David Vizard, Uncle Tony's garage, Unity motorsport. Mission impossible Dodge 302 Head porting

-
Status
Not open for further replies.
bore it 4.040:p

If they really needed a 360 size rod...they should have used later magnum rods they're narrower at the pin..presumably lighter to start than a 70's pieces.

Am I on acid or is this goal post moving around again...
I think they've earned their official utg skidmarks badge..In fact ... I rate this 4.5 skidmarks already...so it is to be.
 
273 said:
If there stock type pistons I think its fine, if there zero decked so they don't have do offset crank would a bit of a compromise if domed that would be slightly cheating.
Click to expand...

OK

Wondering about even the zero deck with the closed chamber 302 head, might be too much compression unless they want to get up into 11:1 cr ?

A domed piston would work with open chamber heads, pretty sure they are doing the closed chambers on this build, so that may be an interference.

Time is going to tell. It may be slow going from here as they have other projects going and they are doing it part time besides.

Charles on the other hand is porting the heads and the intake and is making progress daily. So he is getting something done.
 
UTG said in his live Sunday night that it's seemed to "taken a different direction" than the original idea and he was going to contact the others before commenting anymore.
 
318willrun said:
UTG said in his live Sunday night that it's seemed to "taken a different direction" than the original idea and he was going to contact the others before commenting anymore.
Click to expand...
He has his own show on Sunday night? :lol:
I like yours better, very good useful info.
 
Can anyone identify this connecting rod number that David is grinding down?

I see it has a bushed end like the free floaters have.

Screenshot_20230117-225417_Gallery.jpg


Screenshot_20230117-225626_Gallery.jpg


Earlier 318 free floater # 699

1970 free floater #782
(the lightest rod of the 3)

340 free floater rod #645
(heavy rod)

I know the '74 318 had the 645 press fit heavy rod.

________

I was originally thinking it was going to be the 645 press fit heavy rod out of the '72 318 they are building, but then I saw the bushed end.

If they are starting with one of the 2 lighter rods that's a step in the right direction.

What do you think that rod number is?
 
George Jets said:
Can anyone identify this connecting rod number that David is grinding down?

I see it has a bushed end like the free floaters have.

View attachment 1716036548

View attachment 1716036549

Earlier 318 free floater # 699

1970 free floater #782
(the lightest rod of the 3)

340 free floater rod #645
(heavy rod)

I know the '74 318 had the 645 press fit heavy rod.

________

I was originally thinking it was going to be the 645 press fit heavy rod out of the '72 318 they are building, but then I saw the bushed end.

If they are starting with one of the 2 lighter rods that's a step in the right direction.

What do you think that rod number is?
Click to expand...
I would have to see it on my laptop screen and enlarge it. Probably the 273/318 rod. They are plenty strong.
 
At this point they should just do a 60 over zero decked 318/328 and use it as s dyno mule try various top ends on it, starting with their 302 two bbl combo and see what does, only real thing that might get in the way of the 318/328 hp goal is that intake which for the rest of world is a easily fixed restraint, so not overly a big deal if they come up short.
 
OK wow!

Seeing what I see here it sure looks like David chose the Heavy 645 Bushed Floater Rod for the 340s.

It has the wider neck just like the 645 press fit here on the right.

The left rod is the Lightest Mopar Rod, the 782 with the narrower neck.

Screenshot_20230117-235242_Gallery.jpg


Pretty obvious to see with this comparison picture.

So David started with the heaviest rod to do his grinding lightening work.

David's 318 build rod here:
Screenshot_20230117-225405_Gallery.jpg

Looks and shape, looks like the heavy 645 in the top picture on the right.

Interesting . . .

Seems the lighter 782 rod has a better advantage, and it is lighter to begin with before any grinding.
 
