post me some questions

[Zfan1]

Grumpy,

 

One other question. Was wondering what you have heard and your thoughts on the AFR 210 Eliminator heads. I put a set on my 385 sbc and since have heard that I should have run 195's not the 210's on my 385 stroker.

 

Several folks/builders say that the 210's are to big for a 385 and that they should only be used on a 400 cu inch motor or larger. I dyno'd the motor recently and found the hp numbers were a little better than my 195 Canfield heads but the torque numbers were down significantly like 40 ft. lbs. I got to thinking that could be more the cams fault than anything as I swapped out a Comp cam xr288hr-10 for a Crane cam 119651.

 

The car is a tad slower in the 1/4, going from a 10.80 to 11.00's but on the hose it's slightly faster. Anyway I was just wondering if the larger runner is hurting the performance.

 

Thanks,

Mike

[grumpyvette]

I CAN,T EVEN TELL YOU HOW INSANE SOME CONVERSATIONS ARE! GUYS TELL YOU A 210CC afr HEADS GOING TO KILL TQ ON A 383 BUT ITS FINE FOR A 400 SBC, WHAT b.s.,,

the guys that tell you you should have used 195cc heads on your 383,sbc will all point to the larger 210cc head as having lower port flow speeds, while thats true, the amount of the port flow reduction is all but meaningless, AT ANY RPM POINT, if you ask them how much the port flow was reduced youll never get a firm intelligent answer because they don,t have a clue, and are just repeating , like mindless parrots,crap they heard. DO YOU REALLY THINK SUBTRACTING 4% FROM THE DISPLACEMENT OR ADDING 1% TO THE PORTS CROSS SECTIONAL AREA WILL HURT THE TORQUE NEARLY AS MUCH AS THE ADDED PORT FLOW HELPS THE UPPER RPM POWER CURVE

the differance is about 1%

the 210cc heads superior,, PORT FLOW SPEEDS WILL BE EQUAL OR HIGHER JUST 200RPM HIGHER IN THE POWER CURVE WITH THAT 383 VS A 400SBC. and your correct the cam, intake and other factors far out weight the differance in port cross section and flow speed differances, any reduction in torque is due to lower compression, a differant cam or the intake or header design not the port size differance, and the 210cc head has a marked advantage with the larger cams

JUST REMEMBER THE 210CC HEADS ARE DESIGNED FOR sbc combos WITH CAMS WITH OVER .575 LIFT AND OVER 245 DEGS DURRATION AT .050 LIFT, AND COMPRESSION RATIOS OVER 10.5:1 IF YOUR LOOKING TO GET THE FULL ADVANTAGE FROM THE PORT DESIGN, AND DISPLACEMENTS OF 377 PLUS

here

 

 

http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/runnertorquecalc.html

 

http://www.compcams.com/Community/Articles/Details.asp?ID=1737510521

 

http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablehdc.htm

 

http://www.malcams.com/legacy/misc/headflow.htm

 

http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/intake-tech-c.htm

 

here’s a chart FROM THE BOOK,HOW TO BUILD BIG-INCH CHEVY SMALL BLOCKS with some common cross sectional port sizes

(measured at the smallest part of the ports)

...........................sq inches........port cc

edelbrock performer rpm ....1.43.............170

vortec......................1.66.............170

tfs195......................1.93.............195

afr 180.....................1.93.............180

afr 195.....................1.98.............195

afr 210.....................2.05.............210

dart pro 200................2.06.............200

dart pro 215................2.14.............215

brodix track 1 .............2.30.............221

dart pro 1 230..............2.40.............230

edelbrock 23 high port .....2.53.............238

edelbrock 18 deg............2.71.............266

tfs 18 deg..................2.80.............250

 

Potential HP based on Airflow (Hot Rod, Jun '99, p74):

Airflow at 28" of water x 0.257 x number of cylinders = potential HP

or required airflow based on HP:

HP / 0.257 / cylinders = required airflow

[grumpyvette]

ITS A COMON MISCONCEPTION,THAT YOU MEASURE PORT CROSS SECTION AT THE PORT ENTERANCE,BUT ITS NOT the port area at the enterance , you need to use in the calcs, ITS the MINIMAL port cross section at the SMALLEST point in the port, usually near the pushrod area.

