Don & Donnie Stringfellow put a 242" SBC in their stretched 260Z Bonneville car. Twin turbos. They have set records with a couple of small inch combos.
Personally, I like the "very small block Chevy" idea from all angles! As far as 'hot-rodding' or making power goes, it represents soemthing of a challenge, and in a package that will produce manageable top-end power in a real world (street, or street & strip). My dad used to build MG engines...four cylinders, back in the late 50s and through the 60s when everyone was running big V8s. His logic was "Any dope can get power out of a big engine, but it takes some thinking and talent to make a little engine run respectable numbers (in the quarter mile)". I can see the logic in that! (He reminded me of that notion several times when I was putting a 460 into my old Torino years ago...while he was tweaking the little 302 in his Maverick!) From a slightly different perspective, it's kind of neat (in my mind, anyway!) to use all of what ya got, too. I used to drive a film route and we had four banger Rangers that would only run about 55 to 60mph flat-out, on the floor, wide open with a full load. I got a certain kick out of holding the pedal to the floor on the freeway and being able to run a vehicle at WOT, working it in and out of the air behind other vehicles to coax it up a little faster. (You really develop a firm grasp of what restrictor plate racing must be like when doing this! My truck could actually run about 70mph if I stayed right behind another vehicle going that fast...but of course that makes some other drivers pretty nervous and if you get out of that air pocket, you're back down to about 60mph again! Semi truck drivers were good about letting you run that close, though...and I'd go pretty good behind most of them!!) Okay...now about economy and the very small block Chevy in a hot rod/cruiser application! We're talking about a SMALL BLOCK CHEVY here! Ha Ha, true, a 350 or a 305 would be pennies cheaper to buy and build, and will make more power than an oddball 238/239 (call it what you will!) engine...I won't dispute that at all. But, the combination I was talking about involved a 267 block (probably get one for FREE if you agreed to haul it out of somebody's way!) and a 262 crank (another 70s smog motor nobody wants). Nowadays 6.0 rods for an SBC aren't expensive or exotic, and a set of World Products S/R Torquer 305 heads (with a small 58cc chamber) would only set you back about $800. Headers, intakes, cams, etc are all available from the same gigantic pool that the 350 guys use...a small block Chevy is a small block Chevy after all, so I don't see where it would be prohibitively expensive to build a very small block Chevy at all. Shave a fraction off the decks if you're REALLY so worried about "quench area" and you can use standard 267 pistons in this one. Even if it WOULD cost more money...say even if it was somehow $500 more (although I don't see how!) to build a 239 Chevy, I think in the real world your "build budget" is a little more flexible than your "daily budget" is. That is to say, a guy could probably save a few extra dollars to throw into the building/parts gathering process (money from the "build budget"), and then when he was done, he could afford to enjoy his ride a lot more often if it used less fuel (which would come out of his "daily budget"). In a light little hot rod, the small motor would be plenty fun, you could "wring it out" and really make it work without breaking parts or over-powering the 1930s chassis design too much...and it wouldn't drink lots of high octane fuel doing it! I mean, if Joe has a 32 Ford with a 12:1 compression 406 SBC and Hank has a 28 Model A with a low compression 239 SBC, Hank can cruise all night...and go much further than Joe can with the $20 bill they each have in their pocket for gas on Friday night, ya know?! Both dudes are having fun...but Hank doesn't need a tanker truck running behind him as a chase vehicle! Resale value? 'Cool Guy points' at the car show? All anyone is really gonna see is that both Joe and Hank are running small block Chevys in their cars. Either motor can be "dressed up" any way you like, and to all the world, they're still small block Chevys. Each guy could calim his motor was a 350...or a 'mystical' 283 or 327 and most folks wouldn't know (or care!) otherwise! (I applied this tactic when I built my old Pontiac with the 305 Chevy. When I was selling it, too many bird-brains were 'turned off' when I said it had a 305 in it, so I just started telling everyone it was a 350, and nobody could tell the difference from looking at it...or from driving it! Ha Ha...when I bought the same car BACK a couple years (and two owners) later, the kid I bought it from told me it had a 350 in it and I said "No, it's a 305 out of a 77 Malibu Classic!" Ha Ha...he was speechless! He was like "But it runs so good...NO WAY that's a 305!". I simply paid him and said "Then, to you...it will always be a 350!".)
302/301 pistons avalible from a few differnent companies and stock chev rods, preferably the late 283/327 ones But if you have the bux, or are willing to starve, like me, you can get Scat or Eagle H-beams too
It's fun reading what many have done with low displacement V-8s. Another option is the Buick-Olds 215 C.I. aluminum engine that began life in the early 60's. Due to the obvious weight savings, with a few add-ons they can perform reasonably well as a 215. Add the Buick 300 crank and heads with new pistons and the result is an all-aluminum 302. I know these little engines have surprised many people. - EM
Aluminum Buick 302? How about a little more info on this? And any build formulas for a small cubic inch buick, or olds, or mopar, ford etc....