Last edited:
318willrun said:
UTG said in his live Sunday night that it's seemed to "taken a different direction" than the original idea and he was going to contact the others before commenting anymore.
Click to expand...
So basically he's setting things up to throw them under the bus - just like he does with everyone else when "projects" don't work out like he thought they should. The guy is not only an engine hack, he's a back-stabbing a-hole.
 
kdeboy said:
So basically he's setting things up to throw them under the bus - just like he does with everyone else when "projects" don't work out like he thought they should. The guy is not only an engine hack, he's a back-stabbing a-hole.
Click to expand...
well, i didn't read that into it. I think at the first it was going to be Tony work with the "factory equipment" and see what happens - 300 hp was the goal. Now they are using aftermarket pistons, .060 overbore???, grind a stroke into the crank?? Chevy valves??? I mean, i'm all good with the build it makes no difference to me, but in my opinion Tony is right, the course has changed.
 
Those 302 chambers get a lot of deshrouding and chamber buffing...starting at 64cc, after the work done ...more like 68cc...so milling OR a quench build. It's a back n forth ..deshrouding..then bigger valves decreasing it again.
 
George Jets said:
OK wow!

Seeing what I see here it sure looks like David chose the Heavy 645 Bushed Floater Rod for the 340s.

It has the wider neck just like the 645 press fit here on the right.

The left rod is the Lightest Mopar Rod, the 782 with the narrower neck.

View attachment 1716036550

Pretty obvious to see with this comparison picture.

So David started with the heaviest rod to do his grinding lightening work.

David's 318 build rod here:
View attachment 1716036551
Looks and shape, looks like the heavy 645 in the top picture on the right.

Interesting . . .

Seems the lighter 782 rod has a better advantage, and it is lighter to begin with before any grinding.
Click to expand...
I think he's doing it because he can. Other than time, it costs next to nothing. It will lighten the rod a bit but not really enough to make a horsepower difference. It's like removing casting flash on the block, it's supposed to make the metal stronger but when was the last time you saw a Mopar rod break especially along the middle.
 
toolmanmike said:
I think he's doing it because he can. Other than time, it costs next to nothing. It will lighten the rod a bit but not really enough to make a horsepower difference. It's like removing casting flash on the block, it's supposed to make the metal stronger but when was the last time you saw a Mopar rod break especially along the middle.
Click to expand...
You'd see magazine articles back in the 80's about doing rods like that, they seemed paranoid about the short block coming apart, it would be a 325 hp build and they would need a steel crank 4 bolt main rod work like that etc..
 
273 said:
If there stock type pistons I think its fine, if there zero decked so they don't have do offset crank would a bit of a compromise if domed that would be slightly cheating.
Click to expand...
This is just what i think it should be. We all have are own thoughts on it. some vary passionate.

It should be what you could get in that time frame, but break the rules, a little, with today tech. Such As, small stem LS valve.....that's ok, grind crank to stroke (sort of) it... that's OK........they were doing that in the day. Lighter piston of today......they have to be replaces sooooo OK. Grinding on the rod, over a much cheaper lighter and stronger rod???? Well, that is what they would have done in the day.
Using a 340/360 head????/ i say NO! with the 4 barrel Intake YES! It was available in 72. ( I personally think that they should use the 72 and older head and intakes) Not because the 302 head is aka a I/M head but because it hadn't been designed in 72) Exhaust manifolds????? you could get header for them back in the day......but once again......not with the 2 barrel.

OK, there is my 2 Point-five sense worth of a opinion. :elmer: :lol:
 
Cudafever said:
This is just what i think it should be. We all have are own thoughts on it. some vary passionate.

It should be what you could get in that time frame, but break the rules, a little, with today tech. Such As, small stem LS valve.....that's ok, grind crank to stroke (sort of) it... that's OK........they were doing that in the day. Lighter piston of today......they have to be replaces sooooo OK. Grinding on the rod, over a much cheaper lighter and stronger rod???? Well, that is what they would have done in the day.
Using a 340/360 head????/ i say NO! with the 4 barrel Intake YES! It was available in 72. ( I personally think that they should use the 72 and older head and intakes) Not because the 302 head is aka a I/M head but because it hadn't been designed in 72) Exhaust manifolds????? you could get header for them back in the day......but once again......not with the 2 barrel.

