Cascade Crew

cameron7710 · Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:40 am Post subject:

nice

izcain · Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:56 am Post subject:

Did you have the heads shaved down to keep the compression up? What pistons did you run?

Just kinda curious since I know that 327-350 heads on a 305 can sometimes run into valve shrouding problems and make them not have as much power. I ran World products 305 torquer heads on the 305 I built a lot time ago I just cleaned up the runners and bowl area and they worked awsome. Just curious?

Thezach · New Member Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

I called up northern automotive and explained to them what my power goals were and how i wanted to make it, and they set me up with keith black standard pistons and custom made rods from the CNC engine builders called waterhouse engines in WA (they balanced the rotating assembly and got me my crank aswell.)

unfortunately all of this parts ordering took place 3 years ago, so I'm a little hazy on the exact dimensions of it, and water house engines has since gone out of business/been sold out to Jasper engines. so I'm pretty screwed if i ever need to rebuild it again.

and no i did not deck/shave the heads, because i wanted a lower compression ratio with the larger CC size to achieve 8.3-1 so i could aspirate it at 16-18 Psi once broken in properly.

it cost a great deal of money and criticism by not just building a 383 or 350 but, at least I'm unique with it lol.

how ever until you just mentioned it, i was not aware of any valve issues by using the larger heads... i knew compression dropped slightly but did not know of any other such issues.... explain?...

O and i ran out of money after putting in the conversion roller lifter kit from summit racing, hence why the motor went to storage with the car, so sadly i still have stock ratio stamped rocker arms for now.

edit ** upon looking in the back of the car at the receipts, it would appear they are standard length H beam's from keith black aswell**

Thezach · New Member Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

come to think of it with how many issues i have ran into so far, i wish i would of just put a cammed 383 stroker in it. as this has gotten beyond a acceptable funding for the considerably low power numbers it will be putting out.

izcain · Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject:

I have dealt with water house motors and in the past (over 2 years ago) they have done great work but the last little run of a year or so I had a TON of CRAP product from them. The Son of the company took over and ran it right into the tubes! I was kinda glad to see them go since they had been building junk lately. JMO I feel bad saying that since I have ran dozens of motors that they have done the machine work on (we used them for marine engine rebuilds as well)

As to the valve shrouding im talking about.... With the smaller bore of the 305 being 3.73 inch bore anything OVER 1.94 valves will amount to a power loss since when you run 2.02 valves a portion of the valves is shrouded in the combustion chambers since bore is not large enough. I have seen damage done from this when this plus high RPMs come into play. the fuel does not atomize correctly either when the valves are shrouded. Just some info for ya. I find it hard to believe that waterhouse would not know this and say something about this.

Dewey316 · Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject:

I am actualy suprised that the 2.02 valves don't hit the bore. It probably isn't optimal by any means, 1.94's are about the limit on a 305.

It is hard to tell from his Sig, what valve sizes he actualy has, as 2.02/1.94 isn't a valve combo, you would have 2.02/1.6, or 2.02/1.5 or 1.94/1.6, 1.94/1.5, 1.84/1.5 etc.

--John

izcain · Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject:

I saw that and also a slightly stroked crank what do you mean by this? They only make 3.480 and 3.750 stroke cranks unless you went high end with like a 3.500 or a 3.600 crank but that would be like an oliver or lunati special! acaully I take that back eagle does offer a 3.500 in the car bible (summit) lol

I would think that any extra stroke and they would most definitly hit.

The damage I saw was where the piston smaked the valve and it was not pretty!

I dont mean to sound like a drag I would just like to understand this combo more thats all.... Either way I am glad someone is taking interest in the smaller brother of the SB family since many people dont give them the credit they deserve!

Thezach · New Member Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

The cast marks on the camaro heads per GM build number on general motors service information program stated the heads are-

Intake 2.02"
exhaust 1.94"

which i thought would be optimal for a 305... big deep breathe of air, with decent exhausting capability

Thezach · New Member Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

actually, the exact phrasing from the build number correlates that they were either 1969 build or 1971 its difficult to read the last number casted into them...

and yes the crank is a custom made one, that i believe is 3.5" but i lost the original documentation of the custom build order (i know they copied a existing design from another company such as lunati thats why i think 3.5 sounds familiar) and yes everything in the engine was extremely high end. and pretty much the most costly rebuild i have ever done between customer cars and my own. all because the parts are rare and relativley unique to my build.

i have been running the engine 3 days now and have not heard any bad noises, knocks, or rapping. Ill keep you posted on if it grenades though lol.

if it does i will just purchase a 4 bolt 350 and build a 383.

and as a credential of F-body building. i have owned a 1993 firebird trans am, a 1996 firebird trans am, and a 1992 camaro RS- and all of them have had internals modified on the motors except the RS.

O and i have done 1 customer LT-1 build and 1 customer LS-1 build, and i also briefly had a 1986 RX-7 in which i installed a LS1 and T56

chevymad · Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject:

I believe you'll find that the heads with that casting # came from gm with either a 2.02intake or 1.94 intake. The exhaust size maxes out at 1.6". Simple to tell.. add the 2 valve sizes together.. if its bigger then the bore its not possible, and remember there needs to be space between and at the edges!

Interesting combo anyway, are you going to be coming down to the dyno? I'd like to see it run.

Thezach · New Member Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

I can drive it on my flat bed to the dyno... Its got no tabs or registration (last registered 2004)...

but now you have me concerned if there is a issue with it colliding with cylinder walls...

I know the intake side was at least 1.96 because my old heads were 1.96 (just checked this, as they are sitting on a storage shelf in my garage) and the intake valves on these supposedly 2.02 heads were roughly 20% larger diameter....

Okay as i was typing this i went back to www.mortec.com to check my memory... they are casting number "3973487" and are off a 1971 LT1 optioned V8 with 2.02 intk and 1.60 exh

my bad.

Thezach · New Member Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

tomorrow i can pull a valve cover and snap a picture if you would like to see. lol

izcain · Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject:

Man that is a HUGE combustion chamber for a 305 this is an interesting build. I wonder what the static compression is on that motor. Im sure it is quite low... combined with the LSA and duration on that cam I bet it doesn't have much for cranking compression.

Would be interesting to see it dyno!

Thezach · New Member Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

Cranking compression... Lol Well if you really are curious prior to start up once the engine was primed i installed a compression gauge and cranked over the engine a few times. the highest i could build was about 120 psi...

So yea, low.... but it should allow me to run some pretty serious boost pressures.

The more I'm delving into this, the more I'm wondering about putting on a different set of heads.

Thezach · New Member Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

according too... http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/compstaticcalc.html Static compression calculator

my compression ratio will be 8.06-1

*Edit- wait it will be 8.77-1 forgot what size head gasket i used and the deck height had to look it up, wish i would of delved into this before i put the free 2.02 heads on*

Schultzy89GTA · Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject:

Thezach · New Member Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

As i said it was mis-information, and i haven't so much as looked at these numbers for 4-5 years and was just typing a header/tag line on my signature, did not realize i would need to mitigate the exact specifications of my engine in my signature... my bad?... if you would use the scroll button and go up 3 posts you would likley note by statement of 1.60 heads. but thanks for that.

And, i never said they were 305 heads, i said they were 1969/1971 camaro heads.

Schultzy89GTA · Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject:

Like I said. Ready to learn.

Don't need to do anything on my account.

-Schultzy

Thezach · New Member Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

what would you like to learn?

im as skeptical about this as anyone at this point. as i did not realize the full implications of this 350 head deal.

Schultzy89GTA · Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: