Budget 525 Build-up (Dial-up BEWARE!)
03-10-2008, 11:15 PM
#1
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Budget 525 Build-up (Dial-up BEWARE!)
Okay, first the background... I'd acquired a 427 tall-deck block, and had made an agreement with a "friend" of mine, to build it out to be a 525 monster. 
The goals were simple: high torque with respectable horsepower numbers. Dead-on reliable (i.e., 100,000+ mile possible with normal driving), pump-gas friendly. The "friend" had great enthusiam, had bought a lot of speed-parts in the past, and knew absolutely nothing about the maintenance issues of a high-horsepower, radical engine. Thus, I had to make it damned-near idiot-proof. This wasn't gonna' be easy.
Doing several months of research, I discovered a little-known aspect, called "critical piston speed." In essence, the longer the stroke, for a given RPM, the faster the piston had to move up and down the bores. When you go beyond that critical piston speed, engine longevity starts to suffer: pistons rock in their bores and ring-flutter occurs. These lead to decreased reliability, something I wanted to avoid at all costs. I didn't want this guy to come back and say I sold him a "bad" engine, because he beat the crap out of it, and it had blow-by at 20k-30K miles...
So, I'd scored the engine for the measly sum of $350 as a short block, and pulled the forged 427 crankshaft on it. It's a 4-bolt, stock bore block, and looked good. Since the 427 tall-deck has thicker cylinder walls, it's safe to bore them .100" over. But, I wanted to leave room for later rebuilds, and didn't want any grief about cooling issues.
Off to the machine-shop it went. It needed a line-bore, and we rough-bored it, while waiting for the rotating kit to arrive.
Eagle fiddled around, kept giving me excuses. I'd ordered the 6.535 rods, because I didn't believe the 6.7" rods would gain me enough to justify the higher expense of "special" pistons, due to the deck-height.... They did, however, have the 6.635 rods, and the pistons were an off-the-shelf item. Viola, we're in business! Another two weeks of waiting, while the kit is balanced with a 4.5" Eagle 4340 crank, and it's here... Only two months, to get the kit after I paid...
Now, I've got the SRP pistons, moly rings, and we're off to the shop again. A week later, I get it back (after the block has been honed), and it's time to start measuring and grinding...
Some very interesting things to note, right off the bat... while waiting for Eagle, I'd scored a 454 4-bolt block, for $500, and had the opportunity to compare the two, side-by-side.
The stock 454 oil gallery, at 8.5" of width:
Next, the tall-deck 427 block, with 8 5/8", and rod bolt clearances cast in:
Using a cheapie set of bearings, I put the crank in, and observed this, rod bolt interference at the sides of the block, and significant interference between the rod-bolt shoulder of the rod and the bottom of the cylinder barrel, as well as the opposite side of the cam tunnel/cylinder barrel:
On each cylinder, I put the piston in, rotated it around to make sure I had the exact areas to be ground marked with a sharpie pen, and started grinding with a 90-degree sander, equipped with an abrasive flapper wheel. (Notice all the steel grit, which required another trip to the shop for tanking, after the grinding was complete.)
Notice how wide the grinding area is. I had to remove sufficient material for this rod, as well as the opposite side rod. After checking to make sure I had enough clearance on each side, I made a quickie go/no-go checker, to make sure I had sufficient clearance all the way around. Using this method, I was able to make sure I could clear all the rods with >.054", without having to install the crank and rod/piston assembly into each bore.
After using a dremel with a 60-grit abrasive drum (following the already-cast clearances all the way into the block), I had these results:
From here, I decided to clean up the block a little. The rough-cast look always seemed a little crappy to me, so I took some 3M sanding discs (2", spun by a drill) and did some smoothing. It went from this:
To this:
The idea is to allow the engine to look just like a generic big-block, but look just a *little* different, from other big-blocks... After letting it sit in the hot-tank for a few days, the machine shop put in the cam-bearings and freeze plugs, and I brought it home. A little trick I devised, is to mask off the engine using that cellophane-looking "carpet protector," that you stick to the carpet when you're going to paint a room. You then put the head gaskets over the top, and use a knife to cut away just the right amount of plastic, so that your gasketing surfaces are masked (as well as the cam lifter valley, oil-pan area, etc, and you can be confident you're good to go. First the plastic on the block, ready to shoot, and then the results, about 3 hours later:
The goals were simple: high torque with respectable horsepower numbers. Dead-on reliable (i.e., 100,000+ mile possible with normal driving), pump-gas friendly. The "friend" had great enthusiam, had bought a lot of speed-parts in the past, and knew absolutely nothing about the maintenance issues of a high-horsepower, radical engine. Thus, I had to make it damned-near idiot-proof. This wasn't gonna' be easy.
Doing several months of research, I discovered a little-known aspect, called "critical piston speed." In essence, the longer the stroke, for a given RPM, the faster the piston had to move up and down the bores. When you go beyond that critical piston speed, engine longevity starts to suffer: pistons rock in their bores and ring-flutter occurs. These lead to decreased reliability, something I wanted to avoid at all costs. I didn't want this guy to come back and say I sold him a "bad" engine, because he beat the crap out of it, and it had blow-by at 20k-30K miles...
So, I'd scored the engine for the measly sum of $350 as a short block, and pulled the forged 427 crankshaft on it. It's a 4-bolt, stock bore block, and looked good. Since the 427 tall-deck has thicker cylinder walls, it's safe to bore them .100" over. But, I wanted to leave room for later rebuilds, and didn't want any grief about cooling issues.