LIKE a funnel, its not the largest part of the opening but the smallest thats the restriction to flow

 

SO HOW do you MEASURE THEN??

 

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=5649

 

http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=SUM%2D900014&N=700+115&autoview=sku

 

 

 

runner LENGTH and CROSS SECTION plus PLENUM VOLUME (if there is a plenum)effects the intake harmonics and how effectively you can ram tune the intake runner charge to fill the cylinders, and don,t forget exhaust scavaging , compression ratio and cam timing, and valve curtain area,and drive train gearing must match the intended combos effective operational power band

 

http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/intake-tech.htm

 

http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/runnertorquecalc.html

 

http://www.bgsoflex.com/intakeln.html

 

http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~allan/fluids/page7/PipeLength/pipe.html

[Zfan1]

Grumpy,

 

Just trying to figure out the correct compression for my 385. My build is a 6" rod, .40 over forged SRP piston with a 5cc total 2 valve relief piston, zero decked with .054 mls gaskets. Afr 210 heads with 65cc chambers, milled .010.

 

Also if you could figure my dcr, I switched computers and lost all my goodies. I am running the Crane billet roller 119651, installation is straight up with 1.60 roller rockers.

 

Hopefully I am not missing anything.

[grumpyvette]

Grumpy,

 

Just trying to figure out the correct compression for my 385. My build is a 6" rod, .40 over forged SRP piston with a 5cc total 2 valve relief piston, zero decked with .054 mls gaskets. Afr 210 heads with 65cc chambers, milled .010.

 

Also if you could figure my dcr, I switched computers and lost all my goodies. I am running the Crane billet roller 119651, installation is straight up with 1.60 roller rockers.

 

Hopefully I am not missing anything.

 

http://www.kb-silvolite.com/calc.php?action=comp

 

http://www.cranecams.com/index.php?show=browseParts&action=partSpec&partNumber=119651&lvl=2&prt=5

 

 

 

useing your figures, youve got approximately a 10.7 static and 8.6 dynamic cpr ID retard the can 4 degrees btw

[Polarity]

Here's a personal one for you grumpy if you don't mind answering. How old are you, because in my eyes you're either fantastic at research or you have a lifetime of knowledge stored up in that melon of yours. I'm always amazed at quality of answers and information you provide.

 

-polarity

[grumpyvette]

Im 60 and look it!, I remember ALMOST all the mistakes and what worked TOO!(plus I cheat I keep notes and records on all the engines and cars Ive built, or worked on!) Ive come bye most of the scars and info by experiance and watching closely, both my own and others experiances

[RayG1988]

grumpy, I could swear I've seen your vette here in the Central FL before.

[kiwi303]

Hey Grumpyvette, I've picked up a cheap ($100) rover V8 to work on and get running until my current crop of Hire Purchases are paid off and I can do some serious work on the Z, with money to spare.

Do you have much in the way of links and info on the Rover 3.5? It's a Buick 215 and I've heard that the engines Buick made using the moulds and tooling before selling them to rover, can have the valves swapped out for Volvo valves for better flow, bit no mention of which volvo engines to scrounge them from...

 

presumably if that is the case and Volvo valves can be used in buick 215 heads, then will they also work in rover heads?

[grumpyvette]

Hey Grumpyvette, I've picked up a cheap ($100) rover V8 to work on and get running until my current crop of Hire Purchases are paid off and I can do some serious work on the Z, with money to spare.

Do you have much in the way of links and info on the Rover 3.5? It's a Buick 215 and I've heard that the engines Buick made using the moulds and tooling before selling them to rover, can have the valves swapped out for Volvo valves for better flow, bit no mention of which volvo engines to scrounge them from...

