Register now to get rid of these ads!

small cubic inch smallblock recipes?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Stone, Oct 16, 2008.

  1. CayoRV
    Joined: Dec 19, 2008
    Posts: 356

    CayoRV
    Member

    Early nailhead Buick. First ones were 264 cu in. Not big revvers or powerhouses but the kool factor is right up there!
     
    GlassThamesDoug likes this.
  2. PurplePearl50
    Joined: Aug 1, 2007
    Posts: 816

    PurplePearl50
    Member
    from Sedalia,Mo

    whats the most a 350 3.48" stroke crank can be turned down. and what is the most a 65-67 283 mains and rods can be opened up?
     
  3. parksquijada
    Joined: Aug 6, 2008
    Posts: 316

    parksquijada
    Member
    from norcal

    toning down our old junior fuel motor (13 to 1, 649 lift 322 dur roller, injected, 461 heads 9000 rpm, all forged internals) w/ 75cc heads, engle .525 280-292, performer w/2" spacer, 650, headers, magnum rockers, stinger in stock dist, 327 valve covers w/ nos 283 stickers and 327 air cleaner. grinding all edelbrock stuff off intake and painting chev orange. putting in my wifes 55 f1oo till i get the 350 buick back in it. then? should be down to about 350 hp at 6000-6500...350 tq at 3500-5500 on good day. rear wheel numbers. used to run about 600 at 8500. is 292 cid. converter cost more than whole motor today. love the rpm motors. w/ todays 700r4 etc. you can run 4.11's and still cruise in od like 2.73's.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2009
    GlassThamesDoug likes this.
  4. parksquijada
    Joined: Aug 6, 2008
    Posts: 316

    parksquijada
    Member
    from norcal

    we are toying with a 260 sbf w/2 barrel cleveland heads in a 79 mustang for bonneville.
     
  5. George
    Joined: Jan 1, 2005
    Posts: 7,723

    George
    Member

    Mini Boss!:) A 255 would be a lot newer block, age wise.
     
  6. parksquijada
    Joined: Aug 6, 2008
    Posts: 316

    parksquijada
    Member
    from norcal

    would maybe fit the under 260 class better too. what from? i thenk oil pan came from one.
     
  7. revkev6
    Joined: Jun 13, 2006
    Posts: 3,352

    revkev6
    Member
    from ma

    In 1980, an urgent need to meet EPA CAFE standards led to the creation of the 255 cu in (4.2 L) version, essentially a 302 with the cylinder bores downcored to 3.68 in (93.5 mm). Rated power (SAE net) was 115-122 hp (86-91 kW), depending on year and application. Cylinder heads used smaller combustion chambers and smaller valves and the intake ports were ovals whereas the others were rectangular. The only externally visible cue was the use of an open runner intake manifold with a stamped steel lifter valley cover attached to its underside, giving the appearance of previous generation engines, such as the Y-Block and the MEL. It was optional in Fox chassis cars including the Mustang and corporate cousin Mercury Capri, Thunderbird, Fairmont, and standard equipment in the Ford LTD. Poorly received thanks to its dismal performance and mediocre fuel economy, it was dropped after the 1982 model year, and is considered one of the worst modern Ford engines.
     
    Deuces likes this.
  8. George
    Joined: Jan 1, 2005
    Posts: 7,723

    George
    Member

    Edelbrock is making heads & intake to do a made up Boss 302, maybe have to notch the walls on a 255.
     
  9. Stone
    Joined: Nov 24, 2003
    Posts: 2,279

    Stone
    Member

    That sounds awesome.
     
  10. beebee78
    Joined: Oct 15, 2008
    Posts: 254

    beebee78
    Member
    from illinois

    My 98 z28 will smoke a 4.6 ford easily. As for the third gen 305 ill agree they were crappy and couldnt catch a cold let alone a 5.0. Just my 2 cents.
     
  11. Stone
    Joined: Nov 24, 2003
    Posts: 2,279

    Stone
    Member

    I have a 98 Z28 that will as well. without a blower or some work I had no problems with 4.6.
     
  12. I had a 98 Z28 too. They would wax newer Cobras too - I had a couple mustangs just flat out decline a race at stop lights. No thanks they'd say! ha ha ha LS Motors rule.
     
  13. Moonglow2
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Posts: 660

    Moonglow2
    Member

    When I lived in North Carolina the owner of the garage that did the service work on my wife's daily driver was an NHRA Champion several times over. He ran an SBC of about 267 ci in a small pontiac body provided by the factory. I think he was turning 140 in the 1/4 and his office area was fillied with NHRA trophies. I think he is still active.
     
  14. Stone
    Joined: Nov 24, 2003
    Posts: 2,279

    Stone
    Member

    What part of NC was this?
     
  15. Great idea - perfect too for a less than sturdy driveline behind it (read Halibrand Model A quickchange that I don't want to blow up :D). Think I'll try the 231 deal.

    Steve
     
  16. ruquik
    Joined: Jul 19, 2006
    Posts: 88

    ruquik
    Member

    I didn't see it mentioned here but, Project-X (the Yellow 57) ran faster with its 301 (or was it 311, .060 over 301) than it did with the tunneled 427 they dropped into it.
     