Off to the machine-shop it went. It needed a line-bore, and we rough-bored it, while waiting for the rotating kit to arrive.
Eagle fiddled around, kept giving me excuses. I'd ordered the 6.535 rods, because I didn't believe the 6.7" rods would gain me enough to justify the higher expense of "special" pistons, due to the deck-height.... They did, however, have the 6.635 rods, and the pistons were an off-the-shelf item. Viola, we're in business! Another two weeks of waiting, while the kit is balanced with a 4.5" Eagle 4340 crank, and it's here... Only two months, to get the kit after I paid...
Now, I've got the SRP pistons, moly rings, and we're off to the shop again. A week later, I get it back (after the block has been honed), and it's time to start measuring and grinding... Some very interesting things to note, right off the bat... while waiting for Eagle, I'd scored a 454 4-bolt block, for $500, and had the opportunity to compare the two, side-by-side.
The stock 454 oil gallery, at 8.5" of width:
Next, the tall-deck 427 block, with 8 5/8", and rod bolt clearances cast in:
Using a cheapie set of bearings, I put the crank in, and observed this, rod bolt interference at the sides of the block, and significant interference between the rod-bolt shoulder of the rod and the bottom of the cylinder barrel, as well as the opposite side of the cam tunnel/cylinder barrel:
On each cylinder, I put the piston in, rotated it around to make sure I had the exact areas to be ground marked with a sharpie pen, and started grinding with a 90-degree sander, equipped with an abrasive flapper wheel. (Notice all the steel grit, which required another trip to the shop for tanking, after the grinding was complete.)
Notice how wide the grinding area is. I had to remove sufficient material for this rod, as well as the opposite side rod. After checking to make sure I had enough clearance on each side, I made a quickie go/no-go checker, to make sure I had sufficient clearance all the way around. Using this method, I was able to make sure I could clear all the rods with >.054", without having to install the crank and rod/piston assembly into each bore.
After using a dremel with a 60-grit abrasive drum (following the already-cast clearances all the way into the block), I had these results:
From here, I decided to clean up the block a little. The rough-cast look always seemed a little crappy to me, so I took some 3M sanding discs (2", spun by a drill) and did some smoothing. It went from this:
To this:
The idea is to allow the engine to look just like a generic big-block, but look just a *little* different, from other big-blocks... After letting it sit in the hot-tank for a few days, the machine shop put in the cam-bearings and freeze plugs, and I brought it home. A little trick I devised, is to mask off the engine using that cellophane-looking "carpet protector," that you stick to the carpet when you're going to paint a room. You then put the head gaskets over the top, and use a knife to cut away just the right amount of plastic, so that your gasketing surfaces are masked (as well as the cam lifter valley, oil-pan area, etc, and you can be confident you're good to go. First the plastic on the block, ready to shoot, and then the results, about 3 hours later:
Last edited by breathial; 03-12-2008 at 12:12 AM.
03-10-2008, 11:51 PM
#3
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, now that the block is ready, what next? Well, I spent a total of three nights (~15 hours) in the basement, slowly putting the crankshaft in, checking bearings, making sure everything was perfect. Of course, they say cleanliness is a BIG deal when building an engine, and it's true. A small piece of lint in the front main-bearing saddle, when I was cleaning the saddles, in preparation to lay the crankshaft in:
You might think such a little thing is insignificant; it could be enough change bearing tolerances, and cause premature failure!
And after all this, that would be a stupid way to end the story!
In the meantime, while doing the clearancing of the block, I find out the "friend" has backed out. Now, I've got ~$5000 in parts, and no car to put it in. Oh well, in for a penny, as they say....
So the main bearings come in at .002", the rear-main at .003", and crank end-play at .007". Looking VERY good. Everything spins freely, no binding...
Next, I go to put in the pistons. I discover that the first piston I put on a rod, was oriented correctly. Every OTHER one was backwards!!!! :o So, out come the spiro-locks, and I get them swapped around. Put in the bearings, use the plasti-gage to verify bearings at .002" all around (I'd done initial checks after I first got the kit, to see if they were all good- and of course, they were...
Deck height came in at .042". I'll be using the large oval-port cylinder heads, with 2.19/1.88 valves, and 106cc chambers. Head gasket thicknesses are .031, and with the camshaft I bought (a Comp Cams XR276 Hydraulic roller), the static compression ratio comes out to 9.37:1, and dynamic compression ratio of 7.6:1.
One thing that raised my eyebrows- somebody on another forum claimed a small base-circle cam would be needed to run the 6.635 rods. This is NOT true. After checking carefully with a micrometer and a calculator, I determined that you would have ~.050" clearance to the cam lobes if you were running a camshaft with .680" valve lift. Obviously, since I'm building a mild street-motor, this is not the case. The roller cam slipped into place with no problem, and we think we're GOLDEN!!!
Too bad we're not.
After installing and torquing the cylinder heads to spec., I decided to mock-up the intake manifold. Do you see a problem?
The Dart manifold was a BIG disappointment for me. First of all, when you decide to go tall-deck, you have to decide if you're gonna' run a standard-deck intake or pony-up the $400+ to get a tall-deck intake. Then, when they sent it to me, I discovered that it was cast for the peanut-port heads!!!
Now I ask you, what kind of fool would spend the bucks to get a single-plane performance manifold (tall-deck, no less) and then be STUPID enough to run peanut-ports??? Unreal...
