Separate names with a comma.
For the / with the gear drive???
Much appreciated, Jim! That's the way I have always adjusted hydraulic lifters as well. V-Max Rhoads lifters run on a solid lifter cam is something I've never tried though. So want to make sure I have the correct valve lash for my solid lifter cam once the Rhoads lifters pump up/bleed down. Wasn't able to locate any good used 273 rockers, shafts and matching pushrods here, so had to bite the bullet and spring for some new Crane rockers. The ones that appear to be copies of the 273 parts. Kinda pricey, but appear to be well made. I'm retired and this project is on a shoestring budget, but Crane has recently been bought by FAST and I wanted to pick up the adjustable rockers whilst I could. When these companies are bought out, you never know what will be available once existing inventory is depleted. They might continue to produce the same parts. They might discontinue some parts. Or the bean-counters might make a decision to shift production offshore...... Or even liquidate the company once current inventory is depleted. Just never know. Anyway...... That is what prompted me to pick up the adjustable rockers now rather than wait. Also found a pair of NOS rocker shafts off e-Bay. Will have to reuse springs and other small parts off my old shafts, though. Still need to get the correct pushrods with the cup at top. I explained that I am using OEM iron heads and they are not milled much. Just enough to true the head gasket seating surface. But the fellow at Crane was insistent that I measure for pushrod length after heads and other valve gear are installed. Perhaps that is the wise thing to do. I've got an old adjustable pushrod length checker here somewhere. Should do the job if I can locate it. If off the shelf parts will work as I think they will, I might just pick up a set of standard length 273 type pushrods. CompCams have them for the hydraulic cam. Not sure if they have the longer length solid lifter pushrods, though. Thanks, Harry
So Crane's been sold yet again. Somehow S&S Cycles didn't seem like a good fit. I hope FAST (whoever that is) keeps them going.
Same here, Rusty. When companies such as Crane, Lunati, Inglese and others (its a long list) leave the hands of the original folks who founded them (or their families), it seems like true innovation and the creative spark that made them great fall by the wayside and the most we can hope for is that their present lines of products remain available and are not replaced by reboxed ChiCom junk. Of course, Harvey Crane has been away from the company he founded since 1989 and passed away a few years ago. From what he had to say some years back, you could tell that he got screwed over and pushed out by his own Board of Directors and wasn't happy about that at all. In similar circumstances, I'd likely feel the same way. Nonetheless, Crane Cams continued as a company and still has some great products. I don't know a lot about FAST, the company that recently acquired the remainder of Crane except that FAST had already acquired Crane's ignition division a few years back. FAST is primarily a company dealing with EFI as far as I am aware. I reckon the bottom line is that Crane is now wholly under the CPG conglomerate which owns COMP Cams, TCI Automotive, Fuel Air Spark Technology (FAST), ZEX Nitrous Oxide Systems, Powerhouse Products, GoParts, Inglese, ProRacing Sim and VThunder. Lunati Cams was owned by Holley and a few years back was bought by a private investor group. One of them being Ron Coleman, who owns CompCams. Anyway...... Youngest son is building a 350 small block Chevy V-8 for his Camaro and in addition to my 360 MOPAR, I am building a 292 Chevy inline 6 truck engine to swap into my '57 Chevy sedan which I tow a boat with and use pretty much like a pickup truck. As you know, the Chevy engines utilize adjustable stamped steel rockers on pedestal type rocker arm studs. We will run stamped steel rockers on both GM engines, as these cars will be drivers. Crane makes a nice poly-lock for stamped steel rockers on circle track engines (Kool Nuts). Crane 7/16" Kool Nuts are still listed on their website, but Kool Nuts for 3/8" rocker studs are no longer listed. So we will grab a couple sets of each off E-bay whilst we can still get them. I reckon I should add why we are opting for stamped steel rockers rather than roller rockers on the GM engines, as I am sure someone will wonder 'Why?'...... 1. On a daily driver, roller rockers generally need replacement or rebuilding after 60,000 miles. There are issues with the needle bearings which necessitate this. 2. On cams having 0.500" and less lift, there is really no meaningful advantage when changing from OEM type GM stamped steel rockers to roller rockers. The OEM ball socket design when running on a film of oil really doesn't make a significant amount of added friction when compared to roller rockers. Best regards, Harry
Thanks, PRH! HB HOW TO INSTALL AND ADJUST RHOADS V-MAX LIFTERS THE RHOADS V-MAX VARIABLE DURATION HYDRAULIC LIFTERS ARE ADJUSTED SIMILAR TO SOLID LIFTERS SO READ AND FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY STEP 1 With intake manifold removed and camshaft installed, begin by inserting all lifters into engine block. It is best to keep the intake manifold off so that the lifters can be viewed while adjusting, but it is not necessary. The lifters can be properly adjusted with the intake manifold on as well. STEP 2 Make sure the lifter being adjusted is on the low side (base circle) of the cam when adjusting, just like you would when adjusting any solid lifter cam. In this position, the valve would be in the fully closed position. For street use place a .020” feeler gauge, (use .030" for racing), or for aluminum blocks use a .010" feeler gauge (or .020" for racing) between the valve stem and rocker arm as if adjusting solid lifters, and tighten the lock nut until the lifter plunger bottoms out in the lifter shell and the valve begins to open. Now back off on the lock nut until the valve just closes and the pressure of the valve spring just begins to release on the feeler gauge. When you can just slide the feeler gauge back and forth with slight drag from the spring, the adjustment is correct. Repeat this process until all lifters are adjusted. After the adjustment, the plunger position should be nearly all the way down to the bottom of the lifter shell, and not up against the retaining ring, with no clearance in the valve train whatsoever. Please remember to adjust the lifter when the valve is in the closed position, or the adjustment will be wrong. For absolute accuracy, the adjustment can be repeated when the engine is at normal operating temperatures, but the adjustment should be made with a .020" feeler gauge (.030" for race) for both cast iron and aluminum heads when the engine is hot. Also, never adjust the lifters at zero lash or looser so that the plunger is up against the retaining clip as standard anti-pump up lifters are adjusted. This will cause valve train damage. OTHER SUGGESTIONS You should never adjust the lifters with more than .030 to .035 thousandths of an inch, but you can use less such as .010”-.025”. When checking valve to piston clearances, tighten the lifters to .005” and conduct the test, then readjust them to the proper setting after the test is completed. By tightening the exhaust valve more, you will get a lopier idle, which is preferred by some who like the sound. For higher compression engines, both the valves may be tightened to help reduce pinging. Also, tightening the adjustment will reduce the ticking sound at idle. This may be helpful with sensitive knock sensors that interpret the ticking as pinging. While this will not hinder the rpm potential of the Rhoads Lifter, the reduction in lift and duration at low speeds will be minimized with a tighter adjustment, yielding smaller increases is low-end torque, engine vacuum and producing a rougher idle. As mentioned above, Rhoads Lifters sound similar to solid lifters at idle and low speeds. Usually this solid lifter sound is not heard until the engine warms up to near operating temperatures. This product made under at least one of the following patents: 3921609, 4524731, 4913106. Other patents pending. VMAX is a trademark of Rhoads Lifters, Inc. Please call us at 520-229-9375 with any questions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOW TO INSTALL AND ADJUST THE RHOADS V-MAX FLAT TAPPET CAM KIT THE RHOADS HYDRA-SOLID LIFTERS ARE ADJUSTED SIMILAR TO SOLID LIFTERS SO READ AND FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY STEP 1 With intake manifold removed and camshaft installed, begin by inserting all lifters (well oiled with assembly lube applied to the bottom of each lifter) into engine block. Keep the intake manifold off so that the lifters can be viewed while adjusting. STEP 2 Make sure the lifter being adjusted is on the low side ( base circle ) of the cam when adjusting, just like you would when adjusting any solid lifter cam. Place a .040” feeler gauge between the valve stem and rocker arm as if adjusting a solid lifter cam, and tighten lock nut until the plunger bottoms out in the lifter shell and the valve begins to open. Then back off on the lock nut until the valve just closes and the pressure just releases on the feeler gauge. Use the same feel and precision you would as if you were adjusting a solid lifter cam. Repeat until all lifters are adjusted. After the adjustment, the plunger position should be nearly all the way to the bottom of the lifter shell, well down from the retaining ring. Please remember to adjust the lifter when the valve is in the closed position, or the adjustment will be wrong. OTHER SUGGESTIONS You never want to adjust the lifters with more than .040”, but you can use less such as .020" to .030”. By tightening the exhaust valve more you will begin to get a slightly lopey idle, which is preferred by some who like that sound. For higher compression engines, both valves may be tightened to help reduce pinging. Please feel free to call tech support at 520-229-9375. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll let you know how it goes, Oldiron440. I'm retired and it will take me a while to get all the parts together. It will take some patience finding the sweet spot adjustment wise, but I think it will work out pretty well. I'm pretty sure the key to running them on the street will center on adjusting lash fairly tight and running a good grade of high viscosity dino oil. No synthetics and no thin stuff. Either 10W40 or 20W50 with a good ZDDP additive package following break-in. I am presently running 10W40 Valvoline 4-stroke Motorcycle oil (also available in 20W50) in our cars with flat tappet cams along with an added friction modifier. Same company makes VRI in dino oil, as well. A lot of folks like that, but I wanted 10W40 and you must go to either 10W30 or 20W50 with the VR1 (which I am willing to do if it will work better with the Rhoads lifters). Bonus with the 4-stroke Motorcycle oil (1120ppm zinc/1030ppm phosphorus) ...... Its a $buck less per quart. VR1 20W50 (1400ppm zinc/1300ppm phosphorus) has more ZDDP content than VR1 10W30 (1100ppm zinc/1000ppm phosphorus)...... Have a buddy who spent some years working for GM and helped engineer their HEI distributors. He suggested running Rhoads lifters only on the intake side and running regular solid lifters on exhaust. Not sure I am ready to take that step, but next time I hear from him, I'll ask his reasoning on that and give it some thought. Happy Motoring, Harry
I have found that when adjusting a solid cam move the pushrod up/down to find zero lash, I have been fooled sometime spinning it to find zero as some pushrods can bind before others.
Yes this is true on elevation, the driving I described is between approx 1000 and 2000ft not huge but noticeable. I have checked compression at 1000 ft and 2000ft 155/160 and vacuum 19/20+. Then driving down to 400ft increased to 21hg idle.
1000-2000' is not enough to make me think the engine has an issue with the same compression range. Used to drive a high compression engine from 1000' to 2200' every day. I have noticed the same changes going from 1500' to to sea level, and a bit more tendency to detonate. And going to 5000' is indeed a big change..... "What's gone wrong with my motor?!?" LOL
Yes in a bout 1980, I drove the same 66 cuda to the West Coast. It the time I had no clue about elevation and its effects. I remember the car running sluggish over some high elevations in the Rocky Mountains. I pulled over at a rest area and remember checking it over and....??? nothing I could see. Then coming off the western side going down in elevation car just picked up power again. 66 cuda has a factory vacuum gauge it comes in handy.
Off topic...... In 1979 I rode a Yamaha RD-400 two stroke from NJ to Sacramento, Ca. I went the southern route...... so the high altitude part of that trip was through Flagstaff, Az. Man....... that bike ran absolutely horrible at that elevation. Seems like EFI has helped with that issue big time. Last fall I went out and visited family in Denver. We went up into the mountains for some 4 wheeling. The highest we got to was 12,700ft...... those 4 wheelers ran just fine and had plenty of power even at that elevation.
I'm with you on everything except the oil. There is no real reason to use mineral oil any more. And there certainly isn't a reason to run a 20w50 for sure. Oils are so much better today, the additive packages are so much better today that there is never a reason to run that thick oil any more. Oil flow is important. To get oil flow with a 50 grade engine oil you need big clearances. And then a pump to pump that goo. And then you have all that extra oil slinging everywhere in the crankcase. You should be able to run a good 5w30 year round. If you are concerned about summer heat, look at a quality 5w40 and run that. Thick goo for oil is obsolete.
motors run on electricity; maybe you need a bigger gauge cable... lol
Thanks for the reminder, Jim! Point well taken. Reckon you might say I do both (twist pushrod and check it for up and down play, as well) whilst setting valve lash. If I were only doing one or the other though, I'd check for only the up and down play as you suggest. Thanks, Harry
No. I am in the real early stages of planning a big block for much later down the road. Although I had not thought about using them for the slant.....that's a good idea.
