Vintage 302 chevy.

Last edited:
Vintage Racing Engines are Neat.
Be nice not to Blow it up.
Save for other Generations to see and enjoy.
My Thought for today.

I like Long Stroke Big Cube Engines.
4.00- 4.21- 4.500 inches.
Most of the time no need to Rev past 6200-6400 on the Street.
I left them 20 car lengths behind.
Competing Drag Racing You must push it real Hard.
 
in theory, the extra counter weights, reduce vibration and there's less internal torsional stress,
but they also add weight to the rotating assembly,
thus while smoothing out torsional stress they also tend to very slightly slow the engines ability to quickly reve
personally I think INTERNALLY balanced cranks with the counter weights are well worth the extra cost and very slight reduction in the ability to reve.
think about that a second, the only time your engine can apply power is when the engines clutch is connected to the drive train, the difference in crank assembly weight is near meaningless, compared to the rest of the engines moving parts and the cars drive train losses

http://garage.grumpysperformance.com/index.php?threads/selecting-a-flywheel.1042/#post-1969
 
Thanks grumpy, never looked much into it. Guess that explains why I never found the factory numbers on my crank. The added weight was smooth unlike the others. It almost looked like the crank was made that way but I could make out a few ripples where it had been added and discoloration of the original portion of the crank.

What do you think a modification like that would have cost?
 
A minimum of several hundred dollars and the skills of both a good welder and machine shop.
plus of course a good deal of time getting the crank balanced, its only been in the last few years that financially reasonably priced computers, for balancing shops were accurate enough to predict where a weight should be placed and how much it should weigh, and calculate the weights position and size, before that time it took a good deal of experience and trial and error testing.
now several manufacturers produce forged internally balanced cranks with all counter weights, something that was not easy to find back in the 1960-70s or even 80s
 
Grumpy said:
A minimum of several hundred dollars and the skills of both a good welder and machine shop.
plus of course a good deal of time getting the crank balanced, its only been in the last few years that financially reasonably priced computers, for balancing shops were accurate enough to predict where a weight should be placed and how much it should weigh, and calculate the weights position and size, before that time it took a good deal of experience and trial and error testing.
now several manufacturers produce forged internally balanced cranks with all counter weights, something that was not easy to find back in the 1960-70s or even 80s
Click to expand...

Grumpy I've had quite a break away from this engine, here lately I've been thinking more about this crankshaft. Being this is a westcoast built engine I was wondering if it may be a Hank the crank creation. Maybe an early or pre HTC inc. when he worked for Crank shaft company. Do you (or anyone that reads this) have a HTC crankshaft or maybe some pictures of one. I thought I had seen one before that had a nice fancy insignia on the front counter weight.

There's really no way I could ever get it verified for sure now that he's passed but maybe someone with past experience with Hank's work would have better luck at determining if it was his or not.

Here's a link to my front counter weight, with the naked eye you can't see all of the writing on the crank, it wasn't until I took pictures of it that I could make out the measurements someone wrote on there. Nothing fancy but if you look past all the stuff that's wrong with this crank you can see there was definitely some time put into it.
http://s571.photobucket.com/user/ry...60213_204248_zpsj3nt9huy.jpg.html?sort=3&o=55

I can't say if it would be worth it today to duplicate these kind of mods to a SJ 283 crank. This crank is one of those pieces that can't just be bought so I'm very cautious in the way I handle it. I'm even more worried about who I'll take it too for work.
 
Those dry sump caps would be nice but I'm leaning more towards the traditional cap and oiling system. I would like to work on the caps on the 327 block I have but unless the cylinders can clean up at a .40 over and still have enough material left in the thrust side of the cylinder I'll wait on changing that. I believe my 2 bolt caps are nodular iron (7178), I can't find much supporting info on that but these things have had some serious power put to them I'm sure judging by the wear and tear on the parts and the overall combination. If everything were to check out with this block and the shop thinks it would be safe to run at the full potential the current combination would provide I was thinking about doweling the 2 bolt caps if they actually are nodular but that's still up for debate. I do have a 10/20 3970010 4 bolt truck block that I could substitute for the 327 block. I'm not sure if that whole "10/20" thing is fact or fiction, but it is a step up from the questionable 327 block.
 
rjs89ia said:
I do have a 10/20 3970010 4 bolt truck block
Click to expand...
That is what I used to build my 302.
rjs89ia said:
I'm not sure if that whole "10/20" thing is fact or fiction, but it is a step up from the questionable 327 block.
Click to expand...
The 010 is used for signifying that 1 percent more tin was used to help molten metal flow unto the casting mold. The 020 indicates that 2 percent more nickel was used in this block which helps make the cylinder barrels harder and more durable.
For a 4 bolt block, 2482 is the number for the better nodular main caps.
 
I dont think gm sells those caps anymore, I would probably go with programs if they make a straight cap and then get it honed. Did you get spacers or did you have a medium journal crank? I was thinking of using the bill jenkins method and pinning a set of medium journal bearings then honing them to the small journal bearing bore dia.
 
Loves302Chevy said:
I used an original, perfect, never ground, forged medium journal crankshaft.
You can use the spacers, but I believe that thick bearings are now made do use a small
journal crank in a medium journal block. I could be wrong.
http://garage.grumpysperformance.com/index.php?threads/sbc-spacer-bearings.3058/
Click to expand...