So after about 8 hours with my well-abused drill and some end-mills, I'd hogged out the ports, and blended them far back into the manifold, so it'd be a smooth-flowing setup. An example of an original and gasket-matched port:
Now I've gotta' go back, and clean up the top edges of that same intake, so it'll fit over the edges of the factory heads... That'll be coming soon...
Another last issue, is the pushrods. When you work with a tall-deck, your pushrods are also (of course) .400" taller. BUT, when you go with a retrofit roller, you have to subtract .500" from that. Bottom line: you need to have .100" shorter rods than a factory-equipped BBC. If you do... Then your pushrods will look like the pic below. Notice the taper begins JUST above where the guideplate is:
It they stick up so much as 1/8" too long (like the set of pushrods that were marked as .100" shorter, but were NOT), you end up with this:
And with the longer pushrods, you will NOT be able to thread those "Kool nuts" on those sexy roller-rockers.... If you do, you'll have only a few threads holding the rocker in place, and that'll last... Oh, maybe 3-4 seconds of running time, before they shoot off the top of the engine...
I now have a set on order (TFS), through Summit Racing.
I'll finish up in a few days, put together a cost breakdown, and hopefully have this project complete. I'll also go through the rationale behind some of the pieces I've chosen, as well as detail what went into the cylinder heads, the problems, etc.
I shopped extremely agressively, using EBay, Summit and Jegs. I only bought something if I could get it for a good price, but WITHOUT sacrificing quality. So, it can be done by the above-average car builder, with ~average tool set... It seems, though, that for every dollar saved on the build, I paid for it doubly, in sheer labor...
It's been a total of four months, and I'm looking forward to having it done!
You might think such a little thing is insignificant; it could be enough change bearing tolerances, and cause premature failure!
And after all this, that would be a stupid way to end the story! In the meantime, while doing the clearancing of the block, I find out the "friend" has backed out. Now, I've got ~$5000 in parts, and no car to put it in. Oh well, in for a penny, as they say....
So the main bearings come in at .002", the rear-main at .003", and crank end-play at .007". Looking VERY good. Everything spins freely, no binding...
Next, I go to put in the pistons. I discover that the first piston I put on a rod, was oriented correctly. Every OTHER one was backwards!!!! :o So, out come the spiro-locks, and I get them swapped around. Put in the bearings, use the plasti-gage to verify bearings at .002" all around (I'd done initial checks after I first got the kit, to see if they were all good- and of course, they were...
Deck height came in at .042". I'll be using the large oval-port cylinder heads, with 2.19/1.88 valves, and 106cc chambers. Head gasket thicknesses are .031, and with the camshaft I bought (a Comp Cams XR276 Hydraulic roller), the static compression ratio comes out to 9.37:1, and dynamic compression ratio of 7.6:1.
One thing that raised my eyebrows- somebody on another forum claimed a small base-circle cam would be needed to run the 6.635 rods. This is NOT true. After checking carefully with a micrometer and a calculator, I determined that you would have ~.050" clearance to the cam lobes if you were running a camshaft with .680" valve lift. Obviously, since I'm building a mild street-motor, this is not the case. The roller cam slipped into place with no problem, and we think we're GOLDEN!!!
Too bad we're not.
After installing and torquing the cylinder heads to spec., I decided to mock-up the intake manifold. Do you see a problem?
The Dart manifold was a BIG disappointment for me. First of all, when you decide to go tall-deck, you have to decide if you're gonna' run a standard-deck intake or pony-up the $400+ to get a tall-deck intake. Then, when they sent it to me, I discovered that it was cast for the peanut-port heads!!!
Now I ask you, what kind of fool would spend the bucks to get a single-plane performance manifold (tall-deck, no less) and then be STUPID enough to run peanut-ports??? Unreal... So after about 8 hours with my well-abused drill and some end-mills, I'd hogged out the ports, and blended them far back into the manifold, so it'd be a smooth-flowing setup. An example of an original and gasket-matched port:
Now I've gotta' go back, and clean up the top edges of that same intake, so it'll fit over the edges of the factory heads... That'll be coming soon...
Another last issue, is the pushrods. When you work with a tall-deck, your pushrods are also (of course) .400" taller. BUT, when you go with a retrofit roller, you have to subtract .500" from that. Bottom line: you need to have .100" shorter rods than a factory-equipped BBC. If you do... Then your pushrods will look like the pic below. Notice the taper begins JUST above where the guideplate is:
It they stick up so much as 1/8" too long (like the set of pushrods that were marked as .100" shorter, but were NOT), you end up with this:
And with the longer pushrods, you will NOT be able to thread those "Kool nuts" on those sexy roller-rockers.... If you do, you'll have only a few threads holding the rocker in place, and that'll last... Oh, maybe 3-4 seconds of running time, before they shoot off the top of the engine...
I now have a set on order (TFS), through Summit Racing.
I'll finish up in a few days, put together a cost breakdown, and hopefully have this project complete. I'll also go through the rationale behind some of the pieces I've chosen, as well as detail what went into the cylinder heads, the problems, etc.
I shopped extremely agressively, using EBay, Summit and Jegs. I only bought something if I could get it for a good price, but WITHOUT sacrificing quality. So, it can be done by the above-average car builder, with ~average tool set... It seems, though, that for every dollar saved on the build, I paid for it doubly, in sheer labor...
It's been a total of four months, and I'm looking forward to having it done!
Last edited by breathial; 03-12-2008 at 12:16 AM.
