PDA

View Full Version : The Way too long 265 Engine Build



bfalfa55
09-13-2016, 06:01 PM
I started thinking about this build 3 years ago because when an old hot rodder I know said "OH, you just have a boring old 350", he got me thinking. I know, no replacement for displacement but I decided to research the crap out of making something different and fun. With massive research, talking to Junior Stocker and Nostalgia Super Stock guys, my goal is to make a mid 13 second power plant for my 55. It will be with modern parts, not an old style Duntov cam style build. It was going to start with a 55 265 block (it is the actual 265 from my dads car in 1960) but I was pursuaded by the racer guys to find a 56 265 block. I found one old balanced race prepped block for the huge price tag of $100 ! Found out it had a cracked piston, no loss we it will be for a future build. Then I found a good deal. I found another 56 block, .060, dome pistons fully balanced and blueprinted for a whopping $400 ! Was going to be built with 601 305 Chevy heads but I came across a cheap set of aluminum L98 heads and they seem to be a better fit for my goal. Plan is for a modern retrofit hydraulic roller cam, engine should be right about 10.5:1. In the future I may adapt an Eaton M112 blower and different heads BUT I have to get off my ass and build it first with a carb.

bfalfa55
09-16-2016, 01:05 PM
I am sure some of you have seen the start of this build on other forums and how I have drug my feet for years to do it but I knew I was in no hurry to do it. I welcome anybody's input and ideas, especially anybody who has tried to get the most potential out of a 265 or 283 using more modern parts and technology. I am not trying to go 10's, just trying to make an impressive, street/strip, fun car for what it is. Opinions wanted and appreciated !

markm
09-16-2016, 01:15 PM
Nothing cooler than a small journal small block built with era correct parts.

bfalfa55
09-16-2016, 01:40 PM
I unfortunately won't be all era correct on parts, the look of the car will be but I will try to subdue the look of some of the non-era parts. I might even paint my L98 aluminum heads chevy orange but who knows. I am going to run ribbed magnesium Vette valve covers on my L98 heads. They have an old look to them even though they are center bold covers. I will have to post a pic of them.

bfalfa55
09-16-2016, 03:18 PM
These are 80's vintage Vette L98 magnesium covers. Someone put a lot of effort to polish them because these are some of the worst castings Chevy ever made. That is why all the covers were painted a gray rough finish. The still have a long way to go. I may actually only finish polishing the tops and blsck wrinkle the sides because they are that crappy. I have removed the vette emblem was thinking of putting 55 vette eblems on them to go with the old theme.6360

markm
09-17-2016, 06:53 AM
Not familiar with L-98 heads, how many cc are they.

bfalfa55
09-17-2016, 08:42 AM
L98 Aluminum heads have 58cc chambers, 1.94 and 1.5 valves, screw in studs and guide plates. These are 1991 version which are the most improved by GM. They are essentially the same aluminum head they put on their ZZ4 crate engines. They have roughly a 1.2 x 1.9 stock intake port at the gasket. I will be opening them up slightly as I don't need or want to go big ports because it will hurt the little engine too much on the low side of power. There are a few aftermarket heads that would be better but with a 265 you are limited because of the small bore. These ported slightly and in just the right places should be a great compliment to this engine.

Rick_L
09-17-2016, 09:51 AM
What's your bore size? Have you checked the intake valve clearance to the cylinder bore?

My thought is that it will clear a .060" over bore, but maybe not .030" over. This is based on trying to run a 2.05" intake valve with a 3.905" bore (283 over .030"). We had to cut the 2.05" valve down to 2.04". I know that's not much, and unfortunately I don't remember what the exact clearance was.

Here's my numbers - a .030 over bore on your 265 means the cylinder moves inward by .0625", and the 1.94 valve means the valve moves inward by .050". This would mean the .030/1.94 combo would have .0125" less clearance than the 3.905/2.04 combo. The .060" over bore on your combo means the bore moves in by .0475", and the valve by .050", and you'd have .0025" more clearance than my old combo. These differences are pretty small and could vary with different blocks and heads, so it would always be wise to check.

bfalfa55
09-17-2016, 10:52 AM
It is .060 over. A 1.94 will work, 2.02 would have to have clearance. Some guys have run these heads on 305's with an over bore. I will certainly check but it should be good based on all the discussions I've had with guys who have built and raced some more radical 265's.

markm
09-17-2016, 06:13 PM
My plan for an early SBC is 57 PP heads with 1.84 HO 305 intake valves. I am sure your plan will make more HP but I am always not looking for max. performance because unlike some on here I have about 10 other cars done and ready to go 24/7. I have two early 70s Camaros set up for strip If I feel the need for speed.

chevynut
09-17-2016, 07:11 PM
unlike some on here I have about 10 other cars done and ready to go 24/7. I have two early 70s Camaros set up for strip If I feel the need for speed.

