Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Ok forget the 4 cyl example. bad comparison but in a sense it does work. power to weight is similar in some instances.

Have you driven both styles? A high winding motor with lots of gear vs a low rpm stump puller?

If you have then you'd know motor trq rpm doesnt matter, if you gear up to get into the powerband where there is torque. 400 lbft at 3000 rpm is still a 400 lb ft force if it occurs at 4500 rpm. One car will want more gear.
Gear is just leverage.

Fuel economy will depend on motor efficiency at the rpm it cruises. You can have low rpm cruise motors that still suck gas vs a higher rpm cruise motor

FRMULA88

Which is why the more TQ / HP you make, the less rear gear you actually need.


For example.. Brian's 421 cu in Pro-charger GTA runs a 3.50 rear... this is an 8 sub 7 second car making well over 1200 HP.

My Formula with a NA 421 SBC runs a 4.30 rear and is a low 10 second car making 670 HP @ 6800 and 568 TQ from 5200 to 5800... 439 TQ available 4500. On the street I could easily use a 3.73 gear or higher but the setup is optimized for the 1/4 mile with the 4.30 I am crossing the traps at 6800..

I am sure your Turbo setup is the same.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Yeah when you have a choice build for lower rpms as its softer on parts and usually less noisy lol i dont want to cruise at 3500 rpm if i can do it at 1800 and run similar times.

But i dont downplay a small cube motor abiity to run a car, just gotta realize you need more stall and gear than what most ppl are comfortable with

My turbo car has to much gear. 3.42's. i'm goin 3.08's

FRMULA88

That is amazing !!
How did you fit a small journal crank into a medium journal block?!
not to mention getting 4.030 (350 rebuild pistons) to fit into
3.78 cylinders please tell me more about you engine building secrets.

you forgot to mention that wicked 3/4 race cam.. LOL

big hammer

they made both small and large journal 327's.

also i think you can get bearings to put a small journal crank in a large journal block.

my hangup is what pistons\rods did he use to accomodate the 3.25" stroke of the 327?

FRMULA88

I believe All 327 cranks & blocks were small journal.

350 blocks are medium journal.
400 block are large journal.
best practice is you use the right size journal for the job.. and not rely on just the bearing (which can distort)

relying on just the bearings to fit a small journal crank in a medium journal block is half-assed.. just like using oversized piston rings instead of oversized pistons.

One exception is with aftermarket blocks; You can specify medium journals and a 4.125 cylinder bore.. Running the smaller journal 350 style crank with a 400 style block does free up some frictional HP. but you can't do this with OEM blocks.

Honestly 327s predate me. Besides with so much better engine available now a 327 GEN 1 SBC is only worth something if it's in a numbers matching car. No reason to build one now, same with a 305, they are unique onto themselves. Nothing more.

big hammer

http://www.gearheadgeek.com/ghgj/ind...-journal-sizes

they actually did make a larger journal 327. just not the 283. they were all small journal.

but still at that you're using a 3.25" stroke where a 3.48 should be. so now it's .230" shorter than where you should be. it would have needed custom pistons to work.

FRMULA88

You can stroke a engine to increase displacement or you can de-stroke it. Class racers do it all the time to meet displacement requirements.
de-stroking has some merits since it often improves the rod / stroke ratio which increases the RPM limit. Great for a track only car that will always be in the upper RPM range.. not so great for a heavy car on the street.

A perfect example is the 302 Chevy which was purpose built for the Camaro to compete is SCCA racing. Rules limited displacement to 5 liters so
essentially GM took a 327 (4.0 bore) block with a crank from the 283 and created the 302. This was a high-revving V8, great on the track but a dog on the street (no low end torque)

Now people use 350s to do the same thing..

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...-engine-specs/

FRMULA88

So if OP is still following his hijacked thread;

A 334 (305 stroker) is simply an odd ball engine.

A small bore Gen 1 SBC has nothing to do with small bore LS series engine the architecture is completely different..

IF you want to stay with Gen 1 SBC use a 4.0 bore block for best results. Your money spent to build a 334 can go towards a 383. A 383 is great small block for a street car and will perform well at the track too.

If you want to build a small bore V8 switch to a LS engine because that platform will work best. but you will spend more money on headers, engine mounts, etc.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Guys stop with the anti 305. Whole thread was to avoid that argument. Hes dead set on the 305 based build an i am happy for him

big hammer

yes but that has noting to do with what i said.

big hammer

why build a 383 when you can build a 454.. or make it a 496.. with a supercharger and nitrous..

FRMULA88

BECAUSE not everyone has the budget or the necessity to build a big block. Besides A BBC shares nothing with a SBC.. except the distributor and starter... I am talking about building a better small block for the same amount of money.