03-11-2008, 12:40 AM
#4
Race Director
Member Since: Jan 2000
Location: Corsicana, Tx
Posts: 12,603
Received 1,874 Likes
on
912 Posts
2020 C2 of the Year - Modified Winner
2020 Corvette of the Year (performance mods)
C2 of Year Winner (performance mods) 2019
2017 C2 of Year Finalist
Interesting work. You're definitely building a low rpm TQ monster it seems. Are you comfortable with that .073 quench clearance number? What will this motor be going in now?
JIM
JIM
03-11-2008, 04:41 PM
#5
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting work. You're definitely building a low rpm TQ monster it seems. Are you comfortable with that .073 quench clearance number? What will this motor be going in now?
About the quench, I'm not concerned about this. I wanted to make sure the static and dynamic compression ratios matched with my intentions, and (provided that deck height and quench weren't *too* ugly) let the #'s fall where they landed.
With the 276 hydraulic roller, and a single-plane intake manifold, it should flatten out the torque curve, and give some decent HP numbers. Using DD2000, it predicts 615 lbs-ft of torque at 4000 RPM, and 540HP @ 5500.
While DD2000 seems somewhat optimistic at times, I've tried to use as much test data as possible (airflow numbers, etc.), to make the calculations as close as possible. Of course, having the roller-rockers will help a little, too.
I know, of course, that having insane torque only at low RPMs is stupid- you'll make a big cloud of smoke, never hook up, and the engine will fall on its' face before it makes any HP, higher up in the RPM band. So, this is the compromise I came to.
An interesting note, is that the hydraulic roller cams on the BBC applications, have a tendancy to float the valves at ~5500 RPM, even with really stiff valve springs. The valve-train weight (from what I've read) tends to be a wall at this speed, so the idea of pushing for higher-RPM horsepower (ignoring things like critical piston speed) would be a waste of time. I only read about this, after I'd bought the cam, so I can't say it was planned, just a happy coincidence.
As to being strictly a torque-monster, I was more interested in obtaining the maximum torque AND horsepower from an engine with a "normal" operating range (idle-5500 RPM), sounded and acted like a "stocker," and ran on pump-gas. In other words, it had to be a real-world, idiot-proof package. It'll be good in a light car with highway gears, or a heavier car or truck with mid-range gears... (Which is what my "friend" had, with his Chevelle).
As to the question of what car it's gonna' go in now.....? This goes into my domestic situation. Simple story is that I'm hoping to generate enough money from this (and the next few engines I build) to allow me to get another project car, without dipping into the house-funds, and bringing on the wrath of "momma."
So, since I'm in Pittsburgh, I'll put it Craigs' List, and hopefully I'll get to install it, and see it run. If not....? Then Ebay. With no body to put it in right now, it would be a waste, to let it sit here and collect dust.
About the quench, I'm not concerned about this. I wanted to make sure the static and dynamic compression ratios matched with my intentions, and (provided that deck height and quench weren't *too* ugly) let the #'s fall where they landed.
With the 276 hydraulic roller, and a single-plane intake manifold, it should flatten out the torque curve, and give some decent HP numbers. Using DD2000, it predicts 615 lbs-ft of torque at 4000 RPM, and 540HP @ 5500.
While DD2000 seems somewhat optimistic at times, I've tried to use as much test data as possible (airflow numbers, etc.), to make the calculations as close as possible. Of course, having the roller-rockers will help a little, too. I know, of course, that having insane torque only at low RPMs is stupid- you'll make a big cloud of smoke, never hook up, and the engine will fall on its' face before it makes any HP, higher up in the RPM band. So, this is the compromise I came to.
An interesting note, is that the hydraulic roller cams on the BBC applications, have a tendancy to float the valves at ~5500 RPM, even with really stiff valve springs. The valve-train weight (from what I've read) tends to be a wall at this speed, so the idea of pushing for higher-RPM horsepower (ignoring things like critical piston speed) would be a waste of time. I only read about this, after I'd bought the cam, so I can't say it was planned, just a happy coincidence.
As to being strictly a torque-monster, I was more interested in obtaining the maximum torque AND horsepower from an engine with a "normal" operating range (idle-5500 RPM), sounded and acted like a "stocker," and ran on pump-gas. In other words, it had to be a real-world, idiot-proof package. It'll be good in a light car with highway gears, or a heavier car or truck with mid-range gears... (Which is what my "friend" had, with his Chevelle).
As to the question of what car it's gonna' go in now.....? This goes into my domestic situation. Simple story is that I'm hoping to generate enough money from this (and the next few engines I build) to allow me to get another project car, without dipping into the house-funds, and bringing on the wrath of "momma."
So, since I'm in Pittsburgh, I'll put it Craigs' List, and hopefully I'll get to install it, and see it run. If not....? Then Ebay. With no body to put it in right now, it would be a waste, to let it sit here and collect dust.
03-11-2008, 06:27 PM
#9
Drifting
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: Sault Ste. Marie Ontario
Posts: 1,871
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Good Read! Thanks for posting.
I went through my DIY engine build last summer can now say I understood your comments. Albeit my motor may not have the same tolerances you achieved, the experience was definately worthwhile.
Kudos to you for not just telling your friend to buy a crate. Everyone into cars should build one motor in their lifetime.
What are your plans for the motor after it's complete?
I went through my DIY engine build last summer can now say I understood your comments. Albeit my motor may not have the same tolerances you achieved, the experience was definately worthwhile.
Kudos to you for not just telling your friend to buy a crate. Everyone into cars should build one motor in their lifetime.
What are your plans for the motor after it's complete?
03-11-2008, 11:30 PM
#10
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Read! Thanks for posting.
