coppercutlass

So my current build is another budget scrounger build and probably my last one as i feel my capabilities finally warrant spending some good coin on something nice with life span in mind . Plus the older i get the less time i have and the less i wanna wrench and do other things like house work lol. Yes i have been around long enough on this forum to go back on the stuff i said 10 years ago lol.

So the short block started as a failed build. every rod bearing spun, i got the block the pistons ., it has studs and straps , oil restrictors in the mains and lifter oil feed holes. . I have a few questions .

#1 IM not a big fan of oil restrictors on the sbo ( never ran them ) so this is new for me. any specific feed hole diamater i should check for on the lifter feed ones ?

#2 To me it seems like it never got an align hone. the 3 main caps with the straps are all .001 tighter. ( assuming it needs an align hone )

#3 i got some rods that appeared to be re sized. half of them are .0005 tighter than the others with and without the bearing shells ., should i resize those rods or just adjust the clearances at the journal.

#4 This engine was built very tight. piston to wall was .002 it didnt run very long. one piston got pretty scuffed on the in board side of the piston. the skirts all still match in size. I know this probably sounds bad but my plan was to lightly polish the one skirt .

#5 how do i check for proper timing chain length once its align honed.

The goal for this engine is to scratch 11's and pretty much have the car set up for a 12.0 index dead on the number. The current engine runs 11.60's but...... i actually would like to build up the bottom end with a stroker crank and nice pistons and what not ( that whole longevity thing lol )

olds 307 and 403

Speedpro pistons? Show us pics of the scuffed piston, the experts can chime in if you should use them.. I would want uniform parts, let the machine shop decide. The restrictors can be removed, probably the best plan, if possible. I am too am curious on the timing chain, will see soon how the Cloyes, Billet roller fits. Good luck.

cutlassefi

If you’re building it for durability and not price then do the following;
Align hone with ARP bolts or studs.
Throw the stock rods away. By the time you resize and press on and off you’re 3/4 of the way to a set of better, lighter Scats or Molnars.
Use a better piston with the new rod
Internally balance it if you really want it to live.
No restrictors of any kind. Stock oiling system is fine, especially in a small block.
Use a Cloyes 9-3613X9. It’s a real “matched” set.

Thanks

coppercutlass

For this build I'm using what I have., but agree. I guess durability is subjective at this point. But the engine has ARP studs , the rods have been what appear to be resized and new ARP rod bolts . Just .0005 difference between 4 of them. I know piston options are much better but for one last time I'm gonna use what's there. When I freshen up my current engine that's in the car that will get all new and nice stuff.

coppercutlass

Another question. If I remove the restrictors I won't have issues since on the mains they are drilled out to accommodate them and in the lifter feed areas ???.

oddball

No problems removing the restrictors, or leaving them in. The cam bearing feed hole is the restriction if you pull them out. I would just leave them, assuming they're installed solidly and won't fall. They don't do anything useful, and also don't matter (assuming you're not running massive spring pressures).

Sounds like the machine work was spotty, or just they just threw it together and ran it. Are all the rods still at decent clearance? If the tight ones aren't too tight and the loose ones aren't too loose then hey, just run it. Same with the mains. Might get away with a heavy hone to get the bores to a better clearance for those pistons.

Center-to-center for main and cam bore is 5.044". Mondello's book has a measurement for using calipers on the near sides of the bores.

coppercutlass

Sorry I didn't clarify. The rods I have have been resized. The original rods and crank where roached. At this point I'm gonna take the opportunity to make it as right as I can. The Machinist I'm working with is really cool and is gonna work with me .

BillK

Sounds that way. You can usually look at the caps and see if it has been align honed. The mating surface on the cap will have been ground and the bearing surface will have a crosshatch from the hone.

That depends on what the rods actually measure. If the "good" ones are in the spec range then hone the tight ones out to match. If not then it might be a good idea to do all of them right. The spec is 2.6245" to 2.6250" If I am doing a performance engine I usually put them on the small side.

coppercutlass

I know it's a controversial point but as far as clearances go I'm gonna shoot somewhere in between what bill trovato has had success with and what the old mondello book suggested. So pretty much rods and mains will fall in around .003 to .0035. . I'm gonna re check the big ends and if they are concentric I will probably just have two rod journals polished down to .003 . I will double check on the rod bearing bore diameter but I'm pretty sure is was on looser end of things. Those rods actually came out of Joe mondello's garage when my friend bought the V.O twister.

