Project Anti-Ken-A Very Low Budget 350 build

[Tom Bryant]

Or I could run these and carry a BIG fire extinguisher. :L

 

[DkBG]

Hey Tom , I found the stock cam out of my 72 Z28 . You can use it if you want . Cliff Ps . It would go nice with that other manifold .

 

[Tom Bryant]

Thanks Cliff. That might just work out. Is that the 3972178 solid lifter cam? The '72 LT1 was a 9:1 engine. That's about where I should be. I wonder how that would work with my combo. Anyone know what the 1st gear ratio is in a turbo 400? I have a 3.73 rear axle too but I'm wondering if the overlap would kill the bottom end.

What did you replace it with?

Anyone know the chamber size on '72 350 2 bbl heads. I'm thinking 76.

Tom

 

[Eric]

Anyone know what the 1st gear ratio is in a turbo 400? I have a 3.73 rear axle too but I'm wondering if the overlap would kill the bottom end....
Tom

Yep, the ratios on a TH400 are 2.48(1), 1.48(2), and 1.00(3).

Nice pics by the way.

-Eric

 

[Ken]

Originally posted by Tom Bryant

Man, I haven't seen one of those in a long time.

 

[JohnZ]

I haven't seen Stromberg 97's in a long time either - here's a pic of 97's on a '57 Caddy that I stuffed in a '51 Ford (set back 10") back in 1960:

Of course, you could always bolt on a set of these (deficit financing definitely required)

 

[Tom Bryant]

Ken,

I have a pair of Mickey Thompson whitewall slicks downstairs too. A full 7 inches wide!. I used to run them on my '59 but they weren't too good in the rain. I have a picture around here someplace. I'll have to scan it and post it.

You are welcome to use them when you take your car drag racing if you want. :gap

 

[Tom Bryant]

John,

Those 4 and 2 more were on this fantastic swap meet find a few years ago for only $200. I figured I could make 4 good carbs for the Chevy manifold out of the 6. Might look cool on the '59 with no hood or find a scooped hood and just cut a hole for the carbs with chrome pots to stick through. I wonder what the points deduct would be for that? :L With the big nostalgia craze in street rodding now rebuildable 97 cores are selling for as high as $150. each. :eek

Weiand Drag Star for Nailhead Buick

That's one beautiful Caddy. Love the silver block. Must have been a fun ride. I stuck a Chrysler Fire Power hemi out of a '56 300 in a '47 Ford Club Coupe when I was 17. Another pic I'll have to dig out. I don't know about those Webers. It's about 18 miles to work and there are only about 6 gas stations on the way. Might not make it.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Peices parts

I found out that I didn't have to work last night so since I had already got my 9 hours sleep I stayed up and researched parts. I looked through every catalog I have and searched every parts site I could find. Ended up that Summit seems to be the best over all for price and selection.

As I said before, I was going with cast pistons. Well one of the best deals I found was at Speedway Motors for a set of 8 all within 4 grams in weight of each other for $69. These are flat top. I don't want to use the original type dished ones even though I found them a couple dollars cheaper. Flat tops will give a smoother flame travel and once I smoothe the edges of the valve reliefs and polish the tops they will be very detonation resistant as well.

When I got to the Summit listings I found the Feder Mogel Sterling brand hypereutectic pistons for $9.39 each or $75.12 a set. That is cheaper than many of the cast pistons I found. So I'll be stepping up the the Sterling pistons. As for rings Moly are only about 14 dollars more than cast and are far superior so I'll be using the Sealed Power Molys.

I then found a Summit rebuild kit for $199.95 that used the same rings and pistons so I left it open in a window and started comparing each component in the Summit catalog and on other sites. Their kit had a few things I didn't need like a gasket set and freeze plugs. About the only thing I don't have in stock is head gaskets and an intake set. My heads were used with dished pistons and I think they are 76 cc chambers. I need to do a measurement this weekend. This makes me curious as to the compression ratio of that engine. Must have actually been 8.0 or even 7.something. Here is the tech info on the Sterling flat tops:

* Compression ratio: 8.24:1 (76cc heads), 8.55:1 (72cc heads), 8.88:1 (68cc heads), 9.24:1 (64cc heads), 9.96:1 (58cc heads)

As you can see they list an 8.24:1 ratio with 76cc heads and a 9.24:1 ratio with 64cc heads. I find this interesting in that the '70 350/300 horsepower was listed in the GM literature as having a 10.25:1 ratio and it is a flat top piston with 64cc chamber engine. Could there be fact to the belief that GM over rated the Compression ratios on their engines? This would seem to validate that belief.