I went through my DIY engine build last summer can now say I understood your comments. Albeit my motor may not have the same tolerances you achieved, the experience was definately worthwhile.
Kudos to you for not just telling your friend to buy a crate. Everyone into cars should build one motor in their lifetime.
What are your plans for the motor after it's complete?
I went through my DIY engine build last summer can now say I understood your comments. Albeit my motor may not have the same tolerances you achieved, the experience was definately worthwhile.
Kudos to you for not just telling your friend to buy a crate. Everyone into cars should build one motor in their lifetime.
What are your plans for the motor after it's complete?
I confess, I would LOVE to see it go into a Vette, and there's a little hope that someone will be interested in running it.... But when I started this project several months ago, quite a few people had asked me to do a write-up on it, with pics. So, even though some of the pics are quite old (and the intake pics taken with my cell-phone), I did as was asked... Who knows, maybe some forum members thought I was BS'ing them, but I'm not a guy who welches on a promise...
So here it is, in all its glory (and my stupid mistakes, like the piston rods!!!
) But, I've decided to NOT be like the car magazines, only give the good, and "forget" to mention the bad... BTW, I'm into the engine for ~$5200 total, NOT including the two sets of spring compressors that I broke. The price I'll sell it for is $6400- which my wife said was WAY too low for the time I spent on this project. But, again, that was the goal- to put together the best engine I could, for the previously agreed-upon price of $6400...
And keep in mind, I was foolishly expecting to get the engine built for $4500...
Well, it's time for bed. I've got a BIG project coming up this weekend, that I have to prepare for, as well as MBA classes I'm taking, and trying to maintain a social life with my wife and little girl... So I'm a-gonn'a go, for now. Hopefully, I'll at least detail out the actual costs of the buildup, tomorrow night... BTW, the new pushrods and chrome valve/timing covers arrived from Summit, but I got home at 10:45 PM, so.... later.
Anyway, thanks all, for the feedback.
I know I've taken a *different* path then most of the HP freaks out there, but... there's a method to the madness... Good night
03-11-2008, 11:43 PM
#11
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I almost forgot... One extra pic I'd taken: A comparison of the piston and rod assemblies... there'd been a little discussion about this, so, since I had them... 
Obviously, the left is the 525 setup. Notice how high in the pin the pin is. And yes, the oil-ring needed an extra support, but that's only an extra 5 minutes to install that, before starting to install your normal rings...
The center, is a 454 piston with a factory 3/8" rod (from another engine that I haven't started, yet), and the right is the 427 tall-deck combination, complete with three compression rings, and the same length rod as the center... BIIIIG difference... But you can see where a 525 combination can come together.
Cheers!
Obviously, the left is the 525 setup. Notice how high in the pin the pin is. And yes, the oil-ring needed an extra support, but that's only an extra 5 minutes to install that, before starting to install your normal rings...
The center, is a 454 piston with a factory 3/8" rod (from another engine that I haven't started, yet), and the right is the 427 tall-deck combination, complete with three compression rings, and the same length rod as the center... BIIIIG difference... But you can see where a 525 combination can come together.
Cheers!
03-12-2008, 01:27 AM
#12
Race Director
Member Since: Jan 2000
Location: Corsicana, Tx
Posts: 12,603
Received 1,874 Likes
on
912 Posts
2020 C2 of the Year - Modified Winner
2020 Corvette of the Year (performance mods)
C2 of Year Winner (performance mods) 2019
2017 C2 of Year Finalist
Well, don't worry about critical piston speed..you're not going to hurt anything.
Since we have no idea what it will end up in...just use what you have....nut whether it makes 540HP will be debatable. Check this months Hot Rod magazine for the beginning of a series of buildups on a 540. First version ended up at 480 HP! Jeez!!
JIM
Since we have no idea what it will end up in...just use what you have....nut whether it makes 540HP will be debatable. Check this months Hot Rod magazine for the beginning of a series of buildups on a 540. First version ended up at 480 HP! Jeez!!
JIM
03-12-2008, 09:34 PM
#13
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some quickie information, which may be useful to the discussion:
Below are the actual costs (including shipping) for everything in this engine.
Heads (Ebay) 481.56
Block (Craigs List) 350
Machine Work (local) 592.78
Rotating Assembly (gofaststuff.com) 1800
Comp Cam XR276 HR (Ebay) 250
CompCams Hydraulic Lifters (Ebay) 300
Intake Manifold (Dart tall,single-plane) 410
Gaskets/Oil Pump setup (Summit) 150
Oil Pan 250
Balancer, cam button and plate 120.75
Summit (busted tool) 106.9
Summit (guideplates, keepers, retainers) 148.73
Valve springs (roller springs per CompCam Spec) 93.9
10-degree retainers and keepers 122
Intake pushrods (chromoly, Ebay) 21.94
roller rockers (Ebay) 142.9
exhaust pushrods (chromoly, Summit) 40.74
chrome valve/timing covers (summit) 35
Total 5,417.20
Predicted power from DD2000 is below. Since I'm not computer-savvy enough to figure out how to copy the curves, I simply duplicated the chart over to excel, made the same chart:
Now, the cylinder head details...
I'd thought I had scored a smokin' deal, by finding a set of recently-rebuilt heads off Ebay for just under $500, including shipping. Allegedly, they'd been fitted with Edelbrock Performer RPM flat-tappet springs, and the heads had been worked on, given a port-job, gasket match and the heads had been shaved and reworked to 106 cc's. The heads had indeed been ported, and the springs looked relatively new... However, since I wanted to clean the carbon out of the ports and check valve-guides, I decided to pull 'em down... I bought a valve-spring compressor from Pep Boys (since I didn't have one), a little hand-operated twisting affair sort of thing... It didn't work, as the inner spring damper kept slipping off the hooks.
Ok, I think, I'll get one from KB Tools... I wait a week, it arrives, and the first valve I put it on, the fingers slip off, the arm warps, and the tool is now scrap... I think, maybe I bought too cheap of a tool to handle a BIG engine, and buy a "sexy" valve-spring compressor...
And IT fails. By "fail," I mean the arms bend like spaghetti noodles, and the tool is wall-art...
I finally resort back to the only tool that hasn't mechanically failed- the el-cheapo Pep Boys model. I apply a small C-clamp across the arms, to keep them from slipping off the inner damper, and it WORKS...
Sort of...
The *springs* are compressed, but the retainers will not release from the keepers. I end up using a small ball-peen hammer, hitting the tightening wheel of the cheapie compressor... Now, keep in mind, I have the springs compressed, so the valves can move freely in and out... What to do???? I use a chunk of wood held against the center of the valve... and tap a few times. Check to make sure my piece of wood is still centered, and tap away... It's taking forever... Apply WD-40 liberally, come back the next night, and keep on... Eventually I get them all free, and find out the ugly truth... The keepers and retainers are old- so old, and so abused, that the keepers and retainers have galled the metal, basically *joining* together. Not only do I now need to swap in new springs (which I'd already decided to do, instead of taking the unnecessary risk of having insufficient springs with this roller cam), but now I need to pony up an extra $122 for the new hardware. The good news was that the guides were good, the PC-seals were good, the valves were unbent (Thank God).
After a couple of weeks of dinking around with the heads, I now had a good set that'll work well, and be reliable for long-term use... And then I smoothed the heads a bit (same as the block), and painted them up...
More later....
Below are the actual costs (including shipping) for everything in this engine.
Heads (Ebay) 481.56
Block (Craigs List) 350
Machine Work (local) 592.78
Rotating Assembly (gofaststuff.com) 1800
Comp Cam XR276 HR (Ebay) 250
CompCams Hydraulic Lifters (Ebay) 300
Intake Manifold (Dart tall,single-plane) 410
Gaskets/Oil Pump setup (Summit) 150
Oil Pan 250
Balancer, cam button and plate 120.75
Summit (busted tool) 106.9
Summit (guideplates, keepers, retainers) 148.73
Valve springs (roller springs per CompCam Spec) 93.9
10-degree retainers and keepers 122
Intake pushrods (chromoly, Ebay) 21.94
roller rockers (Ebay) 142.9
exhaust pushrods (chromoly, Summit) 40.74
chrome valve/timing covers (summit) 35
Total 5,417.20
Predicted power from DD2000 is below. Since I'm not computer-savvy enough to figure out how to copy the curves, I simply duplicated the chart over to excel, made the same chart:
Now, the cylinder head details...
I'd thought I had scored a smokin' deal, by finding a set of recently-rebuilt heads off Ebay for just under $500, including shipping. Allegedly, they'd been fitted with Edelbrock Performer RPM flat-tappet springs, and the heads had been worked on, given a port-job, gasket match and the heads had been shaved and reworked to 106 cc's. The heads had indeed been ported, and the springs looked relatively new... However, since I wanted to clean the carbon out of the ports and check valve-guides, I decided to pull 'em down... I bought a valve-spring compressor from Pep Boys (since I didn't have one), a little hand-operated twisting affair sort of thing... It didn't work, as the inner spring damper kept slipping off the hooks.
Ok, I think, I'll get one from KB Tools... I wait a week, it arrives, and the first valve I put it on, the fingers slip off, the arm warps, and the tool is now scrap...
I think, maybe I bought too cheap of a tool to handle a BIG engine, and buy a "sexy" valve-spring compressor... And IT fails. By "fail," I mean the arms bend like spaghetti noodles, and the tool is wall-art...
I finally resort back to the only tool that hasn't mechanically failed- the el-cheapo Pep Boys model. I apply a small C-clamp across the arms, to keep them from slipping off the inner damper, and it WORKS...
Sort of...
The *springs* are compressed, but the retainers will not release from the keepers. I end up using a small ball-peen hammer, hitting the tightening wheel of the cheapie compressor... Now, keep in mind, I have the springs compressed, so the valves can move freely in and out... What to do???? I use a chunk of wood held against the center of the valve... and tap a few times. Check to make sure my piece of wood is still centered, and tap away... It's taking forever...
Apply WD-40 liberally, come back the next night, and keep on... Eventually I get them all free, and find out the ugly truth... The keepers and retainers are old- so old, and so abused, that the keepers and retainers have galled the metal, basically *joining* together. Not only do I now need to swap in new springs (which I'd already decided to do, instead of taking the unnecessary risk of having insufficient springs with this roller cam), but now I need to pony up an extra $122 for the new hardware. The good news was that the guides were good, the PC-seals were good, the valves were unbent (Thank God).After a couple of weeks of dinking around with the heads, I now had a good set that'll work well, and be reliable for long-term use... And then I smoothed the heads a bit (same as the block), and painted them up...
More later....
Last edited by breathial; 03-13-2008 at 04:43 PM.
03-13-2008, 03:42 PM
#14
Norval was having the same trouble with compressing valve springs so he built his own tool to do it, if memory serves. Do a search.
I was working on a turbo 4 cyl last week, and the valve springs are so weak that I simply used a large flat head screw driver to pop the rockers out. And this motor had upgraded vlave springs!
