From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Re: rod side clearance
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 17:29:22 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Monday, Jan 04 12:29:19
X-Sequence: 3166
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

In article <bvtrgsr@dixie.com> you write:
>From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
>Subject: rod side clearance
>Date: 3 Jan 93 00:49:39 GMT
>
 <<<<Dave William's question about SB Chevy side clearances deleted.>>>>
>
>[Brings up a point of question I've had for quite some time.  What is 
>the reason to worry about side clearance on the con rod big end
>other than to make sure it is not too tight?  It is not intrinsicly
>obvious to me and I've never been given a reason other than something
>that invariably boils down to "that's the way we've always done it."
>JGD]
>
 John, I remember reading that the reason for having the "large" end of the 
rod side clearance spec. was to keep excess oil from being spun onto the 
cylinder walls from the opening between the rods (or rod and journal 
cheeks).  Seems like it was mentioned that excessive rod side clearance "let 
loose" too much oil from the rod bearing/journal area (er..volume), to the 
point that the oil rings would be overcome.  I can't remember where I read 
this, could be Jenkins, How to Hotrod SB Chevys, Engine Blueprinting, or 
just some mag. article.  Could be B.S., too.

BTW, thanks for the Sample P.E. magazine, John.  The check really is in the 
mail for the subscription.  Great Mag.!

...Back to Dave's post:
> -------
>
> Now, some of you might be wondering exactly what I'm doing here, and
>who don't I want to shell out $450 to $650 for a set of cheap aluminum
>or steel 6.0 inch rods.  It's because of the 262, you see.  I can bore
>it out .060 to take 305 standard bore pistons, which have a much higher
>pin height.  Then I can use the six inch rods, and turn the lip around
>the dish of the piston off on the lathe, and wind up with a flat top,
>high pin piston.  Assembled, I'd have a flat top, 6.0 rod, 3.73 x 3.1
>motor of 272 cubes, an interesting replacement for the 235 six in the
>Bel Air.  The six has enough power (I know, it's time for my medication
>again) but the gas mileage stinks.  The small V8 would certainly get
>more than 14.5, particularly with an Offy Dual port and AFB or an old
>Cross-Fire TBI setup (remember those small runners?)  Besides, once I
>figured out all the parts would fit, how could I resist?
>
> Oh, yeah - to retrofit the late model hydraulic rollers, all you have
>to do is fabricate three standoffs (like PC board standoffs) to hold the
>late lifter retainer plate, then add a generic cam thrust bumper.  The
>extra-deep lifter bores on the late blocks basically don't do anything -
>the lifter never even comes to the top, much less past it.  Of course,
>once I tracked down everything and figured it out, I found that Crane is
>already making a retrofit kit.  <sigh>

I was wondering about this mod.  What hydraulic roller grinds wuld be good 
for a 9.7:1 327 cu.in. SB chevy, w/ 5spd., 3.55:1 gears, 26in. tire, in a 
2800 lb street car?  Would one of the Chevy cams be good?  Right now, I have 
a 270 (advertised) duration , solid lifter Competition Cam.  Haven't 
installed the engine yet, so I don't know what this is going to run like, 
but I imagine it ought to have pretty decent low end torque (2000 up) and 
peak power at ~5500-6000 rpm.  I like the idea of a roller though.  Any 
ideas?  BTW, are you talking about using Chevy hyd. roller lifters for this 
mod?

>
>>----------
>Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)

Thanks, Pete (paraska@oasys.dt.navy.mil)
|////////////////////////////////////////////////|
| Pete Paraska       (paraska@oasys.dt.navy.mil) |
| David Taylor Model Basin, CARDEROCKDIV         |
|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|

----------
Posted by: emory!oasys.dt.navy.mil!paraska (Pete Paraska)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod