My Chevelle build and spot to Rant

So my mind has been at my overall goal of my car lately and for some reason the idea of putting a tko600 in chevelle is stuck in my mind guess it is cause I mind is going a 100mph and have multiple lists of parts figured for my combo to give me the car I want. OK this is a compromise car as is any car that is driven on the street set up to hit a track day here and there. My brain just went again need to measure for a surp belt that will delete the AC compressor out for track days keep in car. :) Plus will be good to have as a back up. But I do not want to give up overdrive and I want a manual trans as I want road race track days as part of this cars future. The TKO600 has two available ratio sets

TREMEC Gear Ratio Chart
Part Number Weight(lbs) Torque Cap.(lbs-ft) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Rev
TCET5201 105 500 3.27 1.97 1.34 1.00 0.68 3.00
TCET4615 105 500 3.27 1.97 1.34 1.00 0.68 3.00
TCET4616 105 500 3.27 1.97 1.34 1.00 0.68 3.00
TCET4617 105 600 2.87 1.89 1.28 1.00 0.82 2.56
TCET4618 105 600 2.87 1.89 1.28 1.00 0.82 2.56
TCET5008 105 600 2.87 1.89 1.28 1.00 0.64 2.56
TCET5009 105 600 2.87 1.89 1.28 1.00 0.64 2.56
I like this idea as a six speed is 600 more just for the trans I have my tire being 28" tall on an 18" that I plan to run in the rear
Information is taken from here very nice gear calc that graphs http://www.zealautowerks.com/transcalc.php
I only did the TKO600 comparison as the tq cap is better for my application
trans_compare.png trans_compare1.png
I am open to your guys opinions and experience here!!
That calculator is awesome put in any rpm as max it will give you your speed through the gears at that rpm
 
Forgot to ask my question lol What do you guys think for rear end gear ratio choice and matched with what 5 gear speed?
 
Grumpy said:
"Is that weird?"

WELL IN MY OPINION.....yes it is,
maybe you need a refresher course
your spending too much time under a car....
or at the machine shop!
I,m 68 years old and probably senile, but even I know...
for guys...sexy generally referes too,
something pleasing to look at concerning the female human gender and anatomy,

and relates too, the kind of ideas you have when your 19-30 plus,
when you see a gal dressed like this...
BTW at 68 I STILL remember exactly what to do and how and why...
why not, take a break, go get a 4 oz brandy ,
relax,and talk it over with the wife ,
maybe she can help.. refresh the memory?:D:rolleyes:

IL_7893_1.jpg
RL147_Floral_swirl_mini_b__20141.1455215341.800.800.jpg
RL147_Floral_swirl_mini_a__33657.1455215341.400.600.jpg
Click to expand...
You are forgetting bare cleavage Grumpy, hmmm senility?
 
no! I like the more risque, pictures of pretty gals,just like 95% of us do,
but I like to pretend were not ALL just average MALES, here on this web site,
and at least leave a shred of class, and show we have some restraint,and a tiny,smidge of sophistication,
after all, there might be an occasional female reader that won,t want too admit the true , male motivations, that most of us have.
I think any gal over about 16 years old has realized the male population, is from their point of view, totally insane and easily manipulated, I'd bet close to 90% of the stupid things youll ever do come down to bad decisions and the male obsession with female anatomy, and the gals know it! and damn sure use it!

remember that old joke?
men spend 95% of the time they have on earth thinking about SEX,
and the remaining 5% worrying..... if they are spending enough time thinking about SEX!



Theres always a balance to be found, you want to get instant and effective torque multiplication, at launch but you don,t want to cruise with the engine spinning any higher than you need it too to put you into the lower edge of your effective torque curve, that of course depends a good deal on the engines effective rpm range in its power band.
On your average muscle car with 24"-26" tire heights, you almost always can find close too, the correct matched performance ,rear gear ratio, by simply dividing the transmission first gear ratio into 10.5:1
so for a 2.87 first gear that places you at 3.65:1 so ID suggest a 3.73:1 rear gear ratio would be close to ideal for performance, and if mileage was more important, you could go with a 3.55:1, but in my opinion that would be rather dumb simply because of the transmissions over drive top gear ratio.

RELATED
http://garage.grumpysperformance.co...late-gear-ratios-and-when-to-shift-calcs.555/

http://garage.grumpysperformance.co...hing-the-drive-train-to-the-engine-combo.741/

http://garage.grumpysperformance.co...electing-a-torque-converter-stall-speed.1715/

http://www.blocklayer.com/Rpm-GearEng.aspx

http://glennmessersmith.com/shiftpt.html

http://www.zealautowerks.com/transcalc.php
 
Last edited:
Couple quick thoughts without crunching numbers.

