BRAAP

If you are wanting just a quickie temporary fix to get you by as you start acquiring the bits and pieces for a more permanent long term powerplant; 1) Run this one till it dies then park it till it the long term powerpalnt is ready. 2) Find another running core for cheap, swap that in for the time being, though you could end up inheriting other issues. 3) Just as BluDestiny said, pull the head, clean the block deck really good, surface the head, but only enough for 100% clean up, so long as it wasn't a ton of material removed, just bolt it back on and go. If the head is warped excessively, you should also finish dissembling the head and have the top decked as well as the cam line wont be straight, or find another useable head core. 4) If this is the long term powerplant, you best bet is just pull it and rebuild it. Hope that helps.

Aside from that' date=' my input parrots Tony D.

Bo, you are absolutely correct in that every engine is different and every engines ideal timing curve, (talking N/A here), is going to be different. I listed a window of maximum total mechanical ignition advance above 3500 RPM for combinations such as ozconnetions, he is only trying attain the safer, lower end of that window, he’s not trying to achieve a blanket statement that might only work for 5-10% of those head/piston combo's. For example, my '75 280-Z listed below is an extreme example of the upper end of that window that I wouldn't recommend to everyone as not all combinations, even ones similar to mine could run that much ignition advance, but that window of 38-42 degrees above 3500 RPM should be attainable by 95% of those combinations. Car was a Daily driver, '75 280-Z, N/A L-28, 42 degrees total mechanical ignition advance that was all-in before 3000 RPM, (I think it was in by 2500 or so). 2800 lbs with driver and half tank, bone stock '75 short block with OE dished pistons, '78 N47 head with extensive valve unshrouding, stock '75 EFI, stock '78 cam, Z, 8:1-8.1:1 static C/R, ran 14.4 @ 97 MPH, 0-60MPH in 5.7, and delivered between 28 MPG with dual 2" exhaust, 30 MPG with dual 1 3/4", (performance was the same for both exhausts).

That's the plan as outlined in the first post! Nothing right now. I have another project to finish first. http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=150253

I noticed the same thing! Really nice trailer to be carrying a Chevy Beretta

Me too... Is it in use yet?

Your calendar must using the Canadian exchange rate or lost a few days at some point during the year...

100% sure, detonation! Why? L-series are "hyper" sensitive to detonation as it is, and like any other engine, the addition of boost only exaggerates detonation, i.e. failed parts in very short order! This linked below discusses my theory of why the L-series is so hyper sensitive to detonation; http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=125186 Typical culprits for detonation are; 1) Too much ignition timing for the conditions, (boost, combustion/air/coolant temps). 2) Fuel quality too low of octane for the boost/temps/overall conditions. 3) Too much boost for the fuel and ignition settings. 4) Too lean of mixture for the boost levels run. When running more than stock levels of boost, extreme care must paid to the tune, ie. fuel mixtures are rich enough and ignition timing is retarded enough for the boost levels, compression ratio, engine and IAT's, etc. Add to that the L-series hyper sensitivity to detonation and the tuner has to be very good at his job making sure the tune is "safe"! ARe you running cast pistons? If so I'd be concerned about busted piston skirts or at least collapsed skirts. If you find big chunks of aluminum in the oil pan, that would be the pistons skirts. Two things about your gasket reveal the story. 1) The bulging/deformed pushed out gasket. 2) Fretting/scuffing on the face of the fire ring. Detonation severe enough that the head bolts/studs stretched as well as the cylinder head flexing enough to relax the clamp on the gasket allowing the pressures in the chamber to push the gasket outwards. It had lifted enough for the gasket to squirm on a few occasions hence the fretting/scuffing on the fire ring itself indicating the gasket was squirming between the head and block, this was happening over and over, not just once. Between cylinders #3 and #4 is the hottest region of the head due to exhaust valves being adjacent to each other. Your head more than likely lifted in that region the most causing the gasket to completely fail right there allowing the combustion process to communicate between the cylinders through the gasket, effectively a blow torch between the cylinders. As mentioned, a metal head gasket would’ve contained the detonation better than the FelPro resulting in the more obvious melted piston tops, possibly bottom damage as well. keep in mind detonation is not something you want to contain, in fact, you don’t it at all because it is BAD with a capital B!

