RocketV8

What's your redline? The Professional Products dampers doesn't have the best reputation on the internet BUT they sell like gazillions of them and how many has really malfunctioned?
Sure a $300 SFI piece will give you peace of mind but is it really necessary?

I run the PP 80022 on my stroked 330. My machinist (very competent and serious guy) puts them on lots of street engines. I've had no problems whatsoever with mine. Engine has seen around 1000 miles and I take it to 6000-6200 rpm all the time.

cdrod

RocketV8:
I looked for an affordable SFI rated damper but everything seemed to be $300-$400. The PP80022 damper is rated to 6200 rpm (IIRC). My engine will be in a daily driver which I doubt it will see more than 5000 rpm during "normal" street driving. An occasional run up to 6000 rpm may happen from time to time, but that would be the max rpm for this engine.

Mr Nick

Glad to hear it's coming along. I'm pulling my engine this winter to investigate slightly low oil pressure before something bad happens. If anything is 'hurt' and work is needed, I'll be very tempted to do a small stroker. Or run it till she blows and do a 434 DX build.

Only money, right?

cdrod

I'd like to improve the oil drain back to the oil pan. My small block has a large rectangular opening in the lifter valley (right above the cam) and several smaller round holes between every other lifter bore. How much can I drill out the round holes for better oil return to the pan? I think right now they are about 3/8" dia, can I drill them out to 1/2"? Will this weaken the block if I go too big? Should I only drill the ones in the corners of the block (closest to the return holes in the heads)?

I've also seen some guys that have painted the lifter valley to speed oil return to the pan. Wouldn't it be better to just polish this area smooth so there is less texture to slow the oil flow. I wouldn't want any paint peeling off and clogging the oil pump.

pavemobile

The SBO does not have the drain back issues the BBO has. There are some improvements you can make with - "sweat equity" work. The drain back holes in the cylinder heads can be radiused a little to smooth flow; if you look down those holes you will see a dogleg...resist temptation to hog out that turn, you don't have a lot of material down there, just radius the holes on top. If you really want to get after it, Glyptal coating/paint is a proven item - expensive though; takes a lot of surface prep work though...clean, clean, clean some more with acetone/lacquer thinner type chemical. Brush it on, follow the directions for dry time and recoat, then dry time prior to assembly. If you want something a little simpler, just use a 1/4" blending stone or a taper roll and smooth the somewhat "S" shape between a couple of the areas and a sharp carbide drill bit and just break the edge off the rim of the holes...small countersink/radius type look, just a little though is all you need.


Most if not all of these are not needed in a street motor though, just deburr as required prior to cleaning and assembly and your powerplant should live a long, happy life. I have done stock and hi-perf SBO builds over the years and never had any issues with either .

cdrod

Pavemobile:
Thanks for the pointers! I measured the drain back holes in my ProComp heads and they look to be bigger than stock iron heads so I'll just radius them a little as you suggested. I decided against coating the inside of the motor and will just polish and smooth the 4 corners of the lifter valley (beneath the drain back holes in the heads) to speed oil return to the pan.

This leads me to my next question about oil pumps. I have a brand new Melling high volume pump that I was planning to use on this motor. Some of the Olds websites recommend a standard volume pump for a street motor unless your turning high RPMs and using oil restrictors and a large capacity oil pan. I like the idea of the HV pump with larger bearing clearances and restricted pushrods, and moving more oil through the motor will help it run cooler; but I don't want all my oil to end up in the valve covers and starve the main bearings. I also decided to coat the main and rod bearings with PolyDyn to reduce friction/heat and for better dry start protection.

In Bill Travatto's book, he suggests larger clearances to allow for more flex in the crank from a high performance engine. My target is 375HP, 400TQ, 6000 rpm redline. I was thinking .0025" clearance on the 2" rod journals (I'm using early Chevy rods) and .003" clearance on the 2.5" main journals. Will this be enough extra clearance to bleed off some of the volume form the HV pump? I'm planning to use a stock oil pan but would consider something bigger if that is what's recommended. This will be a daily driver so ground clearance and header clearance are concerns, so I don't want an oil pan hanging down so low it bottoms out all the time. I look forward to the comments, I really want to get this done right!

wr1970

This is a interesting build!Thanks for putting the build info out there for all to see.The waffle is over and i think you made a good choice.Looking forward to see how this build works out.Please keep posting the build progress.

olds 307 and 403

Nearly everyone has different ideas for oil clearance I wouldn't go too big on a street SBO, you numbers sound fine, just remember extra clearance on the #5 main. I would go with a 7 quart pan, if you plan on the occasional 6000 rpm run. I was told to wind my stock bottom end and pan to 6000 rpm to pull better numbers in the 1/8 mile, won't consider anymore than 5500 rpm for fear of kaboom.

oldsmobiledave

I had a PP balancer fail. It lasted less than 50 passes on my 524. Junk.

cdrod

Thanks for your comment. How high were you spinning the motor? How do you get 524 cubes?

oldsmobiledave

Go to the Racing section & you will see the thread on the engine.


