A few last details: a 383 Build.

racprops

Well-Known Member
OK I have had my short block redone by a pro engine shop.

A few last details:

I have ordered a BBC oil pump and Pickup.

Will check distributor fit and clearance.



Intake manifold to heads, Sealer yes or no. TPI runners to Premium, sealer yes or no??

Have had a hard time getting used to no sealer on my new 4.6 Fords…



Oil pan to Block and timing chain cover, Sealer yes or no?

One last major concern, really feel as this is critical, I would like a second even a third options on the head gasket:


“Adam wrote: Based on my reporting piston to deck is .022. So what head gasket do I want?? Old numbers are the same Heads are 64CC and pistons dish is +18.00cc Stock 400 stroke with 4.030 Bore.
Awesome! If I were you, I'd run the Felpro 1094 .015" thick shim gasket. That gives you an outstanding quench distance of .037", which despite the increase in static compression is supposed to help DECREASE detonation tendencies.
It also helps reduce ignition timing requirements / speeds up burn speed which helps your torque and MPG goals.”

"What you DO have going for you is faster piston speeds with your 3.75" stroke vs. a 350 and you COULD significantly improve quench velocity even at your low torque peak RPM with a very tight quench distance; that .015" gasket gives you a nice and tight .037" quench which gives you maximum "free mechanical octane booster" / quench velocity possible."

Which prompted this questions:

By

"Indycars


Going below .040" quench distance requires that you know for certain your dimensions. If you are sure about deck height of .022" for ALL cylinders and since you are not going to exceed about 4500 rpm (???), then you should be good. But consider that piston pin height, rod length and crank throw can vary and if they all line-up and add to the piston top being higher in the cylinder, then this could subtract a few thousands from your deck height therefore dropping the quench distance below .035".

Another factor that can come into play is the piston to cylinder wall clearance and how much the piston can rock when it goes over TDC. Just something else to think about. What is your clearance ? What kind of pistons....... forged, cast or hypereutectic ?"

To which I answered:

Kelly’s stated the follow the specs for my piston/short block:

The pistons are KB Piston Style with a D-shaped cup: Piston Material: Hypereutectic aluminum: Manufacturer's Part Number: KB142-030 UPC: 800745046819 On invoice 2/12/04 ($251.60) My pistons:

Bore (in): 4.030 in.

Piston Style: Dish, with a D-shaped cup

Compression Height (in): 1.561 in.

Piston Head Volume (cc): +18.00cc

Piston to deck is .022: ALL 7 pistons read out as .022 BUT #1 which read as .035 so it is .013 lower.

Piston to cylinder wall is .0015 to .0020 as per KB spects.


Ring gaps of new Hastings Performance Moly rings are top .026 and second .026 again according to KB specs.

Machined SBC 400 crank with 5.565" 400 rods


Rest of the specs:

The piston top, combustion chamber, and intake and exhaust valve have all been Ceramic thermal barrier coated.

Heads are stock 193 with 64cc Swirl port heads #14102193 with 1.94" / 1.5" valves, three angle seats and standard cleanup work done, Perfect circle street valve seals.

Tested stock springs with Exhaust valve rotators.

Lifters: Rhodes Roller VMax lifters

Cam is from Oregon Camshaft #806 roller cam:
Adv duration: 265/270 @.006 206/213 @ 0.050": lift: 431"/428", LSA: 114, ICL: 110
9.25:1 static CR

Cam timing at .050 Intake open .7BTDC close 33ABDC 45 BBDC Exhaust open 45 BBDC and Closes at -12 ATDC this is by the spec sheet.

1.5 ratio roller-tipped rockers Lift by 1.5 = .413/.428 ( I know the roller is worthless, but at lease they are true 1.5)

Running Rhoads V-Max roller lifters at .05% reduction so at low rpms she will be:

Dur. 196/202 Lift 393/407 Seat to seat dur. 251.5/256.5 lobe sep. 114

Degreed it very carefully even added peg timing bushing to get it dead on spec.

Stock 87 TPI intake stock Reported by DYNO2003: Induction: 668.0 CFM @ 1.50

I am running an 87 Corvette TPI. I am counting on it making some if not more of the claimed improvements of 30% more Torque, HP, and MPG with this set up.

ECM will be 7424 programed for 4L80e and modified to run MPFI, and later will add lean burn crust for extra 5/10MPG.

Stock cast iron exhausts manifolds, I am considering headers…

Plan on adding water and meth injection as well as needed.

I do not plan on running over 4500 except when in a full power take off. I will almost never run much over 3500 even claiming a mountain.

I have not heard back from Indycars

Rich
 

Indycars

Administrator
Staff member
I have not heard back from @Indycars

You posted on my Profile so I answered you there, but here it is again below.

"BUT #1 which read as .035 so it is .013 lower."

If it's .013 lower, then .....
.037 - .013 = .024", that's way too close ! [Edit - see post below]

Since you are running the Hyper piston material which runs a tighter clearance (than a forged piston) of .0015 to .002, you will have less piston rock at TDC. This will help with the closer quench distances.

Ring end gap has no bearing on how small a quench distance you can run.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't give a definitive answer nobody can. There is just no way to exactly know at what quench distance you would start having contact.

Sorry, it seems I read your post wrong about being .013 lower, I took it to mean the clearance was .013" less. What caused it to have the additional .013" clearance??? I would be looking to correct it, that is a significant amount.
 
Last edited:

racprops

Well-Known Member
"What caused it to have the additional .013" clearance??? I would be looking to correct it, that is a significant amount."

