Engine and Transmission Tech

tips, technology, tools and techniques related to vehicle driveline components

Go to Thread: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicLog In
Goto Page: Previous123Next
Current Page: 2 of 3


Roverbeam
Chad McNeely
N.E. MO
(75 posts)

Registered:
06/09/2021 06:03PM

Main British Car:
Alpine S4 Rover 4.0

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: Roverbeam
Date: February 23, 2024 02:21PM

I suspect "Pipemax" software might not be as robust as your stuff, but for a 302ci rover block/Buick 300 heads that flow 180/150-ish, it spits out:

Camshaft = Hydraulic †Roller †Lifter
600 RPM/Sec Dyno Test † † † † † † Level=5 † † † †Level=6 † † † †Level=7 † † † †Level=8
Peak HorsePower † †@ †6200 RPM † † †383.7 † † † † † 388.6 † † † † † 393.5 † † † † † 398.5
Peak Torque Lbs-Ft @ †4800 RPM † † †357.4 † † † † † 361.9 † † † † † 366.5 † † † † † 374.2


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2463 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: mgb260
Date: February 23, 2024 02:45PM

Chad, I've got similar results with the Rover 4.6 with 300 crank and 300 Iron builds. on my program with more radical cams. I usually tame it down a little to more streetable results.


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4512 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: February 23, 2024 03:07PM

Might be a bit optimistic to expect the OEM rocker arms to be a 1.6 rocker ratio. Or maybe you expect to use aftermarket. Even those are not always on the money.

I would be surprised if the OEM Buick rockers measured more than 1.55. I think that is one of the reasons that Dan LaGrou recommended the larger 50232 cam for 3.5-3.9 engines.


Roverbeam
Chad McNeely
N.E. MO
(75 posts)

Registered:
06/09/2021 06:03PM

Main British Car:
Alpine S4 Rover 4.0

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: Roverbeam
Date: February 23, 2024 03:32PM

I asked Woody for as aggressive a cam as he'd be willing to spec, and got a 226in/ex @ .050, 112 separation jobbie. I expect it'll be more streetable than I wanted!

T&D rockers from TA are 1.6 ratio.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2024 03:33PM by Roverbeam.


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2463 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: mgb260
Date: February 23, 2024 03:39PM

Carl, I used aftermarket roller rockers in the simulation. Chad, I like around the same rear wheel HP as engine cu in size usually for the street. I'll do the specs for a 50233 but roller cam in a 300 stroked Rover V8 and see what I get with this program.


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2463 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: mgb260
Date: February 23, 2024 03:51PM

Chad, this is with individual throttlebody fuel injection and 1 5/8" headers:
Rover 300_page-0001.jpg


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2463 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: mgb260
Date: February 23, 2024 04:34PM

That was with 300 heads with the biggest valves to fit the stock seats. 1.69 IN and 1.39 EX. I'll dio with larger valves like I used before 1.74 IN and 1.5 EX.



mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2463 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: mgb260
Date: February 23, 2024 04:42PM

1.74 IN and 1.5 EX
Rover 300 larger valves_page-0001.jpg


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2463 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: mgb260
Date: February 23, 2024 04:42PM

Now with TA heads 1.9 IN 1.6 EX
Rover 300 TA heads_page-0001.jpg



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2024 04:49PM by mgb260.


Roverbeam
Chad McNeely
N.E. MO
(75 posts)

Registered:
06/09/2021 06:03PM

Main British Car:
Alpine S4 Rover 4.0

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: Roverbeam
Date: February 23, 2024 05:35PM

Thanks for all that, Jim!
I started this engine project thinking "1 per cube", then saw the over-350 numbers and thought "wow!" The Pipemax result is formatted as a text "report", and includes the cam specs it'd like to see for the higher levels that it reports: 228-233in / 231-236ex & 107-107.5 separation.

Interesting that the 300 heads have concave-down ("fuller") torque curves, versus the concave up ("hollow") torque curve for the TA's. I think by the time the 300's are working as they should, with all the supporting parts and machine work, I'll be a fair bit more expense than the TA's, so the graph with the extra area under the curve helps ease my conscience!

"Never underestimate the human ability to rationalize."


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2463 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: mgb260
Date: February 23, 2024 06:19PM

Smaller valves help low end torque and give sharper throttle response. Lower but broader torque curve.