Instead of the kit pieces I decided to use Clevite 77 main and rod bearings (mains were $2./set more and rods were about a buck apiece cheaper). I also selected a Melling high volumn oil pump and a Melling steel intermediate shaft with steel coupling (half the price of an ARP). So I came in under the kit price and upgraded a few things.

The head gaskets I'll use are a GM Performance part number 3830711 steel shim .026 compressed thickness. I need all the help I can get in the compression ratio department so this thinner gasket will be a good choice.

When I get these parts in and get the short block assembled I'll post a complete list of part numbers and prices. Now I need to start thinking on that cam Cliff offered vs. what I had in mind. So far I'm right on schedule on the budget.

Tom

 

[DkBG]

Tom , that cam is the solid lifter factory unit . They weren't too far off the 30-30 cams . My Camaro also had a 3;73 rear end with a turbo 400 . I believe your right about the combustion chamber sizes . I changed my head castings to the service angle plug castings with 64 cc chambers and the thin shim head gaskets . It was supposed to give a 10.5 to 1 compression ratio . Of course I had no way of checking that though . I don't remember much about the cam I went with , just that it was a Manly . I used all the stock parts in my heads . Let me know if you want to check out that cam . Cliff

 

[Ken]

I like the laid-back 'tude on the person sitting behind the wheel!

:L

Tom, you have a wonderful collection of intake manifolds. Haven't seen some of that stuff in sooooooo... long. :cool

Sounds like you are well under way with your plan. I have nothing but good things to say about my dealings with Summit so far. Support has been good, returns haven't been a problem, credit for returned merchandise was promptly applied, etc. As I said, nothing bad (so far).

What is the time frame you're looking at regarding completion of this part of the truck project?

_ken

 

[Jack]

Re: Peices parts

I then found a Summit rebuild kit for $199.95 that used the same rings and pistons so I left it open in a window and started comparing each component in the Summit catalog and on other sites. Their kit had a few things I didn't need like a gasket set and freeze plugs. About the only thing I don't have in stock is head gaskets and an intake set. My heads were used with dished pistons and I think they are 76 cc chambers. I need to do a measurement this weekend. This makes me curious as to the compression ratio of that engine. Must have actually been 8.0 or even 7.something. Here is the tech info on the Sterling flat tops:
Tom

TOM:
For what its worth .... Carolinas Auto Supply House www.autosupplyhouse.com 1-800-438-4070 sells their "super engine kit" for 350 sbc pretty cheap ... latest price $176.39. Includes pistons, rings, cam, lifters, oil pump, main&rod&cam bearings, timing set, gasket set & freeze plugs. I've used em ... good quality ... not race car ... but good solid quality.

-edit- I think their OE type pushrods (pioneer) are about 75 cents each.

-edit again- Tom, call em & check ... I deleted/added ... mixed/matched/upgraded stuff in kits I've bought from em ... they have inexpensive hi-po cams ... HV oil pumps ... 4 or 5 different brands of pistons ... maybe you could delete the gaskets & freeze plugs etc & add pushrods & valve springs etc ... they're pretty easy to work with ... email me if you want my acct # to use when you call ... just a thought.

Also, I've gotten some great deals on trw, pioneer etc from http://www.erwparts.com/ They're in Ft. Lauderdale contact Anthony Ciarocchi aciarrocchi@erwparts.com ERW 1 800 940 4379 ext.102
JACK:gap

 

[JohnZ]

Speaking of Nailhead Buicks, here's my '53 Vette (E53F100036), in 1959 (when nobody wanted them) with a '57 Buick nailhead, 3x2's, Harman-Collins roller cam, and a '37 LaSalle 3-speed and 4.11 axle (3x2's later replaced with a 6-71 blower and dual WCFB's); in that form, it ran 12.20's. Yup, the good old days on Woodward

Here's the interior (note three pedals ):

Here's the interior of the '51 Ford with the 10" set-back Caddy - it was a terrific "sleeper" in 1959:

 

[Ken]

Goodness gracious, talk about feelings of NOSTALGIA! And I'll bet that Ford was a sleeper for 1959 John, there was never one like that where I grew up. Pretty impressive for 1959 if you ask me.