I shift the 524 @ 5800

cutlassefi

It was one of their sfi rated ones?
I've installed a dozen or so in the last few years. To my knowledge all are still running.

oldsmobiledave

.


Yes it was SFI rated unit. Never buy one again.

cdrod

I decided to read up on the Professional Products balancers and found that quite a few people have had them come apart (even the SFI rated ones). Not sayin' they're crap but decided to choose a different manufacturer. I was planning to use the PP#80022 balancer (which is rated to 6500rpm, but not SFI approved) but I've ordered an SFI rated flex plate and balancer from PRW instead. I'll post some pics when they arrive.

cdrod

Here are some pics of the SFI rated, PRW balancer.

cdrod

I ordered the gasket kit from Mr. Gasket, part#7140 and was surprised to find the kit didn't include an intake gasket set. I was also surprised that the head gasket measured .062" thick, I was expecting .038" - .040". Does the gasket compress to .038" when the heads are torqued? That's almost a 40% difference. I really want to get the CR right so this is important to me.

Also, do I need to use a big block intake gasket to fit the taller ports on the ProComp heads? What is a good gasket to use? I'm running hydraulic roller lifters, with ProComp heads and the #7111 Edelbrock intake. I know I can't use the metal "turkey tray" style gasket (don't they interfere with the lifters??), but what is the best fiber style gasket to use? Thanks.

olds 307 and 403

Get either the SCE or Edelbrock BBO fiber gaskets with nitrile beads around the ports. Make sure your intake is flat, Edelbrock has had issues with warped intake flanges out of the box. I thought the Ultraseal head gaskets were .038", that is a huge difference, can't see them compressing that much.

cdrod

I talked with the machine shop owner yesterday. He's ready to balance the rotating assembly, so Monday morning I'm dropping off the PRW balancer and flexplate to him. I'm excited that he's moving faster on my build than expected. The crank grinder had no difficulty grinding the new 3.5" stroke and the main/rod journals .010 under. I had the bearings coated with PolyDyn which adds about .0004" to each bearing shell; so the rods and main caps were bolted together and measured with a dial bore gauge to set the clearances. The final clearances will be around .002" for the rods and .0025" on the mains. I wanted a little more but the machinest was uncomfortable with larger clearances because of the coated bearings. He said the coating thickness will vary somewhat and the crank journals will wipe any "high spots" where the coating is thicker. Hypothetically, if all the PolyDyn coating was wiped away, the total clearance would increase about .0008" so my final clearances would then be .0028" and .0033" on the rods & mains.

I'm still concerned about the .062" head gasket thickness. I will talk to the machinest about this and may need to purchase different head gaskets. I chose the Mr Gasket 7140 set because I thought the head gaskets would be .038" thick. Maybe I bought the wrong set - IDK.

olds 307 and 403

Running aluminum heads, it may be worthwhile running the more expensive Comedic head gaskets. Are your Mr Gasket head gaskets white in colour? The pics I have seen look the same as the old Corteco head gaskets.

cutlassefi

Unfortunately you bought the wrong set. Should've bought the Ultra Seal set. Thats the one that has the .038 head gasket. I use those all the time. Only thing you would've had to get would be the rear seal. It comes with a bb seal. And the description on Summit clearly says no intake gasket included in your set.

And the coating shouldn't wear off, your machinist is wrong. The faces of the crank and bearings should never touch. It's not like the tin coating on a set of new Clevites. You can rub that off with a piece of newspaper. It's just there to inhibit corrosion during storage. Not the same as the anti friction coating you have.

cdrod

If I understood Bill Travatto's book, the larger bearing clearances allow for more crankshaft flex at higher power levels; I'm not sure if this applies to my engine build at my HP/TQ levels (375HP/400TQ). If so, any flex in the crankshaft would take out the coating, not the bearing material, unless the flex is greater than .0008" (the thickness of the PolyDyn coating). For the head gaskets, do I want Mr. Gasket part# 5788G? These are listed on Summit as MLS, Ultraseal; just don't want to order the wrong thing again. Thanks for the help and hand-holding!

cutlassefi

Disregard Bills book for your build. Doesn't apply here.
.002 on the rods with .016-.018 side clearance along with .0025 or so on the mains is fine if you have main studs instead of bolts.
Yes mls Ultra Seal head gasket is what you want. If possible send the 7140 back and grab the full Ultra seal kit.

cdrod

Mark:
Thanks for confirmation of my bearing clearances. I had heard the rule of thumb .0001" of clearance for every inch of journal size, but the BTE book didn't jive with that. The BTE book was a wealth of info, but it was hard to tell where the line was between street performance and all-out racing. I ordered 2 Mr.Gasket 5788G Ultra Seal head gaskets and a set of SCE 279102 intake gaskets from Summit this afternoon. The individual parts with the #7140 set were less expensive than the full Ultra Seal set - go figure.

captjim

That would be .001" of clearance per inch

cdrod

Those darn zeros! I think I meant to type 0.001" and got .0001" instead - not quite the same thing is it! Yes, CaptJim, it is .001" per inch. Thanks for the correction.

