from a 1.976" bore to a 2.008" housing bore to be able to use the Honda 1.889" bearings. These rods are .900" wide so simply remove the extra .055" from the non-chamfered side and you have a set of $2,300 nascar rods ready for your application for pennies on the dollar of what they cost new, like a 90% discount! With the 3.03" stroke you can get a custom set of pistons of your choice with a 1.578" compression distance if that is the crank you want to use. If not, remember that the compression distance only needs to increase 1/2 of the stroke increase if you opt for a longer or shorter stroke. Again speaking in an informational tone. So it looks like this platform will work for Carl after all, just have to figure out an intake. Perhaps one of those Huffaker(not sure if in I'm spelling that right?) intakes hogged out for a set of ported TA Rover or equivalent heads with some custom spacers to make it fit. For less that 300 cubes that intake should be enough to feed a build like this to above 7,000 RPM with no problem I would think?(not sure, haven't messed with this little stuff before) Speaking in an its up to Carl if he wants to use this platform and I could care less if he does or doesn't, tone, just so you didn't need to guess my "tone" I made sure to let you know. GL Derek P.S. Calling out my tones was more of a jokingly smarta$$ tone for a bit of comic relief. LOL Lighten up, its only the internet.
Thanks. I have not heard of them. I have been just perusing the mainstream piston manufacturers trying to find a reasonably priced off the shelf piston.
Hey Carl, here is a link for them; http://www.buyracingparts.com/pisto...stons/autotec-forged-350-buick-pistons-1.html Don't let them calling them Buick 350 pistons discourage you because they are customizable and can be ordered to work in a sbb 300 block, here's what they say about them; "AutoTec is a High Quality, Precision Manufactured piston option. That comes at a very respectable price. Our Design Specific Forging allows us to manufacture our parts with less machining time, thus allowing us to keep production cost down. Then pass that savings on to you, the customer. Made out of 4032 High Silicone Aluminum Alloy, it has great wear resistance, a low expansion rate, is very durable, and is very low in friction. These pistons accommodate multiple uses including. Your local auto shop, muscle car restorations, performance street rods, as well as many spec racing classes. They can also withstand mild nitrous kits and small turbo or super chargers. Just about everyone can benefit from the excellent value the AutoTec line carries. Keeping in mind these pistons were originally designed for about 600 Horsepower. In Small Block applications, we have customers that frequently fine tune engines that yield 850+ Horsepower with a bit of Super Charger boost. Bore, Ring Pack, and Compression Distance changes can be made to any shelf part at no extra charge. Meaning that if you do not see your application listed in the guide, we can make what you need without charging a custom price. Every part is made with same high quality machines and tools as our RaceTec line including diamond turned ring grooves, and skirts. Not to mention our parts are 100% made in the USA." "Bore, Ring Pack, and Compression Distance changes can be made to any shelf part at no extra charge. Meaning that if you do not see your application listed in the guide, we can make what you need without charging a custom price." The wristpin size can be changed as well but not sure if that is extra or not. Wanted to take the above sentence out of the paragraph to make sure you didn't miss that. I believe that the dish pistons have 2 different dish volumes to chose from but they may be able to do a custom dish if that's what you need but may cost a bit more. You should be able to use one of the dish sizes to get the compression ratio you need though? GL Derek
So, I would have to punch a 300 .60" over to use those pistons? Can't afford the TA heads. My '64 300 heads will have to do. As for the ridiculous question, I had/have no idea how much a 300 could actually be decked. That is why I asked here.
Long rod vs short related to a project like this... It isn't as simple as 'race or street' or 'low vs. high rpm'. When the combo is limited by the top end's flow capability the longer rod hangs on longer AFTER peak hp (by slowing down the pull on the intake tract, and...) combustion efficiency, which is the main reason for their preference in circle track app's that are very induction limited due to rules. Deeper gears multiply torque to make up for the torque loss (entire powerband) and the extra couple hundred rpm helps at the end of the straights. So, those have roughly the same output throughout the powerband but with more driver control, and it doesn't drop quite as fast after peak. A shorter rod will better utilize a capable or even slightly too big induction. It will be more streetable, responsive, efficient, and the tiny increase in friction (at peak hp) is way more than overcome by the output from a fuller cylinder (higher VE). Frictional and TDC dwell differences matter when you have 2 very equal vehicles and drivetrains going down the same track and teams searching for minute advantages. I see engines of all types go down the track faster as the cubes go up, even if the rod ratio gets lower, as long as there's adequate top end. I'm limiting these experiences to applications 8500 and lower.