28.5" is a tall tire. A 26" tire would lower the car 1.25" without any other changes. Better for aero and lower center of gravity.

28.5" tire also limits how much you can lower the car with different suspension because you loose 1.25 " of travel before lowering the suspension.

On a road track you won't get any benefit out of the really low (numerical) 5th trans gear in the .64-.68 range so you'd never use it on track. The RPM drop from the 1.00 4th to the .6's 5th is too big a drop with the wind resistance at high speeds. In your example above you'd be trying to go from 4th to 5th at 6800 RPM 150 MPH so between shoving in the clutch and going to a .6 gear it'd be like hitting a wall. Highway driving where acceleration/top speed isn't important they'd save you some fuel MAYBE depending on rear gear ratio, tire diameter, RPM power curve. The .82 5th offerings work out better for a lot of the old cars that get tracked and you can use it on long straights of certain tracks depending on engine details, tire diameter, rear end ratio. If you're going to run the car at a fairly short track like Lime Rock you probably wouldn't ever get to 5th at all no matter what ratio depending on the other factors.

If you go to rear gears in the 3.73 and up range you may need to address heat and vent issues for the rear. On a drag strip you don't run the car at high speed very long so no probs but out for a 20 minute session on a road track the gears and fluid get hot with high numerical ratios. The higher the number the hotter they get.

When I build cars for people and have to pick rear gears, trans ratios etc. I spend some time using the Wallace calculators knowing the engine power curve, potential drive train details, tire diameters etc. and expected uses of the car. http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculators.htm

To use the 5th overdrive gear on track you need to keep the engine in the high torque area of the curve or wind resistance kills ya because wind resistance increases at the square of the speed.
 
NOT A TA said:
Couple quick thoughts without crunching numbers.

28.5" is a tall tire. A 26" tire would lower the car 1.25" without any other changes. Better for aero and lower center of gravity.

28.5" tire also limits how much you can lower the car with different suspension because you loose 1.25 " of travel before lowering the suspension.

On a road track you won't get any benefit out of the really low (numerical) 5th trans gear in the .64-.68 range so you'd never use it on track. The RPM drop from the 1.00 4th to the .6's 5th is too big a drop with the wind resistance at high speeds. In your example above you'd be trying to go from 4th to 5th at 6800 RPM 150 MPH so between shoving in the clutch and going to a .6 gear it'd be like hitting a wall. Highway driving where acceleration/top speed isn't important they'd save you some fuel MAYBE depending on rear gear ratio, tire diameter, RPM power curve. The .82 5th offerings work out better for a lot of the old cars that get tracked and you can use it on long straights of certain tracks depending on engine details, tire diameter, rear end ratio. If you're going to run the car at a fairly short track like Lime Rock you probably wouldn't ever get to 5th at all no matter what ratio depending on the other factors.

If you go to rear gears in the 3.73 and up range you may need to address heat and vent issues for the rear. On a drag strip you don't run the car at high speed very long so no probs but out for a 20 minute session on a road track the gears and fluid get hot with high numerical ratios. The higher the number the hotter they get.

When I build cars for people and have to pick rear gears, trans ratios etc. I spend some time using the Wallace calculators knowing the engine power curve, potential drive train details, tire diameters etc. and expected uses of the car. http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculators.htm

To use the 5th overdrive gear on track you need to keep the engine in the high torque area of the curve or wind resistance kills ya because wind resistance increases at the square of the speed.
Click to expand...


http://nyst.com/
This place is about an hour and a half from me and Lime Rock is about the same. Watkins Glen is 3.5hrs away. New Hampshire Motor Speedway is about the same the Glen so there I would more then likely be spending the majority of time on New York Safety Track or Lime Rock when I do a track day. I was looking at the Over drive gear not as a used gear but more as a highway gear. I am open to your experience here. I plan maybe realisticly at first 1-2 a year track days more if I like it and can afford it.

I was really hoping you would chime in as I know you have real world experience in this area. The TKO-600 will be the transmission unless a magnum 6 speed comes across at an amazing deal which I do not fore see. I am going to try to get the engine on an engine dyno before it goes into the car. I would like a nice base line measurement to know what I have and where. The shop that has an engine dyno close to here has a Stuska dyno. I will be trying to get my engine initially dialed in on that especially the timing. I should be able to find a good table to start with or get me close. Dyno time is money so I really need to have a full plan before going with a fresh engine.