Thanks, yellow rose. Appreciate your opinion on this. Dino oil versus synthetic or synthetic blend is kinda like do you part your hair on the left side or the right side? Or do you just comb it straight back as I do? My take on it from personal experience over a great many years is this...... As with anything else...... Just give your engine what it needs. My wife has a 2013 model car that was designed for thinner weight full synthetic oil (internal clearances and seals). It was broken in on that and has always been run on it. Does fine. However, we have had other cars (a 2003 model in particular) that were broken in on dino oils and after quite a few miles were put on the 2003, my old knees got to where I could no longer get up and down to do my own oil changes out in the driveway. So I reluctantly took the car to a shop we have used many years for mechanical repairs I was not set up to do here at home. Not one of the el cheapo oil change places where you never know if its done right nor if they stripped the drain plug, etc. With good intentions, they put a semi-synthetic oil of same weight and brand (marketed as being formulated for 'high mileage' engines) in our 2003 car...... Which had always been run on dino oil. Within only a couple days, the engine in that car was smoking, burning oil and the seals were leaking oil on our driveway, as well. So I took the car back to the shop and discovered what they had done. Seems their supplier at the time was pushing synthetics and semi-synthetics and they did not carry straight dino oil at all. So I worked out an arrangement with the owner of the shop...... I would bring my own oil and he would provide the filter and only charge me for filter and labour each time I brought him the car for an oil change. On that car, I always changed oil at 3,000 to 4,000 mile intervals. So on the 3rd day the semi-synthetic was in that car, I had him change oil again using dino oil I provided. The smoking, the increased oil consumption and the leaking engine seals improved and by the next oil change, the car was fine again. FWIW...... Our car was not the only one which this shop ran into problems with when changing over to a synthetic or semi-synthetic oil. So he now carries straight dino oil for those engines. My point being...... If an engine is designed for synthetic and run on it from the get go...... Then it should do well on synthetic. But if the car was not designed for synthetic and / or was run a great number of miles on dino oil...... You are rolling the dice if you take such a car and run synthetic in it even if you stay with the same weight oil it has always run. It might be fine...... Or it might react badly as our 2003 car did. You never know unless you try it. The other thing is...... I want to drain the dirt and acids and other contaminants out of my crankcase at 3,000 - 4,000 mile intervals. Higher priced synthetic oil is only cost effective if you run it longer between oil changes. And I would never do that with an engine I cared anything about. There is a lot more going on inside an engine when it comes to oil than just lubricity. Even our 2013 car which runs full synthetic gets the oil changed at 5,000 mile intervals (dealer recommends 10,000 miles). Very important on direct injection engines as it helps avoid sludging up the crankcase and having to pull the head and clean hard, baked on carbon deposits off heads and valves and reassemble every 100,000 miles or so. Bottom line...... The 3 engines my youngest son and I are putting together for my '62 Lancer and '57 Chevy and his '92 Camaro...... Will be run on dino oil. And nothing thinner than 10W40. As for my 360 MOPAR and 292 Chevy engines (these will have the Rhoads lifters)...... I will experiment with both valve lash and oil weight to see what they like best. Will begin with 10W40. But if it turns out that 20W50 works best with the Rhoads lifters, that is what they will get. I ran 20W50 summers and 10W40 winters in several of our cars over the years. No problems. Heck, in the hot Texas summers I have been known to mix straight 30 weight and 40 weight to make a 35 weight oil for our older and / or high mileage engines. Just depends on what they do best on. Best regards, Harry
I read through this, and since you were kind enough to post up a thoughful response, I wanted to do you the same turn. A response like yours DESERVES a thoughtful response. Pretty rare when you can articulate what you did so clearly in a few words. I wish I had the gift of brevity!! So here it goes. There is no such thing as an engine that is designed for a synthetic or mineral oil. The bores are essentially all the same materiel. That's cast iron. I can suppose that some manufacturers may have gone to some form of nickel based coating on the bores, but even then, that shouldn't matter. Piston rings are also in the same boat. There are relatively few ring materials in use today, and most engines come with a pretty dang nice ring package. Modern rings will