Rebuliding a 308 - need bolt sizes!
mackeb
I'm rebuiling a 308 (finally!) for the HJ and I purchased a good short
from a wrecker which is all well and good except it has no bolts for
things like timing cover/water pump, sump, engine mounts, heads (I'll
get new ARP head bolts anyway) etc.
DOes anyone have a list of bolt sizes and thread types? Unfortunately
my Holden blue service manual doesn't have this but I thought maybe the
HQ series books may do.
I also saw that bolt kits are available from ARP for SBCs and I thought
that probably many bolts would be interchangable but $200 is too much
to waste if only 10 bolts will be suitable.
The specs for the engine if anyone is interested is:
Blue 308 + 040
Hastings rings
King bearings
Sealed Power lifters
Crane 276 cam (just right for street driving)
Roll master multi key way sprocket (just in case the timing is out!)
YT Street Terra Stg 3 Heads with some extar hand porting.
Carb choice is still open. I though maybe a 750 holley or a rebuilt
QJet jetted to suit. Any suggestions?
Brenden Will
"mackeb" <mac...@cen.prendiville.wa.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1156423741.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Noddy
"mackeb" <mac...@cen.prendiville.wa.edu.au> wrote in message
> Blue 308 + 040
*Don't* go to .040 on a plastic unless you are looking for problems.
Cylinder walls are notoriously irregular and can suffer from porosity
problems at anything above 30 thou, and they're world famous for core shift.
Even if you don't strike water you'll be very lucky if you don't end up with
a *very* thin wall at a few points causing those areas to have excessive
localised heat, and eventually a bad ring seal.
Bore it to the *minimum* it needs to clean it up, with .030 being the
absolute maximum. If it needs any more than that then you should consider
ditching it in favour of a better block, or sleeving it.
> Carb choice is still open. I though maybe a 750 holley or a rebuilt
> QJet jetted to suit. Any suggestions?
A 750 would be *way* too big.
I'd go for a 600 vac sec or a Rotty. Personally I'd go with the Holley, as
the Rotty's fuel metering circuit is pretty average.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
John McKenzie
>
> A 750 would be *way* too big.
>
> I'd go for a 600 vac sec or a Rotty.
No bull a mate of mine is running a full 830cfm of carburettion on a
308. It's a dual plane and running efi heads, but we've tested it and
that's definitely what it wants. Of course if it's not running efi
heads, nor a torquepower inlet, nor a cam this size (and I'm not telling
exactly what it is) then you'd be lookng at something smaller.
--
John McKenzie
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com frau...@psinet.com
swee...@accc.gov.au
u...@ftc.gov power corrupts, but I need my hair dryer to work
admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost
$USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost ro...@mailloop.com pres...@whitehouse.gov
vice.pr...@whitehouse.gov ab...@iprimus.com.au ab...@cia.gov
ab...@fbi.gov ab...@asio.gov.au ab...@federalpolice.gov.au
Fraser Johnston
> Carb choice is still open. I though maybe a 750 holley or a rebuilt
> QJet jetted to suit. Any suggestions?
Fuel injection. Carbs were ok in 1974 but the world has moved on.
Fraser
Clockmeister
"mackeb" <mac...@cen.prendiville.wa.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1156423741.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Holleys belong in the bin. Go a recon QJet.
Clockmeister
"Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> wrote in message
news:4l7n06...@individual.net...
Ain't that the truth.
Noddy
"Clockmeister" <whow...@andwhy.com> wrote in message
news:12eu0m8...@corp.supernews.com...
> Ain't that the truth.
Some of us old knuckle draggers like to be retro though :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
mackeb
> Holleys belong in the bin. Go a recon QJet.
Yeah, I will probably going to go for a QJet because of the outstanding
cruising economy and nice smooth fuel delivery.
I did find, however, when I used a 450 holley on my 253 VH for a while,
it had far better low end response that the QJet, but lacked mid and
top end power - the engine would really struggle past 4500 rpm.
