pparaska

Nice car! The belly pan is sweet I love your strut tower braces - nice design! A few questions: - what did you use to extend the air dam down (the black part)? - does the belly pan attach to the bottom of the air dam, or the bottom of the black extension?

The Ford two speed fans have a ground and two taps off of the windings. One tap is to hook 12V to get low speed, the other for high speed. Don't run 12 V to both those other taps at the same time - it will eventually burn up the motor.

I'd look into either chancing it on ebay buying a complete motor or going with a Speedomotive or similar long block. PAW also has some decent stuff for not too much. But a 350 is always going to be cheaper. The flywheel and balancer will be easier to find used for the 350 (any low priced 383 will not be internally balanced and will need 400 flywheel and balancer). I'd think about settling for a 350. It's still going to rock your world. Whether it can be done for that money, I don't know.

Davy, no we have no spell check here. I just opened the word processor on my machine and typed in the supposed spelling and got the spell checker to look it up and fix it for me. Cut and paste after that. Grinsha, check out: http://www.hybridz.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001300 It seems even though the cranks can have the same casting number, they are different. That's kind of wierd though, I wouldn't have expected GM to do that.

Yes, you should put a relay on that. The pump probably pulls several amps, and it's probably too much for the switch

I was wrong I guess. Seems 82racecar wants the answer to the 305 vs 350 crank question "Will it make more power?" A 305 crank has the same stroke and journal diameters as the 350 crank. The problem that you run into is not having enough counterweight on the 305 crank to get the motor internally balanced with 350 pistons and rods (due to the heavier, bigger diameter bore 350 pistons). I guess with enough heavy metal in the crank and really light weight CONNECTING RODS and pistons, it could be done. But what's the point? Also, the crank throws are wimpier on the 305 crank and can't deal with torque as well. BTW, I can't understand what PUSHRODS have to do with anything. They are the same in both motors, unless I'm mistaken on that. Mabe you meant CONNECTING RODS? Getting mad at people who give you good advice on what works and what doesn't who also don't know what your background is and what you've done is pretty ridiculous. How were they supposed to know you had done it? Sure, they assumed you might not have been aware of some of the nuances of the 305/350 crank issue. But is that cause for you to get mad and take it out on all of them. Why is what they said make them seem "to take it a little simple minded"? Alot of times what happens on these forums is that when someone new comes in and asks a technical question, the responses will be at a fundamental level. This is because both the original poster and subsequent readers may or may not have the same background and it's good to have all the facts that are pertinent laid out in the beginning. Sorry that you got "talked down to", but this happens often. All you had to do is politely say "Thanks, I knew about all that stuff but what about this (issue)". Getting mad and posting a bunch of pointed name calling flames did nothing but get you into trouble with the members and the moderators. Mike and I, and probably the rest of the moderators on this site, don't have a bunch of time to baby sit people who don't understand simple etiquette (had to use the spell checker there!). It's much easier for us to just ban people with repeated bad manners.

It's hard to say without a picture. Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins book "Chevrolet Racing Engine" has a bunch of good pictures of the small and large journal cranks. Too bad it's out of print. The other way is to print out the crank part number list hosted at http://www.mortec.com/cranks.htm etc. and take them with you when looking. The cranks have a 4 digit number cast/forged into them on the edge of one of the crank throws. Note that many including Mortec refer to the 350 crank as "medium journal", because the 400 took over the "large journal" spot later on. Dang. The obvious thing to do would be to measure the journal. The STD diameters for the Small 327 are 2.0" rods, 2.3" main. The larger (medium journal) cranks are 2.1" rod, 2.45" mains. Vernier calipers are good enough if scrounging around. [ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: pparaska ]

I'd love to see them. But I can't host them. I've slammed my head on the measly 5mb ceiling my ISP gives me. If you don't mind, email them to me at pparaska@home.com. I'd love to take a look. Surely someone has some space on a site they can host them on.

82racecar, Take a look at the post that you made at the top of this thread. I'm not the only one that thinks your attitude was out of line. In my opinion, you need to learn how to eat a bit of crow. You made a mistake by saying "crank" instead of "cam" your initial post on the STROKIN A 350 thread. No biggie. All Larry, Jason, Davy, and Terry were doing in response to your initial post in STROKIN A 350 was trying to answer a question they thought you had. You said crank (and meant cam - easy mistake to make) and they answered the CRANK question. They gave you WAY more info than any one would expect if you HAD wanted to know about the CRANK swap. NONE of their info was wrong. Now you come back and throw darts calling people simple minded. I don't get it. I'm willing to give you another chance, but if you can't show some humility, there's not much chance you'll be accepted here and get much help. I think you took the initial posts in reply to your first question in the other thread WAY too personally. Anyway, as a show of good faith, I'll try to answer your question as best as I understand what it is - CAMS and PUSHRODS: Pushrods will be the same, AFAIK. I'd bet that the same cam was used in the 305 and 350 if they are of the same medium HP configurations from Chevy. Chevy used the same cam in many different sized small blocks. I'd say if you can find part numbers on them both compare, or use a caliper to measue the lobe heights. Other than that, try to find specs on the 305 and 350 that you have and hunt down the PN for the cams at the Chevy dealer to see if they are different. They can probably get you the cam specs as well. BTW, a .040" over 327 piston will fit in a .040" over 350 block. Both engines have the same standard 4.000" bore. You just need different rods and/or a different stroke crank to get the deck heights to work out. Face it - you made an honest mistake (typed crank instead of cam) got info you didn't want because of it, and instead of saying "oh, I'm sorry, I meant cam" you flamed the guys for helping you. You owe us all an apology. The only person who did anything wrong was YOU. Clean it up. ONE MORE set of remarks like your last and you WILL be history. [ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: pparaska ]

Agreed on the cam. In high school I had a 70 Camaro I built a 10:1 327 for and used the old 327/350 cam. Really dumb move. The car had a Turbo 400 trnas with stock converter and 3.08:1 rear! It was like a lame 230ci 6 cylinder until about 30 mph in first, then took off like shot out of a cannon. I'd say stay away from the old school Chevy cams. The new stuff gives more hp and low end torque with better streetability and mileage.

