Welcome to Club Hot Rod!  The premier site for everything to do with Hot Rod, Customs, Low Riders, Rat Rods, and more. 

  •  » Members from all over the US and the world!
  •  » Help from all over the world for your questions
  •  » Build logs for you and all members
  •  » Blogs
  •  » Image Gallery
  •  » Many thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of posts! 

YES! I want to register an account for free right now!  p.s.: For registered members this ad will NOT show

 

Thread: compression issues
          
   
   

Reply To Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 22 of 22
  1. #16
    erik erikson's Avatar
    erik erikson is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    clive
    Car Year, Make, Model: BLOWN 540 57 CHEVY
    Posts
    2,878

    I would say if you have any doubts that it won't run on pump gas then go with the 76cc combustion chambers.

  2. #17
    shawnlee28's Avatar
    shawnlee28 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    so.cal
    Car Year, Make, Model: 66 c 10 fleetside longbed
    Posts
    1,942

    I think he is right on the edge for pump gas ,maybe it will run on it with the timing real low or some octane boost ,maybe it wont
    The 76 ers would be much better in my opinion,you could back off that abdc number and use more of the stroke of the engine.
    I went over board on trying to utilize the entire stroke on my application,I think it was almost a good 3 inches of the 3.48.
    Its gunna take longer than u thought and its gunna cost more too(plan ahead!)

  3. #18
    threearmsinjune is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Car Year, Make, Model: 79 shovel, 65 pan
    Posts
    133

    The 76ers have been through a recent implosion and most likely have some bent valves. They may clean up with cutting the seats for oversized valves and they may not. If I could spend the same money and do this work on the 64s and lose 3.5 to 5 cc's in the chamber the DCR would fall in line. I would also be using a set of heads that have no impact history on them. The way the rest of the motor went up I am a little shy about using them until I can afford to really have them tested and machined.
    I know that as I push the edge for heat and detonation I need to keep this motor cool. What do you think of oversize the exhaust to 1.625 instead of 1.6 or use a 1.6 rocker and use a 160 or 170* thermostat?

  4. #19
    shawnlee28's Avatar
    shawnlee28 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    so.cal
    Car Year, Make, Model: 66 c 10 fleetside longbed
    Posts
    1,942

    A little dremel work to polish/enlarge the chambers a few cc and dremel the piston tops for a additional cc or so........Then I think you may squeeze by with some fine tunning on the timing curve and keeping the intake charge cool etc....you will definatly be pushing the limits.
    Maybe some of the groves in the cubustion chamber on the heads just for the sake of gaining a few cc more.........?
    I am not sure the exact limit on your combo ,...but you are getting very very close to the limit on pump gas ,I would imagine.
    Its gunna take longer than u thought and its gunna cost more too(plan ahead!)

  5. #20
    threearmsinjune is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Car Year, Make, Model: 79 shovel, 65 pan
    Posts
    133

    I assembled and measured actual net chamber without the calculators and what not. The net chamber volume is 76.8cc. swept volume is calculated at 727.4cc. this makes the SCR 10.5.
    Intake closes at 65*ABDC making the dynamic stroke using 5.700 rods 2.698". Effectively the Dswept volume is 563.95cc and the DCR is 8.34. I am going to run it!
    Last edited by threearmsinjune; 10-21-2007 at 06:59 PM.

  6. #21
    threearmsinjune is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Car Year, Make, Model: 79 shovel, 65 pan
    Posts
    133

    any ideas on the casting numbers?

     



    any explanations on the casting numbers?
    both are 14102193 but the GM23 is 64cc and the GM17 is 76cc.

  7. #22
    oldtrucker is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    On The Banks Of The Muddy River
    Car Year, Make, Model: 65Ford F100 ,89chev caprice,65Chevy C10
    Posts
    78

    threearmsinjune think i found the answer to why they are different some were used on 305 and some on 350 from 87-up both had 1.94"/1.5" valves that is the only explination i can find as to why they might be different
    I just wonder what happened to GOVERNMENT of the people by the people for the people?

Reply To Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Links monetized by VigLink