Sure you do....and not one picture ever posted to prove you own even ONE. LOL!

Maddog
09-17-2016, 08:22 PM
Sure you do....and not one picture ever posted to prove you own even ONE. LOL!


Another stupid remark from chevynutroll

markm
09-18-2016, 07:48 AM
Sure you do....and not one picture ever posted to prove you own even ONE. LOL!

You are really losing it, if you were as smart as you think you are you would remember the pictures I posted form test and tune night at the dragstrip of my 67 SS and 56. I have also posted U Tube clips of my 55 at KKOA. I do not care what someone who does not even have one running car thinks.

chevynut
09-18-2016, 08:19 AM
I guess today I'll go out and wash my 14 Lamborghinis and take my Ferrari Enzo for a spin to blow out the cobwebs. Need to change the oil and filter in my two Porsche GTs later this afternoon and vacuum out my Camaro ZL1 and C7 Corvette Z06. So much to do. :) :D

Sorry, I can't post any pics of any of them because my camera's batteries are dead. But I could probably find pics or videos of other cars like them to post. :eek::D

Have a nice day!

bfalfa55
09-18-2016, 06:10 PM
I am new to the site here but the ranting back and forth REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY ENGINE PROJECT ! Not that I am crying like a little baby because my thread is getting hijacked but YOUR HIJACKING THE THREAD FOR A WHOLE BUNCH OF CRAP ! HOW ABOUT IF YOU DELETED YOUR RESPONSE SO IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE INFORMATION PEOPLE MIGHT LEARN BY READING THIS THREAD IN CASE THEY WANT TO BUILD A 265 ! THANKS !
I would actually like people to offer their thoughts, bench racing and experience to help me out as I would for anybody else who asked me.

To get back to the thread I started so I can get QUALITY INPUT from people, This is the cam I was looking at and ironically it is the exact cam Lunati suggested when I talked to them. Not purchased yet, ordering my gaskets so I can get to porting my heads.
Let me know your thoughts and if anybody has used this cam in an engine build of theirs, I'd like to hear what you ended up with and if you were happy with it.
Voodoo Retro-Fit Hydraulic Roller Cam & Lifter Kit - Chevrolet Small Block 270/278
http://www.lunatipower.com/Media/Images/Medium/Voodoo%20logo_4.jpg (http://www.lunatipower.com/Media/Images/Voodoo%20logo_4.jpg)
Product Description

Lunati’s Voodoo series of camshafts deliver more area under the curve than any other series of camshafts. This means more throttle response, quicker acceleration, more vacuum and better efficiency. These factors, combined with maximum horsepower and torque, make Voodoo camshafts the perfect choice for a wide range of high performance applications.Retro-Fit Hydraulic Roller. Strong power increase in mildly modified engines with excellent throttle response. Will work with stock converter in 383-up c.i.. Likes 2000 RPM converter in 350 or less c.i. applications. Likes 3.23-3.73 gearing. Largest choice for inboard/outboard marine applications. Has noticeable idle and likes headers.



Advertised Duration (Int/Exh): 270/278
Duration @ .050 (Int/Exh): 219/227
Gross Valve Lift (Int/Exh): .515/.530
LSA/ICL: 112/106
Valve Lash (Int/Exh): Hyd/Hyd
RPM Range: 1800-6000
Includes: Cam & Lifters (#72330-16)



Part Number: 20120711LK
Previous Part Number: 60111LK

Jobber Price: $605.56

Rick_L
09-18-2016, 06:48 PM
Your complaints are well taken, you shouldn't have to put up with this BS, especially when it escalates and gets personal not involving you.

The cam specs you have in mind seem to be suitable for what you're trying to do - if you want to drive the car more than race it.

bfalfa55
09-18-2016, 08:31 PM
Thanks Rick_L. I know this wouldn't be all that radical in a bigger engine but it should be healthy in the 265. My car right now has a mild 350, tame enough to drive 7 1/2 hours both way and back from The Meltdown Drags and it ran 13.96 with a quick launch but no hole shot. I may build a full race car one day but one project at a time !

bfalfa55
09-27-2016, 04:39 PM
Alright engine gurus, how close to the bore should the fire ring of your head gasket be to the bore ? Due to the scalloped shapes at the top of my bores, the head gaskets I bought are right at the edge of them. I don't have a picture at the moment but thought I would ask first. I may be limited to a certain bore/combustion chamber shape since this was done to the block, so it brings up another question: How thin of a had gasket can I run with aluminum heads ?

Rick_L
09-27-2016, 05:21 PM
My opinion is that you can use an .015" steel head gasket with your aluminum heads with the fire ring right on the bore if that's what you have. Run the gasket as you would with iron heads, using Permatex Hi-Tack, K&W Copper Kote, or aluminum paint to seal the water passages.

If you were going to be making 600 hp then I'd steer you another direction.