I dropped off the heads and intake manifold at the machine shop and talked with the machinist about a few details. He's a pretty conservative guy and was uncomfortable with decking the block for a "squish" or "quench" of .041" He suggested setting the pistons .005" in the holes so with the .038" UltraSeal head gasket the total piston to head clearance will be 0.043". He's gonna cut down the heads to 67cc chamber size to get CR around 10.4:1. He will also cut down the intake manifold to make up for the material removed from the block and heads which will also true up the gasket surface for a better seal. He wants $125 to port match the intake to the heads: I think I will have a go at this myself, so any pointers on best practices here would be appreciated. Thanks!

cutlassefi

Without mocking it up he won't know how much to cut off the deck unless he can give you the actual dimension he's cutting it to.
Same with the intake. Mount everything up then check it yourself. Again there's no way he'll know how much to cut otherwise. I've seen new manifolds be too tall or too short right out of the box.

cdrod

If you're talking about the deck height, he will install a rod & piston in each bank to measure for .005" in the hole. As for the intake, are you saying I should bolt this together myself and tell him how much to cut off the intake gasket surface? I'm not sure I understand how to measure for this. On the other hand, since the bank angle of the block is 45 degrees, can't I tell him to cut the same amount off the intake manifold that has been cut from the heads? Mondello cut about .042" off to get the chamber size down from 77cc to 70cc, to get to my desired CR, I will need to cut another .018" to get 67cc chambers; that's .060" total. Couldn't I tell the machinist to cut .060" off each side of the intake? Would that work?

cutlassefi

These are the things you do that will separate your build from the next guys'.
And unless your machinist is actually "square decking" it with the correct fixture the banks won't be 45*. You'd be surprised how far off they can be.
If your machinist really wants to do a good job, he should square deck it first, then when he locates his boring bar he can do it off the deck, which would now be square and parallel to the crank centerline, provided he align honed it first.
It takes time to do all these procedures. But I do these things on every build I do, regardless.

wr1970

Wow that is interesting!I know i am sure that i haven't built as many engines as you mark.What i have found on the few i put together is none of the intakes were to high or to low. Now this is on six engines some i did intake swaps on to see if a different intake performed better.So is this a small block problem or a big block or both.Thanks for info sorry for the hijack.Just looking for insight for future builds.

cutlassefi

Most recent one was a big block. New Edelbrock heads, new Performer intake. We only cut .012 off the deck but had to cut .040 off each of the intake sides. That math doesn't jive based on the formula.

wr1970

Thank you i will be checking more closely.

cdrod

Mark:
Thanks for your advise. I'm happy to report my machinist align honed the main caps and square decked the block before boring the cylinders (and he used a BHJ torque plate); so I think the bank angle of the block will be a true 45 degrees, but I'm a little confused about cutting the manifold. Should I assemble the short block first so I can take some measurements to tell the machinist how much to remove from the intake? Thanks!

{edit} Nevermind - I just saw your comments in the quoted section of your post. Thanks!

cutlassefi

Good. So he does have a BHJ Blok-tru fixture?
That's different than a torque plate.

cdrod

I'm not sure I could tell the difference between a Blok-Tru and torque plate, but I saw a fixture next to the boring machine with the letters BHJ on the side that looked like cylinder head without the combustion chamber; it was maybe 3" tall. Here's a pic of the boring machine if that helps, I didn't take a pic of the torque plate. The machinist said he bolts the torque plate on when he hones to the final bore diameter.

cutlassefi

That's a honing tank, not a boring bar.
The 3" plate you saw was a torque plate. Has nothing to do with square decking the block.
Square decking can be done without the BHJ Blok Tru but it's much more difficult.

http://www.bhjproducts.com/bhj_conte...fixt/bt1_b.php

The machined sides are what they locate off of to get it "square". From there that bar in the mains assures it'll be decked evenly end to end if mounted in the correct milling machine.
All this stuff cost time and money but it corrects a lot of bad factory machining and adds power and longevity.
my guy uses this piece as well, I purchased this myself. This correctly locates the cylinder over the journals AFTER it's align honed and square decked.
http://www.bhjproducts.com/bhj_conte...ntfixt/btk.php
Hope this helps.

cdrod

I'm getting my ducks in a row to begin the short block assembly. I bought a piston ring filer on ebay, I picked up the parts from the machine shop this morning (I'll post some pics this weekend), ordered the timing chain, and a valve checking spring from Summit, and ordered a cam thrust button kit from Dick Miller Racing. Man that guy has zero personality! I tried making some small-talk with him, I mentioned how his 403 build from a few years ago had inspired me to use coated bearings in my stroker build. His next words to me were, "What's your credit card number?" Jeez, I thought I'd get a little more from him than that - LOL! And then he got pissy with me when i asked about the shipping costs.