I think I looked at the spacers before and couldnt get them in the size I would require. My crank needs to have a few blems taken out that a polish may fix but I was worried about being to far over .010 after the polish that the over size bearing might not have enough to maintain proper clearance. Quite a while ago I did a poor mans measure with a snap gauge on the old bearing torqued in the block and I want to say it was .0035 or more when compared to the journal. It did have a hv/hp melling oil pump in it though.
 
rjs89ia said:
the old bearing torqued in the block and I want to say it was .0035 or more when compared to the journal.
Click to expand...
Your bearing clearance should be close to .0025". And they make .011" under bearings.
So polish the crank and you are all set.

BTW, I looked at all your pictures. If you reuse those rods and pistons, you will not have to rebalance.
The total weight of those aluminum rods weigh what a steel rod weighs. The distribution might be different though.
It might be worth having those rods checked for their big & small end weights. You might find a steel rod with the same
weights to replace them. Aluminum rods get work-hardened with use. There is no way to tell when they will snap.
With unknown history, they will always look brand new until they are in pieces. And the rest of your engine also.
Why is there a drilled hole in the center of the tops of those pistons? It does not go all the way through, does it?
I would have the block checked, and if good, put splayed 4 bolt billet caps on the center mains. Then have it line honed.
The heads have had so much work done to them that they are now on life support. I would not trust them.
Put them on the shelf and buy some new aluminum heads. You will then be light years ahead of those old 492s.
Building a 302 is expensive. If you re-use as much as you can (except the heads), you can get it done for a reasonable cost.
 
Loves302Chevy said:
they will always look brand new until they are in pieces.
Click to expand...
That's pretty funny.

Do they have a thicker/spacer bearing that's .011 under?

No hole in the center of the pistons. I believe it was just a centering point, maybe for the gas ports, could be something that Arias did way back when. I emailed Nick Jr. about the pistons and he said they were quite old 70's maybe.

I'm all over the place with what I would like to do. I would like to reuse most of the core components, but then when it comes down to reliability I would like to start all new. One hand I'm thinking of just cleaning this engine up and fixing and replacing whats broken and get it running then start new with something else, the other hand I would like to bring it back to its former glory/racing condition (I'm not looking to be competitive or to blow anyone's door's off). I have thought of sleeving the #1 cylinder taking everything to .040 then doing a half fill (as long as there's sufficient material left). I would like to remain with aluminum rods just newer modern (GRP or BME). I have thought about using a longer rod and maybe a 327 or 350 piston, getting a custom weird length rod to fit an off the shelf 350 racing piston sounds better and cheaper to me than a set of custom pistons that cost $200+ a piece every time no matter how many times you buy them. The rod ratio is of less concern to me as the lighter and cheaper piston. My first concern when it comes to the longer rod would be how many degree longer it would dwell the piston at tdc because of the long(ish) duration cam I have (don't want to get into the valves). My second would be the balance as I would like to remain where I am but also would like to lighten things up too. That's where I worry about letting someone work on the crankshaft, as fully counter balanced cranks are not the norm as far as I can tell and I'm not quite sure if the procedure is the same when balancing it because there's not much info out there for me to read on it. The heads are iffy, as I believe they are angle milled which would create an issue with my intake and newer heads. They look rough but I'm still interested in trying them. I talked with the guy that did the work on the heads and he said they were done for Fischer Engine Company and though there's little out there about Dennis Fischer or his work I found enough to convince me this engine might not be just some shade tree build so I've put some serious and careful thought into how I should treat this thing.

A lot of the work was and parts were from the Los Angeles area, the Slovers head work, the oversized Egge 1.625 performance exhaust valves, Fischer engine company, Arias. I'm NOT 100% sure Fischer was the sole builder of this engine and as I stated farther up in this thread about the crankshaft I wasn't sure if this could be an early Hank the crank or Hank creation while working for Crankshaft company. So many of these guys are either gone, to old to care, or not internet savvy so a lot of my questions will go unanswered when it comes to who. I had a few leads on Dennis Fischer and his right hand man Scott Larson but other than having to make an awkward phone call I've got nothing but dead ends.
 
rjs89ia said:
Do they have a thicker/spacer bearing that's .011 under?
Click to expand...

You use the bearing spacers with .011" under bearings.
Check your bearing inserts for a .0005 stamped on the back of the shell.
2 of these together gives an additional .001" clearance.
If this is what you have, then the .010 bearing will give you the correct .0025" clearance.

Everything done to your engine is detailed in one of the SBC SA Design / David Vizard books.
I think one of these:
images
2ca8bc64a9e0e24e92f533410f10d813.jpg
chvrace.jpg


Look at the author of the first book. Any relation to Dennis?

rjs89ia said:
I have thought about using a longer rod and maybe a 327 or 350 piston,
Click to expand...

You can now easily get 6.200, 6.250, & 6.300 connecting rods. But they will require custom pistons, as you said.

rjs89ia said:
I would like to bring it back to its former glory/racing condition
Click to expand...

This is NOT a Bill Jenkins or Smokey Yunick engine you have there. Don't waste your money.

I'm not sure if these are small or medium journal. I'm just posting to show they do exist.
http://pitstopusa.com/i-5077615-clevite-h-series-rod-bearing-011-undersize-tm-77-sb-chevy-each.html
http://pitstopusa.com/i-5077618-clevite-h-series-rod-bearing-009-undersize-tm-77-sb-chevy-each.html
 
Loves302Chevy said:
Look at the author of the first book. Any relation to Dennis?
Click to expand...

No relation. He wasn't in the spotlight like grumpy or smokey but I hold his work right up there with them. He worked for Roy Woods and Al Bartz before setting off on his own in California then later moved to NC he was a main engine supplier for a lot of winning nascar teams over a great period of time. He just didn't get the exposure like the others. There's a short but detailed biography on Dennis Fischer in Phil Henny's book Al Bartz "Engine Man".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top