273 Engine set up I'm thinking of going with, let me know what you think

-
I might have missed the info but I don't recall exactly what the Kanters were for compression. The Egge's I put in were 9.6/1 (advertised as 10.5) Which is ok for me. I'm sure they make them mild to keep customers happy . Everybody that is restoring a HP-273 puts the 10.5's in. If they would all detonate no one would be happy. Who knows what the real ratio was for the stock pistons. THere is 1 or 2 guys here that used the Kanter pistons. I wonder if they measured them. It would be interesting to know. tmm
 
"If they would all detonate no one would be happy." Not sure what you mean by that? The 9.6/1 is your final ratio I take it. Do you run 87 octane or CAN you I should ask? Is the performance ok? Not sure what the timing has to be with these given my cam selection. Is it somewhere around 8deg before tdc?
 
What your engine will tolerate for octane rating isn't solely based on static CR. It's a mixture of many aspects...CR, cam timing, stall speed, gearing, weight, altitude of driving area, typical humidity, Density altitude, the intrinsic abilities of the engine itself based on flame propagation within the combustion chamber, etc. If you have a true 9.6:1 in a 273, you could run a D-dart spec cam and probably have no issues, but it's really up to what you want the engine to do.

In response to your other question about the power package, they advertise those parts to all work together, but it's not like those are the locked in components. You could run a Weiand Action Plus, with a Comp 270 solid cam, and I bet it would be a runnin' little machine, or the Edelbrock Performer with a Lunati Voodoo 262/268 grind...there are literally thousands of combinations and that's just with off the shelf parts. If you want a little lope, you could go with the thumpr line of cams...they have lots of overlap and generate that lope without killing the drivability. Keep in mind though, the thumpr cams are designed to work with lower static compression.

I guess I might want to ask a different question-what are your limits? Budget?
 
Next time I come to HI, I'll come see you at Hickam. It appears you've attempted a lot of combinations
 
Just my take on the Egge pistons. Although the Egge pistons are a duplicate of the original 10.5 design the newly produced ones are 9.5/1 fuel friendly. I'd guess they are made that way on purpose so that everyone that uses them won't have detonation problems. Just my opinion. WHen I built mine I was a bit disappointed they didn't measure closer to 10/1 which was my goal anyway. Mine starts good,idles at 750,performs well, and doesn't ping even with 87 octane if you drive it normal. If I remember correctly, initial timing is around 10*°
all in by 2000 with a total of 35. You can use what ever pistons you want but I would make sure you check the compression ratio. You may have to machine domes or use thicker head gaskets to get a street friendly ratio. It would be a lot of work but it would be interesting to build a true 10.5/1 engine and see how it would run with pump gas. tmm
 
I doubt the original "10.5" compression engines actually had that much off the production line. Also that was with a .020 steel head gasket as opposed to a modern .043 composition gasket.
 
mikeyt2014 said:
Next time I come to HI, I'll come see you at Hickam. It appears you've attempted a lot of combinations
Click to expand...

In all fairness, I'm no better for making recommendations than anyone else. I'm just offering possibilities. :)...and based on what you said you wanted out of it, I figured if I made suggestions which could save you a couple dollars in the process, you'd be just as well off.

There are likely over a hundred folks on this website alone that could offer you better suggestions than what I posted...but that's why I'll also make note these are only my opinions and what I would do given the same circumstances.
 
toolmanmike said:
...It would be a lot of work but it would be interesting to build a true 10.5/1 engine and see how it would run with pump gas. tmm
Click to expand...

Indeed it would! If you're using the closed chamber 273 heads, it would probably not do all that bad because flame propagation in such a small cylinder should help temper a little bit of detonation...and you could get away with more cam...would likely be a screamer.
 
273 sounds like a nice build, but for the same price you can build a 360 that would rock the snot out of the 273
 
...I'm actually a little surprised no one said this before now...took a whole week.
 
