Engine and Transmission Tech

"300 heads are around 55cc not 35cc. Typo?"

I figured he just transposed the numbers. I always used the 53cc number. I have seen them listed as 53-55cc. I guess I need to measure mine.

I am leaning towards using my late Rover heads.

That would be a very viable approach Carl. I understand the aluminum used in the late Rover heads is also a bit more dense which is good and partly accounts for the weight increase. It makes the upgrade path to the TA heads an easy one though it is not inexpensive. My approach has been one of the cheapest and it includes $1600 for the bare heads, a couple hundred for used titanium valves, another $150 or so for beehive springs, same again for LS style roller rockers, and a fair bit of machining to make it all play nice. And then you get to the roller cam. Might manage to save a buck or two here or there but a completed set of heads for under 2K is tough (At the very least the seats need to be cut, and you can't run the OEM rocker assemblies). On the positive side the weight increase with the upgrade would be minimal, the CR wouldn't change, and it could be done at any time that was convenient.

But keep this in mind. While it is true that the greatest power gains in the SBB series of engines is to be had from the heads, the power output of the stock 300 in any trim level is more than adequate for the car. It was only with the latest Rover heads that there was anything OEM from England that approached the stock alloy 300 heads and the iron heads were better. Combine that with the displacement advantage and you would be right in expecting the 300 to make more power. Combine that with another 46 cubic inches from a 350 crank and standard overbore and the torque goes up, the hp goes up, and general usability and flexibility goes up. My guess is that at some point Dan Jones might have compared the irons on a flow bench and that info would be useful. BTW, these are the same heads that the factory used on the 340, so while their flow won't match an unported TA head it would be very wrong to think of them as inadequate.

Jim

I found this link while searching for a machine shop….nice visuals on some of the oiling mods for the Buick, assuming the 350 & 300 have the same oiling setup.

[streettechmag.com]

Hey Brian,
Thanks for adding that, it's the article I referenced earlier and to my understanding is very similar to what's required on the 300 with perhaps some dimensional adjustments.
I have not seen much discussion lately about applying GE Glyptal to the block interior surfaces (in my own searches) but did hear about that long ago being done in heavy duty industrial engines and will be adding that to the build. The local alternative product I have is Dolph-spray ER44 but it is for the same application. For the cost of the product I think it's worth looking into especially if we are trimming/blending casting flash as well. Cheers.

I don't agree with several things they did on that engine but most particularly the use of the long gears in the oil pump. They have been shown to cause wear in the drive gears and if the rest of the engine is built properly are completely unnecessary.

But of course from all indications they were building a race engine and that changes some things.

Jim

Quote:

The late Rover heads are also a bit heavier than the 300 heads.

I was curious about this, not that a pound or two is gonna sway a decision. So, I went out to the garage & weighed three heads. Scale used was my Soehnle German digital bath scale.

Buick 300 18.8 lbs
Early Rover 3.9 20.1 lbs
Late Rover 20.8 lbs

All heads weighed with valves & springs, but no rocker shaft assemblies.

Jim… “I don't agree with several things they did on that engine but most particularly the use of the long gears in the oil pump. They have been shown to cause wear in the drive gears and if the rest of the engine is built properly are completely unnecessary”.

Jim, concur. Believe this article may be a bit dated but I like the pics of the different oiling mod drill portions. If there’s something else you’re not agreeing with please share.

My intent if I use the 300 is a mild build of the block with all new components. I don’t need a stroker engine as anything north of 250hp is more than enough and I believe I can get there with an updated cam and flowed 300 heads with the larger intake/ exhaust valves.

I have most of the parts needed (minus internals) to move forward with the 300 build, once I know the status of the intake manifold build (Willpower) and how much massaging the transmission tunnel will be needed (67 GT) I’ll make a decision. I also have a nice Rover 4.6 if the 300 becomes too much of an issue.

Thanks for doing that Carl. The Rover block is also a bit heavier than the 215. I think the 300 heads are the same weight as 215 heads but not certain.

Brian, I did not read the article thoroughly so I'm hesitant to criticize and as you say it is dated. Much of what is in there is useful but not necessary, such as enlarging the delivery side of the oiling system. If it isn't gushing out at the bearings it doesn't take so much volume. I also think there is something to be gained by increasing the suction galley past 1/2" as evidenced by Buick going to a 5/8" pickup but a piloted drill is needed to do that safely, I use 9/16" and it seems to work quite well. You can go bigger but you risk a breakout. If that does happen it is repairable with hardware store brass tubing. but best avoided. I find radiusing the corners in the suction side and porting the pump and stabilizer plate to be helpful but the main thing is to keep those clearances tight.

