68 ram rod
May 18th, 2015, 06:51 PM
#41
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Birmingham,Alabama
Posts: 4,624
May 18th, 2015, 09:42 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Muskegon, Mi.
Posts: 8,622
I have also seen statements which seem credible that the airflow to the ducts was better in 1968 than in 1969 because the parking lights in the 1969 bumper disrupted flow.
May 18th, 2015, 11:15 PM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW HARTFORD CT
Posts: 2,632
68 scoops are wider than the 69s but the 69s height was increased and not as wide as the 68s. Can def see why the 68's would get better air flow as Rund mentioned due to 69's parking lights.
Also they tested the Ram Rod, W-30 and Hurst Olds together for 1/4 mile. The Ram Rod beat the W-30 and lost to the Hurst by 2/10ths of a second. Now that was a featured test , but I'm sure they got the w-30 in the NHRA classes w better times.
Also they tested the Ram Rod, W-30 and Hurst Olds together for 1/4 mile. The Ram Rod beat the W-30 and lost to the Hurst by 2/10ths of a second. Now that was a featured test , but I'm sure they got the w-30 in the NHRA classes w better times.
May 20th, 2015, 10:18 AM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seneca Falls, NY
Posts: 5,261
When you say not stock, what do you mean? No it's not the standard 10.25:1 350 engine but it was still a factory produced engine. I think it was advertised at 10.5:1
BTW this was the original W31 Option package announcement:
Notice the available rear end options Mike R
BTW this was the original W31 Option package announcement:
Notice the available rear end options Mike R
Last edited by allyolds68; May 20th, 2015 at 10:27 AM.
May 20th, 2015, 11:14 AM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seneca Falls, NY
Posts: 5,261
You're correct. I didn't read the article. I've got to look through a few more things I have. I didn't think the 68 W31 (Ram Rod, whatever) was advertised at more than 10.75:1. I thought I remembered 10.5:1
May 20th, 2015, 01:42 PM
#57
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Birmingham,Alabama
Posts: 4,624
On the rear axle ratios,I guess they changed their minds.
May 20th, 2015, 01:44 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW HARTFORD CT
Posts: 2,632
the cars that were tested were def not stock from what I remember no internal mods were made other than headers and timing tweeks. Have other half of article which I will post.
However the standard compression on the factory flat top pistons in the w-31s exceeded 10.5 compression despite literature
However the standard compression on the factory flat top pistons in the w-31s exceeded 10.5 compression despite literature
May 20th, 2015, 02:02 PM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Muskegon, Mi.
Posts: 8,622
What I meant when not stock, was the listed 11.5 compression ratio shown in the article posted by Dean, I am well aware of the factory rating of 10.5:1, and yes I did see other add ons, (headers, slicks).
May 20th, 2015, 03:58 PM
#61
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW HARTFORD CT
Posts: 2,632
Dan, I'm wondering now Steve Minore said the flat tops were more like 10.75 to 11. But 11.5 ????? But in article no internal mods were made for that day.
May 20th, 2015, 05:12 PM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW HARTFORD CT
Posts: 2,632
Right but are you concurring w Steve on or around 10.75-11 or 11.5 per the specs of the article I posted. It goes without saying they had to be higher than 10.5 due to slight dish Pistons were 10.25 and 10.5 respectfully pending small block and big block.
May 20th, 2015, 05:33 PM
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW HARTFORD CT
Posts: 2,632
In other words I wasn't aware of any cc differences among the two years. But if so for 68 that would explain the 11.5 mentioned in article because I have yet so to see in 69 w-31s any reference to 11.5 for the flap tops in that year.
May 20th, 2015, 05:36 PM
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Muskegon, Mi.
Posts: 8,622
Has anyone provided info on the stock compression of an original stock Ram Rod or W31 engine, from a car that never had it's engine rebuilt or touched, either in recent history or from back in the day? I know that the Mondello book showed that 11.55:1 was allowed by the NHRA.
May 20th, 2015, 05:44 PM
#66
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW HARTFORD CT
Posts: 2,632
Dan my ram rod have factory flat tops and Steve seemed to think realistically they were on or around 10.75 to 11. Steve also rebuilt my 69 w31 and quoted the same compression ratio. Now obviously both factory 2 inch number 5 heads. So were the ccs in 68 smaller than 69 ??? If so and again i always assumed 68 and 69 number 5 heads were the same in cc areas. But if 68s were smaller than that would explain 11.5
May 20th, 2015, 07:19 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW HARTFORD CT
Posts: 2,632
May 20th, 2015, 07:51 PM
#70
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Birmingham,Alabama
Posts: 4,624
Mondello's engine spec book shows the 68 W-31 head cc's @ 68 just as the rest of the 68 350. Assuming that is correct,it would take a .000 deck,a .015 head gasket and 68 cc's to get a 11 to 1 compression ration with flat top pistons. We all know that a .000 deck is not used. It would take a 64 cc head volume to get 11.5 to 1 ration using the same deck/gasket figures. I had my engine guy figure this,so if his figures are correct,I doubt very seriously if the 68 W-31 had more than 10.5 to 1 ratio. In all reality the deck was more like .020-.030 than .000. That would prevent anything above 10.5 to be a myth particularly if nothing was done to the engine.