Does any one here have any knowledge on the Stuska?
 
Grumpy said:
no! I like the more risque, pictures of pretty gals,just like 95% of us do,
but I like to pretend were not ALL just average MALES, here on this web site,
and at least leave a shred of class, and show we have some restraint,and a tiny,smidge of sophistication,
after all, there might be an occasional female reader that won,t want too admit the true , male motivations, that most of us have.
I think any gal over about 16 years old has realized the male population, is from their point of view, totally insane and easily manipulated, I'd bet close to 90% of the stupid things youll ever do come down to bad decisions and the male obsession with female anatomy, and the gals know it! and damn sure use it!

remember that old joke?
men spend 95% of the time they have on earth thinking about SEX,
and the remaining 5% worrying..... if they are spending enough time thinking about SEX!



Theres always a balance to be found, you want to get instant and effective torque multiplication, at launch but you don,t want to cruise with the engine spinning any higher than you need it too to put you into the lower edge of your effective torque curve, that of course depends a good deal on the engines effective rpm range in its power band.
On your average muscle car with 24"-26" tire heights, you almost always can find close too, the correct matched performance ,rear gear ratio, by simply dividing the transmission first gear ratio into 10.5:1
so for a 2.87 first gear that places you at 3.65:1 so ID suggest a 3.73:1 rear gear ratio would be close to ideal for performance, and if mileage was more important, you could go with a 3.55:1, but in my opinion that would be rather dumb simply because of the transmissions over drive top gear ratio.

RELATED
http://garage.grumpysperformance.co...late-gear-ratios-and-when-to-shift-calcs.555/

http://garage.grumpysperformance.co...hing-the-drive-train-to-the-engine-combo.741/

http://garage.grumpysperformance.co...electing-a-torque-converter-stall-speed.1715/

http://www.blocklayer.com/Rpm-GearEng.aspx

http://glennmessersmith.com/shiftpt.html

http://www.zealautowerks.com/transcalc.php
Click to expand...
Okay, mystery is kind of alluring!
 
Tire is 2.5" shorter so half of that.

Commonly used tires on the old cars with the "Pro Touring vibe" like he's building are about 26"-27". Stock was probably around 27-1/2" and the tires he mentioned are 28.5. So the radius is 1.25" shorter and therefore distance from axle to pavement is reduced roughly 1.25" (actually slightly less due to the reduced "bulge" with shorter sidewalls). I go round and round with guys sometimes because they want a certain "look" which I understand. They want the tire to fill the wheel well so there isn't a large gap on the sides and they also want drop the car to "tuck" the top of the tire behind the top lip of the wheel well plus they want a nice ride which requires suspension travel. It works on slab sided cars with tall inner wheel wells. Cars like my 2nd gen F body with the fender angled in above the tire have limited wheel well clearance above the tire so if you tuck a tall tire with drop springs or coil overs the tire hits the top of the wheel well if you hit a good size bump. On a car like the Chevelle the 28.5 tire isn't much of a problem in the back but really limits how wide you can go in front without loosing a lot of turning radius and for cornering you want wide front tires as well.

Since my car is more of a track car than street car and I'm more concerned with cornering performance than looks I use short tires. My old ones were about 25.5" and new ones are about 24.75". They have a lower MOI so they're quicker out of corners and easier on the brakes and I can have the overall height of the car very low while retaining adequate suspension travel (for my use). The short tire also allows me to run a 285 front tire which helps cornering. The drawback is the "gap" in front and back of the tire which a lot of folks don't like the look of.
 
You're right. I read it too fast.
And I used to be good at math.

Getting a certain look (stance) is only good for high dollar car build debuts and magazines.
These cars would be hardly drivable on normal roads.
Screw the looks, I will take the car that can actually drive over a speed bump and not bottom out.
 
Staggered setup shorter front I can fit pretty wide up front will measure to maximize width and turn radius you know as well as I do how you can play offsets and inner front wheel wells are easily modified I do believe some have squeezed 315 up front. Not exactly sure but info is readily available. The rears will tuck up nice plenty of real estate not like th TA my 79 used to rub my sidewalls back in the day really miss my pontiac.
 
The front inner wheel wells aren't usually the problem unless really tall tires are used or too little backspacing. Problem is usually the steering arm on the spindle hitting wheel or tire hits anti sway bar. DSE and some others make a bar with a right angle for more clearance IIRC. Be careful how much stagger you go with because you can run out of rear suspension travel trying to get the rear low enough.
 
