Engine Builds - Impala Tech
Performance Our High Performance Area

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-18-2017, 11:32 AM Thread Starter
 
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 14
 
Engine Builds

Just joined the site but have browsed it countless times over the last couple of years. I have been on other sites and noticed several threads started on individual engine builds with component list and end results. Not to hurt no ones feelings but I restored a VW bug years ago and used a site TheSamba and they had threads on engines, transaxles, suspension and brakes in a multitude of combos with individual pros and cons and I was able to choose what I thought would best suit me to accomplish my goals. It was very helpful and saved time and money. Is this possible on this site? I always found it better to educate yourself by listening to someone who has tried and either failed or succeeded and learn by either or both. Look forward to sharing experiences and knowledges gained.
chase is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-18-2017, 02:12 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,059
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chase View Post
Just joined the site but have browsed it countless times over the last couple of years. I have been on other sites and noticed several threads started on individual engine builds with component list and end results. Not to hurt no ones feelings but I restored a VW bug years ago and used a site TheSamba and they had threads on engines, transaxles, suspension and brakes in a multitude of combos with individual pros and cons and I was able to choose what I thought would best suit me to accomplish my goals. It was very helpful and saved time and money. Is this possible on this site? I always found it better to educate yourself by listening to someone who has tried and either failed or succeeded and learn by either or both. Look forward to sharing experiences and knowledges gained.
Yes it is Chase.

I have built a lot of engines (mostly SBC engines for used car lots as replacement engines); as that helped keep the shop in the black and allowed me to buy tools and parts to build nearly as many race based BBC engines for local consumption. In my spare time I picked up a mechanical engineering degree and worked for a number of companies involved in manufacturing, but I would return to Tampa bay and open another shop after each company I worked for closed it's doors and moved to cheaper labor overseas.

Been racing since the days of flagmen, and I also dabbled in SCCA racing as that was a bucket of fun as well.

If you have questions I can offer an opinion on your build, but we have at least three other successful and knowledgeable engine builders on this board.

Big Dave
Big Dave is online now  
post #3 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-18-2017, 09:42 PM
BA.
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Miamisburg, Oh.
Posts: 2,779
Blog Entries: 15
 
Plenty of folks on this board with some great first-hand experiences and more than willing to share.

Welcome the the site!


....the path to wisdom begins with an open mind!
BA. is offline  
 
post #4 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-21-2017, 10:06 AM Thread Starter
 
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 14
 
Thanks guys. I'm in the process of building a 348 now and was wanting to share my build. Would I start the thread here or on the engine forum? I wanted to detail it with process, my hp goal, parts w/ numbers and finish with the results. This may help someone else and myself.
chase is offline  
post #5 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-21-2017, 10:52 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,059
 
Are you building a stock 348 or are you going to be build a high performance engine? This forum is for hot rodding an engine, versus just general information on how to build an engine.

The 348 is the shorter stoke (same as a 327) version of the W engine so it can rev higher in theory. But to survive it requires a lot of aftermarket parts. The 409 had not only a longer stroke (same as 350) that makes the same power at a lower RPM, but had a larger bore as well, which is how you want to go to build horsepower. From my experience the heavy piston and the small rod bolts with a thin rod bottom end resulted in a lot of blocks with a missing pieces.

Big Dave
Big Dave is online now  
post #6 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-22-2017, 11:10 AM Thread Starter
 
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 14
 
Big Dave, Stock crank (polished/balanced), JE max lightened forged pistons w/rings, eagle con. rods, howards hyd roller cam w/lifters, upped valve sizes 206 intake; 172 exhaust stock heads, scorpion rocker arms 1:70, edelbrock intake, water pump, and fuel pump, MSD dissy, Holley 750, Doug Thorley long tube headers. Anyway my goal was to keep it reasonably stock in appearance (aluminum parts painted). There is more to it but that gives the basics. Machinist/engine builder is estimating around 400-425 hp. We'll see.
chase is offline  
post #7 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-22-2017, 03:02 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,059
 
You addressed two of four issues I discovered with the W series of engines. Heavy cast pistons (and I mean heavy) are addressed by hollow dome forged pistons. The 6.09" stock rod has a thin cross section in the big end that was a weak point addressed by the chrome-moly rods from Eagle (especially if you went to a H-beam). Another weak point is the stock rod bolts, as high performance big blocks used massive 7/16th inch boron steel rod bolts. If those Eagle rods have ARP bolts then that is addressed as well (for a mild build you do not need 2000 series bolts whch don't always fit well without clearancing parts.