O.K. A third 327 guy to weigh in here. 350. Or bigger I do like the 327, and I think the difference between similarly built 327 and 350s would be almost unnoticeable to most people. It's harder to make reliable power with less cubes. But for the meager target of 350 hp, even a mildish 327 can do that. On point of practicality. Jason alluded to it: The small journal 327 is harder to get parts for and more expensive. Finding bearings, etc. in stock is a bit more difficult. I've been through this lately, and it will be my last 327. Next time, I'm just going to order a Speedomotive 415 shortblock for ~$1550 and be done with it. [ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: pparaska ]

For that power level, a 280ZX Turbo motor/etc. would be the cheapest and easiest way, IMO.

Andy, you missed it on the first page. Here it is again: Mugshot of Pete and the ever-in-process-Z

I like the position under the thermostat because I get to see what the thremostat sees. Then again, it'd be cool to have several senders and a rotary switch to read them independently. My old 461 heads don't have holes for senders, so that's a moot point for me.

Scottie, it's crystal clear now with the diagram - THANKS! I imagine that the line from the T to the bleeder valve is quite a small ID, and the tube wall is fairly rigid, so that it doesn't expand and contribute to boost spiking. Cool system. I think I'll be changing my Eclipse's setup to yours, just to be able to fine tune the boost to keep the computer from pulling the timing out as often. I also think I have a hyperactive knock sensor and I'm going to change that out too.

Mike C, thanks for the lesson. Haven't things like the hydra-rev been out for a long time (spring below the head/above the lifter? Yeah, comparing cams from different manufacturers is tough. 0.050" duration is useful, but comparing mechanical and hydraulic cams with those durations is like apples and oranges. My research on the subject says you need to subtract 8-10 degrees from the 0.050" duration of a solid cam to get a comparable 0.050" duration for a hydraulic. But this ignores the ramps. Like Mike C pointed out, the new Xtreme hydraulics (flat and roller) have agressive ramps. Just compare their seat and 0.050" timings with other designs to see this. The issue is that low lift flow can have an effect on cylinder pressure. So even though a less agressive cam has a 225deg @0.050" duration, it will have higher seat duration than an aggressive ramp cam, lowering the dynamic pressure in the cylinder, if LSA, etc. are the same. Muddy Waters to me.

Thurem, I agree. Doesn't matter what kind of suspension. The squat is caused by weight transfer. But then there's the issue of anti-squat geometry. Gotta get those suspension books back out for this one...

I've tried bleeder type (fish tank valve, no kidding) boost controllers, but I really prefer the relief valve type that push against a spring and only let boost get to the wastegate at a prescribed (adjustable) presure. Low boost response is much better with the latter. Here's an example of a cheap one: http://www.turbologic.com/joepmbc/ I've heard of people trying to do in cockpit controllers, but the creep and lag/overshoot issue seems to always raise it's ugly head. Personally, I adjust mine twice a year. Once when it gets hot out (above 65) and again when the temps drop below 65. Other than that, I don't see a need for further tweeking. If I try more boost, the knock sensor hears bad stuff and pulls timing out and the thing feels like a VW BUS. [ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: pparaska ]

Tim, the dremel is the die grinder's little, little sister. Not really good for too much. I use it where I should be using a die grinder most of the time. I did use it the other night to enlarge a bearing tab slot in a con rod cap. That was o.k. Verdict: My next tool purchase is a die grinder. BTW, don't the 110V MIG's usually have better performance on lower voltages for the thin (20/22 gage) stuff? My little Daytona Mini MIG is what I used to do floors. Worked pretty well, even doing but welds from the 18 gage new floor metal to the 22 gage OE stuff. Man, that OE stuff is like paper.

Kim, I'd love to see some pics of those A-arm shaft loops.

Andy, I'm having trouble with the reaction to the torque at the tire. This same torque is at the diff side axles. Since there is a bearing at the hub carrier, I don't see how the control arms come into play. I believe all the reaction to the torque is at the front diff mount and the mustache bar. Since the mustache bar is closer to the halfshaft, I'd think the upward force at the front diff mount is greater than the downward one at the mustache bar attachments. But it's 1 am, I'm probably all messed up on this. Free body diagrams were 15 years ago.

Scottie, you make this stuff look factory easy! SWEET!

Not a problem, Tim. I re-read my page that you referenced, and added some details on my 6 pt S&W roll bar installation.

Scott, pics please!

Pretty sure that it's 1977 or newer for emissions inspection. BUT when you get a car inspected for the first time to register it in your name, they are supposed to check the emissions equipment. To make things easier in this regard, I'd find a 240Z if you can. Check my site here: http://members.home.net/pparaska/kenz4sale.htm This guy is a buddy that has a fairly decent stock 73 240Z for sale. Some rust, not sure how bad. His phone number is on the page.