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2463 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: mgb260
Date: February 23, 2024 07:25PM

Chad, I didn't know if I could print this, Engine label is wrong but is for the Rover 300 crank stroker. TA heads. Asterisks on timing are set to prevent pinging. Click twice to expand.
rover 300 stroker_page-0001.jpg



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2024 07:34PM by mgb260.


ag1234
Arthur Gertz

(66 posts)

Registered:
03/29/2023 08:26PM

Main British Car:


Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: ag1234
Date: February 24, 2024 10:51AM

Price and supplier of roller cam ?
Art.


Roverbeam
Chad McNeely
N.E. MO
(75 posts)

Registered:
06/09/2021 06:03PM

Main British Car:
Alpine S4 Rover 4.0

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: Roverbeam
Date: February 24, 2024 11:30AM

I got a hydraulic roller cam and lifters from The Wedgeshop. Their process is to have a chat with Woody, then he develops a cam spec that is fulfilled by Erson. It was 1100 cheaper (HALF!!) when I bought it:

[thewedgeshopstore.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2024 11:32AM by Roverbeam.


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4512 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: February 24, 2024 01:46PM

"Hydraulic roller cams are not meant to rev past 6500rpm"

I'm out. :D



Roverbeam
Chad McNeely
N.E. MO
(75 posts)

Registered:
06/09/2021 06:03PM

Main British Car:
Alpine S4 Rover 4.0

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: Roverbeam
Date: February 24, 2024 02:22PM

Iím pretty sure a 60 year old 300 crank ought not go past 6.5k either!

Going solid and using all the revs entails using big springs, which the 300 aluminum heads canít take. I was advised to keep spring pressure under 400, to avoid pulling the rocker shaft bolts out - and that, after installing Keenserts or similar. So, the whole package has a roughly 6.5k limit, I guess.

I noticed some of Kentís spicier cams (234, 238, 248 I think are the part numbers) all call for their generic double spring upgrade. Other sites (3rd party sellers) say those springs are 260# open. Iíd call to verify that Kentís website isnít lying about the springs to go with those cams, but price wise a Kent cam is under $400, and TWS hyd roller lifters are under $600. That combo sure beats the price of the TWS kit right now.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2024 02:37PM by Roverbeam.


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4512 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: February 24, 2024 08:52PM

My 1963 215 crank has spent quite a bit of time at 6-6.5K. Even a few trips to pegged the needle at 7K. Probably not a good idea, though. ;)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2024 09:29AM by MGBV8.


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(6469 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: February 25, 2024 08:50AM

The crank is not a problem. GS Johnny has been running the SBB up to 7500 rpm for decades now and has never had a crank failure. I think he saw something like 9 grand when he banged into the wall and the engine was still good.

You do need more valve spring and whether or not you have to have solids above 6500 is more a function of spring pressure vs valve train weight than anything else. You can boost the pressure and remove weight to rev higher and/or you can go to solids. No more than we drive these cars a winter lifter adjustment should be reasonable for most of us. Wasn't the 4 banger equipped with solids?

Beehive springs can reduce the weight along with upping the spring pressure. There's a thread that gets pretty deeply into that but I don't have the link.

TA sells roller cams. You buy the core and then pay for the grind. Not cheap but then you can run modern oils with it which is an advantage.

Jim


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2463 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: mgb260
Date: February 25, 2024 10:57AM

Chad mentioned the rocker shaft hold down bolts pulling out. I personally know of 4 people having that issue. All with the softer 300 heads. Steel inserts with Loktite is a good idea, especially with high spring pressure.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2024 12:11PM by mgb260.


Roverbeam
Chad McNeely
N.E. MO
(75 posts)

Registered:
06/09/2021 06:03PM

Main British Car:
Alpine S4 Rover 4.0

Re: Single plane vs Dual plane 300 stroker with TA heads.
Posted by: Roverbeam
Date: February 25, 2024 01:06PM

The fella from whom I purchased some Buick headers (and engineÖ) had drag raced 300s, 350s, and big block stuff too. He said that the crank wasnít the problem with the 300s, as Jim says. But for road course/sustained higher revs, it just doesnít seem like a good fate to tempt. Maybe as the rest of the package comes together, Iíll get a little less skeered, but it seems like thereís plenty of useful power below six and a half, and itís quite a bit harder to get the rest of the parts to be happy at 7k as well - like the solid vs hyd roller discussion above, Ti vs chromoly vs tool steel vs mild steel retainers, conical vs beehive vs double springs, and on and on. Limiting myself to 6.5 means Iím still trying to get ďgoodĒ versions of each component, without feeling like needing to buy the absolute be$t.
Goto Page: Previous123Next
Current Page: 2 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.