A couple of things about the machining were a bit surprising to me. First the PRW balancer was way too heavy. We had to cut down the removable counter-weight 7/16" to even out both ends of the crank, and it's still 1lb heavier than the stock balancer that it replaced. Not sure how common this is, but if someone simply installed one of these balancers as a factory replacement the engine would be horribly out of balance. Very little material was removed from the crank to balance the rotating assembly, he only drilled two 3/4" holes. I expected more would be removed from the crank given the new rods and pistons are 1/2 lb lighter than the stock pistons and rods. Another thing that surprised me is the bob weight was 1910g, but the pistons, pins and rods combined weight was 1291g. Why is the bob weight more than the weight of the parts that will be attached to the journal?

I've got some questions for the resident CO engine gurus:

1. What assembly lube do you guys use? Should I coat every moving part or just certain parts?
2. I'm using the Ford neoprene rear seal. Do you guys offset the ends a little or just align them with the main caps?
3. Do you use locktite on the oil galley plugs to keep them from backing out?
4. Is there anything special about installing the freeze plugs?

Thanks!

coppercutlass

For assembly lube i like to use the lucas assembly lube (green) or permatex slick red on the cam. For the engine bearings like rods and mains i like to use lubriplate. I also use the lubriplate on the valve train parts and as odd as it seems i also coat the timing chain once installed. I also lube up the dist. gear.

On the pistons i use a light coating of oil before i install .

I have not used the neoprene seal but i have taken an engine apart that had it and it was off set so the cap side sat a little into the block side.

I have never used loctite on the gallery plugs but i would use the blue loctite if i chose to it wouldnt hurt anything

I like to smear a little silicone on the freeze plugs before i installed them just for a little insurance.

cutlassefi

Here's how balancing works;
2 big ends of the rods, 2 sets of rod brgs, 1 small end
1 piston, rings, pin and clips.

Sample - 450gr big end weight, 100gr for two rod brg sets, 150gr small end. 750gr for piston, rings, pin and clips.
450+450+100+150+750=1900

And he just screwed you up on any future balance. You don't take weight off the balancer, you take it off the crank. That's why he only drilled two holes. Now you have to make sure that you keep that balancer counterweight. If not you'll have to rebalance the whole thing. Most balancers from 1 company are pretty consistent. now he just threw a wrench on the works. If he did all that he should've just done it internally.

As far as assembly lubes go, I just use oil on the mains, "Bearing Guard" or similar on the rods, same on the pushrods ends. Then just a little light oil on the rings and pistons is all you need.
Before assembly wash the cylinders with Dexron ATF, coat them with your hand them wipe it off with one of those blue shop towels. Keep doing it till the towel is no longer discolored, then wipe with lacquer thinner, then oil.

Hope this helps. And don't use that machinist again. Jmo.

cdrod

Mark:
That makes total sense on the bob weight (there's 2 rods and 2 sets of bearings on each journal).

The machinist did call me to discuss the weight of the new balancer before he trimmed the counter-weight. We decided to take the weight off the new balancer because it was so much heavier than the stock balancer. If the new balancer fails, I can easily screw the lightened counter weight onto the replacement part (from the same company of course). The new balancer was still 1 lb heavier than the old one, even after it was lightened, and the new SFI-rated flex plate was thicker than the stock one, so that added some extra weight at the back end of the crank as well.

I don't see how this is way off base, just another way to do it. It also made sense to me that you would not want one end of the crank to be significantly heavier than the other end. Isn't the goal of balancing to reduce vibration and stress on the crankshaft? Am I missing something here? As always, thanks for your comments and advice.

cutlassefi

The actual weight at each end is virtually irrelevant. What is important is the counterweight needed to bring it "into balance". The actual overall weight of the pieces means little in the grand scheme of things. The balancer will almost always weight more than the flexplate. Conversely what if you were running a flywheel for a stick car? Would he try to trim that to equal the weight of the balancer? I hope not.

He should've left the balancer alone, OR removed the weight and done it internally. That would be the most effective in removing potential vibration and stress.
Like I said, next time find another machine shop. Jmo, sorry.