With the kanter pistons, .035 mls head gasket in 3.700, bore stock heads @ 57cc, 12 deg in. timing & 32 total comen in @ 2500 rpm, (stock adv curve, im sure that helps!) i get away with 91 with & no ping @ all. granted ive got a 2500 rpm converter (sure that helps too) & i havent got a chance to drive it in warmer weather yet (weather & other issues!!) to see if that will make any diffrance. I will say e-4 cam & crane 1.6 rockers on my combo with very light port work it is very torquey from 2500 to 4800-5000 rpm, peek @ 6000k! i am very pleased with how well it pulls for a little motor. just my 2 cents brother! Keep the 273's alive!!! the reason i went with the kanter pistons was they had them on the shelf & were also tefoln coated skirts ta boot. I had ordered from egge but they couldnt give me a date when they would be ava. Sooo after 3 weeks of i.d.k. i spent 60 bucks more give er take a few bucks & got the kanters.
 
The reason I'm staying with the 273 is because of the originality of the car. I'm buying it from a friend of mine that was his dad's and has been sitting in his garage since 1989. Nothing has been done to this car outside of maintenance, it's all original. His dad ordered it from Dodge and it comes with the original order sheet, build sheet, and sales receipt, I like having that doccumentation so one day when I do sell it, I'll have that history and also, there is only one name on the title-his. I'll be the second owner of the car which is special to me, since I've been trying to buy this car for the last 6 years and he finally decided to sell it to me, knowing I would keep the heritage of it, knowing that I'm building it for/with my daughter for her first car. He is particular in this regards, he's had many offers, however he would not like to see this this be cut up into a race car or just romped on. This is a great peice of his life's history that he wants to see be furthered on since he's finally come to the realization he's not going to do anything with it. That being said, my desire is to mildly enhance what I have and utilize modern technology i.e. HEI ignition for example, but to preserve the trueness of the car. Both he and I agree there is more to this than parts and pieces. By building it with my daughter is preserves the legacy we all enjoy of passing on what we know and enjoy to the next generation and seeing that enjoyment and those memories be cherished. By doing this vs. buying her a car there is a special bond that doesn't go away. How many kids these days do not have that opportunity to become self invested in a project such as this...many and I'm fortunate I can do this with not just her but my son as well. I did buy him his firs car and we hopped it up, but now he will have the opportunity to be involved in this as well, and as jealous as he may be when it's done, he still can say he helped build it and that furthers their relationship as brother and sister.
 
txstang84 said:
...I'm actually a little surprised no one said this before now...took a whole week.
Click to expand...

Another answer to a question never asked. I guess they can't help it. 273's make plenty of power and can be fuel efficient at the same time. I just love how quick and high they will Rev.
 
This is a set up I ran before. It ran very well with this. I have the 65 heads though and they have a different bolt angle. I do believe the intake can be found for your heads too.

273 Commando - 1965
Cam: 268/276 duration and 429/444 lift Hydralic
Edelbrock D4B intake / Edelbrock 600 Performer Carb
Pertronix Ignitor & Flame Thrower coil
Hooker Headers
2.5" Dual Exhaust / Super 44 Flowmaster

I then swapped out the hydralic cam for a solid and the edelbrock carb for a Holley. It's a big improvement. This is the combo now. Just food for thoughts.

273 Commando - 1965
Cam: Comp Cams Magnum 282S - 282/282 Lift 495/495 (solid) Beehive Springs
Edelbrock D4B intake / Holley 670 Street avenger
Pertronix Ignitor & Flame Thrower coil
Hooker Headers
2.5" Dual Exhaust / Super 44 Flowmaster
8 3/4 - 3.55 - SureGrip
727 auto / Shift Kit
10" 3000 stall converter
 
What Beehive springs did you use? Don't you know that a 273 can't use a carb that big? Just Joking ;-) I've run a 750 cfm TQ on mine.
 
66fs said:
What Beehive springs did you use? Don't you know that a 273 can't use a carb that big? Just Joking ;-) I've run a 750 cfm TQ on mine.
Click to expand...

I dont remember the parts number. But they were from comp cams. Had to get special retainers and lockers for them also.

