![]() |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
I havent drained the oil but last time I changed it, it didnt have any
And it has ran the same since I owned it I had gotten it hot one night & thats why I stopped driving it, but that wouldnt round the lobes off like that... or at least not that quick |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
But, what might be the case of your probleom could be when the cam was swapped the lifters got mixed up? About how many miles or how old was the motor/ cam? Im sure it wasnt purely from normal wear, just becasue of the other lobes still being in good shape. |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Thats what I was leaning towards :metal:
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
i just dont want anyone to badmouth a good company without a good reason.. sorry if this is a sore subject;):chevy: |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
sorry, like i said i wasnt trying to start a pissing match. i'll stop :uhmk: |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
many engine builders have complained of this problem in recent years.The best reasoning that has been put out there is that all oils have been reformulated to meet todays roller cam motors.Many of the additives that use to be in motor oils have been remove to make the EPA happy.I think zinc is one of the main items removed.Flat tappet cams have higher stress points than roller cams witch is cousing the problem.The best "fix"that I have seen is using Rotella "diesel"oil it still has all of the additives of the older oils.You can buy it in most of the conventional weights IE 15w40 ect.
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Good gosh, what have you done to my thread !!!
Clean it up now, you lil mongrels :lol: |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Well Im currently debating engine stuff
Im still trying to figure out exactly what my compression ratio is, because the other day when i figured it up it was in the 8's & I need more than that So if I cant figure out a easy way to bump it up, Ima test fire a engine I have laying around & if its ok, then Ima swap it in till I build my 283 how I want it |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
|
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
i have 64cc heads on my nova with .125" domes and its supposed to be 11.5:1 |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
Possibly shave the heads to raise the compression? That would cost a few bucks but may bump it up a little bit. 283's are a great sounding engine...I had a buddy with one in a '67, and for some reason it sounded distinctly different than any other SBC I've heard. |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
so now you want more compression, when you did these mods to the heads to lower compression? im not sure, but arent stock 283's around 9.5:1 with 58, or maybe even 64 cc combustion chambers? i'd say 9.5 or even 9:1 should be a good compression ration to shoot for. i have ran 92 octane in my car, but for the most part i run 100 octane. i havnt bought it for a few years, but last time i checked it was about $5 a gal... and that was atleast 2 years ago.
another thing to maybe consider is some real thin steel headgaskets. im not sure but they might raise the compression by .1 or .2? |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
heres a compression ratio calculator... not sure if you already knew about this one. it seems pretty easy if you measure your stuff, gakets, ect
http://www.csgnetwork.com/compcalc.html i get about 9.5:1 with the stock 3.875 283 bore, and a 3" stroke... assuming the piston has no dome at all, and assuming theres a little bit of deck clearance (maybe .010-.015"?), and a 60cc combustion chamber, and .025" thick head gasket (pretty thin, i think most sbc head gaskets are more like .045") |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
The deck height is whats killing it. We haven't remeasured it, but it was .040, with a gasket thickness of .042. The bore is 3.915 and the stroke is 3" even. The other problem is not being able to find gaskets the have a smaller cylinder bore size than 4.1. Needs about 3.95 to 4" even. We did find steel gaskets with a thickness of .016, that would help. Does anyone know the bore size on the gaskets for a 305, they should be smaller, maybe not too small.
When he first decided to go with these heads, he thought the CR might be up around 11. but it isn't turning out that way. Matt worked on the heads to improve flame travel and decrease detonation points. That way he could run more compression with reg pump gas. He would like it in the low 10 to one area. He's put quiet a bit of time into modding the heads and doing research for this. It's still experimental, but maybe it will work. Few things that are different are easy. Lee |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Thanks for clearing that up pop
Nova, like my dad said, I wasnt modding my heads to reduce compression but to make them more efficient Also the heads that were on the 283 to begin with were 60 cc, so I shouldnt be changing the CR I think we made a bad measurement & that is throwing things off, as I was under the impression that the 283 had 9:1 CR like you said Bob, sorry but the only ring I could find for you was 2 karat... is that ok :haha: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...ement_ring.jpg |
Re: Project... Tinker !!!
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1997-2025 67-72chevytrucks.com