BillK

I would not try to polish .0005" off the crank. I dont care what anyone says I dont think it can be done and still have a perfectly round and straight journal. I would rather live with the .0005 tighter clearance.

cutlassefi

^^^^^^
Copper, I know you’re trying to do this on the cheap but you’re asking for trouble here.
Have the rods resized to somewhere in the spec range AFTER you have the crank ground properly.
I’ve run .0025-.0028 on both rods and mains on 350’s with no issues. However any tighter than that while making decent power and you’ll probably have problems due to the stock parts flexing.

coppercutlass

I measured the rods during lunch. They need to be resized but they are on the tight end where I thought it was loose end. I'm not trying to cheap out too much so they will get resized. Through this process I'm trying to really get more of an understanding why stuff is done. This machinist is working with me and that helps. I assume if the rods where re sized the areas around the parting lines should be concentric. They are not.

cutlassefi

They probably weren’t resized right from the beginning. The other reason they may not clean at the parting line is because they stretch and don’t come back.

coppercutlass

Good to know and makes sense. I know the vertical measurement is the most critical as the parting lines tend to wide up but I assumed if they're resized they should be somewhat concentric but makes sense that they would bounce back after a little. This is the first time I have ever measured an engine before sending it out. I usually ship stuff out measure before assembly and done. But with this engine there is a little reverse engineering and I'd like to see what the differences are after. Not that I question the Machinist just wanna learn more and give that much more info upfront to the Machinist.

oddball

The bores in the rod and main should be perfectly round. The eccentricity is built into the *bearing*, not the bore. Make sure the rod caps haven't been mixed around.

coppercutlass

I took measurements with and without the bearings. The caps are all matched and numbered. At this point I know where things sit i know what it needs. Stuff goes to the machine shop this weekend.

VORTECPRO

Really, I make production Olds rods wide at the parting line, never had a failure.

cutlassefi

Well they seldom fail when they’re on the loose side. Oddball is right, the concentricity, or lack thereof, is built into the bearing so it will work in a round bore. Obviously you’ve never taken the time to mic a bearing.

VORTECPRO

I do realize the bearing is not concentric. Large diameter rods run at high RPM often can benefit from extra clearance at the parting line, this is where oval honing the rods come into play. I mic bearings every time I build a engine, which is quite often.

83hurstguy

You can oval hone a rod bore for additional eccentricity, especially the weak factory ones. I would not try to polish clearance into a journal. Can you find a single piston cheap to replace the scuffed one?

I'm no engine building pro, so I have limited tools in the garage... I've measured cam to crank centerline using calipers, and it gets close, but it doesn't always line up with the published Cloyes numbers for the undersize (and it's likely my accuracy). For example, my latest engine measured that it could use a -10 set (just over the threshold). I conservatively ordered the -5 set, and it's pretty tight, I couldn't imagine trying to get the -10 set installed.

I'd ditch the restrictors as well... I'd think the lifter bore restrictors would be a liability if you're running a hydraulic cam.

coppercutlass

A full set of the speed pro Pistons is cheap but like any of my previous builds there is an element of throwing caution to the wind on a few things ....albeit with lots of thought into it. It is what it is .I'm into all the stuff for under 1500 and whatever the machine shop bill is. This engine just needs to hold me over while I build my current 350 to a stroker.i don't wanna touch another engine for a while after that. I proved to my self what I could do it's time to graduate to a proper build if you can call it that. I plan on having the rods resized I just was curious as to what's the best approach and I knew the answer to that but was still wanting to get input on it.

cutlassefi

If you have to “band-aid” any machining other than what’s proper then you’re using inferior pieces for the application. That’s a ticking time bomb period.

83hurstguy

I first learned about oval honing rods to add eccentricity from Darin Morgan posts over a decade ago, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he's not building time bombs...

coppercutlass

I think proper is subjective to ones opinion. Certainly the pros have done very unique things over the decades. As for me. I have built all my stuff with used , swap meet stuff and it's worked very well. Many would call it hack but it's held up well. I knew adding clearance to the journal to make up for the rod would probably be a no no but again. I like the flooding of info that follows with the opposition of that thought.

cutlassefi

Then there has to be another good reason for it. Did he say what it was?

VORTECPRO

All you need to know is I get results at the track, and I've never blown a 455 up, and that means taking all the bearing out. Can you say the same thing?

cutlassefi

I’m not going to crap all over this thread with something that everyone knows about that happened 12 years ago.

coppercutlass

As far as that goes let's face it . Every builder will have a fail or issue etc etc. I learned this in my field. There is no such thing as the perfect job. Don't care who you are if you are not fu**ing up or have in the past you aren't learning. Let's face it that's what experience is. I haven't had major catastrophic failures but I have had all kinds of crap go wrong that I have had to fix. I have learned alot over the last 10+ years in the hobby and my trade. Don't use a man's failures against him unless he didn't learn from them. I will say this. Thanks for chiming in guys. I got alot of insight. With every build I learn more I may not always do what's correct , or proper and I may get lucky . I will take this time to challenge vortec pro to share his wisdom with us on a build top to bottom. Mark has done it alot . I'd like to see him do an SBO. Perhaps a stock eliminator style build. I will take in any info I can from anybody.

