home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!emory!rsiatl!hotrod
- From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
- Subject: rod side clearance
- Message-ID: <bvtrgsr@dixie.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 00:49:39 GMT
- Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access. The Mouth of the South.
- To: hotrod@dixie.com
- Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
- Posted-Date: Saturday, Jan 02 19:49:35
- X-Sequence: 3158
- X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
- X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu
- Approved: jgd@dixie.com
- Lines: 65
-
-
- I came across something interesting the other day.
-
- With relatively minor modifications, the 6.0 inch Olds rods will work
- in a small block Chevy.
-
- The conversion involves bushing the small end down to Chevrolet pin
- size, then turning the Chevy crank .007 undersize, and running .030
- undersize Olds bearings. Unless you can find .040 bearings somewhere,
- you're limited to one try with this setup.
-
- The only real problem is the slight difference in rod widths - the Olds
- rods are about .010 narrower than the Chevy rods. That's an increase of
- .020 on the rod side clearance.
-
- Now, most of the references I have vary madly all over the place as far
- was what the "correct" rod side clearance is. I can't find any mention
- in any official GM stuff I have, but Jenkins recommends .020. Tearing
- down a 262, a 307, and a 350 - none having been rebuilt - I found the GM
- clearances to run between .006 and .009. That indicates I'd be looking
- at around .030 side clearance. That looks a little wide to me.
-
- That leaves widening the rods. The first thought was to braze some
- material to the big ends, then face it off on the lathe. The other was
- to either peen the big ends (doubtful I'd get enough displacement to do
- much) or build a ring-shaped die from tool steel and stamp a ring in the
- side of the rod to displace metal, then face it off.
-
- Frankly, brazing the extra material on looks like the way to go so far,
- unless anyone has any further ideas.
-
- [Brings up a point of question I've had for quite some time. What is
- the reason to worry about side clearance on the con rod big end
- other than to make sure it is not too tight? It is not intrinsicly
- obvious to me and I've never been given a reason other than something
- that invariably boils down to "that's the way we've always done it."
- JGD]
-
- -------
-
- Now, some of you might be wondering exactly what I'm doing here, and
- who don't I want to shell out $450 to $650 for a set of cheap aluminum
- or steel 6.0 inch rods. It's because of the 262, you see. I can bore
- it out .060 to take 305 standard bore pistons, which have a much higher
- pin height. Then I can use the six inch rods, and turn the lip around
- the dish of the piston off on the lathe, and wind up with a flat top,
- high pin piston. Assembled, I'd have a flat top, 6.0 rod, 3.73 x 3.1
- motor of 272 cubes, an interesting replacement for the 235 six in the
- Bel Air. The six has enough power (I know, it's time for my medication
- again) but the gas mileage stinks. The small V8 would certainly get
- more than 14.5, particularly with an Offy Dual port and AFB or an old
- Cross-Fire TBI setup (remember those small runners?) Besides, once I
- figured out all the parts would fit, how could I resist?
-
- Oh, yeah - to retrofit the late model hydraulic rollers, all you have
- to do is fabricate three standoffs (like PC board standoffs) to hold the
- late lifter retainer plate, then add a generic cam thrust bumper. The
- extra-deep lifter bores on the late blocks basically don't do anything -
- the lifter never even comes to the top, much less past it. Of course,
- once I tracked down everything and figured it out, I found that Crane is
- already making a retrofit kit. <sigh>
-
-
- ----------
- Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
-