This is what you and OP fail to understand as the simple fact; for the same money you can build a better SBC engine.
Spending 4 grand to build a 334 (305 block) versus using the SAME EXACT AMOUNT OF MONEY to build a 383 (350 block).

This is simply a pursuit of mediocrity and I already know the outcome to this one.

This tale has been told way too many times.. yet some people never learn.

Over and out best of luck !

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Because not everyone wants to do the common thing? Why build any sbc when lsx seems to be superior to a certain level?
People do what they want and what they like, if they want a 334 then why not let them build a 334.

Its always the same story with every 305 thread on this forum

redneckjoe

i'm not entering the 305/350 debate.
i have built a few short rod (5.56) strokers and never had to do any clearancing. great running engines. using cap screw rods, as pointed out, can be a great idea to avoid clearance issues too.
i have a set of reconditioned 5.56 rods with ARP rod bolts, weight matched, and sealed in bags if your interested. just use whatever 305 piston you want to use.

big hammer

BBC also shares the same bellhousing and motor mounts. and you can take a stock one, shave the heads, throw a mild cam in it and you'll be cheaper and similar output as a 383 with more low end torque.

see, you can justify anything you want if you choose to.

big hammer

yup.

"build a 383 it'll make more power!!"

well if it wanted a lot of power i wouldn't stop at a 383 SBC. i would go further than that.

if OP wants to build a 334, then have at it and do it properly.

redneckjoe

$100.oo if your interested.

FRMULA88

good luck shoe horning it into a f-body. You will need to clearance the fire wall for the distributor to fit, not to mention run special headers.. but if you got the money to spend then go for it.

You keep comparing apples to oranges. BBC cost more to build from scratch..

FRMULA88

Common... because it works? and works quite well.

when OP is done trying to defy the laws of physics and mechanics.. he will be yet another dis-satisfied 305 builder.. just follow the treads on this site of previous 305 dreamers.. going back 10+ years they all ditched them in the long run.


PT Barnum used to say, "there is a sucker born every minute". Sad, but true.

luvofjah

iTrader: (2)

OP...
Thread got highjacked from "build a 350" crowd, then off on a tangent about 327's, etc...
And ended up back at "build a 350 crowd"...

Thread would of been half as short had the 350 crowd read the first paragraph...

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

You just simply dont get it so leave it be. Its not always about most bang for buck or most power

FRMULA88

So says the guy with a twin turbo setup...

I certainly do get it. We have a case of another newbee wanting to breathe life into a smog era engine platform that was a compromised design to begin with.

luvofjah

iTrader: (2)

He has a twin turbo because that is what he wanted... He was asking in reference to the thread, which is about a 334.... and politely asked the "get a 350" crowd to not post...
I think I've mentioned that saying more than the actual info I got from this thread.... Sad...

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

I build sbc because i wanted to stay sbc. I could have build a budget lsx truck motor to make similar power and run similar times for half the cost. But i didnt because i do not want to follow that crowd. Everything on my motor is practically one-off. I like being different

FRMULA88

Are you really that different?! what SBC block did you use?

That is a rhetorical question.
But I will go out on a limb and say it was not a 305...

Why would you encourage a newbee to start one, only to see him regret that decision in the long run.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Why? Because he asked not to deter him from the subject like like 90% of the posters in this thread including you are doing. I respect the members questions here and suggest yoy try doing the same or else simply mind your business and dont post. You make valid points but the op isnt a newbie with a decision to make on keeping original 305 or going 350. He already has the 305 parts in hand and is going to do a 305 or 334. Thats the question at hand so please stay on topic

FRMULA88

I respect his question, but I don't sugar coat my answers.

last I checked this is an open forum called tech / general engine..

perhaps a new section called 305s can be made to cater to that segment.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Incorrect. The thread clearly stated the purpose and that is NOT open to hijacking like what has been done....again. It happens on every thread with 305 builds. If i asked what shade of blue should i paint my car, dont you dare tell me red!

I do agree we need a subsection devoted to the 305 small bore builds

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

In case any of you following this thread forgot or failed to read this line

FRMULA88

Like that is not inviting it.

Personally OP can do whatever he wants, it's his car, his money, his time.

I merely gave him accurate reasons why it's not the best solution, but if OP knows these reasons already why post this sort of question in the first place.?! My guess is he jumped the gun and bought a bunch of parts before doing his homework.

Just build it and move on; quit seeking approval / disapproval.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

This is exactly the problem! No one reads the post!!