You may see evidence of the heads lifting/moving but you won't see actual compression loss. I have run a thin steel head gasket on a 650 hp drag race engine (but with iron heads) and didn't have a problem. Of course this recommendation requires that your block and heads need to be flat.

If you go with a composition gasket, it will be much thicker and made for a much bigger bore.

bfalfa55
09-27-2016, 06:02 PM
Thanks Rick_L. I am going to have to really inspect it, just did a quick fit. I may have to go thicker to get one that fits, this one might be too close. I messaged the guy I bought the engine from to see if he remembers what gasket part number he used that will match up with it. He raced cars and seemed to remember all he other stuff he always used, so maybe he will remember.

Rick_L
09-27-2016, 07:23 PM
The bores are notched for intake valve clearance? I thought you said you didn't have to do that?

bfalfa55
09-28-2016, 12:28 AM
You don't have to. I The previous owner of the engine head gasket matched the the top of the bores to match his head gasket and the non round side of the combustion chamber, so it isn't really notches for valves. It really isn't the best thing to do on a small bore engine like this, takes away a few points of compression. It is something I have heard of people doing in the past to make a smooth transition from the edge of the combustion chamber to the cylinder but I have heard mixed feedback on whether it really makes a difference. Take a look at the attached picture and you should be able to see t.

bfalfa55
10-02-2016, 08:37 AM
I reordered my gaskets and will have to run a 4.125 bore, .039 gasket. This will give me a .054 quench and 10.15:1 comp. Taking .010 more off the block will put me at .044 and right about 10.5:1. I don't know if doing that is worth it or not for the effort. Thoughts ?

Rick_L
10-02-2016, 05:31 PM
It's really a hard call. Less quench will get you some detonation protection, even with slightly more compression. But you're still losing out to the big bore gasket. Is it worth the extra cost? Hard to say.

Have you actually measured everything so that you know for sure what the compression ratio is? For instance, those notches and having to use a 4.125" bore gasket gives you a LOT of extra volume. Have you exhausted every possible source for a thinner 4.125" bore head gasket?

The really right way would be to replace the block, getting rid of the notches, and enabling you to run a head gasket for a smaller bore that's also thin enough to get the right quench height.

bfalfa55
10-02-2016, 06:58 PM
Yeah the calculations are all as correct as I can be. I do have another block but it is a standard bore and would need to be completely done from scratch. My son and I were actually going to save that one for a future project. If I deck the block .010 more I can get in the best quench range and boost up the comp. to right around 10.5:1 with that gasket still. I may opt to do that.

bfalfa55
10-02-2016, 07:02 PM
Also, I am not worrying about the block. In the future, if I go with a small blower, those notches will mean even less.

bfalfa55
10-25-2016, 03:42 PM
Based on where my cam RPM range is 2,300-6,300 RPM, .218/.228 duration @ .050, .503/.503 lift. 112 LSA hydraulic roller, do any of you think I will benefit from an X pipe or an H pipe in my 2 1/4 inch exhaust system ? I read some conflicting information as to how it may benefit or hurt my little 265. I would like to hear your suggestions or if you think it isn't worth the effort at all.

Rick_L
10-25-2016, 04:49 PM
Before we get into the X pipe, keep in mind that the advertised rpm range for your cam is probably based on a much bigger engine, likely a 350. But it's still not all that big, but I don't know where they get that 2300 rpm starting point, it's probably a lot higher for a 265.

I've never seen any claims that X pipes are bad for small engines or certain cam choices. Their main benefit is a small torque increase that starts at low rpm and continues through the power band. Plus an X (or H) pipe changes the exhaust note. How can this be bad for you? Unless you don't like the sound.

X pipes started getting attention in the early 90s when the Winston Cup car driven by Sterling Marlin (Kodak #4) ran very well at the restrictor plate races at Daytona and Talladega and had a distinctive sound. This was a relatively low rpm engine by the standards of the day (and today). Not much more power than you'll have, and not much more rpm.

bfalfa55
10-25-2016, 05:17 PM
The advertised RPM range for the cam is actually 1,800-5,800. The Lunati rep. said a 300-500 RPM addition to the range for my 265. I am not worried about it changing the exhaust note. I am just trying to get all I can. I will actually be glad if it runs better than it sounds, it will be more impressive to me.

markm
10-26-2016, 08:48 AM
I have never found any magic bullets when it came to exhaust.

bfalfa55
09-13-2017, 03:53 PM
Well it is still the too long 265 build mainly due to the fact that I am having issues finding a shop that will do the little things I need done. Every shop seems to want to do a full build. I did another mock up for the blower. I got rid of my Edelbrock C26 manifold and found an old Crossfire injection manifold for cheap. Nice flat surface to work with. Have the blower setting on plexiglas now and YES that is the hated Quadrajet on top. If you are going to build the engine everyone says not to build, you might as well build it with the carb everyone loves to hate too!
7726