Final is the bottom end of the W block is much weaker than the Mark IV big block that replaced it (the Mark III was a large bore set on five inch centers like a modern Pro Stock block). The W engine had the same size bulkheads as the SBC. It is the reason that W blocks are so rare today. Most passenger car blocks have gone the way of the Dodo, leaving only thicker core high nickel truck blocks that have a large notch (valve relief) cut in the block to reduce static compression (though with a smaller dip in the piston moving the combustion chamber closer to top of the bore turning it closer to a flat top piston compression can be raised back up again).

Big Dave
Big Dave is online now  
post #8 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-22-2017, 04:29 PM Thread Starter
 
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 14
 
Hey Dave,
So what you're saying is that I have addressed everything I can with the exception of the stock '59 car block? Not much I can do about that, it came with the car. What does this limit me to? Surely it won't grenade on me. It should never see more than 5500 rpm after dyno, not even close I wouldn't think. I've got ARP rod, main, rocker and head bolts/hardware. The block was in perfect condition, no cracks no core shift and no warpage. It really didn't need bored but I went .030 over anyway. The only thing I thought about doing and didn't was 4 bolt main conversion. Didn't seem necessary for what I was doing. It'll be mated to a 700r4 with a 2200-2400 converter. Still working on the reared gears and wheel/tire sizes. Suggestions anyone? Should be fine for a driver with tire squeal now and then Huh? Thanks for the info. This is a good thing. When I get all my receipts and specs entered in my spreadsheet I'll start "My build" thread.
chase is offline  
post #9 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-22-2017, 09:07 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,059
 
I used to rev the snot out of my small blocks and the 348 and 409 motors. I often discovered that the 283 wouldn't rev to the peg on my 10 grand Sun tach with stock components, but I didn't worry back then as a 283 could be had for $20 to $25 dollars so I would buy another short block and swap out the cam for my solid flat top and install my hand ported and reworked heads. The 327 was more expensive and wouldn't rev as high as the 283 due to it's long stroke (quarter inch longer than a stock 283) but back then most all SBC came with forged steel cranks so when a rod failed it just ventilated the block and the motor died. I also occasionally lost a cam to a rod flailing about and the piston would occasionally damage the head. It was the 348's flat head that drew me to try them out, but even though it shared the stroke of a 327 the heavy cast pistons didn't like to rev so they tended to live longer than a 327 would.

Bigger bore definitely helped with power over a 327 and I really liked the look and response of the tri-power 348 over the two four barrel 327. But the biggest reason most of my Mark I big blocks survived longer was their rarity. They cost an arm and leg even back in the sixties after the Mark IV came out. I believe at the time I was running flat hydraulic lifters in my two 348 builds as Harvey Crane only had roller solids at the time. If so that also explains why I couldn't over rev the 348 as I could the later 409s.

High RPM is hard on any engine. I have learned to build them for the RPM band I want to make power so that I can get more enjoyment out of the engine. A hydraulic retro fit roller will definitely limit RPM and the single four barrel manifold and heads will keep port velocity up making for a more efficient engine in your desired power band (the street). A 350 SBC would probably make you more power for less money, but nothing beats those W valve covers for sex appeal.

Big Dave
Big Dave is online now  
post #10 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-23-2017, 11:14 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: virginia
Posts: 244
 
As dave said:

"A 350 SBC would probably make you more power for less money, but nothing beats those W valve covers for sex appeal."

And, if that 'sex appeal' of the valve covers is not on your 'must have' list, building a 383 sbc really doesn't cost more than the 350 and the torque curve is VERY street friendly. 400 + torque and 400 + hp is easily attained with the 383 without getting into the 'high rev' power bands. Parts are also plentiful.

But those valve covers ARE sexy.

I have a 'mild' build 383 in my '63 convertible. It has a little less hp than the dual quad solid lifter 409 but a little more torque. For my street use the low end torque is key. Mine is 400 + lb-ft at 2500 rpm (the lowest rpm I have dyno info) and max is 445 at 3800 rpm. Perfect, for me.

But those valve covers are sexy (oh, I said that already). Would I have preferred a 409 for looks? Yes, but the cost and the risks were way too high. So I tell people its a 327 with aluminum heads and manifold. Most ooh and aaah over that.