Noddy; GM-H produced pistons to .040" so I don't see this as being a
problem. GM-H never producec 030 or 060 pistons. *Thousands* of 308s
have been bored to .060" without consequence (I probably wouldn't go
this far though). Pro-Strokes 388 stroker is a +060 block.
I'm not racing the thing, it won't see past 5000 rpm with me behind the
wheel so I'm not too worried. It'll probably never be put through the
stresses of a burnout or anything like that. Just a strong street
motor for the HJ which may make it into my VH one day.
mackeb
> Fuel injection. Carbs were ok in 1974 but the world has moved on.
>
> Fraser
A nice idea in theory, but in practise not so good for me.
The thing I don't like about fuel injection is the dependency on an
ECM.
At least with a carb I can tinker away with needing a laptop etc.
FWIW the 253 in the VH returns nearly 500kms to a tank of petrol (63
litres, but I fill up at about 50L) so that comparable to a 304 (I
think - ~10L per 100kms). QJet uses lots less fuel than many people
think, the secret is to drive it properly (eg. one press of the
accelerator to speed up)
Andy
I generally get 13-14L/100km from my EFI 304/auto VN so you're doing OK.
Cheers,
Andy. (The other Andy.)
Noddy
"mackeb" <mac...@cen.prendiville.wa.edu.au> wrote in message
> Noddy; GM-H produced pistons to .040" so I don't see this as being a
> problem.
No, you wouldn't.
GM-H made the engine in the first place :)
> GM-H never producec 030 or 060 pistons. *Thousands* of 308s
> have been bored to .060" without consequence (I probably wouldn't go
> this far though). Pro-Strokes 388 stroker is a +060 block.
Nice.
People "base jump" off tall buildings too, but that doesn't make it smart
either.
> I'm not racing the thing, it won't see past 5000 rpm with me behind the
> wheel so I'm not too worried. It'll probably never be put through the
> stresses of a burnout or anything like that. Just a strong street
> motor for the HJ which may make it into my VH one day.
Do yourself a favour and look up"Porosity", "Core shift", "localised hot
spots" and "thin wall castings". You might actually learn something.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"mackeb" <mac...@cen.prendiville.wa.edu.au> wrote in message
> The thing I don't like about fuel injection is the dependency on an
> ECM.
> At least with a carb I can tinker away with needing a laptop etc.
That's fine, so long as you know what you're doing. 99% of people whe get
within a bull's roar of a carb with a screwdriver in hand don't have the
slightest clue.
> FWIW the 253 in the VH returns nearly 500kms to a tank of petrol (63
> litres, but I fill up at about 50L) so that comparable to a 304 (I
> think - ~10L per 100kms). QJet uses lots less fuel than many people
> think, the secret is to drive it properly (eg. one press of the
> accelerator to speed up)
Um, how is that different to driving any other car?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
mackeb
> > FWIW the 253 in the VH returns nearly 500kms to a tank of petrol (63
> > litres, but I fill up at about 50L) so that comparable to a 304 (I
> > think - ~10L per 100kms). QJet uses lots less fuel than many people
> > think, the secret is to drive it properly (eg. one press of the
> > accelerator to speed up)
>
> Um, how is that different to driving any other car?
>
Surely you must realise how a lot of other people drive:
Typical traffic light take off...
1. Put foot 1/4 way down
2. Not accelerating fast enough, so put foot down more
3. Repeat step 2 until happy and use up ten times as much fuel as if
you'd just put your foot down one and let the engine do its job.
mackeb
Noddy wrote:
> "mackeb" <mac...@cen.prendiville.wa.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> > Noddy; GM-H produced pistons to .040" so I don't see this as being a
> > problem.
>
> No, you wouldn't.
>
> GM-H made the engine in the first place :)
Thats funny. The Holden V8 has always been a better engine from a
design point of view that a chev, chrysler or ford V8.
The engine had to be designed to meet some fairly strict guidelines
like a m aximum dry weight , maximum size etc and reach certain power
outputs from the two given displacements.
