ok block is at machine shop geting cleaned.Cylinders are 30 over just the rods were stock.He miked crank its in great shape.So im looking for a inexpensive 30 over piston with a low comp. like 10ish:1 ?

 

With iron heads I'd probably keep it around 9.5:1 to get it to live on pump gas unless you plan on using a lot of cam. Cam overlap will bleed down the cylinder pressures and let you get away with a little more static compression.

Brad

 

cool thx ordering rebuild kit today w0ot.

 

SL1CKR1CK, I really hope the rebuild goes well for you and you really enjoy your engine when you get it finished and reinstalled!! Good luck to you!!

 

Actually, it's the intake valve closing point, which is later with a higher-period cam. Since the intake closes ABDC on the compression stroke, holding it open later will bleed off static compression in the low end, and reach peak VE later in the RPM range. Which naturally moves the torque up in the RPM range=more HP. I used to think it was the overlap cycle too, years ago. Then I sat down and thunk about it and visualized the dynamics of an operating engine in my poor tired grey matter, and on went the ol' penny-saver bulb! The overlap cycle also isn't as responsible for idle quality as the intake closing point. That choppy idle and cloud of fuel standoff from reversion in the intake tract is due to the mixture being pushed out the intake valve before it closes. As the engine speeds up, the mixture doesn't have time to get out the intake, and cylinder filling is better at higher RPM. A roller cam allows for a fast-closing intake profile, so the lobe can be taller (valve lift is good!) with the same closing point as a smaller hydraulic, with the torque-producing effects of more valve lift without reversion.

There is no cylinder pressure to lose on the end of the exhaust stroke and the beginning of the intake stroke.

So why will a cam with 108° LC idle more lumpily than one with 112°, all other figures being equal? Because the exhaust closes later, and this affects the initial pull on the intake charge. More of the mixture will be scavenged out the exhaust valve during the overlap cycle at idle. However, the intake valve is also closing earlier. This means that a cam with narrower LC angles will make more peak power, with the torque and horsepower peaks closer together, but the wider LCs will give a wider, but less peakier powerband, with a little better idle quality. Rod length and rod-to stroke ratio also play a role in determining which cam is most effective for making the kind of power you want, where you want it. For the sake of time constraints, I ain't even gonna open that can of worms...yet...

 

50_BUCK_WORK_TRUCK, that is, in my opinion, one of the best discussions of cam performance and timing and engine flow I have ever read--and, over a LOT of years, I have read a LOT of them!! When you DO open the can of worms about rod-length and rod-to-stroke ratio, I really do want to read it!

Smokey Yunick wrote a similar article in "Circle Track and Racing Technology" shortly before he passed away. They published it again in the issue paying tribute to Smokey and his technological articles and columns. You may be able to still get it from PrimeMedia.

 

Aww, shucks! (blush!) Like I need an ego-boost! It happens sometimes when I get around to pulling my thumb out...

I think this guy here: http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/rod-tech-c.htm
...puts it far better than I could on my best day! Whole lotta good stuff here.

Here's some more to feed the hungry jones!: http://www.teknett.com/pwp/drmayf/rods.htm

If the links don't work from here, just copy/paste it into the address bar (didn't for me...)

Never saw that Smokey article, and I'd sure like to. I have to admit, he's been an ongoing inspiration for my engine-tweaking ambitions for over twenty years. I hope he and Dale are happily rapping in the hereafter, God rest their souls!

 

Just so you might know, I did genuinely mean what I posted! I was quite impressed by this post--as well as others you have posted which I have read.

I think I have the issue with the Smokey article in it. If you'd like, I will try to verify that and let you know the issue, etc.

 

Uh-oh! You're on to me! I can't hide anywhere! Cover's blown, mission abort! Takes just one smart cookie to see thru my humble landscaper facade to the raving motorhead underneath! Oh well, I s'pose you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time...certainly have nothing to hide when it comes to such as thee!

Complement taken, and thank you from the heart, good person that you are! But I don't claim to know any more than anyone else, really, and there are certainly those here with far more knowledge and skills than not-so-little, getting older me, and I have much to learn. Miles to go before I sleep...

I don't mind sharing what thimble full of accumulated wisdom that I have--if it helps people smooth out any speed-bumps along the way, the reward is implicit in the results, no thanks or recognition necessary, I've done my job. And that's what matters.

That would be semi-retired motorhead, actually...and yes I would absolutely love it if you could do that for me, and for anyone else interested! Smokey is always good reading!

 

...uhh, oops, that should be an "i" in "compliment"...won't let me edit the post this time---I guess I'm just trying to factor "i" out of the picture, although who'd guess?

 

I will try to get you the "Circle Track" issue info this evening!

 

ok im down to rocker arms. U all no if 18-22 lbs sound right ?These look like roller rockers with plates connecting every 2 rockers and also holds 2 push rods each.thx again Slick out

 

I am sorry it took me a bit longer than I expected to find it. It is the September 2001 issue of "Circle Track and Racing Technology". The banner caption on the issue has the "The Best of Smokey's Tech--a 24-page Special Section Honoring an American Legend." It is possibly still able to be ordered from www.circletrack.com. I hope this helps you out!

 

I have a question much like Slick Rick's...I bought a "rebuilt 429 out of a 68-69 T-Bird"...From what I am seeing here,the engine I have IS indeed a 429,but the number I have is NOT C8VE-A...I have C8VE-F...What is the difference (other than the stamping)?Also,the rockers are all connected by a rod like the Chrysler motors sometimes did...If anyone can tell me something helpful,you can write to my e-mail at: markdnelson_2@yahoo.com

 

La Macnina welcome to FTE.
Your description of the rockers makes it sound more like an FE then a 429/460 possibly 390 or 428. does the intake extend under the valve covers? If so then definitely FE.