Does anyone know, offhand, which rods work with the 305 Chevy pistons?
Depends on the compression height of your pistons. I like the flattops for 6" aftermarket Chevy rods. I think they have 1.25 pin height. 5.7 stock length early Chevy rods 305 piston 1.55 pin height. You want to get as close as you can to zero deck height. The Chevy rods have to be milled .050 each side of the big end and the bearing tang notches redone for the Buick bearings.
Thanks for the info, Jim. Somewhere, I have that old HR magazine with all the rod and piston combos, but I can't put my hand on it. I started out to build the old 215 I've had for 30 years, but it may be getting out of hand. I am looking for 425 HP. I have a 3.9 Rover TPI unit, and a pair of KKK turbos, and a roller cam blank from The Wedge Shop. The Silvolite pistons might not be up to the stress. There is a set of TRW forged 305 standard pistons on Ebay, and a set of Scat H-beam rods for small journal Chevy. Probably would be a good investment, since it cost almost nothing to sleeve a block.
Larry, "It cost almost nothing to sleeve a block", please explain ? The best sleeves are flanged, and are easily $30+/ea. Finding a shop that will properly heat the block,for exact interference fit, is difficult to find,(lack of experience). Locktite "620" is suggested. Your results may vary. Good Luck, roverman.
From D&D's website...
http://www.aluminumv8.com/tech/tech.htm
Flanged sleeves are nice, with a light slip fit, the way they are designed to be installed. However, the heat transfer to the block from the sleeve is pretty miserable. When a sleeve is pressed into the block with the proper lubricant, the heat transfer to the block is approximately ten times as good as hot dropped. This information came from Outboard Marine Corporation and research they did when they started installing sleeves after the aluminum block is cast. In this case, I have had the sleeves over 20 yrs., and I am the machinist that will install them, and you can sleeve 2 cyl. with one long sleeve cut in half.
Larry, Please let us know your results,(perhaps a demo)? What is your target interferance fit ? Thanks, roverman.
Forever, the sleeve manufacturers have sized the sleeves for .003 interference. The current thinking is that .003 is neither necessary or desirable. It introduces too much stress and distortion into the block. Installing a sleeve at .003 interference will distort the adjacent cylinder over .001. I prefer .0005 interference. With the sleeve sitting on a ledge at the bottom of the bore, and the head gasket fire ring bearing on the top, It's not going antwhere.
Larry, What lubricant /adhesive do you use(Hylomar,Locktite,etc.)? Where do you get the sleeves? I always thought, how could the Rover sleeves move? Because of lack of quality control the step on the bottom is too low or sleeves too short? You might be able to pull the stock sleeves and deck the block and make sure the sleeves are reinstalled all the way to the step and then deck the sleeves. I have a previous thread on here detailing using locktite and pinning the sleeves to the block.
Since I am new here, I just read the thread about pinning the sleeves. I don't understand how this condition can occur. The piston sits on a ledge at the bottom, and the head bears on the gasket fire ring which bears on the sleeve top. This could not allow the sleeve to "rattle up and down against the fire ring". There is a situation which occurs with "hot dropped" sleeves that might explain what is happening. The block can be heated to 400F and a room temp sleeve installed in the block. When the assembly cools, it leaves the sleeve slightly above the ledg e in the block. If the sleeve is not rapped down aga.inst the ledge before the machine work is finished, it will drop down from the block expansion and the force of the head and gasket fire ring. The lube OMC used is what I also use. It is a food-grade lubricant called Acculube LB5000.
Thanks, Larry! I still am Interested in what you use for sleeves. I thought about using iron or steel pipe 1/8" thick for sleeve material. After all it is going to be finish honed anyway. Or reusing stock sleeves after block is decked. I think I would use at least .001 interference. I agree.002-.003 is too much and can cause distortion. There are a lot of Rover 4.0 and 4.6 crossbolted blocks going to waste. Someone should get a rover block with slipped sleeves and measure the sleeve length and distance from deck to bottom step. Should be the same so sleeves can't rattle up and down. Now if we can find someone to offset grind the 4.6 crank cheaply for strokers that would be great!
The sleeves are no problem. They are made by many engine parts manufacturers, like Melling, Federal Mogul, Wiseco,Mahle, and others. And they are cheap. They are available by size, and come in several thicknesses, depending on the condition of the cylinder that you are sleeving. I have installed a sleeve in a sleeve on small diesel engines with catastrophic cylinder damage. (Large portion of the cylinder wall missing ) That is 2 eighth inch thick sleeves for a total of quarter inch thick cylinder wall. Most castiron engine blocks have quarter inch thick cylinder walls. It's always better to deck the block after the sleeves are installed and seated and finish bored. Oh, by the way, the sleeves come unfinished, with a .030 allowance on the inside. They are centrifugally cast and have a 200 BH hardness.