_ken

 

[Tom Bryant]

What a couple of cool cars. You are so right about there being a time when '53 Corvettes or any of the first 3 years weren't worth anything. Nobody would have ever believed that they would someday be collectable. That explains why that '53 custom at Barrett-Jackson was built in '59 also.

I don't see #36 in the '53 Registry . Do you know what became of it? Can you imagine taking that car to Flint in June looking just like it does in your picture?

I'll bet that Ford hauled too. Must have suprised more than a few hot dogs on Woodward.

Tom

 

[Tom Bryant]

Thanks for the links Jack. I'll check them out tomorrow night at work. My dial up is too slow to load their catalog in any reasonable time.

Tom

 

[Tom Bryant]

Here is some cam info to ponder. First is a discription of the 178 LT1 cam that Cliff offered. When reading these remember that Chevy did use this in a 9.0:1 engine rather successfully ('72 LT1) although I would say that the 178 would be better suited to a 10.0:1 or better engine.

3972178 Mechanical Flat Tappet
This mechanical flat tappet is used on the 70-71 Corvette and Camaro LT-1. It is a good all around street mechanical cam (ID#3972182). The duration at lash point in degrees (intake/exhaust) is 300/312; duration at .050" tappet lift (intake/exhaust) is 242/254; and maximum lift with 1.5:1 rocker ratio (intake/exhaust) is 435/455. Valve lash is 024/030 and lobe centerline is 116 degrees


12353917 Camshaft Kits
8.0 - 9.5 to compression ratio, 2200 - 2600 cruise rpm. Basic rpm range 1500 - 4000, 6500 rpm attainable with proper valve springs and lifters. All model small-block Chevrolet V8 1955-66 California, 1955-68 with federal emissions. All non-emission trucks, and 1966-92 for off-highway applications.
Technical Notes: These are hydraulic flat tappet camshaft kits. The duration at .050 lift (intake/exhaust) is 204/214 degrees, and the valve lift is .420"/.442". Lobe centerline is 112. This camshaft kit is designed and manufactured by Crane Cam Co.®. It contains one camshaft and 16 tappets.


12353918 Camshaft Kits
All "Marine" and off-road small-block Chevrolet V8. Compression ratio 8.75 - 10.5 to 1, 2600 - 3000 cruise rpm, basic rpm range 2000 - 4500 rpm, 6500 rpm attainable with proper valve springs and lifters.
Technical Notes: These are hydraulic flat tappet camshaft kits. The duration at .050 lift (intake/exhaust) is 214/224 degrees, and the valve lift is .442"/.465". Lobe centerline is 112. This camshaft kit is designed and manufactured by Crane Cam Cov.®. It contains one camshaft and 16 tappets

The 918 cam more closely matches the cruise rpm of my vehicle with the 3.73 gears and I like the specs. But then the LT1 might be fun too. Mechanical cams do not intimidate me. In fact I have never installed a performance hydraulic cam in any vehicle of my own to date. This engine may be a first...maybe.
I know that there are a multitude of excellent grinds and companies making cams and we all have our favorites.

 

[JohnZ]

I don't see #36 in the '53 Registry . Do you know what became of it? Can you imagine taking that car to Flint in June looking just like it does in your picture?

Tom

Not in the registry 'cuz it's history - I sold it in 1961, and the guy I sold it to killed himself in it about six months later (he removed the roll bar, didn't wear the seat belts either) when he slid it into a curb and rolled it several times - car was totaled.:cry

 

[Tom Bryant]

That's too bad for the car and the guy. Today someone would be "rebuilding" it even if they had to replace everything except the serial number plate. I guess we should put it the registry as wrecked and presumed scrapped in 1961 and maybe a discription of it prior to it's demise. At least it would be accounted for.

Tom

 

[Tom Bryant]

From the "Math is hard" dept.........

or at least sometimes confusing. The technical data listed for the flat top pistons I'm considering is missing two important items necessary to know when calculating compression ratio; deck hieght and head gasket compressed thickness. After doing some figures it is obvious that they were not using a zero deck height (piston top absolutely level with the block deck) figure for their calculations. This is not unusual as new production engines and most rebuilds are assembled with the piston "down in the hole" a certain amount for safety's sake. To gain zero deck height and the increase in static compression ratio that comes with it, a block must be assembled with the pistons run up to top dead center (tdc) and a measurement taken to determine how far the piston top is below the deck. Then a cut is made on the deck to remove that amount of material to bring everything up to zero. A zero deck height gets the piston top dangerously close to the surface of the head at tdc. In this case the only clearance between the two is the compressed thickness of the head gasket. Ok for racing engines where the crank bores and block decks have been carefully machined to ensure that they are exactly parallel and that no piston is actually sticking up higher than the deck at tdc. For a street engine this would be a recipe for desaster.

So in the case of the piston under consideration (compression ratio specs listed again below) I would have to say that these ratios were figured with a rather thick composit head gasket and a fair amount of deck height. Probably no decking of a stock spec block.

Sterling Hyereutectic flat top pistons
* Compression ratio: 8.24:1 (76cc heads), 8.55:1 (72cc heads), 8.88:1 (68cc heads), 9.24:1 (64cc heads), 9.96:1 (58cc heads)

In the previously discussed example of a 350/300 horse engine I plugged in the numbers for a rather thick (.058) composite head gasket and zero deck height and come up with around 11.0:1. This tells me that the deck height must be substancial on a production engine to get it down to 10.25. I don't know how Sterling come up with the 9.24 ratio but it looks like Chevy is closer to right after all. I suppose that it's possible that these blocks were machined at GM with extra thickness left on the decks. I wish I would have measured the old engine before dissassembly just for a reference point. Could it also be possible that these pistons are machined short? I hope not.

Anyhow, using the formula from the Tools tab at the top of this page I figure that with the .026 thickness head gasket and a zero deck height I will have a 9.59:1 compression ratio. I calculated in the real volumn of the heads also. This afternoon I measured the chamber volumn and came up with 78ccs. A tad more than the 76cc specs but production tolerences come into play. Now when the valves are ground they will receed into the chambers a little and there is a slight amount of unwanted material protruding into the combustion chambers that has a ragged edge on it. This is an excellent place to form a hot spot and cause detonation. So this will have to be smoothed over. This small amount of massaging will increase the chamber volumn even more. Won't know how much until I measure it. I'll try to keep all of the chambers real close to the same. I'm more concerned here with eliminating detonation than reshaping and polishing the chambers. After all, these heads are nothing to brag about from a performance standpoint.

I also will not know what the deck height is until I assemble a rod to a piston and put it on the crank for a measurement. I'm hoping that my final ratio falls in between 8.75 and 9.25. I would like to see an actual "real" compression ratio of 9.0:1. If it ends up being really low I will know before I start on the heads. I'm going to assemble the short block before starting on the heads. I can always mill the heads slighty to bring the compression ratio up to a respectable level. Of course this will cost more and the intake manifold also has to be milled to fit the new head angles.

I could always switch to a pair of 64cc heads but that would be marginable for pump gas. I really want to keep it in the unleaded regular or middle grade level. I could always go back to dished pistons. If I did change heads I have a pair of 64cc ones on a complete 1970 350/300 stored in an engine crate at my dads. They would have to be converted to hardened seats and I really think that the flat top pistons are more important for a detonation free engine that gaining a little compression.

The formula for calculating compression ratio in the Tools area above requires a couple other calculations also. These formulas are also in the Tools area. You need to calculate the head's chamber volumn and the volumn of the cylinder as well as the volumn of the compressed head gasket. Remember, a comressed head gasket is just a really short cylinder and uses the same formula. Also when you measure the deck height you calculate it's volumn using the volumn of a cylinder formula and, since this amount is above the piston, it now becomes part of the combustion chamber. Add this volumn to the combustion chamber volumn and subtract it from the cylinder volumn.


Well that's about it for now. So far my total investment in this project is still $.00 (except for the sore brain) but that is about to change. I need to get some parts ordered.

Tom