83hurstguy

short version... rods fail in tension when the crank goes past TDC and the inertial load of the piston tries to pull the rod apart. Because of the tension, the parting line of the rod / bearing moves in towards the crank journal and if the bearing line catches the crank, it spins the bearing.

Stiffer rods (like aftermarkets) at low horsepower levels aren’t going to have issues, but softer rods without big end rigidity can use eccentricity to survive.

Copper, sorry for the side bar. Looking forward to seeing the results, always enjoy seeing your efforts and results.

VORTECPRO

Oval honing rods was discovered quite a while ago by my very good friend Kip Martin. Kip raced a 352 Ford Galaxie in super stock, but he had a problem, it would spin the the rod bearings, and factory rods were mandatory back in those days in Super Stock, so you had to make factory parts work, basically you couldn't be a bubble packer, you had to think. Well Kip and his two boys came up with a idea, they would oval hone the spindly factory Ford rods, this fixed the rod bearing problem. Kip went on to set the SS/O record and win Indy, all because they oval honed the rods. BTW-one of Kips two sons IS Darin Morgan. A picture of a beloved friend of my family Kip Martin-

cutlassefi

I’m aware of all of this, I just didn’t think about having to use certain stock parts in various classes of drag racing. I’m not a drag racer, that’s why the oversight.
Thank you.

83hurstguy

Neat backstory and history. Thanks for sharing.

coppercutlass

I look up to the super stock and stock eliminator guys. I buy old magazines for old tricks. There is huge value in that for me . Stock eliminator has alot of restrictions when you think about it. So I lurk around class racer website alot for tid bits of info I can use. This is why I would love to see how vortecpro would do a stock eliminator style 350 olds. I know it's all about efficiency but some voids need to be filled lol.

VORTECPRO

Honestly its about the car and the drive line behind the engine. Example: 428 HP, I've seen run 10.90 @ 118 @ 3590 pounds @ 30.04 baro. Round strait bores with the proper clearance and finish, 90 degrees to the crank throw, correct piston to head clearance, developed cylinder heads and precise valve guide and seat work, that work with the cam, meticulously setup valve train geometry and alignment. these are some of the things that come to mind. Two things I really focus on:

1. Camshaft-when you really start looking at the camshaft you will see your probably getting screwed by the manufacture in some way or another or in all ways, this has been a horrible problem in my shop, I have no control over camshaft quality, and I hate putting a inferior quality cam in my so carefully machined and built engines.

2. When I dyno test a engine I'am looking at the raw data graph, I want to see the graph have a smooth happy curve, I don't want to see a jagged graph, this is important to how the engine ultimately runs in the car. And if the graph isn't smooth I will work to get it smooth Example: this POS 350 Chevy build I did over on the non Olds builds part of this forum had a horrible very un happy power curve, graph was unacceptable, I worked with the valve train and carb and got it very nice, took some work though.

67OAI

I'll throw in my 2 cents here: I agree with VORTECPRO and 83hurstguy regarding the rod big end; stock Olds rods are soft and will tend to pull together at the parting line at high rpm, especially with heavy pistons. Regarding the oil restrictors, not necessary in the cam bearing feeds; may be of some good in the lifter feed. If someone has already put the restrictors in the lifter feeds you should probably leave them in. I assume they are allen set screws with a hole drilled thru the center. Remove them for block cleaning and reinstall with blue loctite. With a hydraulic lifter cam and roller rocker arm I'ld recommend .050" to 065" hole in the restrictor; that's conservative, could probably go as small as .040". I have run .020" lifter bore restrictor in my "E" block with solid lifter cam and Harland Sharp rockers. Good luck with your build!

coppercutlass

That's a topic I was gonna bring out. I can't see removing the lifter restrictors being easy. So my though was to probably open then up. I'm running an old solid lifter Engle cam.

67OAI

Copper, since you also drive the car on the street I'ld recommend you stay conservative with the lifter feed restriction; probably no smaller than about 1/16 or .060". I think the as drilled from the factory feed hole is about 1/8".

oddball

Wait, what? What lifter restrictors do you have?

The ones that go in the vertical passages from the main bearing are *cam bearing* restrictors. They're often called lifter restrictors, which is sad, and incorrect. Those only kinda-sorta limit flow to the cam bearings. They don't actually affect the lifters at all.

The only way to limit flow to the lifters is to put 16 restrictors actually *in* the lifter bores where the lifter is fed by the galley. That's why there's that wacky copper tubing thing that sits in the valley, I forget who made that. Sometimes it's easier to just plug off all those feed holes, then drill new holes from the valley and build your own lifter feed system.

BillK

Mark,
In what way ? Just curious what you are seeing.

coppercutlass

Oddball. I have both restrictors. In the Mains and the lifter bores. That's the way I got it.