He asked questions on 2 specific rotating assemblies for a 334. Specific question. Nothing to do with 350, 383 or any of that crap

Fast355

iTrader: (2)

All I was pointing out is for less than the cost of machine work to rebuild/stroke the 305 he could pickup a clean 350 shortblock. I just bought a 350 shortblock from a 2002 Express for $75.00. Had a serviceable block (at stock bore!!), machineable crank, and 8 rods in great shape. Was pulled out due to coolant contamination (intake gaskets) and low oil pressure, but was not knocking. I can build the short block for less than $1K and put a good set of heads on it and make 425 HP all day long.

big hammer

not really. like i said an all stock castings 454 will make as much power and on poorer fuel than a built 350-383 with a good aftermarket top end.

big hammer

a 305 subsection would be great.

FRMULA88

I am not disputing this.. however you are overlooking the additional work & parts needed to accommodate a BBC into this chassis.

Plan on a new cooling system to keep it from overheating.

Not to mention new front struts & heavier springs to compensate for the additional weight of the BBC.

The stock steering shaft may not clear the headers.

etc. not an impossible task but all this adds up.

vs.

Old small block out...new small block in. keep the change.

TxTtopZ

Sorry I am late to the party. I always love these heated discussions (not rly) - To the OP, I can tell you I LOVE the idea of a stroked 305 TPI. The lower ci seems it makes better use of the TPI from a total airflow perspective, but the stroker takes the "higher revving wanting" smaller cubes and "tames" it for TPI. In a way, the darn thing makes sense for that intake.

Someone said all the 305 builders ditched the 305 for something else... Well yeah, and lots of the 350 users ditched the SBC for an LSX. Looks like you get to waste money just like everyone else!

Anyway,
Here's the real problem... actually there are a few I dont like if we are allowed a decent conversation without bs.
1) Pistons. The kits I see use some crap pistons and while I agree cost should be kept to a min. for this, I still have YET to see someone do the stupid idea right and actually put some good **** on and in it. This makes me wonder if someone did mid 13's with mostly stock stuff.... what can it do when someone loves on it? 2) The pistons most offered simply WANT a 5.565" rod. WHY!!? WHY do we get stuck with those rods and cannot use a 5.7 or 6.0 like the 383's IF we are talking the same stroke and deck height? I am not a HUGE rod ratio junky but I do believe this has a lot of truth to it for longevity and dwell etc.

I tried to find said pistons and I think I found a dished set somewhere but I will have to check my bookmarks on my old lap top. ALL the pistons I found were dished. No flat tops which is what I wanted for Fastburns... anyway.

So far pistons and rods.... Next was the TFS heads. They arent what I wanted but they will work great for a 305... Not so much for a "leap forward" head. Will they work a 383 ok? yeah sure... But after getting a 320rwhp 334ci in the high 12's a 383 wont run much better with TPI and those heads. You will most likely want what everyone else has IF you even do another SBC. BIG heads and BIG ci. So basically using all this crap on another engine is out for me...

I will let you know that if you are serious and not just having a moment like I do here and there... I support the idea because there is no doubt in my mind done right, this motor will be awesome to drive. TQ everywhere, well behaved and make a fun car that wont get torn up too bad.

TxTtopZ

I also have a file showing the TFS heads on a 305. From the mains. The valves appear to be moved for less shrouding. Again, on the ol lap top. I'll dig that crap up if this thread shows any interest.

PS..PS...PS... I am ALL FOR adding a 305 only discussion place on this board. The damn things came with it... WHY the HELL not? Moderator?

Veaceonee

iTrader: (1)

A little story with what I did-

Backstory: 84 Camaro, was told it had a 350 in it (no way to verify) so I took his word for it. Oil pick up falls out of pump and engine blows up, literally.

Story: Since I was told it was a 350 i bought a 350 master rebuild kit from summit (the one that includes, cam, connecting rods, pistons, gaskets etc.). Come to find out is was a 305. HOWEVER, someone put a 327 crank in it at some point (story in itslef about the crank). Pistons cannot be used as they are to big. Sold off pistons to recoup some moneys. Get the block bored .030 over and pick up corresponding pistons. Put everything else together utilizing the rebuild kit (minus pistons). slapped some 1.6 full roller rockers, full edelbrock intake, and MSD ignition. Thing ran like a raped ape, didnt cost very much (except machining).

Fast forward 2 years and I slam into a mini van that turned in front of me at over 60 MPH. Car was totalled, but the engine still ran (except for the fact the fan was sitting in the middle of the radiator.

Moral of the story: Turbos and LSXs are great, but you don't need to spend a ton to get a lot. The SBC was left unchanged for over 40 years for a reason.

