pparaska

Sorry, I didn't get on the computer last night. But guys, grumpyvette's numbers are as good, if not better than DD2K - he's got some kind of home grown stuff to do a better job! Plus a whole lot more experience than I do, with the computer or building and tuning SBC's etc. IOW, you've got great estimates from him! (Sorry, I just had to try that new imagae Icon )

No DD2K here at work - I'll run it tonight and post.

Fretting, that's when the wife or girlfriend starts to bit... Oh, THAT kind of fretting! It's when the wear pattern, fatigue and failure occur due to small oscilating motion between parts. If the angle of the u-joint is too small, this can occur and fail the joint prematurely. I MAY be able to come up with some measurements, but it's not easy as I've tried before. It's easier to just experiment with engine placement in many cases, as the measurements of the vertical offset of the centerlines are difficult to measure and prone to errors. I did make some measurements and I'll try to dig them up. I did basically the same thing you're attempting and drew it out on some big sheets of paper. I probably still have them.

Two things, Tim, the 6x6 plates I got were more like 1/8", I think. And we went through the whole "seamless" versus not thing a while ago, if you search for it. I think the upshot was, seamless is better, but the S&W kit is NOT seamless. And I think it was determined that some racecar builders don't think it's a big issue either.

RXO, if you do find a urethane mount to replace that old GM one, that'll be a nice piece of info. I can't remember whether the JTR spec'd GM mount is a "safety" interlocking type or not, but I think it's NOT. If the urethane one is, that'd be a boon. I think it'd be a great idea to change the mount design to use an interlocking mount. Yeah, you'd have to move away from the flat plate with holes approach of the JTR method, but it'd be nice. Personally, I want a good interlocking rubber mount, not a stiffer Urethane one.

Omar, putting the spacer in between the frame rails and the engine crossmember and lowering the trans tail 1/2" also will lower the engine and give more clearance. The problem that can create is that it lowers the centerline of the transmission yoke even farther below the centerline of the pinion. This makes the u-joint angles even larger. That limits how far you can lower the engine/trans in a JTR conversion with the diff in the OE location, even with the aft end raised. Remember, the centerlines of the transmission yoke and the diff pinion need to be parallel AND close enough so as to not cause large u-joint angles. Satisfying just one of these two rules is not sufficient. The parallel bit gets you equal u-joint angles (a good thing) and minimizing the u-joint angles comes from minimizing the perpendicular separation of the centerlines (although a small distance is desired, since a u-joint angle of at least 1 degree is desirable to fend off fretting). HTH,

That cam has less duration than the 12-677-4 flat solid that Comp Cams recommended for my 327 and they said it would be streetable and have vacuum. I think it will be fine and lots of fun!

If you're smoking crack, it hasn't affected your creative side yet . I had to do just that (raise the rear of the tranny) to alleviate my u-joint angle problems. Check out my site if interested (Drivetrain mods). The one height I didn't mess with was the front diff mount. But Simon Z Build and others have made custom front crossmembers for the diff that allow that.

Thanks, I'll do it and stop worrying now

I agree that those expensive boxes can do some neat things. But I get probably 95% of the performance that they would give for about $50 with a GOOD manual boost controller. A GOOD one (relief type) won't have overshoot at all. A bleeder type will. As much as I like gizmos, I could just never put the money into one of those - until I had all the other stuff sorted out well. Heck, I'd put the money towards a nice big front mount intercooler and piping first.

Most people in the DSM world spell that HK$. The EVC is silly money for what can usually be done quite well with a good relief type Manual Boost Controller, IMO.

Davy - that's pretty cool! The thing that concerns me is you mentioned the rack is 2" longer on the right side. This sounds like the inner tie rod end will be 2" further outboard. That would create some fierce bumpsteer. Sorry about the rain, but that's my first impression. Is the distance between the inner tie rod ends the same as the Z? That's the key dimension in my mind.

Those old Chevy hi-po cams are pretty peaky. And I remember hearing from the 69 Z/28 crowd that that cam is VERY peaky and was not alot of fun to drive around town with in that car. I bet it sounds nice though, and really screams up top! Anyway, it sounds like you might be lean on tip in and might need to look at the accelerator pump shot, nozzles, diaphram, etc. You may need more jet than that carb came with as well. The power valve might not be right for that cam also. As for timing, that could be a factor. Try 12 deg BTDC with the Vac advance unhooked. You might want some lighter than stock springs and/or heavier weights in the distributor too.