I've been told all kinds of things when setting up this 273. But I can honestly say that every change has made it run stronger and stronger. I really like this engine.
 
What was the brand of the first hydraulic cam you used? I do appreciate you sharing this information with me
 
66fs said:
Another answer to a question never asked. I guess they can't help it. 273's make plenty of power and can be fuel efficient at the same time. I just love how quick and high they will Rev.
Click to expand...

wasn't my question, Sir-I only offered suggestions to sport up the 273 :) I figure if someone wants to run a 360 in place of their 273, they will. Myself, I rather like the idea, and after reading his description of the car, I would probably keep the original engine too.
 
If those beehives were COMP, they were probably 26918-16 or 26915-16. Trebor, I do believe I've watched a video of your Duster with that 282S cam-sounded really nice to me-nice lope, good idle...

Trick Flow sells the same springs if you replace the "2" with a "1" in the part number, e.g., 16918-16, or 16915-16...and they're cheaper.
 
takes me back to 77 when I bought my first 65 barracuda , it was beautiful and snappy gl with it
 
Sorry txstang84 if things got confused. I was just meerly remarking as to why I was staying with the 273, hopefully no hard feelings.
 
mikeyt2014 said:
What was the brand of the first hydraulic cam you used? I do appreciate you sharing this information with me
Click to expand...

I do not know the brand unfortunately. That cam was installed when I purchased the engine. I have been told it is the same specs as a 340 cam. It ran really good with that, flattened out at around 5500 rpm. Will you use the domed pistons for compression?

txstang84 said:
If those beehives were COMP, they were probably 26918-16 or 26915-16. Trebor, I do believe I've watched a video of your Duster with that 282S cam-sounded really nice to me-nice lope, good idle...

Trick Flow sells the same springs if you replace the "2" with a "1" in the part number, e.g., 16918-16, or 16915-16...and they're cheaper.
Click to expand...

I found my invoice, the springs I got was http://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-26986-16

Thank you for the kind words :) Here is another video of it with the 282S cam.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxSr8bkjC1s"]1970 Plymouth Duster - YouTube[/ame]
 
A few points.
If your engine is original to the car and has non adjustable valvetrain it uses a hydraulic cam.
Not all 273 were solid lifter (mechanical) cams. They switched to hydraulic in 67, I assume to standardize parts between it and the 318.
Also, if it is a 67-69 engine an intake manifold for 67 and later engines is what you need. Whether or not you use one designed for 273-318 sized ports is up to you, we used plenty of stock 340 iron intake manifolds to hop up 318's when we were young and broke! if you switch to any 4 barrel manifold, get a throttle bracket from a 4 barrel equipped car. They are a bit taller and properly locate the throttle cable and kickdown linkage.
Trying to make the cable stretch to hook up a 4 barrel carb can cause a dangerous "stuck wide open" incident. Don't ask me how I know, I'll just say it was a terrifying ride through an intersection that my buddy Bob experienced. Sure woke that 318 up though!
Good luck with the build. get good advice and don't be afraid to ask reputable engine builders in your area for assistance.
Alan
 
alan627b said:
A few points.
If your engine is original to the car and has non adjustable valvetrain it uses a hydraulic cam.
Not all 273 were solid lifter (mechanical) cams. They switched to hydraulic in 67, I assume to standardize parts between it and the 318.
Also, if it is a 67-69 engine an intake manifold for 67 and later engines is what you need. ... Alan
Click to expand...

1968 was the year they started hydraulic cams in the 273. 1966 was the year the intake manifold was changed to the standard 318 bolt pattern.
 
txstang84 said:
wasn't my question, Sir-I only offered suggestions to sport up the 273 :) I figure if someone wants to run a 360 in place of their 273, they will. Myself, I rather like the idea, and after reading his description of the car, I would probably keep the original engine too.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I know it was not your question, Your response tickled me as I thought I was thinking the same as you. I get weary of the "scrap the 273 and replace it with a 360" comments whenever we discuss 273's. I agree with you that anyone should do what they want with his or her car / money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top