Now I'm not saying that in practise a Holden V8 is necessarily better
or worse than a chev et al but at the time of its release it was better
than any chev of similar displacement. 308 holden vs 307 chev, I'd bet
on a 308.
mackeb
> Okay. So let's be fair and fit the same type of inlet manifold and carb
> to both. Either a cast iron 2bbl manifold on both or an alloy 4bbl on
> both. The 307 was only ever built as an "economy" engine like the 253.
>
Fair enough I suppose.
> If you want to make a more valid comparison between a holden 308, a SBC
> and a Ford V8, compare it to a Z28 302 and a Boss 302. The holden even
> gets a few ci advantage. :-)
>
OK, so can we use the L34 engine then?
The L34 HO engine would be better again ;-))
There is no denying that the L34 engine was very good and thats
probably how the 308 should have been to start with, especially when
considering the rather loose emission laws of the late sixties.
Noddy
> 1. Put foot 1/4 way down
> 2. Not accelerating fast enough, so put foot down more
> 3. Repeat step 2 until happy and use up ten times as much fuel as if
> you'd just put your foot down one and let the engine do its job.
Interesting concept.
Can't see how it would be all that practical in suburbia myself, but
anyway....
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"mackeb" <mac...@cen.prendiville.wa.edu.au> wrote in message
> Thats funny. The Holden V8 has always been a better engine from a
> design point of view that a chev, chrysler or ford V8.
Lol :) According to fucking whom? :)
Okay, enough of your comical bullshit now. Piss off until you actually
*know* what you're talking about :)
> The engine had to be designed to meet some fairly strict guidelines
> like a m aximum dry weight , maximum size etc and reach certain power
> outputs from the two given displacements.
It's a modified copy of a Buick/Oldsmobile engine, and there is *nothing*
special about it at all. On the contrary, many people think it's a *cunt* of
an engine (me included) and it only saw the light of day because it was the
cheapest option Holden could go with at the time.
The smallblock Chev is/was so much better than the plastic it's just
laughable to suggest anything else, but it cost Holden too much money to
import the things as opposed to making an engine locally.
This is exactly the same reason why Ford Australia began to make Clevelands
locally rather than continue to import the Windsor.
> Now I'm not saying that in practise a Holden V8 is necessarily better
> or worse than a chev et al but at the time of its release it was better
> than any chev of similar displacement. 308 holden vs 307 chev, I'd bet
> on a 308.
Of course you would, but then you're not comparing apples with apples, are
you?
If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, then you'd compare a 4 inch
bore plastic with a 4 inch bore 302 Chev of around the same level of tune
and induction, and you'd really see just how shitty the plastic actually is.
If the 307 Chev is your basis for classing all Chev engines, then there's a
whole world of stuff out there that you're missing :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Athol" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:11566472...@idlwebserver.idl.com.au...
> If you want to make a more valid comparison between a holden 308, a SBC
> and a Ford V8, compare it to a Z28 302 and a Boss 302. The holden even
> gets a few ci advantage. :-)
Lol :)
How many time zones behind the others do you think the plastic would come
home?
Assuming it didn't shit an oil pump and not finish of course :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Dan---
news:44f1...@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> The smallblock Chev is/was so much better than the plastic it's just
> laughable to suggest anything else, but it cost Holden too much money to
> import the things as opposed to making an engine locally.
Im trying to melt down the old plastic 308 that was in my HX LE the bastard
wont melt I need a new dunny brush. :-)
--
Regards
Dan
Noddy
"mackeb" <mac...@cen.prendiville.wa.edu.au> wrote in message
> OK, so can we use the L34 engine then?
Feel free.
> The L34 HO engine would be better again ;-))
What, the one that made 6 extra horsepower?
> There is no denying that the L34 engine was very good and thats
> probably how the 308 should have been to start with, especially when
> considering the rather loose emission laws of the late sixties.
The L-34 engine was never a good engine. Just in case you missed it, I'll
say it again: The L-34 engine was *never* a good engine.
To go one step further, out of all the "supercars" in Australian history,
this engine alone has probably *the* most over-rated reputation ever. L-34
Torana's raced at places like Bathurst were *far* from dealer showroom stock
standard, and even the people who put shitloads of money into them (like the
Holden Dealer Team for example) were plagued with unreliability issues with
the engines in race trim.