 

presumably if that is the case and Volvo valves can be used in buick 215 heads, then will they also work in rover heads?

 

 

thats an old and OUT DATED trick,like useing 2" lincoln 430 v8 intake valves for exhaust valves in a bbc, because they were made from exhaust steel

 

TRW

 

http://www.ferrea.com/

 

and similar companys makes better valves now

 

maybe some of this will help

 

 

 

See also Rover V8 engine

GM experimented with aluminum engines starting in the early 1950s, and work on a production unit commenced in 1956. Originally intended for 180 in³ (2.9 L) displacement, Buick was designated by GM as the engine design leader, and decided to begin with a larger, 215 in³ (3.5 L) size, which was deemed ideal for the new "senior compact cars" introduced for the 1961 model year. This group of cars was commonly referred to as the "B-O-P" group — for Buick-Olds-Pontiac — or the Y-bodies.

 

The 215 had a 4.24 in (107.7 mm) bore spacing, a bore of 3.5 in (88.9 mm), and a stroke of 2.8 in (71.1 mm), for an actual displacement of 3533 cc. The engine was the lightest mass-production V8 in the world, with a dry weight of only 318 lb (144 kg). It was standard equipment in the 1961 Buick Special.

 

Oldsmobile and Pontiac also used the all-aluminum 215 on its mid-sized cars, the Oldsmobile F-85, Cutlass and Jetfire, and Pontiac Tempest and LeMans. Pontiac used the Buick version of the 215; Oldsmobile had its own. The Oldsmobile version of this engine, although sharing the same basic architecture, had cylinder heads designed by Oldsmobile engineers, and was produced on a separate assembly line. Among the differences between the Oldsmobile and Buick versions, it was somewhat heavier, at 350 lb (159 kg). The design differences were in the cylinder heads: Buick used a 5-bolt pattern around each cylinder where Oldsmobile went to a 6-bolt pattern. The 6th bolt was added to the intake manifold side of the head, one extra bolt for each cylinder, meant to alleviate a head-warping problem on high-compression versions. This meant that Oldsmobile heads would go on Buick blocks, but not vice versa, and that changing the compression ratio on an Oldsmobile 215 required changing the heads, but on a Buick 215, only the pistons, which was less expensive and simpler. For these reasons, the more common Buick version has today also emerged as more desirable. Later Rover versions of the aluminum block and subsequent Buick iron small blocks (300, 340 and 350) went to a 4-bolt-per-cylinder pattern.

 

At introduction, Buick's 215 was rated 150 hp (112 kW) at 4400 rpm. This was raised soon after introduction to 155 hp (116 kW) at 4600 rpm. 220 ft·lb (298 N·m) of torque was produced at 2400 rpm with a Rochester 2GC two-barrel carburetor and 8.8:1 compression ratio. A mid-year introduction was the Buick Special Skylark version, which had 10.25:1 compression and a four-barrel carburetor, raising output to 185 hp (138 kW) at 4800 rpm and 230 ft·lb (312 N·m) at 2800 rpm.

 

For 1962, the four-barrel engine increased the compression ratio to 10.25:1, raising it to 190 hp (142 kW) at 4800 rpm and 235 ft·lb (319 N·m) at 3000 rpm. The two-barrel engine was unchanged. For 1963, the four-barrel was bumped to 11:1 compression and an even 200 hp (149 kW) at 5000 rpm and 240 ft·lb (325 N·m) at 3200 rpm, a respectable 0.93 hp/in³ (56.6 hp/liter).