pretty much seal under almost any conditions. Oil, regardless of where it comes from MUST have additives to make it useful in a crankcase. SAE/API and whatever the euro and jap equivalents are set the minimum for what goes into an oil to make it an engine oil. There are 5 groups of oils that make up base stocks. In the entire world except for this country (thanks to a bought and paid for Supreme Court that should be wiped out and reformed...but that is a different topic) only TWO of those base stock groups is synthetic. In this country, for the above mentioned illogical ignorance or negligence of SCOTUS, the US recognizes THREE base oils as synthetics. While this doesn't seem to be a big deal, the reality is that is a HUGE deal. A HUGE deal because now, a company can sell a group III base oil as a synthetic, but it doesn't behave exactly as a synthetic. Group III base oils are nothing but a highly re-refined mineral oil. That means you can use a Group III base oil on alcohol based fuels and not have an issue, whereas if you use Group IV or V base oils with alcohol base fuels you'll never get ring seal. This is just one of the confusing nightmares this crap has caused. Ok, so why does this even matter? Because the base stock, how it's refined and how it may be mixed with other base oils will for a great part, determine what the additive package is and how that additive package is put together. There is no such thing as an engine oil that doesn't have an additive package. That includes (going off memory here, as I don't feel like dragging out my books to nail it all, but this should give an idea of what's in there) Viscosity Index Improvers (these are, as a general rule, long chain polymers that can take a 5 grade base oil and make it behave and flow like a 50 grade oil at 212 degrees), anti foam, anti corrosion agents, detergents, dispersants, dry film lubrication additives (this would be a full load or more of zinc as one example) and...dang I'm missing stuff, but you get the picture. So...the base oil(s) and how they are refined and blended with other base oils (IMHO, the very BEST 100% synthetic oils out there are a blend of Group IV and V base oils, and the how tribologist blends the two groups and in what percentages will change what additives you use and at what percentages) will determine what additives are used beyond the set minimums of SAE/API. That's why you can have mineral oils at 4 bucks a quart up to 12 bucks a quart. And synthetics that start at about 7 bucks and go way over 20 bucks a quart (think I'm paying 22 a quart for that I use). I typed all that to say this: you should be able to use any oil from any manufacturer and not have an issue. Synthetic or not. I can't say what happened to you, but any engine should be able to use any oil and not have a crisis. When honing a cylinder, I never (and I don't know anyone else who does this either) based how I honed a cylinder based on what oil was going to be used. I was more concerned with what fuel was going to be used. Ring material establishes 95% percent of what the surface geometry should be, and fuel the rest. Again, it doesn't really matter what name is on the valve cover, it won't know what oil you are using, as far as GRADE you are using. IOW's, you need to chose the GRADE of oil you want use, and THEN set your clearances accordingly. If you want to use a 20w50 (again, I'll never know why anyone at this time would chose that oil, but that's on the end user) then when setting your clearances, you had better be on the big side or over the .001 clearance per inch of diameter of shaft so you have some oil flow at a reasonable pressure. If you chose to use say, a 5w30 oil, then you can close up the clearances, have less oil slinging all over the place and reduce the oil consumption of the engine (meaning how many gallons/hour an engine needs) which are good things. There is no such world where any engine, regardless of what era we consider (when I do a flat head Ford it gets set up for a 5w30 unless the customer just can get it) that can't benefit from a lower grade oil (grade meaning viscosity...there is no such thing as an oils "weight" even though it is said so much today as being de facto a correct statement) and the same engine can't benefit from a QUALITY 100% synthetic. Drain intervals are abased upon the additive package, and not the base oil. A QUALITY synthetic base oil doesn't actually wear out. What happens is the additive package gets used up, or wears out and you need to change the oil. That's another thing that separates cheap oil from QUALITY oils. The additive package and how much they use. 40k drain intervals is nothing for some oils and some oils are crap at 5k. The point is, before you get married to a specific grade and/or formulation of oil, do a bit more research. A QUALITY synthetic oil blended for a performance application in a what is considered a lesser grade is a much better investment than 1950's thinking. Just my .02 on lubrication.