My guess is the used 400 Rod is off or the crank was cut slightly off center when they took 020 off it.

How bad will that be??

Rich
 

racprops

Well-Known Member
Called shop, Shawn said, it will be a nightmare to fix, first take it apart and true the deck to the cam or mains, then recheck all the pistons and MOST likely we will be doing a lot more machining to all the rods to make sure they are all true to their center lines and piston pins.

Then reassembly and check piston to deck and after all of that we most likely will find more pistons to deck problems.

And because of decking the block my pistons will now be closer to the heads, and thus will have a higher compression ratio, at least static.

Lastly then once we got everything squared away, they would have to re-balance everything.

He feels IF I was building a 500HP 6000/7000 engine that would matter, but for my street hauler put it together and run it.

He also requirements I run a stock .030 Head gasket.

Rich
 

Indycars

Administrator
Staff member
How hard would be to check that rod for center-to-center length on cylinder #1? If that's all you have to change then maybe it would be worth the trouble. Just have to find another one that is heavier and balance only the new rod.

If it's the crank, then run what you got.

It can't be the block deck if it's any where near straight. If it's the block, then the heads will likely not seal if it's .013" higher just on cylinder #1 and right next to it cylinder #3 is level with all the other cylinders on that side of the block.
 

racprops

Well-Known Member
"How hard would be to check that rod for center-to-center length on cylinder #1? If that's all you have to change then maybe it would be worth the trouble. Just have to find another one that is heavier and balance only the new rod."

Shawn feels i should just run it as is, after all how bad can .013 be?? And the block is straight, so it is wither the rod or cranks, got any spare 400 Rods on hand??

"If it's the crank, then run what you got."

If it is the crank and it is ok to run it why not run it as is??


"It can't be the block deck if it's any where near straight. If it's the block, then the heads will likely not seal if it's .013" higher just on cylinder #1 and right next to it cylinder #3 is level with all the other cylinders on that side of the block."



I agree as only #1 reads low the other three on the bank all read .022 as did the other side. So I would say the deck is true.

Rich
 

Indycars

Administrator
Staff member
Shawn feels i should just run it as is, after all how bad can .013 be??

Again no one can say for sure, but if this one cylinder is the one that runs into detonation then your ignition timing will have to be set for this ONE cylinder. The other 7 cylinders will be sub-optimal. Only you can decide how bad .013" can be, what are you willing to live with?

I'm not sure who Adam is, but you have posted his comment many times. Have you decided that his comment is not that important now?

Adam wrote: Based on my reporting piston to deck is .022. So what head gasket do I want?? Old numbers are the same Heads are 64CC and pistons dish is +18.00cc Stock 400 stroke with 4.030 Bore.
Awesome! If I were you, I'd run the Felpro 1094 .015" thick shim gasket. That gives you an outstanding quench distance of .037", which despite the increase in static compression is supposed to help DECREASE detonation tendencies.
It also helps reduce ignition timing requirements / speeds up burn speed which helps your torque and MPG goals.

Like I tried to say above, it's your engine, only you can decided and no one is going to think bad about you if you run it like it is now. We all have limits ! Shawn is right for Shawn, you, Rich need to be right for Rich. All anyone else can do is point out the pros and cons.
.
 

racprops

Well-Known Member
"Again no one can say for sure, but if this one cylinder is the one that runs into detonation then your ignition timing will have to be set for this ONE cylinder. The other 7 cylinders will be sub-optimal. Only you can decide how bad .013" can be, what are you willing to live with?"

The $64,000.00 question is HOW sub-optimal will this be?? Estermed.... best guess, will I feel in in the seat of my pants, or will it only show up on a WOT run on a dyno?

"I'm not sure who Adam is, but you have posted his comment many times. Have you decided that his comment is not that important now?"

No I consider his comments very important, but like getting a serious report from a Doctor, I would get a second and third opinion.

As to why I reposted his commits many times I have learned that SO MANY people do this stuff on SMART phones and do not stroll up or read earlier posts so I find if I am trying to get a point across or even read and assured, it is best to ask the question every-time I post.

This is a very important choose and cannot be changed once the heads are on and torqued and engine is installed in van, so I want the very best shot, I call all of this my Moon Landing, it has to work correct first time.

Rich
 

Indycars

Administrator
Staff member
The $64,000.00 question is HOW sub-optimal will this be?? Estermed.... best guess, will I feel in in the seat of my pants, or will it only show up on a WOT run on a dyno?
I can't answer that, all I can tell you is what I would do. I would fix it.
 

racprops

Well-Known Member
"I can't answer that, all I can tell you is what I would do. I would fix it."

Well it could mean a couple of hundreds of dollars more.

Is it that important?

Well do you have a couple of SBC 400 rods to spare??

Rich
 
Last edited:

racprops

Well-Known Member
So talked with UEM Makers OF the KB pistons.

I was told that that cylinder will drop 02%, or if all the rest are 9.7 that piston will be 9.5.

And talking with them figured out it HAS to be the 400 rod as if it was the crank both the front pistons will be off.

He said as it is a street engine and for a low RPM operation not to every run over 5K I can run it with no real worries.

He also warned these pistons do not like having the pins pressed out, I took a chance having them removed from the 350 rods, I really do not want to roll those dice again as a broken 18 year old piston cannot not be replaced as the current model is slightly different so like the broke ring, I could end up buying a full set of 8 at a current cost of around $450.00 Plus labor again.

Rich
 
Top