All L-series keepers are the same, even 4 cylinder!

Just finishing up 3 custom L-series road race cylinder heads, all three receiving new Isky springs and retainers. 2 received the titanium retainers, the other steel. Thought you all might be interested in a weight comparison of Isky's Steel vs Titanium retainers, gives a good perspective as to what that extra expense in titanium retainers is actually getting you in weight savings at the valve. Almost a 60% weight savings in retainer weight, (assuming the packaging weight is similar of course). Isky Steel; Isky Titanium;

There is no doubt I am very much attracted to odd ball funky and custom parts, the more exotic the greater the attraction. The intake he has listed currently is definitely one of those, "I'm interested parts", problem is my personal preference in S-30's does not involve L-series power. If I were to stick with 6 cylinder power it would an inline 6 and most likely a BMW straight 6, preferably the S52, (3.2L M3 power-plant. My bone stock N/A '97 M3 with its 240 HP straight 6 has spoiled me). My current S-30 project wil be powered by a traditional SBC swinging my newly acquired single plane crankshaft.

If the block is not cracked and all rods still attached to the crank, looks like a great deal for a core 327. ,

Great topic of discussion! My $.02 Yes, LS2 performance in a Gen I SBC can be had and I'm not just talking peak numbers either, but equivalent or greater power throughout the useable RPM range, the SBC can and does compete with the LS series of GM power plants! First off, most you already know that I am bent on the LS engines, even sold off all my SBC goodies and have gone nuts with the LSx obsession. As such my bias is always towards the LSx. Architecture of the LSx is pure genius, all gasket surfaces are single plane, intake does not transfer coolant, roller cam design, gorgeous chambers and ports, used parts are very affordable and acceptable for mild performance, etc. Realistically, per the premise of this thread I have to put my bias aside, Yes, LS2 performance can be had from a GEN I SBC in mild to hot street applications! Can it be done within a budget that would make the general car guy sway towards the traditional SBC vs the LSx? The answer to that lies in the resourcefulness of the guy brainstorming, researching, sourcing parts, new and used, etc. SBC! Has been around since the dawn of time, (1955), been built in soooo many configurations it would make even a regular car guy dizzy let alone SBC aficionados. With so much aftermarket support, dyno testing and building in all forms of racing from bubba in his swamp buggy to the Indianapolis 500, this engine will go down in history as THE most successful high-performance power plant in the world, PERIOD! So many iterations, variations, abominations of this powerplants have been designed, built, and ran successfully and unsuccessfully that with the publicly available info regarding what does and does not work it’s almost difficult to build an SBC that doesn’t perform! The traditional SBC is a choice not to be overlooked, even in today’s quad cam, mutli-valve world the SBC can and still sets the world on its ear in the high performance arena! Down sides? Its technology is dated, mid 20th century to be exact! LSx! Enter the 21 century, you’d think that with 100 years of internal combustion technology in the record books, the current crop of modern production engines would far exceed the power and efficiency of internal combustion power plants designed and manufactured some half a century earlier... Think again! Yes the current crop of power plants offer superior efficiency in terms of fuel, thermal, and to an even lesser degree, volumetric but only barely, and even that is seems to be debatable! Enter the Popular Hot Rodding/JEGS Engine masters build off! What the heck could a car guy magazine/parts suppliers sponsored engine-build-off have to do with this discussion? Keep reading and I’ll tell you or go out buy the February 2010 issue of Popular Hot Rodding on the shelves now, (Dec 28 ’09) and read for yourself! Personally I was surprised to see such old technology successfully competing in such an event that now allows the modern power-plants such as the LSx, modern Hemi, Ford Mod, etc! Lots of vintage Mopar HEMI’s, old school Ford Cammer, even a Ford “Y” block competed! When the engine masters build off started, it was limited to the traditional V-8 power plants, induction limited to a single 4 bbl carb, all engines tested on the same Dyno. What makes this challenge so cool is how the winner is determined! “Average” power produced over a broad specified RPM range and that figure is divided by the engines displacement leveling the playing field displacement wise. Granted, making huge PEAK numbers is important and for some is relatively easy but to maintain those huge umbers over a large RPM window and NOW you have an engine building competition, one that showcases not only a particular engine designs ability to be flexible in making good usable broad power but also an engine builders connection to all things internal combustion related and what works most efficiently under such a broad RPM range! Previous years this average was taken from 2500 RPM to 6500 RPM! This year that changed to 3000-7000 RPM and these new rules also diversified induction, i.e. induction is OPEN! ITB’s, Dual quad tunnel rams, EFI, etc is all legal and these new rules also opened up the competition to the modern V-8s, i.e. LSx, new Mopar Hemi, and Ford Mod engines! (intersingly, only one Ford Mod, NO modern Hemis, yet 4 of the push rod LSx’s entered!?) 2009 Engine Masters rules; http://krang.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/challenge/0901em_official_rules_9_24_09.pdf Traditional wisdom says the modern engines should dominate a competition geared towards power production over a broad RPM range, reality is/was that wasn’t the case! First place went to a Small Block Ford Clevend, an LSx took 2nd! The other LSx’s qualified further down the list, behind small and big block Chevy's, Vintage Chrysler Hemi’s, Ford BOSS 429,s and a BOSS 302, etc. In short, yes a traditional Small Block Chevy can be built to produce as much if not more useable power under a broad street useable RPM range vs the LS2. The real question is, is the builder resourceful enough at matching parts, scrounging and acquiring those parts needed to do so with less money than Joe Blow would spend keeping a sharp eye on eBay for his ready to run LS2, and can that be done more than once? (I believe yes, it can be done! What makes the SBC even more attractive here is how easily and readily it fits the S-30/S-130 chassis) So lets see your SBC builds that would give an LS2 or LS2-clone, (comparably built LQ4/9) a run on the dyno within a useable RPM range, for the same or less $$$$...