Don't worry about it Carl, I was using the word ridiculousness jokingly for the most part, wasn't meant to ridicule, sometimes its hard to convey that over the internet, my apologies if it was taken the wrong way. Typically .060"(1/16") removed from the deck's surface is a lot, removing .500"(1/2") would essentially remove the deck and would expose the water jacket of the block or make the deck paper thin. If blocks were made out of a more weld friendly material, the deck could be cut off with a band saw and the material thickness needed for the lower deck height could be taken off in between and the deck welded back on and then sleeved.(basically) But seeing how cast iron is very difficult to weld, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to do that. Would probably trust doing that way better than brazing a steel deck on the block though. Either way is a ton of work to do something like that, perhaps you can look into the long rod aspect a bit closer? Looks like Tony did a little write up on rod ratios that may be helpful? And no you wouldn't need to punch a 300 block .060" over, when you order those pistons you tell them what bore size you want them to be. You could even skip having the 300 block bored, and just have it honed to the closest size that have good rings available. Derek
OK here's an idea for you Carl. It's a bit out there but at least feasible. Practical though? Probably not. Here goes: Bore the 300 block for the maximum size wet sleeves (Dale could probably give you your best deal) and see how close you can get to a 4" bore with good wall thickness. You might have to cut flats on the sides of the sleeves near the top to get coolant flow. Make new decks and cut down the block. (If you could find a deck plate it might be possible to slice it in half to make 2 decks, and drill the coolant passages.) provide for brazing wire inserts at both ends of the sleeves and use a brazing paste elsewhere. Have the whole works oven brazed in a slightly reducing atmosphere to prevent oxidation. And if it all worked out as planned you could end up with a short deck 4" bore block. And it might not cost as much as you would expect. Of course, then you'd still have to finish the bores and deck the block at least. But fun to consider. Jim
So I just looked up ring sizes and if you wanted to save a few $$ you could just have the 300 block honed to 3.756" and order those pistons that size. If the block isn't good enough to hone to that size then the next size up would be 3.766" with good rings available. I think you can do what you want with the taller deck height and you probably don't want a 4.00" bore if you're planning on using '64 sbb 300 heads. It would be a good idea to have those heads ported though, there is a sbb 300 head porting thread with some good info to where to send the heads to have them ported to get 200 CFM on the intake side. Derek
Really, the reason I asked about the major changes to the architecture having to do with 'simply wanting it', 'perceived performance gains', or maybe something more practical such as 'packaging issues in the vehicle', and the off tangent discussion of bandsawing a block apart and it's feasibility is this... 'If you just want something different or it NEEDS to be cut down to fit in some way'...it isn't that tough to do. The process or welding isn't difficult, it just isn't going to be done with a garage-based zapper. 'If you think there's a performance gain to be had' ...by shortening the deck, it's a LOT of work just to lose a bit of reciprocating weight. This is probably why it was referred to as 'ridiculous'. There's a lot of other ways to gain performance than deck height, esp. for the $$. The best solution if neither is NEEDED is to simply use a taller piston or more stroke, don't go crazy with long rod schemes. The extra stroke doesn't make it a 'musclecar engine' or slow revving turd. Any engine's performance potential is determined by the top end and how it factors numerically to the bottom end. It will rev based on that and the bob-weight. I've done plenty of long stroke, big cube engines with light parts that will instantly blip to the rev limiter. None of this was intended to cause arguing or to clutter up a thread, I simply take issue when people are unfamiliar with something taking a strong stance against it using assumptions about an industry or unfamiliar 'technology'.