I just enjoy rowing the gears with the 400 + lb-ft of torque; puts a grin on my face every time.
japete92 is online now  
post #11 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-23-2017, 11:50 AM Thread Starter
 
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 14
 
japte92,
I feel ya about cost but, the rarity of the thing made my decision. I inherited the '59 from my Mom. It ran OK but the rear tail lights and turning signals quit on me. As I was troubleshooting I saw the terrible shape of all wiring and then it smoked checked when trying to start it one day. I really considered a crate engine and a new wiring harness but my heart couldn't do it (the engine is the car) so I forced my wallet to accept what was coming. Though not as rare as the 409 you just don't see them very much. Not trying to build a 9500 rpm tire burner, just a 375-425 hp cruiser. I know, I know, could build 4 small blocks or 2 second gen big blocks for what it'll cost me but that's what I'd have, another 350 or 454. Not that anything is wrong with those, thank God we have them but it definitely is not the same.
chase is offline  
post #12 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-23-2017, 02:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: virginia
Posts: 244
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chase View Post
japte92,
I feel ya about cost but, the rarity of the thing made my decision. I inherited the '59 from my Mom. It ran OK but the rear tail lights and turning signals quit on me. As I was troubleshooting I saw the terrible shape of all wiring and then it smoked checked when trying to start it one day. I really considered a crate engine and a new wiring harness but my heart couldn't do it (the engine is the car) so I forced my wallet to accept what was coming. Though not as rare as the 409 you just don't see them very much. Not trying to build a 9500 rpm tire burner, just a 375-425 hp cruiser. I know, I know, could build 4 small blocks or 2 second gen big blocks for what it'll cost me but that's what I'd have, another 350 or 454. Not that anything is wrong with those, thank God we have them but it definitely is not the same.
Just discussing , NOT criticizing:

Perhaps there is a better goal for your 348 'cruiser'. "Cruiser" IS ambiguous but I think of a 'cruiser' as an engine built with street manners, reliability and low end torque as the primary goals (not hp).

I question the viability of our goal of "375-425 hp" from your 348 and be a 'cruiser'. But I don't count, convince yourself that what YOU are building will achieve YOUR goals.
japete92 is online now  
post #13 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-23-2017, 02:48 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,059
 
Think of the 348 as a SBC 400 block fitted with a 327 crank to get a 347.5 cubes. They are built and raced all the time (admittedly as a high reving big bore 327) that makes lots of power. They are not as common as a 377 which is a 350 crank in a SB 400 block, but if you want a poor man's formula one engine it is as close as you are going to get with off the shelf parts.

http://www.purplesagetradingpost.com...%20engine.html

Big Dave

Last edited by Big Dave; 01-23-2017 at 03:28 PM.
Big Dave is online now  
post #14 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-23-2017, 03:58 PM Thread Starter
 
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 14
 
Wait. Maybe I am looking at this wrong. The engine is a base 348 w/ 250 hp. My thought process was based on how it ran when I pulled it and discussing it with my engine builder. The engine had never been rebuilt, removed or modified from stock. It leaked, smoked and was tired but would still move that 3700 lb lug off the line and climb smooth. I would get to about 60-70 mph and the old girl would start to shimmy and shake. Anyway, I figured add a little internal performance with some weight removal we would get close. Am I missing something or is the builder shining a little sun on my backside? Looking at the numbers and based on the guys rep it sounded possible (many local recommendations). Getting back to the 348/250hp, I am not sure that is a real number. I'm no performance guru but for the condition that engine was in it seemed to perform very well. Not a wheel stander but very surprising. The top dog in '59 put out 335 hp so with modern lighter performance upgrades another 40-70 hp sounds reasonable? Same block I'm guessing as mine. Just cam, carb and compression difference? Heck I don't know. That's why I'm here and was suggesting the thread in my 1st post. I just hope I'm not thousands of dollars and months to late. Got an uneasy feeling.(don't we all?)
chase is offline  
post #15 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-23-2017, 04:09 PM Thread Starter
 