225 MM or 240 MM, (N/A or 2+2/Turbo)?

John is a super nice guy. If buying L-series parts from him, bid with confidence. I bought this IR Fuel injection manifold from him a few years back.

The value of that N-47 is going to fluctuate..... As the price of scrap aluminum rises, its value will rise, as it descends, so will its value. If you have the time and resources, strip the head down including removing the valve seats and guides and its value will be higher yet, (clean aluminum brings more money than dirty aluminum at the scrap yard). Noticed you mentioned wanting to build a flat top piston L-28 that will run on pump gas. If you were thinking of using a Z car N-47 such as this, (even if it had the liners), you might want to read this thread first... http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=156953 The P-79 in stock trim is definitely a safe bet and will perform well. Shaved .080"?... It might have enough squish at that compression ratio to be friendly enough for pump gas to run the ideal max ignition advance that head prefers... Haven't done one yet so can't say for sure and may look into it a bit further as it is becoming more and more common, at least in forum discussions. My point is don't get too bent on a couple points in compression that would only yield in the neighborhood of 6- 6 1/2% HP (if producing 180 realistic HP would only be 11-12 HP gain), "IF" you can run full igniton advance which an L-28 with flat tops and either the E88, N42, or N47 head wont be able to on even the best premium pump in this country so you'll be throwing away more power in the retarded ignition timing than you gained with the bump in compression ratio, i.e. going backwards in the quest for more power! Again, this applies to the L-28, not other makes of engines as 10.5:1 is a safe pump gas friendly static compression in most other engines with aluminum heads.

Merry Christmas to all, may your new year be a blessed and fruitful year. The Ruschmans

I still have all the exhaust manifolds, no plans to part with any of them. I loaned the Vette and CTS manifolds to a gentleman doing an LSx Supra conversion across the river. I will be getting them back soon as I have some mock up s I want to use them for myself, I can get more pics and dimensions then.

My current SBC project, (the single plane crank project), is a ridiculous project that from a budgetary and a performance standpoint makes little to no sense on many levels. I am aware of the short comings my project is plagued with, yet my gift of stubbornenty, (yes that is a word, I just made it up...) is strong enough that I am still pursuing it for its "different" factor and for the self satisfaction of building something that far out in left field. If the 302 is what you truly desire, then by all means, build it!