 

Unfortunately, the great expense of the aluminum engine led to its cancellation after the 1963 model year. The engine had an abnormally high scrap ratio due to hidden block-casting porosity problems, which caused serious oil leaks. Another problem was clogged radiators from antifreeze mixtures incompatible with aluminum. It was said that one of the major problems was because they had to make extensive use of air gauging to check for casting leaks during the manufacturing process, and not being able to detect leaks on blocks that were as much as 95% complete. This raised the cost of complete engines to more than that of a comparable all cast-iron engine. Casting sealing technology was not advanced enough at that time to prevent the high scrap rates.

 

The Buick 215's very high power to weight ratio made it immediately interesting for automotive and marine racing. Mickey Thompson entered a stock-block Buick 215-powered car in the 1962 Indianapolis 500. From 1946 to 1962 there hadn't been a single stock-block car in this famous race. In 1962 the Buick 215 was the only non-Offenhauser powered entry in the field of 33 cars. Rookie driver Dan Gurney qualified eighth and raced well for 92 laps before retiring with transmission problems.

 

Surplus engine blocks of the Oldsmobile (6 bolt per cylinder) version of this engine formed the basis of the Formula One Repco V8 used by Brabham to win the 1966 and 1967 Formula One championship. No other American stock-block engine has won a Formula One championship.

 

Buick 215s have been engine swapped into countless sports cars, especially Chevrolet Vegas and MG sports cars. The engine remains well supported by enthusiast clubs, specialist parts suppliers, and by shops that specialize in these conversions.

 

The Buick 215 was used in a small sports car known as the Apollo from 1962 to 1963, and also in the Asardo 3500 GM-S show car.

 

Although dropped by GM in 1963, in January 1965 the tooling for the aluminum engine was sold to Britain's Rover Group to become the Rover V8 engine, which would remain in use for more than 35 years. GM tried to buy it back later on, but Rover declined, instead offering to sell engines back to GM. GM refused this offer.

 

 

 

http://www.mgcars.org.uk/v8_conversions/engine/general/general.html

 

http://www.team.net/TR8/mp/html/body_buick_215_conversion.html

 

http://www.taperformance.com/

 

http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/GM-215-Engine-Identification.htm

 

http://www.rebuiltcrateengines.com/buick-215-v8-engine-p-2095.html

[G-rib-73-240z]

ok, that sounds good just slightly lower then my neon lol redlines at like 6,500 lol

 

thanks for the info, im ganna order those books tomarrow when i get back from moving my 240 into a building right now its out in the open and its getting rainy lol

[grumpyvette]

IF you take this advice seriously youll save ALOT of time and money

 

DO YOURSELF A HUGE FAVOR

buy these books, FIRST it will be the best money you ever spent, read them, and you will be miles ahead of the average guy. youll save thousands of dollars and thousands of hours once youve got a good basic understanding of what your trying to do!

 

http://www.themotorbookstore.com/resmchstvi.html

 

how to assemble an engine basics on video

 

 

these books

 

 

HOW TO BUILD MAX PERFORMANCE CHEVY SMALL BLOCKS ON A BUDGET by DAVID VIZARD

http://www.amazon.com/Build-Performance-Blocks-Budget-Design/dp/1884089348/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195231793&sr=1-1

 

JOHN LINGENFELTER on modifying small-block chevy engines

 

http://www.amazon.com/John-Lingenfelter-Modifying-Chevy-Engines/dp/155788238X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195231760&sr=1-1

 

 

SMOKEY YUNICK,S POWER SECRETS

 

http://www.amazon.com/Smokey-Yunicks-Power-Secrets-Yunick/dp/0931472067/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195231724&sr=1-1

 

How to Rebuild Small-Block Chevy Lt1/Lt4 Engines

http://www.amazon.com/Rebuild-Small-Block-Chevy-Engines-Hp1393/dp/1557883939/ref=pd_sim_b

[Zfan1]

Grumpy,

 

Thank you for the info. One more question, why did you recommend retarding the cam 4 degree's?