OK, there is my 2 Point-five sense worth of a opinion. :elmer: :lol:
Click to expand...
I think this build has become can they make that intake and carb make 325 hp, cause rest is no problem, the heads are good for 400 plus hp now, they can get cr ethier through machining everything or aftermarket pistons, should be able to regrind a fairly aggressive cam, exhaust manifolds not ideal but 325 hp ain't pushing the limits. So that basically leaves the intake which I don't overly care if it can,
I hope they at least test it with 4 bbl and headers also.
 
Some unsolicited musings.......

I’m not a fan of what Charles did with the square manifold opening.
In my mind, that’s now going to pretty much require some sort of adapter to smoothly transition from the carb throttle bores to that square shape.
Which may not be the hot ticket for keeping the fuel suspended in the air stream as it exits the throttle bores.
I guess time will tell.
As for the loss of flow on the bench with the divider cut down.......
You’re only flowing one side of the manifold, and you took away the radius entry for 25% of the opening for the side your testing. Like if he was testing it before the divider was cut down, and then removed the clay that was on top of the divider.
You’d expect the flow to go down as a result.
It’s a situation where the flow bench is not accurately replicating what’s going on with the running angine....... and that can steer you in the wrong direction.

Imo........Cutting the divider down is not about the “flow”, it’s about giving both sides of the manifold access to both sides of the way under sized carb.

I also feel that at this point, since the squaring of the carb pad has already been done, if that’s in fact the manifold they intend to use......the carb adapter situation should be dealt with sooner rather than later........ and some tests with a carb should be moved up on the testing schedule(if you’re chasing flow).
 
Last edited:
PRH said:
Imo........Cutting the divider down is not about the “flow”, it’s about giving both sides of the manifold access to both sides of the way under sized carb.
Click to expand...
^^^^ Precisely why I did it on my 318 2bbl intake mod. Precisely.....
 
Since this is any custom mod allowed they should get out the welding rods add metal to the intake, machine a new flange and plenum top to be attached in some way, kind like they did to old pro stock heads.
 
toolmanmike said:
I think he's doing it because he can. Other than time, it costs next to nothing. It will lighten the rod a bit but not really enough to make a horsepower difference. It's like removing casting flash on the block, it's supposed to make the metal stronger but when was the last time you saw a Mopar rod break especially along the middle.
Click to expand...

Interesting take I have not heard before:

David Vizard likes to champher and polish the bottom corner of the cylinder bore to allow air to move more smoothly into the empty cylinder when the piston goes to the top. He was saying there is air going in and out of there on the bottom of that bore.

With that being said I wonder if that top small end of the rod he polished round has anything to do with the air flowing up and over it, creating less drag for the air to move.

Probably more of a race application, but wonder if this actually proves true. High rpm engines like 7000 rpm probably helps.

Thoughts ???

Screenshot_20230118-111604_Gallery.jpg


Fun to think about . . .
 
George Jets said:
Interesting take I have not heard before:

David Vizard likes to champher and polish the bottom corner of the cylinder bore to allow air to move more smoothly into the empty cylinder when the piston goes to the top. He was saying there is air going in and out of there on the bottom of that bore.

With that being said I wonder if that top small end of the rod he polished round has anything to do with the air flowing up and over it, creating less drag for the air to move.

Probably more of a race application, but wonder if this actually proves true. High rpm engines like 7000 rpm probably helps.

Thoughts ???

View attachment 1716036637

Fun to think about . . .
Click to expand...
There's things that give you easy hp and or decent $$$ and labour to achieve, then there's all those little things that can add up but offer little hp gains for cost $$$ and or labour. Generally unless your in a highly competitive class and or a class that's restrictive in what you can do, most go for the easy power. Heads cam cr power adders etc..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
-

Back
Top