Not sure who has read this.
http://robisonservice.blogspot.com/2010/04/last-word-on-land-rover-liner-failures.html
Carl, Thanks for the article! I know Cadillac uses an O ring on the bottom of the sleeve. About the same bore size also. As far as the taper on top, I wonder if you turned the liners around you would have a flat surface to seal against the head gasket. I would still use Hylomar or Loctite for sealer on the sleeves. Looks like 2000 and up sleeves don't move but still leak by the taper on top of sleeve because of crack behind sleeve. I thought the crack was from too long of head bolt so I would use older style bolts with washers or studs.
I don't understand about the "taper on the top". Exactly where do these cracks occur?
Larry, For some reason the sleeves Rover used in the 3.9,4.0 and 4.6 have a angle on the top edge. The cylinder wall is thinner when they went to 94mm(3.7") bore. The headbolts are non reusable angle torque stretch type. I recommend the older headbolts with washers or studs as I think the newer ones are too long and bottom out the threads and cause the crack behind the liner. Then you have a coolant leak between the sleeve and cylinder up to the head where the sleeve doesn't seal because of the taper. The earlier than 2000 sleeves did move because they were shorter or the block bored deeper than the newer ones. I've seen them 1/4" below the deck. I'm trying to figure out a economical fix to the problem and make available 4.0 and 4.6 blocks rather than scrapping them. With the expense to do the flanged liners you could have bought another short block.
Larry and clan, IMHO, installing a 1/8" wall flangeless sleeve, with 94+ mm bore,will render it "WET" 100% of the time! Are you prepaired for this ? "MID" sleeves are a different animal. 215's and RV8's are not designed for wet sleeves-period. (1) wet sleeve RV8, has been built with "some" success,(see rally TR7-Mikes post). It uses cast iron heads to strengthen the RV8 decks, severly weakened with wet sleeves/4.020" bores. Good Luck, I suspect you'll need it, roverman.
Art, I agree, I plan on using stock 4.0/4.6 sleeves bored out .036 to 305 Chevy standard size. Have you pulled out a stock sleeve? Is it flat on the bottom? If so I'm thinking Caddy O ring/Hylomar on bottom, Loctite on top, sleeve flipped around and block decked.
I am using 3 3/4" nominal bore sleeves with 3/32" wall thickness. That doesn't get into the water jacket. The sleeves installed with .0005 to .001 interference fit and pressed in against a ledge, with Acculube lubricant will not leak. There is actually no real way for leaks to occur if the machine work is properly done.
For the record, 94mm bore, .060" wall oem RV8 blocks, crack and leak between block and sleeve, way too frequently. Larry, you'll be removing approx .059" MORE per side, than a standard 94mm RV8. Please enlighten how you will succeed, where all others have failed ? Once you remove the old sleeves, and then sonic test the remaining aluminum walls, core shift will be apparent. Block castings are approx 28 ksi.ut., with low mallebility and high willingness to crack.You might pm Tim Lanocha, about his 4.02" bore, RV8. roverman.
I have just one question, and it is one you really should take seriously. Is all of this really worthwhile for an 80 lb weight advantage? Because that is the difference between a BOPR block and a 300 Buick iron block, and even less for the later Rover blocks which weigh more. A 300 block can easily be built as a 5.6 or a 5.7 liter engine using the 350 Buick crank. The block is stiffer/stronger and will handle 700 hp without reinforcements. The threads will not pull out. Torquing of fasteners is more positive. Reliability is improved. Fit and appearance is almost identical. If you really want it to look like an aluminum block you can have it ceramic coated.
To my mind it is the obvious choice for a big inch motor. Why build a Dixie cup when you can have something reliable?
OTOH if max hp and minimum weight is your game, it would seem that either the LS or turbo4 is the way to go. YMMV
Jim
Why not a 300? For starters, I like the characteristics of a shorter stroke (2.8" vs 3.36") and I like later-model Rover intake manifolds (for EFI). One day I'll build a new short-block and I might have it sleeved/bored for 3.75" (Chevy 305) or 3.78" (Ford 2.3 Turbo) pistons - so I've been very interested in this thread.
Plus thousands of crossbolted blocks going to waste! Curtis, you need one of the latest 3.9 that had the casting for crossbolts. There is enough meat in the stock sleeves to go .036 over for standard 305 pistons. I think if we put our heads together we will find a solution on the sleeves. Rover dropped the ball on that. The 300 Buick is great, I just wish they made more of them.