 

Thanks,

Mike

[grumpyvette]

it will tend to limit wheel spin on launches just a bit better, giving you a slightly faster 60 ft time in many cases,

it will lower the tendency to run into detonation on bad fuel just a bit better

it will increase the usefull tq curve about 150 rpm higher

Ive found that cam runs better in my 383 that way when I tested it,(maybe because I had a mis matched 3000rpm stall converter speed)

it costs very little to do and you can easily reversed if you don,t like the results

 

 

http://www.cranecams.com/index.php?show=browseParts&action=partSpec&partNumber=119651&lvl=2&prt=5

 

btw for those guys reading this, and thinking of using one, that don,t know, its NOT, in my opinion, a good street performance choice, but it makes very good upper mid and high rpm power on the track, where its designed to be used and it LOVES a 150-200 shot of nitrous added above 3500rpm (Id suggest you set the rev limiter at 6500rpm)

[G-rib-73-240z]

IF you take this advice seriously youll save ALOT of time and money

 

DO YOURSELF A HUGE FAVOR

buy these books, FIRST it will be the best money you ever spent, read them, and you will be miles ahead of the average guy. youll save thousands of dollars and thousands of hours once youve got a good basic understanding of what your trying to do!

 

http://www.themotorbookstore.com/resmchstvi.html

 

how to assemble an engine basics on video

 

 

these books

 

 

HOW TO BUILD MAX PERFORMANCE CHEVY SMALL BLOCKS ON A BUDGET by DAVID VIZARD

http://www.amazon.com/Build-Performance-Blocks-Budget-Design/dp/1884089348/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195231793&sr=1-1

 

JOHN LINGENFELTER on modifying small-block chevy engines

 

http://www.amazon.com/John-Lingenfelter-Modifying-Chevy-Engines/dp/155788238X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195231760&sr=1-1

 

 

SMOKEY YUNICK,S POWER SECRETS

 

http://www.amazon.com/Smokey-Yunicks-Power-Secrets-Yunick/dp/0931472067/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195231724&sr=1-1

 

How to Rebuild Small-Block Chevy Lt1/Lt4 Engines

http://www.amazon.com/Rebuild-Small-Block-Chevy-Engines-Hp1393/dp/1557883939/ref=pd_sim_b

 

 

thx i ordered the first 3 just now, ill order the last 2 next friday when i get paid again, i still have to go shoping, today me and my friend are ganna look at some v8's at his step dads property and see whats there lol thx for all the help youve been so far, my room mate (whos never built a v8 before mind you) is telling me i should get the biggest rods i can find and shortest stroke carnk i can find and put them in a 350 to be able to rev higher, but that doesnt seem right to me, will one of those books explain that so an idiot (me) can understand? or can you? (waiting 10 days for stuff off the net sucks lol)

 

grib

[Guest curiousZbuild]

ok i got one for you. LS1 heads on a 73 block? is it possible/would there be any gains (or loss') besides less weight?

[G-rib-73-240z]

and ive been wondering this for a while now, might be an increadably dumb question but does the ls1 six speed (or is it a 5 speed) bolt onto an older 350?

[grumpyvette]

and ive been wondering this for a while now, might be an increadably dumb question but does the ls1 six speed (or is it a 5 speed) bolt onto an older 350?

 

 

there ARE adapter bell housings for most transmissions on a SBC

 

 

http://www.exoticperformanceplus.com/performance_parts/index.html?item=1117

 

http://dagostinoracing.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&manufacturers_id=80&products_id=885

 

http://lakewood.carshopinc.com/product_info.php/products_id/34445/15005

 

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=98387

 

http://www.accel-ignition.com/brands.aspx?BrandID=5

 

http://www.hpsalvage.com/st.htm

[grumpyvette]

ok i got one for you. LS1 heads on a 73 block? is it possible/would there be any gains (or loss') besides less weight?

 

differant engine families, it won,t interchange, without an incrediable amount of expensive machine work

[Guest curiousZbuild]

differant engine families, it won,t interchange, without an incrediable amount of expensive machine work

 

just thought id ask, found a cheap pair on craigslist