In fact, the only time the plastic had a chance of winning at all was when
the oppostion had a penalty against it, either by way of rev limiting or
weight.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
John McKenzie
>
> > Holleys belong in the bin. Go a recon QJet.
>
> Yeah, I will probably going to go for a QJet because of the outstanding
> cruising economy and nice smooth fuel delivery.
> I did find, however, when I used a 450 holley on my 253 VH for a while,
> it had far better low end response that the QJet, but lacked mid and
> top end power - the engine would really struggle past 4500 rpm.
That would be down to setup. I've said this a million times, probably,
that the best carb of the 'big 3' 4 barrels is whichever one you or
someone you have access to can optimally sort for the application. The
difference in performance potential (and economy and driveability) is
less than 5% (absolute tops) in all of them. Better to have a carb with
95% of the potential setup to 100% of it's potential than a carb with a
few more % potential that's woefully short of being optimised.
> Noddy; GM-H produced pistons to .040" so I don't see this as being a
> problem.
Why would they give a shit if they sold pistons that ended up with an
overheating engine or the need for sleeves and likely more parts down
the track. You couldnm't get a refund on 30thou over pistons if you
damaged an engine when a way too thin bore splits and it hydraulic
locks. They'll say 'shoulda got it sonic tested'
GM-H never producec 030 or 060 pistons. *Thousands* of 308s
> have been bored to .060" without consequence (I probably wouldn't go
> this far though). Pro-Strokes 388 stroker is a +060 block.
Just because they advertise it and sell it doesn't mean diddly.
honestly. I've had a block split at a certain oversize, that 'should'
have been safe and the person who supplied the stroker kit (not
pro-stroke) left me hanging. They still advertise last I looked.
Getting the block sonic checked only costs $150 or so (haven't checked
in a while) so why not do it to be sure. for the record I have had
mostly good experience with 308s at 0.040. But I'd still get it checked
if I were you. better to drop the money for the test and know its safe,
or be saved from spending all the money on a block that wouldn't hold up
long term.
> I'm not racing the thing, it won't see past 5000 rpm with me behind the
> wheel so I'm not too worried.
it's not necessarily rpm that will be the issue (at least on a 308,
since it's modest/short stroke and moderate rod length doesn't side load
the bores. What can happen is the bores literally balloon/flex under
combustion pressure, at best causing massive blowby/loss of power. It'll
also use oil. worse still, this oil contamination of the intake charge
can lead to detonation, which ain't great news.
John McKenzie
>
> Thats funny. The Holden V8 has always been a better engine from a
> design point of view that a chev, chrysler or ford V8.
you forgot the smilie. No offence, but in practice the exact opposite is
true.
> Now I'm not saying that in practise a Holden V8 is necessarily better
> or worse than a chev et al but at the time of its release it was better
> than any chev of similar displacement. 308 holden vs 307 chev, I'd bet
> on a 308.
the 307 is a junk motor, made from leftover 283 blocks with 327 cranks.
Small bore, shitful imho. Try apples to apples - the 302 chev.
Noddy
> I figured you'd understand that. :-)
>
> I think that it's the closest comparison I can think of in terms of engine
> design, era and capacity.
Pretty good comparo I thought :)
> Okay. Allow all three to be externally dry sumped to reduce the
> reliability
> problems for the holden. Let's say they all get the same setup.
>
> What breaks next? :-)
Assuming the Chev didn't pull a rocker stud (which would only happen if you
pushed it above 8000rpm), and enough fuel pressure could be kept up to the
Ford, I would expect the plastic to wipe a few cam lobes, spin a main
bearing, throw a balancer, break a piston through the gugeon boss or split a
bore (or possibly a combination of any of those).
But only if it started :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
a9x5l
I'm only talking from personal experience but the only *two* things that I
can come up with that really annoy me about the small block Chev(excluding
the 400, which has other problems unique to its design), and both can of
course be easily fixed, are firstly, the pressed in rocker studs and
secondly, the camshaft has a tendency to walk once the timing chain
develops some wear in it. Oh, if you really want to get picky, add the
cast iron intake manifold, I hate them with a passion on any engine ;-)
Other than these few minor annoyances, I've got to say(and I've had 7
Holden/6 Chev V8 engines over the years) that the Holden motor, while it
can be modified and in some cases, actually out-power the equivalent
capacity Chev, is not even in the same ball park as the Chev when a
comparison is made based on the design, manufacturing tolerances, material
quality and replacement parts costs.