So last night I got to work on the block I got it 4 cornered and starting checking clearance the block is definately gonna need some clearancing which was expected. I did not have a bridge which is ideal but used a magnetic base bringing the piston tdc then using piston rocking method taking multiple measurements from both sides of the piston and averaging them. 20170208_213202_Burst01-655x1164.jpg
I have only put one clip in the piston so I can change them around for more consistant assembly
20170208_223147-655x1164.jpg
My lifter valley is all ground down and tapped for vents, oil passages drilled, still needs to be drilled out and tapped for plugs.20170208_201636-1164x655.jpg
 
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THE PICTURES!
its making what your doing far easier to visualize
 
John, now is a good time to post your engine specs.
I just re-read the entire thread, and I'm not sure at this point.:confused:
It is now far from your original ideas.
The engine is still a 355, correct.
 
No the new engine is 383 stock 2 bolt main 010 casting bored .030 over as needed to true up the cylinders. It is the block I had in the garage before the 355 overheated. If that never happened I would still be running it that engine screamed.
 
Keeping it light the crank is lighter then I thought it would be that is the balanced weight. For those who do not know a regular forged scat is about 52lbs a skat 9000 nodular is 48lbs those pounds equal hp one reason the 9000 crank is one hell of a deal at $259 my forged peice was $720 after then balancing seeing mallory was added another $300.


20170219_224808_Film1-655x1164.jpg
Block is all clearanced for the rods. Below that some picks of my buddies project 2000lbs 500hp at wheels goal.
20170219_221417_Film1-1164x655.jpg
20170220_001143_Film1-655x1164.jpg 20170220_001728_Film1-1164x655.jpg
 
thanks for posting the pictures and info, I love the details and,
I'm fairly sure many of the guys reading through this don,t or have not dealt with, or built enough engines, and been involved with enough of the engine builds to realize the various manufacturers approach building components with a great many different objectives in mind,
component parts vary and careful research and selection is required!
I've always found SCAT and CROWER parts seem to be a good value!
keep in mind the "weakest link in the chain" concept,
Any logical engine builder needs to sellect components with a firm goal in mind and recognize the intended power band and rpm limitations.
need there's not much sense in selecting a rotating assembly that is built to easily handle lets say 1200 hp and 7800 rpm, at 4500 fpm in piston speeds,
if the block main caps walk at much lower stress levels, or if the block your thinking of using it in,will most likely have the caps walk well below that stress level.
nore would it make sense, using such a high dollar rotating assembly if your going to match it with a valve train and hydraulic roller cam that floats valves at 6400 rpm, or heads that reach port stall at 6700 rpm
 
Never been a fan of heavy hydraulic valve trains grumpy and am reaching into that realm with my heads I am at a limit where larger then .600 lift is a waste. Porting the heads doesn't seem to be an option either. Looking into selling them might be an option also. But I will more then likely use them I will run a solid roller more then likely a custom grind. Plus no point in throwing allot of weight around when going through the corners. So no dart or bbc wanted. I have been putting allot thought into suspension lately as the suspension, brakes, and rear end are next. BBSS setup either penske or afco coil overs and splined bars. Brakes will be 1.25 thick 13" rotors up front 4 piston calipers. Different pads for track and street needed. Not sure on the rear sizing yet. Still building a parts list. I have some tricks up my sleeve here.
 
So last night I was able to use my new bridge and get some accurate deck height measurement before having the machine shop zero deck the block. Here are the measurements of each piston in the hole.
1-.026
3-.026
5-.02575
7-.0255

other deck
2-.026
4-.025
6-.021
8-.018

I also had my 1/4"npt tap break off in one of the lifter valley holes. If any one knows a way to remove with any ease, chisel was not working even tried heating up around it with a map gas torch. I might see how much the machine shop is going to charge for removal. But getting closer on this build every week. I have sold my old AFR 195 head and have sourced a set of AFR 210 head that are in good condition. Brian Reeland helped me out as he was close to where they were located. He went and inspected them and picked them up for me. They did end up being an older casting AFR even though they were thought to be only 4 years old the previous owner did not know this. He was an older gentleman who drag raced a rail had the heads on a 355 but the chamber size of 76 was killing his compression. So I have a head that will flow about the same as my old ones but not stall out. I am not sure yet whether I am going to keep them or not as they are really not what I wanted for my engine. We will see still in the decision making stage on these. Either way engine can go to machine shop have final machining done and assembly of the short block can start. I am a firm believer of waiting and getting what I want for parts over rushing. It eliminates that I wish I had just did that from the picture. Open to thoughts here it is nice to see what more then one person thinks on a subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top