Messages

1

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: November 05, 2016, 03:30:10 PM »

I was thinking 283 bore.

That's what I figured. Many more 284's than 265's being built !

2

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: November 02, 2016, 04:11:11 PM »

bfalfa55 – you know either x or h-pipe is termed a balance pipe as it provides a crossover point to equalize flow side-to-side in a V8.  Engines create exhaust pulses due to firing order and to smooth out these low and high pressure pulses, a balance pipe maybe used to address the backpressure created.  Backpressure simply slows down exhaust flow.

Most agree about x and h pipes and they both relate to sound and power.  X-pipe is higher pitch noise and the h-pipe a deeper tone.  Slight hp gain from x-pipe due to the venturi effect which allows exhaust gasses to exit combustion chamber faster (i.e. scavenging); the more cam duration, the more effective according to the experts.  The 90 degree bend in the h-pipe provides more back pressure which increases low-end torque and maybe important in some cases.

My own experience 18 years ago in 1998, I bought a new Ford f150 and after a year, I had dual exhaust installed with an h-pipe.  Prior to installing the dual exhaust, it ran 15.30-50s around 90mph on test night for fun.  After the new exhaust, it still ran the same et/speed just over 5,500rpm.  Whether you chose x or h or neither, my guess is your ’55 265ci results might be similar.  Although no improvement on the track, it sounded faster.  Alan

Low end torque is always an issue with a 3 stroke engine, so if any balance pipe will help, I will certainly try it. I have extra exhust pipe the same size as what is on it now so it won't cost anything but time.

3

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: November 02, 2016, 04:04:55 PM »

The bore isn't even that big it is 3.81. Standard bore of a 265 is 3.75.  It would neat to see what numbers would come from a dyno run. If I don't get just the engine on a dyno, we have a place local here that has a chassis dyno, so that will be the real tell all.

4

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: October 29, 2016, 10:18:05 AM »

The RPM range I listed for the last cam came from talking with a Lunati rep. The actual range for a 350 chevy was 1,800-5,800, he said the smaller cubes would shift up 500 RPM. Did they give me miss information by telling me the RPM range would increase when it is actually going to decrease ? I have always been under the impression that the range has to increase to get more power out of a small cube engine. This engine will be just below 10.2:1, with the aluminum L98 heads, with 1.94/1.5 valves. With that cam and these heads, do you think it is going to choke cylinder flow by the time it is at 5,000 RPM ?

5

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: October 27, 2016, 04:19:23 AM »

I am interested in hearing why tou feel that would be the case. I am not arguing it, just gathering intelligent opinions.

6

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: October 25, 2016, 03:44:43 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.

7

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: October 03, 2016, 04:57:40 PM »

Thanks Roger, that is what I was hoping to hear. The block has already been decked flat and I got my data from the same calculator from Wallace Racing ! I have been using a number of their stuff online, it seems to be pretty good, better and more consistent than some of the others I have seen and used. If I was trying to squeak out every ounce of juice for a race engine, I might do it. But this being more of a double duty engine, I don't mind some of the trades offs for a little street driving.

8

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: October 02, 2016, 08:06:22 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 ?

9

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: September 27, 2016, 04:12:57 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 ?

10

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: September 04, 2016, 06:10:16 PM »

I posted this before and was hoping I would get some of your thoughts. I have edited it and put a suggested cam from a Lunati rep. on the phone. Let me know what you think.

 http://www.gmperformancemotor.com/parts/10105117.html
I am thinking these gaskets will work well, I just have to get them and make sure they are a match with the areas the original engine owner modified on the top of the cylinder  bores. He scalloped areas to match the head gaskets he was going to use. Not the best thing for a little engine like this but they only take away 2cc's away from my compression but that isn't going to hurt me because I will be at 10.5:1 even with them. I am trying to see if I can just get them from a Chevy dealership parts counter in case they aren't compatible.

These will put me at a .043 quench. I also have a porting question for you guys. The flow numbers I have found for L98 Aluminum heads are just about right for this size engine as they are. Should I clean up all through the ports OR just do enough clean up to true up things and take out the imperfections ? I don't want to take away what little low end torque I will have so this is why I ask.

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.
Voodoo Retro-Fit Hydraulic Roller Cam & Lifter Kit - Chevrolet Small Block 270/278
[​IMG]
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

11

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: August 27, 2016, 10:55:37 AM »

FINALLY a positive, forward update. My oldest daughter is now married, so I can spend some money !

I did a full cc job of my dome pistons in the bore. I will be right in the 10.5:1 compression ration depending on what head gasket I use. I have to use 350 style due to the mods the previous owner did to the top of the bores. So, my question is: what is the thinnest 4.03 bore diameter gasket I can use that will work with my L98 aluminum heads ? If I use a shim style gasket I will be around 10.68:1 if I use a .028 thick gasket I will be around 10.48:1.

I don't care if the gasket is pricey, as long as it won't cause me issues with the aluminum heads.
I also must add, piston is .015 down the bore, so I can't go too thin.

12

Matt Shaff's Engine Shop / Re: The Nostalgic 265 Engine Build

« on: April 12, 2016, 05:57:38 PM »

Thanks for all the engine info. I think I will just stick with what this engine is for my street/strip fun. I am thinking about building some nostalgia race car of some kind. I have more 265's to choose from in the garage !

13

Gassers / Re: New to the site and saying, Hello !

« on: April 09, 2016, 07:25:28 AM »

I look at it this way: This short block was never fired and has a lot of machining work and balancing time in it. I only paid $400 for it. All the other components I put on it or in it, can be put in any other small block if I really want or need to. I know there is no end to how fast you can go (and spend money to do it), I am just interested in seeing it's potential. When I see Super Stock Tri Fives running mid 11's and low 12's under the tight rules they have, making a fun, good running, streetable 265 is that much more fun to me.

14

Gassers / Re: New to the site and saying, Hello !

« on: April 08, 2016, 02:59:18 PM »

Thanks. And I am proud that I built my own jalopy. I just have to get the Raders back from my friend. New rear tires for te Dragmasters, then building the new engine needs to get going.

15

Gassers / Re: New to the site and saying, Hello !

« on: April 06, 2016, 03:18:54 PM »

I know they are not easy to find, I got lucky for the price I paid. The Rader's are 15 x 6's. They were given to me by a friends dad. The steel part was all rust, I blasted and painted them. My car is no show piece, but it looks fine from behind the steering wheel !