Just my .02

TxTtopZ

Bore notching for valve unshrouding

TxTtopZ

Here are some shots of Trick Flow 175cc heads on a 305 bored 0.030" over (3.766" bore). Via Casey butt

First with 1.94" and 1.50" valves seated. The combustion chambers measure 3.955" across at the widest and overhand the 3.766" bore a fair bit. The intake and exhaust valves appear equally close to the cylinder walls and the valve spacing is around 1.91"


Next, the 1.94" intake valve opened until it contacts the cylinder wall, which occurred at 0.771" lift.


The 1.50" exhaust valve opened until it contacts the cylinder wall, which occurred at 0.728" lift.


Take home:

You can use these heads, stock with 1.94" and 1.50" valves, with up to any practical maximum valve lift (0.771" and 0.728"). You can use these heads with 2.02" and 1.60" valves on a 3.766" bore as long as the valve lifts are less than 0.433" and 0.507", respectively. That doesn't consider the effects of shrouding by the close proximity to the chamber and cylinder walls. Also keep in mind that these numbers will change depending on the exact depth of your valve seats.

For comparison, I did these same fits on GM 305 '601 heads here: https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/te...ds-1-94-a.html

In comparison with the GM heads it can be seen that Trick Flow widened the valve spacing and moved the exhaust valve closer to the chamber wall - this allows more lift with the 1.94" valve and less shrouding on the intake, but shrouds the exhaust a bit more and allows less exhaust lift with a big valve. Curiously, even though the TF head allowed more lift with a 1.94" valve than the 601, the 601 allowed more lift with a 2.02" valve than the TF, indicating that TF seem to have angled the valve slightly differently than GM, or my 601's had an "off" valve guide job.

luvofjah

iTrader: (2)

Leaning more towards the 335 than a turbo 305....
Since originally posting here, I've also bought some Comp Cams Ultra Pro Mag 1.6 rockers and a Comp Cams Cam...

As it stands, my 305 is fine, doesn't leak, plenty fun, I actually want to start saving for paint and finish the car, then keep going down the engine rebuild road...

The stock TTA's (Turbo Trans Am's) ran 13.4 stock... That's what TunedPort 335 ran with his 335 kit...
He had unported, stock TPI heads and stock TPI intake.
His cam, had .480 lift with a 1200 to 5200 rpm range...
The XFI cam I got, specifically designed for TPI engines
has a lift of .560 intake .550 exhaust with 1.6 rockers... & same 1200 to 5200 rpm range.
His stock TPI heads are 58cc and with the 335 kit, compression is 10:1. The Trick Flow are 56cc so slightly more compression...

Add to that Ported Plenum, AS&M Runners and Ported Edelbrock Base....

I think I would be very happy with a 335 that's faster than a TTA...

Anyone want to buy a BBS Turbo header kit?

MoJoe

iTrader: (5)

There are fewer choices because the 334ci is a less popular choice. Still not making commentary on good vs bad choice... just a less popular choice.
A performance 305 typically has 58cc heads, and flat top pistons. When increasing bore (+0.030) and stroke (3.48->3.75) and therefore displacement, if you keep the 58cc heads, the compression ratio is going to increase to non-pump gas levels.

Using a CR calculator: stock-ish 305 would be 3.736x3.48 w/ 58cc heads, 0cc piston, 0.025 deck (uncut) and 0.025 gaskets (to keep quench near 0.040) results in 10.33:1, which is already pretty high.
- switch to a more realistic 5ccs for typical flat top, valve relief piston, and the CR drops to a more reasonable 9.67:1
- bore and stroke that to 3.766" (+0.030) bore and 3.75" stroke, with the "same" 5cc pistons and CR jumps again to 10.48:1. (available for 5.565 rod)
- switch to mild dish 12cc pistons, and the 334 drops back to a reasonable 9.65:1

Looking at Summit, 5.7 rod, hypereutectic or forged is a 10cc dish, 1.433 height... with a quench pad, so a decent choice.

Package height is 3.75/2 + 5.7 + 1.433 = 9.008"... taking 0.008" from stock deck clearance and improving quench with 0.025 gasket to 0.042". With all previous specs = 10.05:1. You will need a cam with 225* or larger intake lobe to bleed of that static CR for pump gas use. If you are racing, you'll be going that big anyway.

Summit's offerings to go with 5.565 rods are more varied: 12cc dish, 5cc flat, and -5cc dome. That -5cc dome takes you up to 12.3:1... not something you'll likely use on the street. FYI: with a 64cc head CR is 11.27:1.

Summit's kits for one piece RMS are all Eagle kits with 10cc D dish hyper pistons, and do not specify rod length.

