The Engine Chevy Should Have Built

Printable View

11-28-2004, 01:52 PM
Starlightcoupe

The Engine Chevy Should Have Built

Hot Rod Magazine published a story in 1997,"The Engine Chevy Housld Have Built," about a Chevy engine that used a bored 400 block, 307/327 crank, longer rods from(gasp!) a Ford six cylinder, AFR 56cc heads, JE pistons with the pin located higher up the skirt, Crane cam, roller rockers, etc.

The engine was not a stroker and measured 352ci but because it dwelled longer on the compression stroke, the engine was more efficient thus burning more of the gasses and could stand a much higher compression ratio.

I hope I am not going down a thread beaten into the ground but I have some questions from those of you who appear much smarter than I am (actually all of you seem smarter than me) about the engine. Has anyone here built one of these? Can 305 heads be used?(I think they have 58cc chambers)Is the engine reliable?

The article claimed some prodigious horsepower/torque figures yet used two bolt mains.

I would appreciate any answers and advice. I would like to build this engine in a leisurely fashion since I am restoring a '53 Chevy pickup and currently rebuilding a 350 to put in it.

Starlight Coupe(I am a big '53 Studebaker fan)
11-28-2004, 05:43 PM
Stu Cool

Hey Welcome to the Forum! I can't expand on the conversation, but your Screen name caught my eye, since we have one! Click on the camera next to my name to check out ours in the gallery.

keep us posted on your project!

Pat
11-28-2004, 07:03 PM
Starlightcoupe

The Engine Chevy Should have built

Thanks techinspector1 for your in-depth reply. I am still hazy about quench trench but building the engine in reality is far short of my aspirations. Frankly, I don't know what I would do with it other than replace the one I am rebuilding for my truck. My present engine has Vortec heads, all new parts excepting the crank and should run well past my lifetime in a truck that will spend much of its life in the garage.

I have heard a lot of negative things about the 305 heads as well but a fellow here in Colorado swears by them despite the predetonation problems. I agree that the AFR heads would be the way to go but I was looking for the easy way out.

Reading the Isky article casts doubt upon the project but I think it would be worth pursuing if the gains are worth it. I have a machinist friend who builds dragster engines and who knows? he may build it himself.

Starlight Coupe

PS Thanks Pat for the link. I like your Stude!
11-28-2004, 09:45 PM
Bib_Overalls

Here is a link to the article http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sum...%20engine.html .

I have the late, large journal 327 crank out in the shop so I guess you could say I am gathering up the parts to build one. Of course everything has it's price and I would be more than willing to sell this unfinished project to you if the money is right.

I also have a set of the "good" or "best of not much" 305 cylinder heads. A package deal is workable.
11-28-2004, 10:35 PM
Bib_Overalls

Quote:

Originally posted by Streets
The one engine that Chevy SHOULDN'T HAVE BUILT was the 305 POS/POC V-8..& the 3.1 :LOL:::LOL::p

That is two.
11-29-2004, 06:51 AM
hambiskit

hmmmmmmm
11-29-2004, 06:54 AM
j*b

Quote:

Originally posted by techinspector1
Although he's deceased now, Smokey Yunick said that he saw horsepower increases with longer rods because of what you mentioned about the TDC dwell.
http://www.clubhotrod.com/forums/sho...ghlight=trench

I think Smokey was wrong about that. His thinking works in bomb theory but not with a variable volume cylinder, where holding high cylinder pressure at TDC is more of a parasitic loss than anything else. Probably the most important thing a relatively long rod does is to move the pistons peak velocity farther down the hole. (More degrees to apply work to or extract work from the crankshaft.)
11-29-2004, 07:24 AM
Troglodyte

WOW........all this info..............all I know is I turn my key and my engine goes vrooooom.........vrooooooooom and I pull this little stick thingy and the car goes..............:HMMM: **) :LOL:
11-29-2004, 07:38 AM
j*b

Quote:

Originally posted by Troglodyte
vrooooooooom

My personal experience is that the number of o's there are in "vrooooooooom" is directly proportional to the horsepower output of your engine. Therefore, adding o's affords more sore necks and wider grins when moving that stick thingy!:D
11-29-2004, 10:39 AM
Starlightcoupe

The Engine Chevrolet Should have Built

I found the article on the purplesage website, did some Photoshop magic and it is readable.

I need more info before I begin building the engine.

Bib_overalls: Garry Owen!

Vietnam 1967-68, 70-71 MACV Adv Tm 100, 101st Abn.

Richard
11-29-2004, 03:51 PM
Bib_Overalls

Re: The Engine Chevrolet Should have Built

Quote:

Originally posted by Starlightcoupe

Bib_overalls: Garry Owen!

Vietnam 1967-68, 70-71 MACV Adv Tm 100, 101st Abn.

Richard

I went over in 65 with D Co, 1st Bn, 7th Cav., 1st Cav Div. Came back in 66 and went back in 69. 2nd tour was with the Americal Div.

Good luck with your engine project. If you need the crank I will let it go for $50 plus shipping. You do not want the 305 heads.

Steve Hansen
AKA Bib Overalls
11-29-2004, 10:10 PM
drg84

I argue with the 3.8 streets. I think the 3.4 was a much worse motor. Then again, I think we can all agree that the 4.3 was the best V6 ever built.:)
12-09-2004, 10:27 AM
Starlightcoupe

I have been away from the forum and my computer because I had to go out of town unexpectedly for a 2000 mile round trip. If anyone wants the article I will email it to you. The files are rather large and are .jpg images. My copy of Acrobat won't work on this computer so I can't convert to a .pdf file.

Richard

radionewsguy8893@yahoo.com