For a max build some of those other things could help. I've been known to drill from the mains to the cam 3 o'clock position for example but I'm not at all sure that made any difference. Another thing that you used to see was an external line to the rear of the oil pressure galley. But again, that was back when they were trying to run SBC clearances. Sometimes you might see an oiler for the cam/distributor gears and once in a great while you might run across piston squirters. But a 250 hp build is very nearly stock and you can quite possibly get there with the right combination of carb and exhaust on a stock engine. You are already at 210. If you do no more than increase the valve spring pressure so that you can get up to the 5500-6000 range you should be there. We are limited on the headers of course so that can't help very much. A small bump in the cam will do it though. 100-120lbs of seated pressure should get you there. Porting is generally either expensive, or risky and labor intensive and primarily suited to when you have to have that little extra boost to get past that one guy on Saturday nights. Bigger valves don't hurt if you are replacing them anyway but lots of times you don't have to. I'd use the cam and not get overly enthusiastic with it. The bone stock 300 is admirably well suited to the MGB so the performance is quite pleasing without it, and as Chuck is discovering with his stock SBC, has the advantages of low speed torque which makes driving it a rare pleasure. That's that 310 ft/lbs of torque working for you. So my suggestions would be either shim or replace the valve springs, give a small bump to the cam, and see how you like it.

Jim

Jim, great info/feedback as usual. thanks for taking the time.

Current thought for setup is the 64 300 block and heads with larger valves and stiffer springs. Undecided on the rocker & lifters setup whether to retain stock (new steel inserts for heads) or go with something off the shelf. Cam is a Crower 230 or 232. I've got the original intake and a Willpower being cast for the 300 setup. The Willpower will more than likely rob some low end torgue but thinking there's enough to spare and and with the FitTech TB setup I may recoup some torgue. I'm thinking to dyno with both intakes just for comparisons sake. I have a stock 300 flywheel that I'm gonna see if I can get machined down to 24lbs. The rear gears are GM 7.5 3.42 gears with torsten posi and disks. The tranning is a new GM T5 V8 with the .73 5th gear.

Jim N is local to me and a wealth of info so I just keep picking his brain. Eventually I'll get up his way to visit.

The main difficulty with the stock flywheel is the balance cavity which is on the back. If the flywheel is lathe turned to reduce the weight it means that some means must be used to restore the proper balance if the mass is cut from the back as the size of the cavity will be reduced. I have lightened one to about that weight by turning the face, but then had to use countersunk capscrews to have room for the clutch hub, an approach I'm not sure I would recommend. It is possible to bolt on a weight opposite the cavity on the back side to restore the balance. If the engine is to be balanced during rebuild this is a bit less of an issue.

Jim

Is there someone I can contact at the V8Buick site about getting my account approved as a full member? I did send Jim at Trishield an email, but that was almost a month ago.
I'm not as anxious about posting as being unable to view the photos, I can only see thumbnails which means I'm missing out on some good visual aids posted over the years.

Usually that is automatic once you've made the minimum number of posts. Something like 5 or 10 I think?

Jim

Hi Jim, thanks and sorry for the late reply. I did join but at the moment I neither have posting privileges nor access to image macros. Jim Wiese posted in the News section that as of last August 15th all new registrants have to be manually approved by him. Cheers.

Can you send him an IM?

Jim, unfortunately that isn't an option either until I'm approved but if you know of another member who has his ear I'd happily send an email to them. It doesn't look like joining the site adds any functionality at all until the manual approval is done and I have reached out to him via email.

David, What is your user name for the V8Buick site? I'll try to PM Jim.

Same boat here…..joined over a week ago and have had no response other than I need to wait for approval. Unusually slow for an online forum.

Brian, I'll mention you too. What is your user name?

My username is the same as it is here Jim. Thanks for looking into this.
In the announcement thread where Jim states this new policy moderator Brett Slater asks Jim to check his conversations, and that was on Jan. 1st, so I wonder if Jim is OK.

Probably just busy. He is a respected engine builder.

Jim