Jim B., perhaps we can have a write-up of this 700 hp.,300" sbb, with NO reinforcements" ? Who built it ? Got dyno sheets and durability ? Is it possible this is derived from "Buick V8 forum, bench racing developement" ? Availability of these oem. pieces that will reliably sustain these impressive #'s ? Cheers, roverman.
Like Curtis, I prefer the short stroke engine in a MGB. Feels proper for the sports car character.
Over the past several years I have pondered how to best do better pistons for my 3.9 project. I have spent hours pouring thru piston catalogs, calculating different rod lengths to match the compression height, etc. Keith Black 305 Chevy pistons, small journal 6.0 Chevy rods machined .050 each side with bearings dressed to match. Bore the block, cross your fingers. What a pain. May be cheaper & faster to just order overpriced custom pistons and be done with it.
Or, skip the whole thing & jump on the LS bandwagon. I would do it with some sort of 4.8L mongrel since it is the shortest stroke LS.
Okay, it was a bit more than a few years ago. This was an exchange from the Buick Rover V8 email list over 8 years ago:
Keith: Hey all, Currently taking a 3.9 0.020 over. I'm interested in opinions and experiences of high compression pistons for this -- at least higher compression than the wimpy Range Rover pistons!
Carl: I have spent waaay tooo many hours looking thru piston catalogs trying to find an alternative for those truck slugs. I believe I actually hit on something.
Since the compression height seems to be the problem, I found a piston that would fit in the 3.9 bore, then started working on stroke & rod lengths to get the piston up closer to the top of the deck.
My solution: 305 Chevy piston with a 6" Chevy rod. This combo will put the piston .001" above the deck. Check out the specs on the KB145 piston
(hypereutectic, not forged) and try out the calculators at United Machineswebsite:
[kb-silvolite.com]
By shaving the top of the piston (or not), like Glenn mentioned, I should be able to have anywhere from 10 to 11.5:1.
BTW, I'm using the newer, small cc heads. You may need to shave your's a bit or use a thinner head gasket.
I ran this by Dan LaGrou. He said he hasn't tried this combo, but thought it would work.
Keith: Fantastic lead! I'll run this by my machinist...
Are any mods needed for the 6" Chevy rod? I'm sure those are pretty common.
When was the change to the smaller combustion chambers made? I'm mostly familiar with the 3.5 and '89-'90 3.9 engines... and far more familiar with Austin "A" and "B" series engines.
Carl: I am currently running a '63 215, but I have 2 '89 3.9L blocks (& pieces parts).
A stock small block Chevy rod is a 5.7" The 6.0" is an aftermarket rod commonly used in performance circles. Some brands and types (aluminum or forged) are quite pricey. We aren't building an all out racing engine (at least, I'm not or I would find a forged piston, too). Therefore, we can use the budget rods, like Eagle & Scat. I'm leaning toward the Scat because the small journal is only available in the more expensive H-beam. Which, I failed to mention. Older small block Chevys (283, 327) used a small journal crank (2.0"), others used a large journal (later 327, 350, 400). We need the small journal as it matches the Buick/Rover. The Chevy rod is .100" thicker than the Buick/Rover so .050" must be machined off each side of the big end.
The heads on the new 4.0 & 4.6 are factory built to compensate for the thicker composite head gasket. I played around with the calculators and to get the compression number you want, you will have to use the thin steel head gasket or skim the head a bit. Or use KB143 & be right at 11:1. Be sure to check valve to piston & rod to block clearances.
Another important number for your machinist: Deck Height is 8.960" on a stock, never decked block (per Dan La Grou).
Good luck!
Carl
I suppose you could destroke a 300 as well as any other engine. You'd need main bearing spacers to fit the 215/3.5 crank, but the bores are integral to the block so there are no liner issues. A 3.80" bore is usually pretty reasonable.
Art, you don't have to believe me. You spend time on the Buick forum. and you've read what those boys have done with the SBB. You also know that there isn't a whit of difference between a 300 block and a 350 that would affect how much power the block can handle, and that with boost and nitrous you can still exceed what the equipment will bear. So quit busting my chops on this OK? ;-)
Jim
Destroke a 300? Hmm.
The 4.0L Rover has larger mains than the 215/3.5/3.9. May be the same as the 300. Be fun to play around with the numbers.