Yes, if the only goal, regardless of any other factor whatsoever is out right performance, the rule of; “always build as much displacement as you can afford” is a sound foundation from which to start purchasing parts. Yes, a 400 CID small block can be built to rev to 8000 RPM same as 300 CID V-8 and the 400 being 33% larger in displacement, if comparably built will also make on the order of 33% more torque and overall power! If out right power is the goal, then the choice here is obvious. Now keeping in mind that we are individuals, not everyone wants to follow the establishment and these same guys are willing to sacrifice all out power for the sake of building an engine that runs down a different beaten path, we should not chastise him for that or brow beat him for that. If that person feels that his choice for less displacement via shorter stroke would more easily meet his intended performance goals based on facts taken out of context, (i.e. magazine engine builders). The argument of "shorter stroke revs higher which is more power", is a true statement, but that statement is often taken out of context and applied to mere mortal street builds where the longer stroke will rev just as high in a moderate build, just as Pyro accurately posted. In the realm of the street engines we play with, the larger displacement engines can and will rev just as high as the smaller engine therefore producing that much more power as well. When taken out of context, it becomes marketing hype that magazines preach as gospel and the consumer swallows, hook line and sinker. In reality, keeping the, "shorter stroke equal higher revs" in context, the shorter stroke being able to rev higher only becomes reality when you start getting into the upper racing echelons of engine performance that run in the 8000-11,000 RPM, i.e. NASCAR, Pro stock drag racing etc. Then educating the consumer that the reason for his choice of a short stroke was falsely contrived is productive, though doing so in a constructive manner is sometimes difficult. Along those lines, I regularly hear the old timers that come to the shop get all strung out over the factory Corvette 327 as being the be-all-end-all of performance small blocks that Chevy ever produced! Better than any performance small block a shop could custom build! They'll claim, "It revved like no other small block, ran like no other, sounded like no other small block, yadda yadda"...they yammer on and on… For a factory offered engine of the era, that 327 was cool, but not a magical power plant by any stretch of the imagination that soo many believe! Its bore is 4”, same as the 302, and 350, as well as many other V-8's offered from Ford and Mopar! Its stroke is 3.25”. Nothing magical about the number or 3 1/4" worth of stroke. the 302 is a 3” stroke, the 350 is 3.48” stroke. Again, nothing magical about those particular stroke lengths that makes them "special" above and beyond other strokes available. I am pretty sure it is the way Three twenty seven sounds as it rolls off the tongue when spoken has everything to do with its mystique and cult following. It has a masculine, proud undertone, a sound that many glum on to as being special. Say it out loud.. THREE TWENTY SEVEN... Feel it? Same as the Four Twenty Seven. Three fifty and Four Fifty Four just don't have that same ring when said a-loud. They sound more mundane, truck like. Subconsciously those engines become revered as low performance truck power plants based on the engine size/name sounds when said aloud even though they are actually higher output power plants when built similarly. I digress… Sooo… if a portion of the end users intended goals also includes building something less common and a sacrifice in over-all power output is acceptable, the 302 is a wonderful engine that will readily rev to 7000 RPM with stock rods (and ARP rod bolts) and cast pistons. In that light, build it!

That's all the detail you are going to give us?... It's not that cut and dry. We need specifics, preferably with some pics, otherwise, there is NO possible way ANYONE can tell what diff you have based on what little info you have provided.

Commentators estimation of how much this burnout would cost only covers parts, he didn't factor in labor. :lmao: X-300!

As I understand it, the truck manifolds are all the same, LR4, LM7 LQ4 LQ9, 2wd/4wd, Pickup, Tahoe, Suburban, and Escalade. Here are a pair from an LM7 Truck exh mani’s;

Thank you for catching that mistake, my apologies, correction made to the post. Pics of your Stamped F-bod manifolds would be great. Same also applies to the C5 Vette manifolds. Early version. ('97-'99) were the double wall stamped sheet-metal, not sure if they were dimensionally any different. Here are the early Vette stamped manifolds;

’00-’02 F-body exh mani's;