Well said yr Just the opposite of the comment above I rebuilt a VW waterboxer (never again) and it was burning oil- so much in a 1000 miles-switched to Mobil 1 and it quit- go figure a couple of new oils are fantastic]\ The new Corvette dexos II (Not dexos I version 2) and the VW 508 Actually Mobil 1 ESP works for both 0-40 for the vette and 0-20 for the VW (there are other weights) the vw spec works for both gas and the 507 diesel spec pricy stuff but worth it if you are pushing the envelope
Thanks, yellow rose for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your laying out your points as you have and they are most compelling. I would just say this. The subject of dino oil versus synthetic is one of personal preference more than anything, really. Do I wear suspenders or do I wear a belt? sort of thing. As you so correctly point out...... There are several grades of both dino and synthetic base oils and there are differing additive packages for both, as well. Not to mention weights (viscosities) In the end, whichever lubricant type you choose (dino or synthetic based), it is always best to familiarize yourself as you have with the various base oils and additive packages so you can make an informed decision regarding which you prefer for a particular application. Regarding my statement as to whether a newer engine is designed for synthetic oils...... What I mean by that is...... It will have reduced internal clearances. It will have been machined to higher standards of accuracy using the latest CNC equipment. Bearing journals and cylinder walls will have optimum RA and RZ surface finish for the bearing and piston ring materials utilized. Cylinder prep will include the specific type of honing pattern and crosshatch that the thinner, lower tension rings require in order to seat properly. Engine seals and gaskets will be designed (by material and design) to function not only with synthetic base oils, but with very thin oils regarding viscosity. This will include provisions to better tolerate the deleterious effects of ethanol, as well. On the other hand, engines such as the '78 360 Chrysler and early '60's 292 Chevy inline 6 I am building for my '62 Dodge Lancer and my '57 Chevy have none of these modern upgrades. Yes, I could have them machined to closer tolerances and use modern thinner, low tension ring designs (and corresponding custom pistons) if I wanted to use the newer thinner weights (viscosities) of synthetic based oils. But there are no bearings nor seals and gaskets available other than the ones used in the past. Fortunately, the 292 engine shares a few parts with small block Chevy V-8s and there was a better 2-piece rear main seal designed for them around the time the newer production engines were changing over to 1-piece rear main seals in the late 1980's which should work there (if I can find one), but little else. So I will probably set these engines up with internal clearances more suited to thicker weight (viscosity) oils and run dino based oils in them. I realize that there are some synthetic based oils which have an adequate ZDDP content for my flat tappet cams and they can be had in the weights I would need. But I am a strong believer in frequent oil changes to drain the contaminants out of my crankcase and I just do not see the value in running a more expensive synthetic based oil when it is going to be changed at 3,000 to 4,000 mile intervals anyway. Now my son is building a '96 L31 small block Chevy truck engine with 1-piece rear main seal and roller tappets for his '92 Camaro. He bought this engine in the late 1990's as a new crate engine from GM whilst serving in the Navy. Was going to drop it in his old '88 Camaro but never got around to it. Then he worked his way through college, married, had kids, started a career and it has set here in my garage sealed up and strapped to the pallet all those years. In the interim, I installed an upgraded roller cam and timing gear/chain, replaced the Mickey Mouse (prone to leakage) plastic timing gear cover with an older stamped steel cover and I sold the iron Vortec heads to some circle track guys. Son has some SLP headers designed for the limited production SLP Firehawk which used L-98 'Vette heads (these have angled plugs at very odd angles and his headers won't work with anything else). The good news is that Chevy still uses the L-98 heads on their ZZ3 and ZZ4 crate engines. The bad news is that except for being aluminum and lighter than iron heads...... In the words of Randy Brzezinski...... 