Yep, same mains. Could be interesting!
http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/40difference.htm
I guess I wandered off a bit, but these subjects are conducive to that. What I have exactly, is a 1963 Olds Jetfire block. Sleeves are grooved o.d. and cast in place. I have had it 30 yrs. I am putting 3/32 sleeves in the block. Had them 20 yrs. Using 6" forged H beam small-journal sbc rods and TRW forged std. 305 Chevy pistons. Landrover heads with lower head bolt added. Would like to use all 6 head bolts, but heads would have to be modified. Front cover from Buick 3800 series II. Northstar dis ignition. Landrover 4.0 intake manifold and fuel injection system modified for dual throttlebodies. Twin KKK turbos with water-alcohol injection. And the roller cam that I bought, as soon as I can decide how it should be ground for this set-up. I will have to make the girdle myself, Art, on a Bridgeport, since that is what I have. Then, a hacked-up GM LS ecm to control the mess.
All of this goes into a 2700lb. Fiero.
As for the sleeves and the leaks, the only reason for a leak is if there is no head gasket that the firering will bear on the top of the sleeve. A lot of the large diesel engines have wet sleeves and no top seal at all except the head gasket. I am an automotive machinist, and sleeve engines everday, some with large pieces of the cylinder wall missing from catastrophic damage, and never have leaks. I have not done late model Rover blocks, but they are just engines. I will call Lee, at English-Swedish Spares near Atlanta, (good source for parts) and get my hands on one of those blocks. 4.0 ? What years?
The Rover 4.0 is regarded as the one with the most sleeve issues. It was built from 1995 to 2003.
Jim B., not wishing to bust anyones chops, but if you feel slighted, I apollogize. I felt to be asking pertinent questions of a presented build, that seems to be elusive. Back in 82', I put a 300" crank,(std mains), in a 215 Buick. I wanted the stronger crank,(crank pin overlap). This resulted in making billet 7075 T6 main caps, with studs. Re-sleeved block with 305" sbc forged pistons, big valve 64' sbb heads. A lot of work, with a reliable result,(likely around 300 hp) ? Cheers, roverman.
It's all good Art. You know I have not built that engine but the drag racers on BuickV8 have gotten up to as much as a thousand horsepower out of their SBB 350s (700 on Sean's turbo'd stock motor that wasn't even torn down for freshening up beforehand I believe) and it is the same block as the 300 except for the bore, the deck height, and the lifter spacing. But it's worth noting that Perry S. has now hit over 500 with his 3.9 Rover as well. My efforts are small potatoes by comparison. I'm perfectly happy with what I got out of the 215 which I guestimated at around 300 hp. That's my target for the 340 also, and since I don't know a dyno guy I'll just compare it to how the 215 ran and if it does that good or better I'll be happy. I think an honest 300 hp at the rear wheels is more than plenty for a street driven MGB.
Larry, you might need wheelie bars on that Fiero. ;-)
Jim
Underestimate & overdeliver, Jim? :)
I think 300 RWHP is plenty, as well. Until Calvin motors by on the long straightaway.
Actually, I am a very careful, conservative driver. The car has a 4 spd., but I am changing to automatic. If I were looking for big inches and big torque, and cast iron, I would build a 427 sbc with a turbo and nitrous. (YUK!) If I had my druthers, I druther have a Lamborghini. (but I don't) What I do have is a pile of oddball somewhat unique parts, some of which I have had for years, that I am go
ing to build a small, lightweight, powerful, reliable engine with. And besides, it will give me an incentive to set up my chassis dyno.
Carl! Surely you wouldn't accuse me of sand bagging would you?!!? ;-)
Jim
Let's see, you estimated your old Olds 215/blower combo at 300hp (pretty close, I believe). You wrote on your 340 thread that this combo will have 60% more cubic inches & a 25% increase in supercharger. Mike Moor's Buick 300 has been dynoed at 308 RWHP. You have 40 more C.I. & a blower. Yeah, you're sandbaggin' just a smidge. ;)
Larry don't forget to chamfer side of rod by counterweight for filet clearance, just debur other side.
Thanks, Jim.
I am looking for a piece of 7075 alum. plate to make a girdle for the bottom end, but 6061 is all I have found so far. Prices on ebay not too bad. Have a good day.
Check onlinemetals.com. Did you find out anything about the 4.0 sleeve issue?
Thermal expansion differential, is the biggest problem, with the RV8. Aluminum thermal expands at approx .2.5X that of iron. Sleeves don't initially leak when their cold/warm, but when HOT. The aluminum expands away from the iron sleeve at operating temperature. Any pinholes or cracks, in the aluminum bore, will automatically leak at the top of a non-flanged sleeve.This makes it logical to use Loctite 620, or equivalent, to bond the sleeve to the block. Think about it, when you bore away the strength of the aluminum bore, and use a non-flanged liner, what is left to hold the deck rigid enough, to make a reliable seal ? Woody had plenty of work getting his 4.02" bores to seal. Cheers, roverman.