03-21-2008, 09:01 PM
#15
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrapping Up the Package... :)))
So, my project at work was successful, and now I'm back, finishing up the engine (sleep deprivation is a bitch! )
First of all, when running a roller camshaft, you have to run a cam "button," basically, a small stub that sticks into the front of the camshaft gear (with a locking plate), the prevents the cam from "walking" forward. If that happens, it'll change ignition timing, and you'll have problems.
I'd bought a generic stamped-steel chrome dress-up set from Summit, but found the timing cover was made with a bulge in the front, right where the cam button was supposed to ride. Not a biggie, a few rags to prevent marring the metal, and a small ball-peen hammer did the trick. When all was said and done, the cam has just a *little* movment from fore to rear, so I was happy. Of course, I had to loosen up all the rocker arms, so the cam would slide easily, then test-fit the cover... maybe a dozen times, before it was exactly where it's supposed to be. Hopefully you'll be able to see that the bulge in the cover is gone, the cover is exactly flat, like it's supposed to be:
Next, the harmonic damper. Remember, the goal was to make the engine appear as "stock" as possible, and live in the normal RPM band that daily-driver cars run in. So, a fluidampr style seemed not only overkill, but a bit silly. So I bought a new hi-performance damper from Summit, that ran around $100. Internally balanced, power-coated clear, with nice timing marks stamped in it... PERFECT. Went to put it on, and it was tough to get started!!! Check with my micrometer, and discover the crank snout is exactly 1.600", and the damper is... 1.600". Exact match! So, I kept working at it, finally got it started, and slowly snugged it into place. Afterwords, I decided to paint the washer and bolt, so it'd look nice and clean. Anyway, the result is below:
Next, it's time for the oil-pan... And then we run into problems. The deep pickup for the pan didn't exactly match up, and the extra bolts were standard, while the threads of the pump body (for whatever reason!?!?) were METRIC! To align the pickup correctly required some massaging of the bracket which bolts to the bottom of the body, and a trip (the last of many!) to the hardware store...
BTW, the oil pump is a Melling standard oil-presure unit, NOT the HV version. Because the engine can't rev past ~5500 RPM without valve float, and also because the engine is built to stock bearing clearances, there is no reason to run a high-volume oil pump... While it sounds good on the surface, I decided to go this route, because the excess pressure will simply result in wasted horsepower, instead of increasing oil flow. (and, the excess pressure will bleed by the relief valve anyway, so what's the point?).
So, back to the pan. A normal installation, no issues or things to pay special attention to. Simple operation, just making sure everything is sealed as it should be... Of course, among the trips to the store, I bought new hardware, as the old stuff might have been cleaned and painted, but it just wasn't worth the bother, when I could get new hardware for ~$20... So, after the installation, I took a pic of the pan rail. Notice the notches built into the side of the pan, a necessary thing when running a 4.5" stroke!
Turning the engine back over, I took a couple of last pics- one of the rocker arms (the ones that kicked my butt for... a week?), and the roller lifters:
Button up the chromie valve covers, and start to install the intake... And ANOTHER problem! The heads, as I'd stated before, had been milled, but I had no idea how much... The answer is, TOO much! The bolt-holes don't line up, I had excessive clearance at the bottom of the intake to the china wall, and (to add insult to injury) the china-wall rubber gaskets that Jegs said were for a TALL deck block, were for a standard deck... and too short. I had already applied the RTV and gaskets, before I discovered that the thickness of the gaskets themselves, killed the chance to install the intake this weekend... On Monday, I'll take it to some of my hot-rodder buds, and have them shave about .020" off each side (that mates to the cylinder heads), and try again on maybe Tuesday...
In the meantime, I've left the RTV on there to dry (and then I can remove it easily, and re-clean all the surfaces... Looks ugly, but that'll change quick enough...
So, with the intake sitting on top of the engine, you see what the final product will look like:
So, that's about it. Later this weekend, I'll paint the rest of the exposed cylinder-head bolts Chevy orange, so the engine will look as "innocent" as possible. And unless a person worms under the car and looks *very* hard at the oil-pan, they'll never know... that you're running 8.5 Liters of engine... Bigger than the Viper V-10!!!
)First of all, when running a roller camshaft, you have to run a cam "button," basically, a small stub that sticks into the front of the camshaft gear (with a locking plate), the prevents the cam from "walking" forward. If that happens, it'll change ignition timing, and you'll have problems.
I'd bought a generic stamped-steel chrome dress-up set from Summit, but found the timing cover was made with a bulge in the front, right where the cam button was supposed to ride. Not a biggie, a few rags to prevent marring the metal, and a small ball-peen hammer did the trick. When all was said and done, the cam has just a *little* movment from fore to rear, so I was happy. Of course, I had to loosen up all the rocker arms, so the cam would slide easily, then test-fit the cover... maybe a dozen times, before it was exactly where it's supposed to be. Hopefully you'll be able to see that the bulge in the cover is gone, the cover is exactly flat, like it's supposed to be:
Next, the harmonic damper. Remember, the goal was to make the engine appear as "stock" as possible, and live in the normal RPM band that daily-driver cars run in. So, a fluidampr style seemed not only overkill, but a bit silly. So I bought a new hi-performance damper from Summit, that ran around $100. Internally balanced, power-coated clear, with nice timing marks stamped in it... PERFECT. Went to put it on, and it was tough to get started!!!