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 14
 
Assuming that torque will rise as well. Not wrapped around hp I just throw it out there. I know torque is where the umps is on this heavy cars. I say this with hp/trq curve will both rise. Not equally of course but in somewhat of a curve. Am I wrong?
chase is offline  
post #16 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-23-2017, 04:23 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,059
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chase View Post
Wait. Maybe I am looking at this wrong. The engine is a base 348 w/ 250 hp. My thought process was based on how it ran when I pulled it and discussing it with my engine builder. The engine had never been rebuilt, removed or modified from stock. It leaked, smoked and was tired but would still move that 3700 lb lug off the line and climb smooth. I would get to about 60-70 mph and the old girl would start to shimmy and shake. Anyway, I figured add a little internal performance with some weight removal we would get close. Am I missing something or is the builder shining a little sun on my backside? Looking at the numbers and based on the guys rep it sounded possible (many local recommendations). Getting back to the 348/250hp, I am not sure that is a real number. I'm no performance guru but for the condition that engine was in it seemed to perform very well. Not a wheel stander but very surprising. The top dog in '59 put out 335 hp so with modern lighter performance upgrades another 40-70 hp sounds reasonable? Same block I'm guessing as mine. Just cam, carb and compression difference? Heck I don't know. That's why I'm here and was suggesting the thread in my 1st post. I just hope I'm not thousands of dollars and months to late. Got an uneasy feeling.(don't we all?)
No you are not mistaken. I am not suggesting you build a 348 for a NASCAR racing (even though it is a similar borer and stroke the NASCAR engine made well over 750 horsepower with 12 degree SBC 2.2 heads). I mention these numbers as some doubt the engine's potential.

There were two different heads for the 348 the low horse is what you have which have smaller valves and ports. Both issues can be addressed with head work, but there are better solutions. The high performance heads used the three two barrel manifold and the two different manifolds do not interchange between the two different heads. If you see a 3x2 on a 409 it is because they have machined the manifold to get that set up or it is actually a 348 and not a 409 (bought a few 348's thinking they were the 409 they wre reported to be by mistake).

The 348 isn't as famous as it's big brother (no body wrote a song about a 348) but there are a lot more of them around today because of this and they will run just fine with only modest changes. I wouldn't go over board especially with your first build. Just fresh rings (attached to new pistons) will improve your performance over a worn out smoking engine. Newer cam grinds offer more valve acceleration. Bigger valves offer more air flow. pocket porting and debur can make your current heads breathe better and it is still basically a stock engine. With long tube headers and an electronic ignition you can achieve your goals.

To push the envelope any more than that I would buy an aftermarket World Products block (basically a Merlin III BBC block only cast to the W engines unique head angle) install a 454 stroker crank and build yourself a "348" with Edelbrock aluminum W head painted orange to preserve your numbers matching 348 for a future generation (it's value will only go up). That way you would have a stronger foundation more cubes with a longer stroke to keep the RPM down (preserves the motor) that can run on pump gas. I know this isn't in your current budget, but it can become a future project when the funds and the desire are available to do this.

Big Dave
Big Dave is online now  
post #17 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-23-2017, 06:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: virginia
Posts: 244
 
Here's an interesting article on the 348:

Chevrolet W-Engines - Rare V-8 Performance History - Super Chevy Magazine

It may be helpful to you.

A few things to note are the compression ratio's of those engines and their weight. They would not run properly on today's pump gas.

Also, I was surprised how many versions had solid lifters.

I 'stole' the following 'shots' from a crate engine vendor; it does not specifically address the 348. It does (in simplistic form) explain how peak hp may be a poor goal for some engines.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 5.44.50 PM.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	76.7 KB
ID:	16977   Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 5.45.27 PM.jpg
Views:	34
Size:	75.0 KB
ID:	16985  
japete92 is online now  
post #18 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-23-2017, 09:11 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,059
 
Which is why I think a 540 cid is a good start with a BBC engine's displacement. May not make as much peak horsepower as a 355 twisting to 8,200 RPM but it makes a lot more torque averaging over 650 foot pounds of torque from 2,800 RPM to 5,800 RPM with a peak torque of 707 lbs./ft. with a peak horsepower number of 736 horsepower at 6,300 RPM. It is torque that accelerates a car not horsepower. (it is also torque that breaks parts as it is an example of what happens when you apply an unstopable force against an immovable object; things like transmissions, universal joints and rear ends often suffer the consequences).

https://i2.wp.com/hotrodenginetech.c...03tq_graph.jpg

Chase isn't looking for peak numbers other than bettering the original factory numbers by about 25% to 30%. I think this is a realistic goal, and it preserves his family heirloom as well as getting a rare motor for when he pops the hood at car shows. The original intake for the 4GC four barrel carb is no better on the W engine than it did on the 327. The higher horse engines ran one or two Carter AFB four barrels on a different manifold. I would recommend a 600 to 650 cfm Holley on an Edelbrock (I was going to suggest an Offenhauser manifold but they only seem to come over carburetored with two fours or six two barrels).

www.show-cars.com - Edelbrock 1x4 small port aluminum intake manifold in Edelbrock Intake Manifold 24.030

That and a mild hydraulic cam, head work, headers and I think he will hit his mark with a motor that will be a pleasure to drive.