That would be true if the liners and the aluminum were at the same temperature. There is in actuality a great deal of temperature diferential. On the iron side, you have combustion temperatures of 1000 to 1300F. On the aluminum side, you have a constant flow of 200F coolant. With .002 interference, I'll have to let you calculate the relative expansion, since it is a constant variable from cold side to hot, and my calculus is a bit rusty. Expansion rates are academic if the sleeves are properly installed. The only seal required is the bottom ledge and the fire ring at the top.
re: 4.0 sleeve issue
Jim, I talked to Lee at English-Swedish Spares about the problem, and he had only encountered it once. He is getting me a 4.0 block to play with. It may be a while before I get up there to pick it up.
Thanks,Larry. Real curious as to what you'll find.
As for the original question, the 300 Buick and 225 Buick rods can be used with the 305 SBC pistons with some minor machine work to the wristpin end. Downside, they are still cast "armasteel". But they are cheap.
Larry, An even better choice is the 75-76 231 V6 capscrew rod. Same design as 75-80 350 but, 300 length.
Thanks, Jim. Did not know about that one. Was that all 75-76 231, or just turbo versions?
Larry, All 75-76 Odd Fire 231. No turbo's back then.
Yeah, I guess turbos were a couple of years later.
Those rods were also early 77. Mid 77 went to even fire. The odd fire rods are available here. 6 pack and 2 singles.
http://www.standardcrankshaft.com/connectingrodcatalog.html?sid=4271
Larry, Here's another rod that will work. 80-81 265 and 77-81 301 Pontiac. Same bearing as 215 and 300. Same pin as 305 Chevy. 6.051 long. Cast Armasteel like the Buick rods. You can get ARP bolts, magnaflux, resize, polish and bead blast. I've never had a problem with cast rods unless you are turning 7000 RPM or have over 500 HP. Probably around same strength as 300 rods.
You mentioned the 301 Pontiac rod. I discovered a box of them at the shop today. New, in the package, GM rods. For the Buick people, we have some 350 Buick crate motors. New in the GM crates that got lost in the warehouse at some point. If anyone has any interest, we can probably sell them at a really good price.
Larry, The 301 rods big end is perfect even uses the Buick/Rover bearing. The small end uses the Chevy pin same as 305. The only problem it is .050 longer so you need a shorter pin height piston than the 305. 3300 Buick V6 may work if you bush the rod or bore the piston if there is enough meat there. There may be Dodge/Chrysler ones that could work also.
Larry M., I suggest listing those sbb crate motors with "V8Buick" site. They have a loyal 350 following.
Larry, What would be the price for 8 301 rods? They are the perfect length if used with a Buick 350 crank in 300 block with 305 Chevy .040 pistons
Jim, I will get you a price on a set of rods shipped to Wa. I think I am going to use a set in my engine also. I should be able to adjust stacked length by working with the piston dome.
Larry, I'm thinking for Chris's 300 stroker in B.C. if he can't find the 350 Buick capscrew rods. Build is on the other board, Mgexperience. You wouldn't have 8 of those laying around would you?
Jim, how about $120 + shipping? (Set of eight)
Larry, Thanks. Looks like 2.3 Ford HSC flattop piston(3.68 stock bore) has .050 lower pin height than 305. Stil would have to change pin fit.
Big end of 301 rod is wider than 215, but not as wide as sbc.
Larry,I assumed would be very close, use the same Buick/Rover rod bearing. How much wider? Don't forget to add the crank clearance chamfer.
Jim, I forgot to measure the 301 big end. Something is somewhat troubling about these rods. They really have a bad reputation with the Fiero people. (Same rod as the 2.5L Iron Duke engine.) Has anyone heard of problems with these rods in the Pontiac turbo engine?
I didn't know they were the same as the 4 cylinder rod. I wonder if the bad rep there might be NOS or extreme turbo boost.
Jim, 300 Buick rod b.e. .843, 301 Pontiac b.e. .899.
Larry,Thanks. Did you get a 4.0 block to look at?
No 4.0 yet.
Larry, There appeared to be a problem with the narrow beam on those rods, the 87 and later 2.5 ones would be better as they don't neck down. I wonder if the Turbo 301 used the thicker beam rods before they came out later for the 87 and up 2.5.
Thanks for all the good information and help on the rods. Decided that with all the time and money involved that I would take the safest route. SBC 6" H-beam rods for $210 shipped.
Chinese win again , perhaps it's best ?
The Chinese make things to order for American businessmen. What does that tell you?
Rods look good. Bolts are 7/16 8640. Weight is +- 2 g.