In the bold is why, not because of the question, was how much it would cost and the work to do it. And FYI, I'm very familiar what can be done and am familiar with the 'technology' but the reason I wasn't for that route was do to the cost that it would involve because I am familiar with what would be capable. Do some reading of the mighty 300 sticky thread and you'll see that I have written about doing similar things to a 300 block years ago. And to refer that I'm not familiar with what can be done, it was my idea to cut the deck off with a saw and shorten it up by machining the saw cut sides and welding it back together. And of coarse no a garage welder won't work for that kind of welding, would need to be taken to a weld shop that specializes in cast iron welding. Would be substantially less expensive than making new decks out of steel and brazing them on. With brazed on decks there would have to be a mechanical fasteners to hold the deck on to the block so the heads could be bolted to the new deck without both of them separating. Welding the original deck back on with an inexpensive shouldered sleeve installed would be much more cost effective than the brazed on deck treatment. Could even weld the sleeves top and bottom for a bit more structural integrity. Just so Carl has an idea, I would guess a custom wet sleeve to do this would probably be around $200 each, times 8 is $1,600 just for the custom sleeves, even if the sleeves are only $100 each would make that $800 plus labor. If TA heads aren't in the budget then I can't see something like this in the budget, not to say it wouldn't be cool though. As mentioned, I have looked into this before and if you look at the block with one upside down you can see how the cylinders extend passed the water jackets into the crankcase. To bore the block out far enough for a 4.00" sleeve those cylinder extensions would be machined out, definitely requiring involved machining and custom o-ringed sleeves. Darton charges $75 an hour for engineering the sleeves so that the shop has a print. And with using the sleeves with the flats on them a very accurate CNC machine needs to be used to hold the tolerances that installing such sleeves requires. Here's and article on installing such sleeves; http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/project-cars/sucp-1107-700-hp-ls-454-stroker-build/ With the nascar rods I posted a link to and the standard stroke 300 crank with the mentioned pistons should be able to rev where you want it to with the rod ratio below 2:1 with an actual of 1.897:1, close to the sbc 302 of 1.9:1 rod ratio. Those rods in the link are super light and super strong that will handle any RPM you could throw at them with a piston with around a 1.390" compression height with the 3.400" stroke which would make those pistons very light. Add your ported 300 heads with an adapted Huffaker intake or equivalent and a solid roller cam or even a solid flat tappet cam and spin the snot out of it. Should rev very fast like Tony wrote. Just my 2c, take it or leave it. Derek
I found a set of the LS wet sleeves on eBay for a set of 8; http://www.ebay.com/itm/Brian-Crowe...ash=item5690488982:g:VWEAAOSwcLxYJ9NG&vxp=mtr I would imagine a couple hundred $$ more for custom wet sleeves for a sbb 300 because that wouldn't be an off the shelf part, unless they make them for the Buick v6? So my guess was pretty close, then there is the CNC labor to properly install these so the block doesn't get scrapped. Like I said, I looked into this and didn't want to pay that much for just the sleeves even with myself doing the machine work to install them. If someone else was buying I probably would of done it already, in the mean time I'll have to wait till I win the lottery before I would consider doing this. Add in deck shortening and that would be one expensive block, a VERY cool block but it better be for what it costs. Maybe if I had my own cnc lathe, od grinder and surface grinder instead of just owning just a mill I would possibly consider making my own sleeves. The more I think about it the less I'm not hating the idea of sawing off the decks, shortening them and welding them back on with inexpensive step sleeves installed(around $40 a piece). Wouldn't be able to get a 4.00" bore but should be able to get a close to a 3.800" bore plus or minus .050". Using a .090" walled shouldered sleeves, the bores would need to be bored .180" bigger(2x the sleeve's wall thickness) to 3.930" bore diameter to get back to the standard bore of 3.750". Of coarse the block's cylinder walls can be checked to see if larger diameter sleeves can be used after the decks are cut off to maximize bore diameter, but worse case scenario would be the standard bore size. Not sure how much a weld shop would charge to do that kind of welding, that would probably be the most expensive part of the job, having it welded. If I did the job, the bores would be roughed out for the sleeves before welding because I would want the inside of each of the 8 bores welded then finished bored before the sleeves were installed. Of coarse I would drill and ream dowel holes to locate the decks so the bores line up very close for when its welded. And have everywhere that will be welded chamfered so there will be more weld contact on the weld seams. Derek
Apologies in advance for this off-topic post: I just want to say that we all have our good and bad days. I have posted things in the past that I regret, and I've tried to make amends by being more tolerant, forgiving, and kind to others who may be going through some rough times in life and it tends to bleed over into other aspects of life, whether we even realize it or not. Everyone is fighting a battle that no one knows about (or few are aware of). We all have at least one. A little kindness goes a long way I say. This is such a wonderful place to share ideas and suggestions, and even though there may be a few 'hiccups' here and there, all's well that ends well. Peace
This is old but I thought I'd add it to the mix. http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.p...ock&p=2039826&highlight=350+crank#post2039826 Greg
