4/22/99
Glenn,
Thanks for your candid reply. That's exactly what I asked for so I
had it coming. The Buick 300 rods are not a good choice apparently. So
maybe back to the drawing board????.
The other statement you make regarding low compression ratio you do
not substantiate with numbers. What do you calculate the ratio to be?????
My estimate was done using Baker's 289 recipe as a starting point. Do you
lack faith in his numbers? I have Peter Kent's compression ratio spread
sheet but have not yet had the chance to push these numbers through it. By
my figures, this combination gives .003" greater piston height at TDC, than
Baker's 289 recipe, but the smaller displacement reduces the C.R. from his
10.38 to about 8.89. The .600" shorter stroke (compared to Baker's 289) is
almost exactly compensated for by the .303" longer rod. So----where did I
mess up??? I really want to know!!! Precise factual information has been
very difficult to come by in my experience so far.
It happens there are a number of reasons I am choosing this block,
crank, head, cam, and carburetion combination which are not really open to
change, so I need to limit the discussion to these parameters. The only
unsolved part of the equation is the correct piston and rod combination. A
maximum CR of about 9.00:1 is what I seek. I have 2 sets of Rover Rods,
many Olds F-85 rods, and 1 set of small block Chevy rods, but I have not
found any pistons with the correct compression height and bore size to
match these other components. Can you supply the correct combination? For
Rover rods, I think the compression height would need to be about
1.880",flat top, or equivalent in dome or dish.
Apparently even Chrysler rods of some sort have been used in these
engines, though I do not yet know which ones. Also I have often wondered
whether anyone has used any other Buick rods, or any G.M. v6 rods, some of
which use the same big end bearings as the Rover/Special/F-85 ones. My
main reason for reboring is that I need new pistons anyhow so I might as
well pick up the 2 cubic inches that result from the recommended maximum of
.020" overbore.
So------if you feel like making any more candid replies, they will
certainly be welcome.
Any feedback from others is also welcome.
Cheers,
David Kernberger
|