Lmao isint it? I guess something else drives the oil pump then... Lmfaoo

 

To the OP. Reindex the cam. Get everything adjusted and let us know what happens!

 

Do you even know what drives the oil pump? By the way, the oil pump does not have to be set in sync with the cam or crank.

What you have basically done here is prove my point. The cam and ignition timing MUST be in PROPER sync!

Thanks!

 

I just read the Bad *** timing article it has some very good info in there.It was very easy to understand and gave me a lot to think about.And I can't believe I read this whole thread.But I see that GREGGPENN and I have a lot of the same issues with our motors.Mine is a built 400 small block.

 

First, I'm sorry that your simple questions resulted in such a long thread without answering your questions.

I have seen advancing or retarding the cam as a common practice to tune a cam to a desired state. For effects of cam timing see: http://www.compcams.com/Pages/413/ca...ion-angle.aspx

I am not certain how much is too much advance on the cam. I suspect that 8 degrees may be enough that you might have been better with a different cam (but may still work fine), but at 4 degrees advanced it may be "tuning" the cam and should shift the power band a little lower as you stated in your post as a torque monster and any loss of high rpm power doesn't seem to be an issue if you are only running to 4 or 5k rpm.

I have not heard one way or another that the advanced cam will create an overheating condition.

If you are having a heat problem when the AC is on during the summer, I would look at whether the AC is turning on the fan like it is supposed to or if it is not functioning. It should turn on when the AC is turned on.

Since it is common to "tune" the cam to fine tune the performance rpm, I would ask whether you are happy with the performance? If you are happy with the performance there may not be a need to set the timing on the cam again.

If you like the performance, then simply address the heat. Check the fan function, and make sure no blockages to air flow through the radiator. Sometimes a "wetter" additive in the coolant helps too. Higher power engines make more heat and overbored engines put more heat into the coolant. So it may be that a larger radiator could be a good option.

As with any engine changes, you will need to set the ignition timing to get the best performance without pinging.

Good luck.

 

To anyone reading and wonder IF I'm a total idiot (since I haven't posted as much in the past 2-3 years), I'm definitely not the smartest but I understand quite a bit after building a stroker, learning ODB1 programming, etc...

I did some polishing, custom fab, and, essentially was building an exclusive "street motor"....







And, in addition to these more finished pics, I found a few of the build. I will post those after uploading. (Maybe someone will notice something related to this recent (set of) topics.

 

Agreed about the 8 degrees. I should probably pull the valve covers and see if I can use the timing mark and/or degree wheel to determine how it's set.

I already have a Champion dual-row all-alum radiator. Fans are working correctly. I just want to PREVENT temps from creeping above 205-210 -- if possible. In essences, that's BETTER control that the 89 L98 was delivered from the factory. It's where I think I should be considering my dynamic compression SHOULD be a good bit higher than stock -- after converting to a stroker, modest street cam, 5.7" rods, and advanced cam orientation.

So people know, I shaved the Eliminator heads (to the low 50's) before deciding to go with a whole new block. Because of that, I felt it safer to select dish pistons to keep compression out of the clouds. Had I decided on a stroker from the start, I would have gone with flat-tops and the standard 65cc setup. That said, dish pistons ARE supposed to create the best, small "fireball" and therefore, efficient combustion chamber. (That's according to SOME theory...LOL).

The good news was I save a ton of money on the dish setup -- which paid me back for the head decking costs. At the worst, it was a wash.

More pics from the build. To the builders, do you have any comment about removal of weight from the crank counter-weights?

Wish I could tell from the degree-wheel pic how the cam was oriented! :-)

 

Dang ... are you using floating wrist pins ?

 

What damper are you using and what is the diameter of it?You mentioned in your thread you had a slight vibration in your engine.Very nice looking engine.

 

The pistons were one of the best parts of the build. As I mentioned (above), I ended up needing to buy dished pistons after decking my heads. Because 99% of builders go with flat-tops, I won an ebay auction for these sweet Wisecos.... Picked them up for about half price ($300 savings).




Pro-Race Pro Street Model 34266 (with removable weight)
http://www.pro-race.com/applications/sb-chevrolet/

I added another picture of the front (above).

 

I might start another thread (or do a search) to see what criteria people use for setting "maximum" timing on the lower idle rows. (I asked this back on page 5...but WTF.)

I don't have any pinging or knock-counts...and it's about the same as the stock values in those lower rows. Because the Eliminators "need" less timing up top, maybe I SHOULD back off the lower values -- even if they can tolerate it? FWIW, Back in 2010, I left them higher (after trying less) because it made for a smoother transition of idle).

I'll also bring this post forward in case anyone has some thoughts on this method of RA balancing. (You can see the drilling in the pics of my crank below).

 

My friend who owns a auto machine shop has a modern crank balancing set up top of the line .Removing material from the crank counter weights is standard procedure.Some times if a little weight needs to be added he will add weight by welding.I have seen him add heavy metal when needed.Heavy metal is added to the sides of the counter weights by drilling them and pressing the weight in.Adding heavy metal is a science .If done wrong at high RPM it can stress the counter weight and fracture it.

 

GREGGPENN there is no such thing as a balanced at all speeds 90 degree V8. I have balanced hundreds and taught by the guys at Stewart Warner years ago when they were the best maybe they still are who knows now.

The amount of counter weight is linked to the total mass of the crank. The factory and most quality aftermarket companies have a 3d model that goes through a FEA simulation to see if sound. If you take mass out of the counter weights you have to take mass out of the throws. I have done what he did many times but also hollow drilled the throws at the same time. It is not a job for the faint of heart as a miss on location turns the crank into junk. With that said all the ones I did were for short track ovals with no expectancy of a long life or smooth low speed operation. I mention short track as only on the throttle for a very short time at WOT. Daytona would be pretty shaky with one as lots of WOT.

If you want a lightened crank buy one from someone like Sonny Bryant Callis Moldex Crower not someone using Chinese forgings. Give the correct bob weight to balance you should have been given a card with this info from the last shop and it will come ready to use. Let them know as well the rpm range of greatest interest so the know what balance percentage to use. A passenger car V8 uses 50% and race engines can vary all over the place from under balanced to over balanced unless you have very deep pockets 50% is just fine. Just remember it is never balanced perfectly at every RPM it is just not possible due to the geometry of the engine.

The shop should have neutral balanced the flywheel and damper as well so they can be easily replaced. An interesting question might be what tolerance he used to balance the assembly and if +- 0 you have been lied to. If you buy a custom crank ask them what they would like to see for a damper as well.

 

That's some good info to know.Especially the part of changing the damper.I had my rotating assembly balanced using an 8 inch damper.It would not clear the cross member.So I had to use a 6 3/4 inch damper.I have a 400 externally balanced motor.My machinist said it would be fine.From your post above because you actually have a lot of experience balancing cranks I feel a lot better now.Thanks,Steve

 

Can your machinist/engine shop duplicate the amount of balance in the new damper used to balance the original setup? Next time around spend the 200 to internal balance as it can be done just not cheaply. In the end it makes life much simpler. Ages ago when managing a race engine shop I made 2 fixtures for SBC engines that were external balanced. One for flywheels and one for dampers. They held either 2 flywheels or dampers so yes a separate fixture for both. It placed the 180 degrees out of phase. I installed the original part first then the part that had to be matched. They have to be very close to each other so only dealing with force rather than couple. Force being the single plane axial imbalance and couple being the end to end wobble imbalance. It got me 99% of the way there and the best that could be hoped for with an external balanced engine.

In all honesty the 8 inch damper is really needed and would figure out what needed to be done to fit it in there. If the engine is not installed I would look real hard to see what to do. Any good welder can notch and brace the front cross member in under an hour if they actually want to have at it. Your call there. Damper size is linked to the mass of the rotating assembly and a big difference between a 302 and a 406 but saying that even the high winding 302 engines carried an 8 inch damper and a message there if listening.

You welcome on the help. I may not be a wiz with a C4 but race engines, efi/data acq/wiring harness work and proper shop practices not a big deal.

 

Thanks Ddahlgren you confirmed what I have been wrestling with,That I should find a way to get the 8 inch damper the motor was balanced with on the engine.I know a internal balanced engine is best.Thanks again for your reply,Steve

 

As a side note isn't this more pleasant than dealing with Sellc who knows everything LOL. Speaking clearly about what you do know and don't know quietly seems best for me. What I do know after all these years is all those so called secrets don't exist. There is sound engineering and sound shop practices and it ends right there. I have been lucky enough to win as an engineer at every track that mattered to me and never sent a driver or rider out in something that would hurt them. Was asked only once doing data acq and I deemed the setup unstable and refused. Closed my laptop offered a handwritten invoice for time spent and travel and drove to the airport. Called Wide World of sports I would not be available for the interview as had no positive comments. Before I cleared the access road the vehicle went airborne and crashed as predicted. Go figure. Since then my way or leave as hurting people bad karma as an engineer or anyone else for that matter.

OK saying all that don't make fun of me when my C4 makes me scratch my head LOL

 

Thanks for the feedback Dave! FWIW...If you want to skip the essay that follows, look toward the end -- for the bold/underlined sentence -- you find my "follow-up" question.

When I hired this guy/shop, I was given the impression a custom engine would/could be balanced "better-than-factory" and...that it would be closer to zero grams as well. He didn't explain anything like you have -- though (as you might have noticed by my history of posting), I normally ask enough questions to let my "audience" know what I'm looking for.

I'm not saying I didn't like my builder...rather the opposite. He was patient, helpful, and we talked several times during the build. For sure, he took too long because he had the parts at least 6 months. At the time the "other" name shop in town had higher lead time.

I chose this guy (and his partner) because they'd been in business for quite awhile. In fairness, the ran a "speed shop" that didn't focus on engine building all the time. It was a full-service machine shop where they worked on anything from u-joints to heads to blocks....basically anything requiring "machining".

Incidentally, both shops [I had to chose from] claimed the ability to deliver cadillac-smooth, better-than-factory balancing in a 383 stroker. Both also said it would last longer than the factory 350.

I believe I follow all of what you are saying. That makes sense. When it came time to balance my RA, I provided a brand-new FW and the removable weighted 400 damper. As you might have noticed, the pistons I found were higher quality and LIGHT. At first, there was question if the might be light enough to avoid using that removable weight. After I learned a bit about bob-weights and saw how to figure a few things out, it was clear pistons might not be able to be THAT light (to remove the 400 weight).

That's when heavy-metal was explained to me. At that time, the shop had already had my block/parts for 6 months. The builder I selected let me know he refrained from heavy metal use and only balanced via drilling. The builder said that he'd had heavy weight fail during his (dirt-track?) racing and he stopped using it in his builds. By doing it this way, I felt he eliminated one possible failure point. It sounded reasonable. Plus, to swap all the (otherwise prepped) parts to the OTHER shop in town [that DID use heavy metal] would have required another 6+ month wait.

I've had several GREAT advisors from this forum over the years. They have brought me from a guy who could fix a water pump, brakes, etc...to someone who understands how a motor works. At the time, I conversed heavily with another speed-shop owner who became by designer. He was good with and used Engine Analyzer (EA). His "bottom-line" in making that final choice of balancing was to trust the person I'd stuck with throughout the process. It made sense considering he knew everything that went into the "mechanicals" of the build. So, I stuck with the option to drill for balancing the RA.

It wasn't until the engine was installed, and run, that I questioned some vibration appearing at a couple of places in it's rpm range. My OTHER vehicle is a 3.5L (stroked) Isuzu Vehicross. Isuzu "stroked" their 3.2L motor (from the Rodeos) to create that powerplant for the Troopers and Vehicross. And, I will say the vibration in my 383 is no worse that the 3.5L -- which also leverage an extra balancer shaft to insure "smoothness".

It's just not what I anticipated -- which I why I posted at Speedtalk when it was built). It ended up in a 6-pg thread where a few said it would be fine while others disagreed. Walter Malik posted this:

Quote:

Drilling a bunch of large holes in the front and rear counterweight to remove the excess weight will get it ROTATIONALLY in balance however, RADIALLY along the AXIAL centerline of the crankshaft will more than likely not be near correct as one of the secondary waves of balance will become even less correct.
The unkind waves will lead to more flex and eventually the crank will show cracks somewhere because of this. This usually is evidenced by excessive #2 and #4 main bearing fatigue in a V8 engine.
Lower RPM and lower power generation will of course lengthen the time it takes for all this to happen
The effects of incorrect RADIAL balance can be seen in a crank which needs center counterweights, (or not), even though they won't change ROTATIONAL balance at all or very little at the most.

While many said the motor would be fine AND because it doesn't seem worse than my "factory stroker", I decided not to sweat it [kinda].

I also have considered that my hand-ported intake probably has uneven tubes and may lead to somewhat uneven power pulses....especially due to the tubes with mounting bosses. However, my designer didn't think that wouldn't contribute to any harmonic imbalance.

Though SOME participants of that SpeedTalk thread felt the crank was probably fine, you can see Walter's comment above.

When I built the motor, I kept two intake designs in mind (actually 3). I struggled between the mega-TPI, the FIRST, and an HSR. And, here's the point of this entire post....

I kept the HSR, thinking I might swap to it. It fit the 195 eliminator ports perfectly. (I dry fit and looked down the tubes before installing my custom-ported TPI). In fact, the HSR looked port-matched to the AFRs, it was so good! The OTHER reason I chose a 4-deg advance orientation of the cam was to "help" with the HSR's lower-tq-than-TPI torque curve. It would help keep the higher-breathing HSR closer to the "fun" level of a TPI on city streets. But, because of Walter's comments, I retained enough "concern" that it seems "safer" to operate the motor in lower rpms -- where secondary wave harmonics aren't likely to shorten motor life.

As you point out, running an engine in NASCAR -- at WOT for a long time -- is different that dirt track. The question would be: Where does street-driving fall in the mix of this? And...Do you think an RA balanced this way can last as long as a stock engine? I've had the car since 1999, fully-restored it (at 50k miles) and have every intention of keeping it "forever". That's why I built a motor to make it more fun...and built one I hoped would last even longer than stock.

Since rpms are the killer (and need) for forged internals, I chose the Scat9000 crank. Universally, everyone said it would be overkill to do otherwise. But, the opportunity presented itself to chose nicer rods and pistons. I specifically like that the rings are thinner -- like their modern counter-parts.

FYI: The bobweight (@1789g) was slightly less than Scat's target of "1830 to 1850 grams with externally weighted flywheel, neutral balancer & one piece of heavy metal in #1 counterweight". Again, the builder had my ZF6 dual-mass flywheel and the Pro-Race (Pro Street) 400 balancer with bolt-in weight -- to provide a POSSIBLE 2nd balancing option. It should be balanced where any 400 HB could be used...though I would replace with the same -- if needed.

It's been 5 years, but I think he said something small...like +/- 5 grams? He probably still has my RA "card" if I should ask.

I wasn't necessarily shooting for a lightweight crank, though the idea of offsetting some of the factory DMF -- by removing RA weight seemed a good idea. That was probably another reason I liked the concept of lighter rods, pistons, and removing weight from the crank.

 

Yes, and that won't happen from me. I like that you recently asked how all the sub-modules interact on your '91! I was amazed that we actually have someone that's developed diagnostic software and was able to provide the basic hand-shaking interaction!

I tend to agree that increasing age might make the elimination of "unnecessary" computer monitoring desirable. Fortunately, the 89 is a little lest complicated AND I've been wiling to rehab dash components that have varnished contacts....and a weakening solder joint (or two).

The ECM is replaceable and I could pop my Moates chip onto any new computer. Getting "bad" feedback from the sensors seems like the only other path to electronic failure -- which could be isolated and traced to the length of that circuit.

That said, I think you have the right idea in removing VATS and possibly one/two of the other modules if possible....like the CCM as you suggest.

The biggest thing I noticed from SELLC jamming up this thread was how generalities followed all specific questions. It was clear his understanding was "muddled". And, I'm still floored that any good mechanic could be that misled on timing basics.

Finally, I will apology for when I (myself) get wordy. Threads like these demonstrate how the lack of brevity destroys any ability to learn, discover, and solve. What people like SELLC don't understand -- when I try to provide all background behind a question -- is it's often necessary to understand what led to the circumstance. Plus, as simple as motors are, there ARE a lot of pieces necessary to judge how/why something was built.

 

Well said GreggPenn.Its nice to get an answer to a Question and learn something in the process.