If I had a car that could take either engine without any hassles I'd pick
the Chev every time without hesitation. As much as I don't really mind the
Holden V8, I always get a tingle down my spine when I think about some of
the Chevy's I've had over the years, the power and noise those things can
make is something special and I'm just glad to have been able to
experience it ;-)
--
a9x5l
a9x5l
Fuck, would you shut up with that shit!
I've just done some work on my plastic and I'm hoping(no preying) that
I'll be starting it sometime soon ;-)
--
a9x5l
a9x5l
PRAYING!!!
--
a9x5l
Noddy
> It wasn't a modified copy of the Buick or Olds engine. It was a clean
> sheet design by the same guy as designed one of the others...
Not according to a now retired GMH engineer I used to know. According to
him, the engine originated as a small block Oldsmobile with some Buick
influences.
At the time they were importing crate smallblocks, and it was *way* too
expensive for the volume run of the cars. They had a stable of GM engines to
choose from, and went with the Chev as it was far and away the best engine
choice, but they weren't able to build it locally as GM in the US wasn't the
slightest bit interested in helping them with any tooling or moulds as they
were using as many as they could make themselves in their own market and
ween't going to cut into that in any way by helping out Holden so they could
produce a few thousand engines a year.
The Oldsmobile engine that the plastic originated from (or perhaps was the
"inspiration" for) was largely an unsucessful one in the US that was about
to be shitcanned, and the tooling was up for grabs.
> GM corporate policy also dictated that they must have a unique design.
> The
> corporate policy wouldn't allow them to simply build chevs.
I've never heard of that before.
At the time the plastic was introduced, Holden was still at a point of
having to ask GM for permission for every project, and needed approval from
US Headquarters before anything could go ahead. According to the engineer,
the plastic was never a case of them having to build something unique, but
rather one of the local guys actually wanting to "do it better".
In the end, they varied a bit from the old Olds engine, and "borrowed" some
ideas from Buick, to arrive at what we now know the plastic to be, but they
were never really happy with the final result. It never lived up to
expectations, and came close to being scrapped a few times, but they kept it
running for as long as they possibly could as they'd invested shitloads of
money into the project and needed to recover their costs.
He also said that had Ford never scrapped the locally made Cleveland in the
early 80's, the plastic would have died long before it eventually did, as
it's life was only extended due to a lack of any local competition.
> That is why Ford built them here, but they didn't have to design a
> complete
> new engine, they just borrowed the design from the USA.
Ford did kinda the same thing with the local Clevelands, in that they made
some basic improvements over the US variant.
Ford also got a lot of help from Dearborn in that the Cleveland was already
on the chopping block in the US at around the same time production was going
to start here, and Ford Australia got a lot of tooling as a "gift".
> There's an echo in here. :-)
There is :)
> The 305 is worse. Smaller bore still and longer stroke. Like a stroked
> 253.
> :-)
Do you mind? I just ate :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"a9x5l" <a9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.27....@hotmail.com...
> I'm only talking from personal experience but the only *two* things that I
> can come up with that really annoy me about the small block Chev(excluding
> the 400, which has other problems unique to its design), and both can of
> course be easily fixed, are firstly, the pressed in rocker studs and
> secondly, the camshaft has a tendency to walk once the timing chain
> develops some wear in it. Oh, if you really want to get picky, add the
> cast iron intake manifold, I hate them with a passion on any engine ;-)
Me too :)
The best and easiest mod you can do to any V8 is remove the cast iron intake
and throw it at your neighbour's noisy kids. Whacking on an alloy
after-market almost always imporves performance and/or economy (even with
the very worst ones) and unloads about 40 pounds off the front axle :)
The rocker stud thing is a cheapy deal that was common in most "lo-po" V8
engines. Anything expected to make serious mubo came with screw in studs
from the factory, and while the camshafts can "walk", they can't go very
far.