May 20th, 2015, 08:02 PM
#71
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW HARTFORD CT
Posts: 2,632
Mondello's engine spec book shows the 68 W-31 head cc's @ 68 just as the rest of the 68 350. Assuming that is correct,it would take a .000 deck,a .015 head gasket and 68 cc's to get a 11 to 1 compression ration with flat top pistons. We all know that a .000 deck is not used. It would take a 64 cc head volume to get 11.5 to 1 ration using the same deck/gasket figures. I had my engine guy figure this,so if his figures are correct,I doubt very seriously if the 68 W-31 had more than 10.5 to 1 ratio. In all reality the deck was more like .020-.030 than .000. That would prevent anything above 10.5 to be a myth particularly if nothing was done to the engine.
Mike ty is there any mention to the 69 cc's w regards to that year's number 5 head. My understanding is they just put two inch valves in the heads in those years and that was it .
May 21st, 2015, 07:07 AM
#72
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Birmingham,Alabama
Posts: 4,624
Yes,the 68/69 heads were 68 CC. The 70 were 70 CC & the 71/72 were 69 CC. The valve size is the only difference between W-31 engines and the others. The reason I'm questioning the higher than 10.5 CR is,the Chevy small blocks have to use a domed piston to get higher than 10.5 CR and the Olds were flat tops.
May 21st, 2015, 07:14 AM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW HARTFORD CT
Posts: 2,632
Yes,the 68/69 heads were 68 CC. The 70 were 70 CC & the 71/72 were 69 CC. The valve size is the only difference between W-31 engines and the others. The reason I'm questioning the higher than 10.5 CR is,the Chevy small blocks have to use a domed piston to get higher than 10.5 CR and the Olds were flat tops.
okay didn't think there was a difference among the years except as noted difference in valves. Okay Joesw31 must have meant compared to 70 heads not 69
May 21st, 2015, 08:31 AM
#76
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW HARTFORD CT
Posts: 2,632
My understanding is that the W-31 motors built for the 68 ramrod, were built separately, and they used smaller CC heads than the standard production heads. This was discussed years ago on ROP with the two Dave's. For example: My 70 W-31's heads are 68 or 69 CC, and the pistons are 15 below the deck. To solve this mystery we an original ramrod cylinder head that has not been touched.
yeah if we had an original that would be great. If that did occur it definitely wasn't represented on any factory bulletins . Well interesting nevertheless perhaps we may never know what happened behind those doors.
May 21st, 2015, 08:41 AM
#77
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,026
May 21st, 2015, 09:03 AM
#79
CH3NO2 LEARN IT BURN IT
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Land of Taxes
Posts: 4,863
I need to be schooled here.
My numbers for 68 Ram Rods are as follows:
1968 W31 cars (non 442) Total production 742 across the line.
38 3277 F85 C.Coupes
674 3687 Cutlass Hard tops
30 4287 Cutlass S
Where is the 3677 in this? Granted my info sheet comes from one of Year Ones first catalogs when the pages were hand typed. So somethings wrong with my info.
My numbers for 68 Ram Rods are as follows:
1968 W31 cars (non 442) Total production 742 across the line.
38 3277 F85 C.Coupes
674 3687 Cutlass Hard tops
30 4287 Cutlass S
Where is the 3677 in this? Granted my info sheet comes from one of Year Ones first catalogs when the pages were hand typed. So somethings wrong with my info.
May 21st, 2015, 09:10 AM
#80
Shoveling Snow
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Yoder-Hey-Land
Posts: 2,482
img740_zpssdeo3yas.jpg
I spoke to Dave H about the heads on the Ram Rods and I was told and this was stated on ROP many years ago. Heads were chosen from heads that had little to no core shift. I have never heard about heads having smaller combustion chambers.
I spoke to Dave H about the heads on the Ram Rods and I was told and this was stated on ROP many years ago. Heads were chosen from heads that had little to no core shift. I have never heard about heads having smaller combustion chambers.