'When it comes to flow, L-98 heads suck canal water!' In stock form, they flow worse than the old OEM iron 4bbl heads of the early 1960s. So he located some AFR heads having the correct L-98 spark plug angles and that is what we are using on his engine along with the factory GM roller tappets. I'm glad he knew about those heads because he is dead set on running the SLP headers. Son may choose to run a synthetic based oil in his engine. And I will keep an open mind and help him by researching GM tech bulletins from 1996 to 2000 when these engines were made to see if they did well on synthetic oil. But regardless of his choice of oil, I will encourage him to do frequent oil changes for the reasons I stated earlier. In short...... There are good points to both types of oils (synthetic and dino based). I just feel that synthetic based oils are better used in the later model vehicles that are designed specifically to use them. Especially those which are designed to run the very thin weights (viscosities) of oils. And conversely, dino based oils make more sense if used in older engines designed to run on them. Is there overlap? Can synthetics do well in older engines if the correct weight oil and additive package is chosen? Of course. Then it boils down to whether you think its cost effective if you insist on frequent oil changes as I do. The only caution I would add is that on a very high mileage engine that has always been run on dino oils since new...... Be aware of the possibility that you may encounter what we did when even a synthetic blend is used. My wife's 2003 model car was approaching 200,000 miles when we had our experience with a synthetic blend (smoking, increased oil consumption, seals and gaskets leaking). On the other hand, if you have fewer miles on your engine, it may tolerate the change to synthetic or synthetic blend without issue. At least we were able to get her car straightened out by simply going back to the dino oil within 3 days time. So no harm done. We drove it another 50,000 miles before selling it and would have kept it even longer except that the engine management computer was possessed by demons. But that's another story for another time. That's my take on synthetic versus dino based oils. Both have their place. Appreciate your comments and even though we have both gotten off topic a bit here (I am old and tend to do that a lot anyway )...... I believe its always good to discuss such things and air all sides. Best regards, Harry P.S. >>> Yes, I am looking into Nikasil plating (cylinder walls), new bearing materials and ring designs and materials as well as piston coatings. Just want to educate myself on the choices available. These are my last builds and I want to do them the best that I can, given the tight budget I must keep to. Regarding piston rings...... When I built my first engine 57 years ago (a '53 DeSoto hemi that I swapped into a '53 Henry J and later, a '55 Ford), Mom insisted that I use Grant graphite rings. Mom and Dad had their own automotive machine shop from the late 1920s through the end of WWII. She did all the mic work and rebabitted rods (before insert bearings came along for some engines). Until her dying day, she could quote from memory the journal diameters and clearances of any American made engine from the Model T's through those built at the beginning of the war when civilian car production ended. Sure wish I could find some graphite rings like Mr. Grant used to make. They seated straight away and endured all the crazy things a teenage kid hell bent for leather can do when running an engine mostly flat out for 3 straight years. 4 years later (1970) after I was home from the service, I went out to the barn and turned that engine over by hand with a large screw driver on the flywheel teeth. Turned over freely. I gave it to the owner of the wrecking yard where I had worked after school, weekends and summers before leaving for the service. He dropped it in his old Dodge wrecker (boom truck) and last I heard (1978), it was still running fine.
nice posts gaskets and seals make little dif which oil on your 292 use the steel straight cut timing gears designed for the ponitac 4 hd use cloyes and others have them I have a Rick Jones cam in mine (in a stern drive boat, exhaust through the prop, so custom but was still pulling strong on the dyno at 6500 with great torque ported head with 1.94 valve Isky dual springs set up light you can have your cake and eat it to fill out mike jones cam request form and let him hook you up what compression I also have a 250 with 305 pistons with d dish like a chevy turbo piston and a true 9:1 and .025 quench
Thanks, Wyrmrider! Much appreciated. Yes, I know Mike Jones from another forum. He's one of the best and I plan on running some things by him. I already have my cams for both engines. I worked out the specs using Isky's cam lobe profile listing and checking my choices against a Dyno 2003 program a buddy gave me back in 2003. It doesn't make recommendations. Only predictions based upon what you spec. Probably not spot on as to TQ and HP values, but should be close enough. The main value of such programs I believe is in comparing trends as you manipulate valve timing events and engine specs. With the 292, I need to build it primarily for torque. Even if using the best parts you can get, its wise to keep piston speed below 4,000 ft./min. The longer the stroke, the lower the revs. With the 292's long stroke (4.120") that works out to 5,800 RPMs. But...... The 292's have harmonics issues that begin around 5,500 RPMs. Spin them faster than that and they will soon start slinging flywheels and having issues with torsional dampners (AKA 'harmonic balancers'), crankshaft and main bearings. So I need to limit RPMs to 5,300 or less in order to keep this engine together. Its going in a driver. Not a drag car that will only see short 1/4 mile runs of less than 15 seconds duration down a drag strip. If anything, it needs to be built for endurance racing, as I intend to use it to tow a boat and trailer up in the Texas hill country. I have the flow numbers for a reworked lump ported head with larger 1.94" / 1.60" valves. This will actually flow more air than I need. The issue with these 9-port heads with siamesed intake port is not flow...... Its velocity. You can't optimize velocity through the intake ports like you can a 12-port head. So you cut the head bolt boss out of the siamesed intake ports, increase valve size and do the lump port mods and live with the slower port velocity. Also...... No need to lift the valves over 0.500". They will flow all you need and lifting the valves higher doesn't make any more power, it just beats up the valve train. So I took those parameters (5,300 RPMs max and 0.500" max. valve lift) and set out to design a cam that would have the broadest, flatest powerband and the most average power within that RPM range rather than one having higher HP and TQ peaks but less average power and a narrower power band. Took my time and went through quite a few designs until I had what I was looking for. Then I contacted Isky and had them grind the cam. The Rhoads lifters will be an experiment. I want to see if I can use the variable valve timing aspect to broaden the powerband even more and pick up more low and midrange power, as well. I ran the same cam specs through the Dyno 2003 program after entering engine specs for my '78 Chrysler 360 engine and the predictors indicate a broad powerband with similar RPMs at which HP and TQ peaks will occur. Power band will not be quite as flat from off idle to peak, but power at peak will be higher. That's likely a function of shorter stroke length, better breathing and more displacement. The 360 will go in my '62 Dodge Lancer and that will be my daily driver when the old girl is roadworthy again. So I had Isky grind me a cam with similar valve timing events as the 292 cam only using MOPAR specific lobes to take advantage of the larger .904" lifters. With these cams, IVC is 56 degrees, so I need 9.25:1 static compression ratio to come up with 7.79:1 DCR. That should work well with 91 octane gas. Now with dish top pistons, the dished area is usually too far below the deck to really have any quench. Only the flat top portion of the piston that isn't dished really has any quench if its within 0.050" or less of the flat surface of the cylinder head (closed chamber design) when piston is at TDC. Some guys will adjust that distance using compressed thickness of the head gasket and set quench distance as close as 0.040". Which is as close as you would want to be in order not to have the piston hit the head once the engine is running and at operating temps. Just to be safe, I shoot for 0.045" quench distance. Are you sure your quench distance is 0.025"? That's awfully close. Best regards, Harry
harry thinking about it it was the 250 that we took to 6500 and chickened out not lump ported but GREAT choice I knew Kay Sissell - back when he had his flowbench at his dad's ceramic works, talk about dust---big loss agree on what you say about the 292 build for torque I'd use the rhodes max flow lifters or the ones from Howards with the groove and what I said about springs and cam gear- lots of harmonics
I hear ya, Wyrmrider! And thanks for the tips. Much appreciated. I never had the pleasure of meeting Kay Sissel. Have spoken with Mike Kirby and if they are still doing business when I am ready for the headwork, would like to use one of their reworked cast-iron heads. Whilst I was trial fitting the 292 into my chassis and making cardboard templates to begin building front engine mounts, I found a crack in my engine block. Thought about possibly building up a 250 and thereby sidestepping the harmonics issue. But hate to give up the additional 40+ cu. in. displacement and corresponding low end torque. Also, I have a couple of good 292 crankshafts here and hate not to use one of them. Was going to use an electric fuel pump anyway, so the 292 cam I had ground will work in a 250 as will the intake and exhaust. So I will see if I can find a good standard bore 292 block that will clean up with the smallest overbore possible and go from there. Interestingly...... Whilst I had the engine and cam specs in the Dyno 2003 program...... I ran them not only for the 292, but decreased stroke to run them for a 250 and 230 as well. The idea being that I could then take the lower torque values and re-gear the rearend to provide same torque multiplication as the 292 in 1st gear. Anyway, what I found interesting was that with the same cam, the 250 and 230 both made progressively less torque as I had expected. But as the stroke and displacement decreased...... Each of them made progressively more HP at peak...... And at higher RPMs. Happy Motoring, Harry
Nice discussion on the oil yall.
Its always nice to have an indepth discussion on these subjects, Rusty. If everyone agreed on everything all the time, it would be a very boring world indeed. I enjoy chatting with yellow rose. He conducts himself as a gentleman and his arguments in support of his position are well thought out and backed up by fact. I think we agree on the great majority of facts. We just draw different conclusions at times because we look at things from somewhat differing perspectives. Which is thought provoking...... A good thing. Best regards, Harry