As bad a state as I've seen some Chev's in, I'm yet to actually see one with
a cam that's dug it's way into the back of the waterpump :)
> Other than these few minor annoyances, I've got to say(and I've had 7
> Holden/6 Chev V8 engines over the years) that the Holden motor, while it
> can be modified and in some cases, actually out-power the equivalent
> capacity Chev, is not even in the same ball park as the Chev when a
> comparison is made based on the design, manufacturing tolerances, material
> quality and replacement parts costs.
Agreed.
> If I had a car that could take either engine without any hassles I'd pick
> the Chev every time without hesitation.
Absolutely.
For the life of me I simply cannot understand why anyone in a situation
where a Chev is a "bolt in deal" would even *consider* a plastic, short of
their project being a concourse restoration. There is no other engine that
comes close to offering the best bang-per-bucks around.
> As much as I don't really mind the
> Holden V8, I always get a tingle down my spine when I think about some of
> the Chevy's I've had over the years, the power and noise those things can
> make is something special and I'm just glad to have been able to
> experience it ;-)
My dislike for the plastic is based purely on what I've seen over the years
in the automotive machinist's trade, or the engine reconditioning business
to be more precise. Of all the "common" engines, the humble plastic was the
absolute worst in terms of quality, tolerances and durability, and by a very
long way. They really were/are junk made from the cheapest crap around, and
it showed up in the machining processes. I used to be able to bore a couple
of Cleveland or Chev blocks before I'd lose the point on the boring bar tool
and need to resharpen it, but I could bore Holden V8's all day long and
never lose the edge at all.
Boring the cast iron of a Holden V8 was like cutting through chalk :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Fuck, would you shut up with that shit!
>
> I've just done some work on my plastic and I'm hoping(no preying) that
> I'll be starting it sometime soon ;-)
Lol :)
May the force be with you :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Toby Ponsenby
> "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4l7n06...@individual.net...
>>
>> "mackeb" <mac...@cen.prendiville.wa.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:1156423741.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Carb choice is still open. I though maybe a 750 holley or a rebuilt
>>> QJet jetted to suit. Any suggestions?
>>
>> Fuel injection. Carbs were ok in 1974 but the world has moved on.
>>
>
> Ain't that the truth.
???
ITYF Carbs were Not ok in 1974.
--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur
Clockmeister
LOL better you invest in a new pair of KT26's too...
Clockmeister
>
> Noddy wrote:
>> "mackeb" <mac...@cen.prendiville.wa.edu.au> wrote in message
>>
>> > Noddy; GM-H produced pistons to .040" so I don't see this as being a
>> > problem.
>>
>> No, you wouldn't.
>>
>> GM-H made the engine in the first place :)
>
> Thats funny. The Holden V8 has always been a better engine from a
> design point of view that a chev, chrysler or ford V8.
Wrong.
> The engine had to be designed to meet some fairly strict guidelines
> like a m aximum dry weight , maximum size etc and reach certain power
> outputs from the two given displacements.
It's made of poor quality plastic.
> Now I'm not saying that in practise a Holden V8 is necessarily better
> or worse than a chev et al but at the time of its release it was better
> than any chev of similar displacement. 308 holden vs 307 chev, I'd bet
> on a 308.
>
I'd pick any Chev over the 308, simply because the Holden 308 is a boat
anchor IMO.
Neil Fisher
considering some belly-button fluf, wrote:
[...]
>
>In fact, the only time the plastic had a chance of winning at all was when
>the oppostion had a penalty against it, either by way of rev limiting or
>weight.
Larry Perkins may disagree. ;-)
Seriously, if you're looking for bang for your bucks, a Chev is
unbeatable. A Ford is probably *worse* than a plastic though, unless
reliability is not a concern.
At the end of the day, if we're talking about *street* cars with
reasonably sensible power and reliability levels, IMO a plastic isn't
as bad a choice as you make out. I mean, sure, it ain't the bee's
knees, I'll give you that, but it's not like it's gonna shit itself in
5km and cost a bomb.