Definitely check out some of the magazines like Chevy High Performance, etc. They do crate motor comparos, and they are full of ads for crate motors. Speedomotive is a reputable crate motor place, and the prices are pretty darned low!

I hope this doesn't come across wrong, but there's a safety issue here. Even if (and maybe because) you are doing a manual install, I feel you should use the neutral safety switch, or a add a clutch switch. Reaching into the car to turn the key while working on it and having the car in gear could be disasterous if there's no neutral safety or clutch switch cutout for the starter and the trans is in gear. Just trying to help.

Ross, in the 7 or so different books I have on building SBCs, I've seen 3/8" to 1/2" and 1/4" to 3/8". I'm going to set mine to 3/8", as too high, even by a little bit means an uncovered pickup. 1/4" seems abit low. Anybody have any feelings about using a MIG with mild steel wire, Argon/CO2 to weld a steel pickup tube to a cast iron pump?

Scott, I'm sorry, I thought the AFR article said that the shop was in Ventura. My bad. Glad to hear you found that you can go all the way from the 2.30 mains crank into the 2.65 mains block with bearing inserts! I've never seen any back to back test of the Holley Dual plane (300-36) to the Weiand Stealth. I've seen several tests with the Holley dual plane, and it always seems to do well down low as well as only giving up 10-15 or so hp up in the 6000+ rpm range to the Vic Jr. single plane.

Not sure about that. The aftermarket ones may have a benefit in that they may be adjustable (you probably have to "crush" an OE one to adjust it).

Ouch again. Magnecor lists a universal set of 8.5mm wires for Chevy V8 with HEI as PN 85100 - $139! I guess if you never need to replace them, that's it's a wash after buying the second set of MSD's

I dunno, but check the usual turbo sites in the DSM, Honda world. Those are the types that go for that sort of thing. Me I'd rather have one that vents to the intake to be quiet - kids that drive by my house making their vented-to-the-air blow-off valves make noise kind of make me laugh - except they're driving too fast in the neighborhood. [ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: pparaska ]

I use DD2K (desktop dyno 2000). I'd LOVE to have the PLUS version of that Engine Analyser - you can put in duration vs lift measurements of any cam, and lots of other details that make the simulations better. $470 is too rich for me though.

I'd forgotten how much those were (MSD wires)! A universal V8 set is $69 at Summit. Ouch.

The difference between the one sold by boostvalve.com, the Dawes one and A "bleeder" is that the first two only let pressure pass to the Wastegate when the pressure hits a certain level, where as a bleeder is always allowing some pressure to hit the waste gate. The Boostvalve.com and Dawe's type is a relief valve with an internal spring and superior since it gives more low rpm boost. I've tried both on me Eclipse and much prefer the releif type. It seems to be much less temperature sensitive, but I do change it seasonally, as cooler temps allow me a few more psi before the timing starts getting pulled by the knock sensor and ECU. BTW, the Dawe's site has a nice FAQ down the page that's linked above that describes the difference. [ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: pparaska ]

Scott, all the small journal (62-67) 327 cranks were forged. Tough piece. The 68-69 327 Large journal (same as the 350 journal sizes) were both cast and forged, as I recall. The 307 crank is usually if not always cast. So ya got to be careful. Someone used to make bearing spacers to put the small journal crank in the 350 block. To put it in the 400 block, you'd need an even bigger spacer. Grumpy Jenkins used to use bearing shells align honed to the small journal bearing bore size with small journal bearings installed. If that shop in Ventura CA still offers that 327/400 combo 353 kit, maybe they have something. Going with the Ford con rods too?

Ditto - Welcome to you and all the lurkers! Nothing wrong with lurking IMO, but please don't be shy about asking questions, we're here to help! I tried the sleeper thing, as I love the stock Z lines and got the WIDEST 17" wheels and tires possible under the stock fenders and without tubbing, etc. (just coilovers). But the first time I started the 327 with the mild cam and 2.5" duals, there was no mistaking my car as a mild L6 engined stocker! Now with the bigger cam, I suppose sleeper will only apply to looks (except for the two Turbo mufflers hanging out back). Welcome again! [ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: pparaska ]