I can take a motor from mild to wild. I built hundreds for used car lots out of scrap metal I pulled off a ship headed for Korea or Japan. I have built race winning race car engines to compete in a lot of different race types from USAC to NASCAR to NHRA or IHRA (with my own personal car running on the national record in drag racing) not to mention a couple of Ford and John Deere antique tractor rebuilds. The only motor to kick my but was an Evinrude four cylinder out board engine I never could get running.

I think Chase is just looking for reassurance as he has most of the parts he needs now. I was just pointing out if he wants more power the 348 isn't the path to take unless it is a destroked SBC 400 running Small Block 2.2 12 degree NASCASR heads on alcohol then 800 horse is about the lowest power level he would get

[The old NASCAR joke was ... "Do you know how to get 750 horsepower out of a SBC 2.2 engine? Pull off a spark plug wire!"].

There are engines that have their fans from Olds to Ponchos to the Hemi from Chrysler. Every engine has it's own characteristics as they have different heads and bore and strokes to favor torque or horsepower. Believe it or not the SBC isn't the most powerful motor around, it is the cheapest to build which is why it is so popular. It yields the most bang for the buck. I have been building engines fo over a half century, and I even got an engineering degree while doing it. So I am familiar with just about everything from theory to machining to building a motor. But lets us not scare him off with too much too soon.

Big Dave
Big Dave is online now  
post #19 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-24-2017, 12:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: virginia
Posts: 244
 
Dave,

You and I are NOT disagreeing about anything, especially "That and a mild hydraulic cam, head work, headers and I think he will hit his mark with a motor that will be a pleasure to drive. ".

To clarify my intent, I was simply providing some info Chase MAY find helpful in instructing his engine builder on what his requirements are. I also provided some historical info I found interesting on the 348.

In writing posts on forums it is difficult to communicate tone, intent, and connotation. My tone is one of complete respect and and my intent is to be helpful. You are an engineer and so am I (naval architect for 49 years). I've made 'mistakes' when a client has said (very clearly to me) they wanted one thing when they really meant something else.

For the 348, for example. IF the builder believes hp is the goal, he may select a mild cam that provides more hp at say 6500 rpm. A better choice MAY be a milder cam that provides more low end torque and red lines at 5500 rpm. Neither engine would be unpleasant to drive (with proper gears) but which one does Chase want? Do the differences matter to Chase? Communication and informed decisions is all I am suggesting.

In one of my posts I said "I question the viability of our goal of "375-425 hp" from your 348 and be a 'cruiser'". I retract that statement, it was a poorly written comment. "Viability' was an especially poor choice. I spoke in haste.

Please don't take anything I'm saying as being argumentative, or defensive. I did NOT take anything posted as negative in ANY way.
japete92 is online now  
post #20 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-24-2017, 03:03 PM Thread Starter
 
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 14
 
Easy fellas, This was not my intention. It is hard to understands one thoughts via tweets, texts and forums. My torque will be at 2200-2400 rpm. The head work is as you stated; Upped valve size 2:06 intake, 1:72 exhaust, hardened seats 5 angle. ported and matched to edlebrock performer intake, single 4 (Holley 750) and Doug Thorley long tube headers. Scorpion rockers at 1:70 ratio. comp beehive H11 springs, screw in rocker studs (7/16). Lunati 5/16 .080 wall push rods. Howards hydraulic roller cam w/ lifters (Lift 560/572, Duration @.050: 229/233). Cloyes true roller timing chain/gears. Stock crank polished/balanced with eagle connecting rods and JE Custom lightened forged pistons (11:1) gasketed to 10:5. Clevite bearings. ARP where available. Edelbrock water and fuel pump. MSD 348/409 Ready to run dissy, 8mm wires. Melling M55HV oil pump. Everything deburred, champhered and opened up where needed. I'll give spring tensions, timing and all other details when its finished or as I find out. I hope this helps you in helping me with what I may or may not have. I am no engineer and know just enough about the internal combustion engine to blow it up. Talking with my builder this should give me 100-125 more hp with a complimenting torque curve with my 700r4 2200-2400 torque converter. I had an estimated tq curve number but lost it in my garage somewhere. Your inputs are much appreciated as I am forced to research your info and learn something new every time. Still trying to get a rear end gear and tire/wheel combo. I've got a plan for drive shafts and u-joints. Will a beefed up gear and axle set in a 10 bolt 8.2" be good?
chase is offline  
post #21 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-24-2017, 04:48 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,059
 
Since your car is all original you can find out what you have by examining the code stamped into the passenger side facing forward stamped into the axle tube.