Neil
---
Neil Fisher / Bob Young
Thundercords
personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
Looking for spark plug leads?
Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au
Noddy
"Neil Fisher" <NeilFisher@_NOSPAM_magnecor.com.au> wrote in message
> Larry Perkins may disagree. ;-)
Of course he would :)
Long distance events such as Bathurst have never really been about the "best
car winning", as the race can be won or lost by any number of circumstances
that have very little to do with the actual car that wins.
Still, in having said that, Larry had a gift that year with the 7500rpm
maximum rev limit, as his plastic wouldn't reliably go beyind that while the
Chev's would happily see 8000 and beyond all day and make an additional 50
or so horses.
He even admitted as much himself by saying that he stuck with the plastic to
take advantage of the rpm limit rule.
> Seriously, if you're looking for bang for your bucks, a Chev is
> unbeatable. A Ford is probably *worse* than a plastic though, unless
> reliability is not a concern.
Clevelands have taken a real nose dive in recent years in the poluarity
stakes, whereas both Windors and Holden V8's are becoming much better
catered for by after-market suppliers.
> At the end of the day, if we're talking about *street* cars with
> reasonably sensible power and reliability levels, IMO a plastic isn't
> as bad a choice as you make out. I mean, sure, it ain't the bee's
> knees, I'll give you that, but it's not like it's gonna shit itself in
> 5km and cost a bomb.
You're right, and I'm not really saying that they would.
What I *am* saying that as an engine they are *very* piss poor in terms of
material integrity and durability, and they have some pretty common issues.
Sure, you can do a hell of a lot to avoid some of these complaints, and
there's been some people who certainly have been successful with them, but
at the end of the day they're still an average engine instead of a very good
one.
Personally, I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole while there are still
Chev's available, even if that meant going through the hassle of fitting one
to a Commodore (which would be something I'd probably never do).
--
Regards,
Noddy.
John McKenzie
>
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 06:31:53 GMT, "Noddy" <dg4...@dodo.com.au>, after
> considering some belly-button fluf, wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >In fact, the only time the plastic had a chance of winning at all was when
> >the oppostion had a penalty against it, either by way of rev limiting or
> >weight.
>
> Larry Perkins may disagree. ;-)
best boardroom engineer ever :)
Neil Fisher
considering some belly-button fluf, wrote:
[...]
>You're right, and I'm not really saying that they would.
I s'pose you're not, but can you forgive me for thinking that you
were?
>
>What I *am* saying that as an engine they are *very* piss poor in terms of
>material integrity and durability, and they have some pretty common issues.
>Sure, you can do a hell of a lot to avoid some of these complaints, and
>there's been some people who certainly have been successful with them, but
>at the end of the day they're still an average engine instead of a very good
>one.
There are plenty of average engines out there, and you're certainly
right that the 308 is one of them. IMO, the huge advantage of the SB
Chev is *not* that it's a great engine, but that there have been
*shitloads* of the suckers made, and there are *shitloads* of quite
cheap aftermarket bits for them that address pretty much all of the
problems you might come across when using one.
>
>Personally, I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole while there are still
>Chev's available, even if that meant going through the hassle of fitting one
>to a Commodore (which would be something I'd probably never do).
Poof. ;-) I thought you'd be prepared to build a you-beaut one just
because everyone told you it couldn't be done.
Noddy
> You realise that the main problem with fitting a chev to a commode is the
> steering rack in the way of the oil pump, don't you?
Yeah, it always has been.
> I suggested to Shane Hurenkamp years ago that ho look at transplanting the
> front
> struts and steering from a 2-series Volvo into an early commode because
> the
> designs are quite similar but the Volvo has a front-mount steering rack...
> Never did hear how he went with it.
>
> Right now, I'd probably consider a 1JZ-GTE or 2JZ-GTE as a better option
> in a
> commode than any V8.
Perhaps.
Boxed GenIII's are getting pretty cheap now, and the list of fancy-shmansy
"go bits" available increases everyday.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Neil Fisher" <NeilFisher@_NOSPAM_magnecor.com.au> wrote in message
> I s'pose you're not, but can you forgive me for thinking that you
> were?