TxTtopZ

You mean youre not going to do what everyone else does these days and just put a turbo on it?? Geez, your wasting your time and money!

TxTtopZ

This is exactly the problem I was having.. Not enough piston selection to do it the way I wanted. The quench seems higher than I want in your model as well. If it were perfect... I'd want at least a 5.7" rod... 10.5:1 compression... 213 cam. 3.750" stroke. Flat top piston... 62cc chamber.

Ive been working on the DCR numbers... It would work. 8.4:1 DCR with a 10.3:1 SCR using a 218 XFI HR13 cam, 3.750
stroke and 3.766" bore. Quench at 38 with a -5cc flat top piston. I think this with the fastburn chambers would make a sweet little tpi motor. Especially in my car with a 5 speed and 3.45 gears.

luvofjah

iTrader: (2)

The "Kit" comes with KB 186 Hypersonic pistons, but compression height is different on the other pistons I looked at

186 pistons, -10cc dish, 1.433 compression height.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/uem-kb186-030

145 -12cc dish, 1.561 compression height...
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/uem-kb145-030

The Trick Flow heads are aluminum, 56cc chamber...
Comp Cams... 08-465-8 260XFI HR13
http://www.compcams.com/Company/CC/c...?csid=207&sb=0


I was told that with the -10cc kit with stock 58 cc heads, compression is 10:0. Cam I want to use has high lift, but setup for low end torque... and the TF heads are -2cc smaller, at 56cc...

What would the static compression be?

If I used the -12cc dished pistons, I would need a smaller length rod for the same effect, or to lower compression... right?

TxTtopZ

Figure...

Enter Bore/Stroke Designation Type
1 = Inches 2 = Millimeters 1
Enter Cylinder Bore Size 3.766
Enter Piston Stroke Length 3.750
Enter Head Gasket Bore Diameter 4.030
Enter Compressed Head Gasket Thickness 0.021
Enter Combustion Chamber Volume In CCs 58
Enter Piston Dome Volume In CCs Negative For Dished Pistons (Use '-') -12cc
Enter Piston Deck Clearance Negative If ABOVE Deck (Use '-') : 0.016"

9.854 Static.

Take Static sum 9.854 put all the variables in the calculator for DCR and your looking like 7.88:1... which is too low. You need to take some deck clearance or dish out.

Of course... the cowboys are playing right now so my math may be all screwed up.

luvofjah

iTrader: (2)

Go CowBoys! (who are they playing?)

Throw up a link for the calculator...

TunedPort 335 was using a similar Comp Cams (same rpm range as mine, 1200 to 5200), but he had .48 lift both valves
My cam has .56 int. and .55 ext.

Plus he was using stock 58cc iron heads and I have 56cc Aluminum...

TxTtopZ

Playoffs buddy. Greenbay and so far its looking ok. Were unbeaten on the road, and they are at home.. It should be a great game.

http://www.wallaceracing.com/dynamic-cr.php

http://www.csgnetwork.com/compcalc.html

MoJoe

iTrader: (5)

5.7" rods, right? What it the height of the pistons? With 1.433" pistons mentioned earlier, the total height is 3.75/2 + 5.7 + 1.433 = 9.008"
Has the block been decked from the original 9.025"?
What head gasket are you (planning on) using?
With these numbers, the piston is 0.017" in the hole of a stock deck block. 0.025" gasket gives your 0.042" quench. (With 0.040" being the "perfect" minimum).
Plug those numbers into a calculator, and you get 10.05:1.

All other things being equal:
56cc head + 10cc dish = 10.29:1
56cc head + 12cc dish = 10.05:1
58cc head + 10cc dish = 10.29:1
58cc head + 12cc dish = 9.82:1

No. Notice we are talking about the difference a 1 or 2ccs and head gasket differences of 0.010". 5.700"-5.565" = 0.135". If you drop the piston that much farther down the hole (0.135+0.017" = 0.152"), compression drops to 7.69:1.

Coincidently (or not), that 0.135" difference is the same as half of the stroke different from 3.48 to 3.75". (3.75 - 3.48 = 0.270". Half of than is 0.135")...
So, you can use standard 305 pistons (1.560" height) as stock (3.48" stroke with 5.7" rod) as in your stroker (3.75 stroke with 5.565 rods) to get the same stroke/2 + rods + piston height = 9.000".

Because a 334 has a 0.270" longer stroke than the 305, half of that has to come out of the piston height (1.425") OR the rod length (5.565") to stay at 9.000". The piston in discussion is 1.433", or 0.008" taller than stock/standard, making the total height 9.008".