  17. heliotropephotos
    Joined: Jan 12, 2009
    Posts: 65

    heliotropephotos
    Member
    from Austin, Tx

    283s are what I built when I was racing, I got laughed at and was called a liar alot. nobody thought the carb'd 283 could run like mine did. they were bottle babies(you know what I mean). was running 11.75 to one on pump gas, shifting at 7800-8000. ran 4000 stall, didnt start making hp till 3200ish. there was no torque, none. in the end i was around 510 hp on gas. A friends said everytime i ran her up she sounded like she was singing to the angels! I love that car.
     
    Deuces likes this.
  18. mac762
    Joined: Jun 28, 2007
    Posts: 676

    mac762
    Member

    Yes it did.
     
    Deuces likes this.
  19. Hmmmmm....
     
    Deuces likes this.
  20. mtkawboy
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Posts: 1,213

    mtkawboy
    Member

    There were small & large journal Z/28 302s in 68, I ran a 68 Z/28 stocker and in 67 you had to use the small journal, 68 either small or large & 69 large journal only to be class legal back in the mid 70s. Who knows now. I ran the small journal because thats what came in it. It was a mid year change over deal, 5.86 gears, leave on the mat and go thru at 8600 in high. Never could break it, ran 11.68 which was the record held by Tony Pizzi. Best MPH was 116.95
     
    Deuces likes this.
  21. Stone
    Joined: Nov 24, 2003
    Posts: 2,279

    Stone
    Member

    Awesome. I have heard some great stories from Z28 owners. And have read killer arguments between bigblock corvette fans and small block fans about which was hotter.
     
    Deuces likes this.
  22. panic
    Joined: Jan 3, 2004
    Posts: 1,450

    panic

    it can spin to much higher RPM before experiencing the same stress levels in the rod

    The math isn't that easy.
    Let's assume you're talking about a 3" crank vs. a 3.48" crank, where the larger motor is 16% bigger (3.48 ÷ 3.00).
    Unfortunately, you can't spin the smaller motor 16% faster to make this up because the stress level varies as the square of the RPM, not RPM directly.
    Example: if the 3.48" motor (5.7" rod) can stand 150,000 f/s/s piston acceleration (very high, but possible), that's 8,502 RPM.
    Let's give the 3.00" stroke engine an even longer rod (which would be normal) of 6.00". At the same stress level, the RPM is only 9,357 or 10% faster.
     
  23. yoyodyne
    Joined: Nov 26, 2008
    Posts: 855

    yoyodyne
    Member

    A longer rod with a shorter stroke is not necessarily normal. It is easier, if you can't get the correct piston, but longer rods work better with longer strokes, shorter rods with shorter strokes. I've seen blocks decked very hard to keep the pistons and rods as short as possible in short stroke engines.

    If you run that calculation with a short rod, what is the result?
     
  24. Babyearl
    Joined: May 23, 2008
    Posts: 610

    Babyearl
    Member

    Dosen't the 3.48/5.7 motor stress the cylinder walls more than the 3.00/6 motor?:eek: Making the first example a cast iron hemorage in the process if it was to attempt the 9357 rpm.:rolleyes: Or am I on the wrong page?:confused:
     
  25. panic
    Joined: Jan 3, 2004
    Posts: 1,450

    panic

    3.48/5.7 motor stress the cylinder walls more than the 3.00/6
    Yes.

    Shorter rod increases the stress level at any RPM.
     
  26. 86dragginwaggin
    Joined: May 8, 2010
    Posts: 3

    86dragginwaggin
    Member
    from montana

    Woudent that be a 307 or 305 block with a 265 crank
     
  27. Blind Elwood
    Joined: Jul 1, 2010
    Posts: 229

    Blind Elwood
    Member

    Try a 267 block with a 400 crank.
    3.50 bore 3.75 stroke = 289 CID of mini stroker
     
  28. 55chevr
    Joined: Jul 12, 2008
    Posts: 985

    55chevr
    Member

    A stock 267 didnt rev ... hit a wall at 5k ... with the a longer stroke it would be an iron dog.
     
  29. Blind Elwood
    Joined: Jul 1, 2010
    Posts: 229

    Blind Elwood
    Member

    The whole idea is to build more lowend torque. It makes for a more street friendly engine.
     
    Deuces likes this.
  30. pdq67
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Posts: 787

    pdq67
    Member

    I love this thread because of my old junk301 that I made out of, well, junk parts! 7,500 rpm with new points and a week later only 7,000 rpm.

    Do a search on the web for my junk301 if you want to know more about it.

    I've had a:

    Stock, '55, 265 P/G B/A H/T;

    (2) 195hp/283, 3-speed sticks;

    My old junk301;

    A CC 268HE cammed 300hp/327;

    My bought new in '66, '67 SS/RS Camaro's 350 with a -151 cam; and finally;

    My strong arm 406, (292/230 cammed), on my engine stand.

    I still have two other 400 blocks, one, a long block and the other just a short block and also an "in pieces" 283 out in the garage just for another junk301 engine if I don't die first?

    AND my 496 in my '67 SS/RS Camaro hasn't even been lit off yet.

    Go figure!

    pdq67

    PS., I can't forget the .060" over, 11.5 to 1, 409 "W" engine that was like a 283 on steroids!! It was neat how it dropped into my Camaro just like my junk301 did back then.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.