No :)
> There are plenty of average engines out there, and you're certainly
> right that the 308 is one of them. IMO, the huge advantage of the SB
> Chev is *not* that it's a great engine, but that there have been
> *shitloads* of the suckers made, and there are *shitloads* of quite
> cheap aftermarket bits for them that address pretty much all of the
> problems you might come across when using one.
I agree to a point.
The Chev's are actually significantly better in terms of materials,
particularly blocks, cranks & rods. The alos have a "bulletproof from the
factory" lubrication system that the plastic cold only ever dream of, and
the list of factory "good" bits is quite impressive in itself.
> Poof. ;-) I thought you'd be prepared to build a you-beaut one just
> because everyone told you it couldn't be done.
Lol :)
I don't mind some dunny's, but I've never been a huge fan and have never
actually owned on as a personal car. If I was to it'd be just that, a daily
driver and not something that I'd want to "project". As nice as I think some
particular ones have been, the only thing built recently that would make me
half interested in putting time & money into would be a Monaro.
And with the projects and odd jobs I've got on at the moment, I can't see
that happening in this lifetime :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Fraser Johnston
>
>> Personally, I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole while there are still
>> Chev's available, even if that meant going through the hassle of fitting one
>> to a Commodore (which would be something I'd probably never do).
>
> steering rack in the way of the oil pump, don't you?
>
> front
> struts and steering from a 2-series Volvo into an early commode because the
> designs are quite similar but the Volvo has a front-mount steering rack...
> Never did hear how he went with it.
>
> Right now, I'd probably consider a 1JZ-GTE or 2JZ-GTE as a better option in a
> commode than any V8.
Turbo RB series nissan engine with a VL cross brace.
Fraser
Fraser Johnston
> Fraser Johnston <fra...@jcis.com.au> wrote:
>> "Athol" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> Right now, I'd probably consider a 1JZ-GTE or 2JZ-GTE as a better option in
>>> a
>>> commode than any V8.
>
>> Turbo RB series nissan engine with a VL cross brace.
>
Why? There is a few 1000hp stroker RB26DETTs out there? From an RB30 with an
RB25DET head conversion 500 hp is pretty easy to get. With plenty of torque.
Fraser
John McKenzie
Not that I want to shit on the rb, but the 1j is a stronger bottom end
imho. The port layour on them is weird though.
Of course the running joke on the jyturbo list used to be 'what do an
800bhp, a 900bhp and a 1000bhp supra all have in common? A: a 12 second
1/4mile' which is some indication of the level of bullshitting that goes
on with _some_ owners of japanese rocket 6s
Fraser Johnston
"John McKenzie" <jm...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:4506C9...@alphalink.com.au...
> Fraser Johnston wrote:
>>
>> "Athol" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:11580487...@idlwebserver.idl.com.au...
>> > Fraser Johnston <fra...@jcis.com.au> wrote:
>> >> "Athol" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Right now, I'd probably consider a 1JZ-GTE or 2JZ-GTE as a better option
>> >>> in
>> >>> a
>> >>> commode than any V8.
>> >
>> >> Turbo RB series nissan engine with a VL cross brace.
>> >
>> > I had one customer who did that in a VK, then upgraded to a 1JZ.
>>
>> Why? There is a few 1000hp stroker RB26DETTs out there? From an RB30 with
>> an
>> RB25DET head conversion 500 hp is pretty easy to get. With plenty of
>> torque.
>>
>
> Not that I want to shit on the rb, but the 1j is a stronger bottom end
> imho. The port layour on them is weird though.
>
> Of course the running joke on the jyturbo list used to be 'what do an
> 800bhp, a 900bhp and a 1000bhp supra all have in common? A: a 12 second
> 1/4mile' which is some indication of the level of bullshitting that goes
> on with _some_ owners of japanese rocket 6s
Yep. The Supra 1JZ is a brilliant engine. Probably better than the RB because
of it's displacement. But the RB goes into a Commode a lot easier.
Fraser