I'm still not going to scrap my 392. Gas would have to be 10 times the price it is today, and if I was going to build a small cubic inch engine I'd go to an inline. I mean there is nothing wrong with a 283 or 265. I like smallbocks, but unless you are going class racing I see no need to change bore or stroke configuration unless you're trying to get more.
My point is you can not run "rediculious rpms" without dishing out money on a valvetrain. You start looking at vascojet springs, severe duty valves, stud girdle, and rockers you really are looking at serious money. Think you can do it with stock rockers, springs, and press in studs? Maybe for a little while. I think you would sooner then later find out how messy it can get when you drop a valve with a engine running over 8000 rpm.
i think most of us understand this, no ones gonna go out and hold a car at 8000 with stockish parts and think all will be ok. its just bench racin, puttin out ideas and learning different combos. personally, i dont see why people build flattys, they make crap for power, unless you really have deep pockets, and still its not a high number. but people do it cuz they want to, thats good enough for me. i dont bash their ideas. i love a revvy motor, always have, thats why i had 4 old yamaha RD series 2 stroke bikes. small stroke SBCs just sound fun.
On mine it's gunna have a repop GM 140 grind (offroad 1) by crane($115) and Speedway 125# springs ($60??), I will have a summers bro's gear drive, screw in studs and roller rockers but they arent needed. Crane cams say it's good to 7,800 or something like that, still thats screaming
I would have to find my Fathers pocket note pad to see the details again about his old combo so I will just state what he had told me and my brothers for now. He had a 67 SS Chevelle 396 and when the big block couldnt handle his driving style a destroked small block was designed and built by his machine shop friend and him equalling 277 cu and very capable of over 10K rpms. The car ran a tunnel ram at times with either a single or dual 4 barrel combo,and as he staged and the lights came down the rpms would change with each yellow bulb eventually ending up around 9800 on the last yellow before launch.The class was G/MP and he ran the tracks in south Georgia and North Florida when he could. Car was original white with black vinyl top and he added red air brushed borders to the quarters,doors and fenders with the hood and trunk being metallic blue with cut out white stars........very nice period paint job. Mainly the car could be found at Fairburn Georgia Dragstrip so most likely there are some who seen it.His notebook off memory stated a 5.XX rear gear (possible 5.86) and was either high 10's or low 11's (again off memory until I can look at his notes). It was a real screamer.
Stone, I didn't mean to hijack your thread with the bench racing story,, but the 3.08 crank was offset ground to small journal. The only aftermarket parts were the Brooks 5.7 rods, a Lunati Roller, and Titanium valves. TRW pistons with welded up domes .100 off the tops w/ gas ports to the backside of the top ring and reshaped by hand. The heads were 461 doublehump, angle milled 1/8 inch, and angle plugs installed after the heads were milled to place the plug as high in the chamber as possible. Ended up with 53cc chambers,,about 12.7 compression. Had quite a few discussions with Lee about the domes, chambers, and bowls. Lee was the man when it came to heads back then. He had the mother of flow benches.
I think the coolest thing about having such a high-revving motor (or one of the cool things) is the F'ing circle track cam you can run in the thing- That HAS to sound tuff as hell.
That's a killer cam. They had a nasty idle and would rev to the sky. Older technology cams had lower lifts and less aggresive ramps that would allow less spring. I really didn't want to spoil the whole thread. My brain is wired different I guess. I mean I had a 377 stroker motor that I spun to 8500 rpm with cheap shit too. I just shoot for a 6500 max rpm and things get alot more street freindly. To all his own right?
Babyearl you didn't hijack the thread. Bench racing and stories about motor combos and recipes is what its all about. And Dyce don't worry brother. Different strokes for different folks. No pun intended.
phil1934, how long you lived in Jonesboro?? Thats where I grew up and where my Dad built his car in early 70's.
Went to HS and college here, then moved back 15 years later, been back 20 years. Moving to mountains soon, though.
When i was planning a "E" class motor (184 - 260ci) Bonneville motor was going to use a 0.030" over (3.766") 305 with an Eagle 350 main 3.000" stroke crank. Still too much stroke so I was going to use honda journal 1.890" connecting rods which would allow a 0.100" destroke by offset grinding the crank. This would produce a 258ci class legal motor without suffering the big buck custom cranks when using a 4" bore block. A set of modified vortec heads and supporting parts and you have a 500 plus hp potential with out going too exotic, ish. I know of one Texas based land speed racer that has a 258ci motor base on a 4" bore making well over 600 hp at over 9,000 rpm. I have a '55 265 that i'll be building a sleeper out of one day just like Bass as you can see from this thread http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=181361 Like Bass I'm surprised there aren't more sleepers built out of these motors. My latest thought is to go for a super light weight rotating assembly via used cup car race crank, the only penalty is a BBC balancer but painted orange it will be at least inobvious. I'd like to fake up some ali or vortec heads but I'll proably use the '58 Vette heads I have....
Here's some pics of the machining differences between the 265 and 327 blocks for all those stroker minded people. 265 327 327
Re "Still too much stroke so I was going to use honda journal 1.890" connecting rods which would allow a 0.100" destroke by offset grinding the crank." To clarify for those interested in this, the Honda-size journal (48mm = 1.88976") weakens the crank, but pretty safe with this short stroke and small size. The maximum stroke change (up or down) is the difference between the original journal size and the new journal size. Using the 1955-67 2.00" SBC crank you can get up to .110" change (3.00" stroke could drop to 2.89") Using the 1968-* 2.10" SBC crank you can get up to .210" change (3.00" stroke could drop to 2.79") Whether this is a good idea depends on whether the oil holes are still GTG, etc. If any metal needs to come off the crank to clean it up, that amount is subtracted from the stroke change - typically .005" is subtracted just to give the grinder some room to work. The Buick small block is only an advantage in weight, and then only if you can find an aluminum block (now 45 years old) and afford to make all the required mods. The Buick is about the same height length and width as the SBC, and much smaller in maximum size. The 215 (the only aluminum block) is 3.50" × 2.80". The 300 crank (3.40") only produces 262". The later 340/350 crank (3.85") produces 296". Of course, the maximum RPM is now reduced quite a bit - the 296 has a longer stroke than a 427 BBC. To get a big engine you need to start with the late Rover (not Buick) aluminum block, which is 3.701" bore. Using the 300 crank it's 293", using the 340 crank it's 331". The only later (better) Buick aluminum head is the 1964 300" V8. I'm sorry to insist, but the gas mileage comparison with a big motor doesn't work for several reasons: 1. the big engine can pull a much taller axle ratio and/or overdrive, so the engine speed when cruising will be much lower 2. the speed equipment needed to produce the high RPM power discussed makes mileage impossible - the engine is inefficient until turning very fast 3. high compression (12-1 was quoted) improves mileage
Good additional info panic, nicely explained. Could I ask you to clarify your thoughts on why decreasing the journal on a crank will weaken it? And when would you consider it toomuch of a risk in a n/a motor? Cheers Steve
I got a lot better milage out of a 383 powered '69 Charger than a 318 powered S/W. Just not enough go for the weight.
The stiffness (bending resistance) of a crank is very tough to estimate, since it includes the length, width of the journals, and diameters. The common method of guessing at bending resistance is "journal overlap", which is how much solid steel connects the rod journal to the main journal next to it (the weakest point). The math: (MJ + RJ - Stroke) ÷ 2 = overlap. Example: 2.300" main + 2.000" rod (early SBC) - 3.00" (265/283/302 stroke) = .650" overlap Going down to the Honda size: If destroked, 2.300" main + 1.890" rod - 2.90" = .645" overlap. If stock stroke, 2.300" main + 1.890" rod - 3.00" = .595" overlap. If stroked, 2.300" main + 1.890" rod - 3.10" = .545" overlap. This isn't really good math, because it makes it appear that the reduction from stock to Honda (same stroke) is exactly .595" ÷ .650", or -8.5%, but the connecting area isn't the same shape when the journal sizes change. Read my article on estimating crank stiffness vs. journal sizes: http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/journal.htm
Thanks for the info guys. I really like the ideas of a small cubic combo. And you guys have expanded ideas that I had for my 283.
In the mid 60's I built an 1/8" over 59 vette 283 4"x3" for 301 ci. I ran the piss out of it for 13 years and it was rock solid dependable. It must of had OVER 50,000 miles on it with never a problem. This thing screamed, go for it.
The 301cid was a .120" overbored 283cid. This equals a bore of 3.995". The 302cid is effectively a .125" overbored 283! or a bore of 4.000" This explains the 1 cubic inch difference. Recipe: early 283 block bored .125" 6" small journal rods stock 4" bore 350 pistons with the stock 350 pin location 300hp-327 or aftermarket 170 intake port heads Performer intake with a 600 to 650cfm range carb Would make a nice easy-to-drive peppy driver in a 2600# car.
The Jalopy Journal