Check with my micrometer, and discover the crank snout is exactly 1.600", and the damper is... 1.600". Exact match! So, I kept working at it, finally got it started, and slowly snugged it into place. Afterwords, I decided to paint the washer and bolt, so it'd look nice and clean. Anyway, the result is below:Next, it's time for the oil-pan... And then we run into problems. The deep pickup for the pan didn't exactly match up, and the extra bolts were standard, while the threads of the pump body (for whatever reason!?!?) were METRIC!
To align the pickup correctly required some massaging of the bracket which bolts to the bottom of the body, and a trip (the last of many!) to the hardware store... BTW, the oil pump is a Melling standard oil-presure unit, NOT the HV version. Because the engine can't rev past ~5500 RPM without valve float, and also because the engine is built to stock bearing clearances, there is no reason to run a high-volume oil pump... While it sounds good on the surface, I decided to go this route, because the excess pressure will simply result in wasted horsepower, instead of increasing oil flow. (and, the excess pressure will bleed by the relief valve anyway, so what's the point?).
So, back to the pan. A normal installation, no issues or things to pay special attention to. Simple operation, just making sure everything is sealed as it should be... Of course, among the trips to the store, I bought new hardware, as the old stuff might have been cleaned and painted, but it just wasn't worth the bother, when I could get new hardware for ~$20... So, after the installation, I took a pic of the pan rail. Notice the notches built into the side of the pan, a necessary thing when running a 4.5" stroke!
Turning the engine back over, I took a couple of last pics- one of the rocker arms (the ones that kicked my butt for... a week?), and the roller lifters:
Button up the chromie valve covers, and start to install the intake... And ANOTHER problem! The heads, as I'd stated before, had been milled, but I had no idea how much... The answer is, TOO much!
The bolt-holes don't line up, I had excessive clearance at the bottom of the intake to the china wall, and (to add insult to injury) the china-wall rubber gaskets that Jegs said were for a TALL deck block, were for a standard deck... and too short. I had already applied the RTV and gaskets, before I discovered that the thickness of the gaskets themselves, killed the chance to install the intake this weekend... On Monday, I'll take it to some of my hot-rodder buds, and have them shave about .020" off each side (that mates to the cylinder heads), and try again on maybe Tuesday...In the meantime, I've left the RTV on there to dry (and then I can remove it easily, and re-clean all the surfaces... Looks ugly, but that'll change quick enough...
So, with the intake sitting on top of the engine, you see what the final product will look like:
So, that's about it. Later this weekend, I'll paint the rest of the exposed cylinder-head bolts Chevy orange, so the engine will look as "innocent" as possible. And unless a person worms under the car and looks *very* hard at the oil-pan, they'll never know... that you're running 8.5 Liters of engine... Bigger than the Viper V-10!!!
Last edited by breathial; 03-21-2008 at 09:11 PM.
03-21-2008, 09:10 PM
#16
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Final Thoughts...
In addition to the costs listed above, I spent about $75 in hardware of various sizes and grades (as well as the magical "Form a Gasket" RTV, that comes in a bottle like Cheez-Whiz), to finish the engine with a little *finesse.*
So the total cost to build it, not including any of my time, was right at $5500. Not too bad, considering the power and torque this engine will generate, and a LOT better than the generic "crate motors" that GM and other companies put out...
A lot of research went into the build of this engine, and a lot of myths were debunked along the way... I hope this was informative, if not entertaining... And hopefully, when those of you who are apprehensive of doing an engine read this, you'll be encouraged to do your own engine!!!
Good night, all! MILLER TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So the total cost to build it, not including any of my time, was right at $5500. Not too bad, considering the power and torque this engine will generate, and a LOT better than the generic "crate motors" that GM and other companies put out...
A lot of research went into the build of this engine, and a lot of myths were debunked along the way... I hope this was informative, if not entertaining... And hopefully, when those of you who are apprehensive of doing an engine read this, you'll be encouraged to do your own engine!!!
Good night, all! MILLER TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
04-26-2008, 03:44 PM
#17
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realized I'd not posted the last details of the intake installation. I machined .055" off of each side of the intake, to get the proper alignment of the bolts and intake ports, and then it was ready.
Finally, since no hardware stores seem to exist anymore, that have an actual "hardware" section that has any inventory, I ordered the proper cap-screws from McMaster-Carr, and everything was done...!
As you see, it looks pretty "sexy," if I DO say so, myself... Since these pics were taken, I finished painting the head-bolts, so they look nice and clean, and won't rust...
Finally, since no hardware stores seem to exist anymore, that have an actual "hardware" section that has any inventory, I ordered the proper cap-screws from McMaster-Carr, and everything was done...!
As you see, it looks pretty "sexy," if I DO say so, myself...
Since these pics were taken, I finished painting the head-bolts, so they look nice and clean, and won't rust...
Last edited by breathial; 04-26-2008 at 06:41 PM.
08-02-2008, 04:09 AM
#20
Pro
4.5 crank in std deck?
http://www.cobrapower.com/engines.htm#
The firm above lists a 4.25 bore x 4.5 crank (540cui) in a gen 6 block. I can only assume it is a standard deck height motor.
I dont know how much clearance with the 6.385 rods there is, but I read the gen 6 motor has moved a lower oil gallery and that allows more digging around at the bottom of the block.
The firm above lists a 4.25 bore x 4.5 crank (540cui) in a gen 6 block. I can only assume it is a standard deck height motor.
I dont know how much clearance with the 6.385 rods there is, but I read the gen 6 motor has moved a lower oil gallery and that allows more digging around at the bottom of the block.