1958-1970 Full size rear Differential Identification

In addition to the Dana 60 a more original looking option is to install a 1957 -'64 Pontiac/Olds rear end. It is nearly as strong as the Dana 60 as it has a huge ring and pinion but the axles are not as large as are available for the Dana (but more than strong enough for your car). The original Chevy rear was designed for a six cylinder as Chevy was the very last name plate to get an eight cylinder motor. It will not survive for long behind a big V8 if you are going to try any racing or showing off in front of friends. The early Chevy axles where notoriously weak.

Olds Rear End: Parts & Accessories | eBay

Big Dave
Big Dave is online now  
post #22 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-24-2017, 07:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: virginia
Posts: 244
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chase View Post
Easy fellas, This was not my intention. It is hard to understands one thoughts via tweets, texts and forums. My torque will be at 2200-2400 rpm. The head work is as you stated; Upped valve size 2:06 intake, 1:72 exhaust, hardened seats 5 angle. ported and matched to edlebrock performer intake, single 4 (Holley 750) and Doug Thorley long tube headers. Scorpion rockers at 1:70 ratio. comp beehive H11 springs, screw in rocker studs (7/16). Lunati 5/16 .080 wall push rods. Howards hydraulic roller cam w/ lifters (Lift 560/572, Duration @.050: 229/233). Cloyes true roller timing chain/gears. Stock crank polished/balanced with eagle connecting rods and JE Custom lightened forged pistons (11:1) gasketed to 10:5. Clevite bearings. ARP where available. Edelbrock water and fuel pump. MSD 348/409 Ready to run dissy, 8mm wires. Melling M55HV oil pump. Everything deburred, champhered and opened up where needed. I'll give spring tensions, timing and all other details when its finished or as I find out. I hope this helps you in helping me with what I may or may not have. I am no engineer and know just enough about the internal combustion engine to blow it up. Talking with my builder this should give me 100-125 more hp with a complimenting torque curve with my 700r4 2200-2400 torque converter. I had an estimated tq curve number but lost it in my garage somewhere. Your inputs are much appreciated as I am forced to research your info and learn something new every time. Still trying to get a rear end gear and tire/wheel combo. I've got a plan for drive shafts and u-joints. Will a beefed up gear and axle set in a 10 bolt 8.2" be good?
Chase,

All is good.

That's going to be an expensive, capable engine.

japete92 is online now  
post #23 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-24-2017, 08:29 PM Thread Starter
 
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 14
 
japete92,

I refuse to look at the $'s going out let alone tell the wife. Nah, she's good with it. The pistons were the big ticket, as well as machine work. I knew going in that I'd never see a financial return on it. This was a sentimental build really, plus they are really cool engines. I'll post the build with part numbers, cost and dyno results when it's finished. Should be about 6 more weeks.
chase is offline  
post #24 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-24-2017, 10:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: virginia
Posts: 244
 
Chase,

They are very cool engines. If I had say a '61 (my second favorite year, '63 is first) with a block in the shape your 348 is in, there is no way I would have changed it. I would not care if it were the single 4 bbl , hydraulic lifter version and would have rebuilt it much closer to the stock red line. That engine had/has plenty of torque in the low rpm's (where I would drive it), and I would design for reliability over power. That would keep me well below 6000 rpm red line. Something closer to 5k (with the lower lift, softer springs, etc to keep the stresses down) would be all I would need because I know I wouldn't drive the car that hard.

An added benefit would be I'd have more $ to spend on all the other stuff that needed fixing

If the block was a boat anchor, I'd go 383 sbc.

Those are just my preferences. My only goal was to help you get what you want, not what a builder is trying to sell. You seem very happy, and I'm happy for you.

Now if I could talk you into a 4 speed manual.....

Pete

japete92 is online now  
post #25 of 33 (permalink) Old 01-25-2017, 04:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: virginia
Posts: 244
 
Chase,

Here's a link to some info you may find helpful regarding the rear gears:

Converting NON-posi to posi - ChevyTalk - FREE Restoration and Repair Help for your Chevrolet

There are links within that link that may also be useful.

Pete
japete92 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Impala Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome