[STEELCITYFIREBIRD]

The big '75' by the dizzy in your picture is a dead giveaway from what I know.

Casting # location
http://s299.photobucket.com/user/WDC...0text.jpg.html

[AdamIsAdam]

I think I have a pic of that casting number. Is this it?



Here's the pic after new oil PSI gauge installed. I put the nylon line inside some vacuum hose for some added protection.

[grivera]

It's blurry but it appears to be 500557? Also, this pic from your album looks like it may have an additional motor-mount bolt hole on passenger side:
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/n...2.jpg~original

[AdamIsAdam]

Between the two pics, the casting number looks like 600557. What does that tell us?

[AdamIsAdam]

Bummer. Looks like this is not the block i thought was. What does this mean? The guy that built it said he followed a build from Jim Hands book.

[STEELCITYFIREBIRD]

Yep.
Now you need to verify what is inside.


May be able to id stock or aftermarket crank by rear hub? I personally don't know if there is a definitive difference.
Stroke should tell the tale. You should be able to measure stroke thru spark. plug hole.

I hope someone didn't swap the short block out on you when RMS was replaced.

The two digit alpha codes were reused a bit.

[78w72]

the 6 is definitely a 5. its a 1975 500557 block. that is considered the weaker block compared to the 481988 blocks. but dont worry too much, if you aren't drag racing the car a lot or really pushing the rpms, it should be fine for normal use. 500+ hp & abuse its not an ideal block, but i wouldnt worry about it blowing up from some spirited driving or light drag use.

i would look into the internals if you can, hopefully the prev owner didnt do a switch-eroo or lie about the build.

[AdamIsAdam]

Well, seeing as the guy I bought the car from is a "friend" of mine that I've known for a long time, I'm inclined to think he got the block info wrong, but that he didn't out and out lie about the build and get receipts to back up the lie.

As long as the motor can withstand me winding out 1st and second gears often, but not over 5,400 RPM, and maybe once a year going to the track, I'm happy.

[78w72]

Originally Posted by AdamIsAdam

Well, seeing as the guy I bought the car from is a "friend" of mine that I've known for a long time, I'm inclined to think he got the block info wrong, but that he didn't out and out lie about the build and get receipts to back up the lie.

As long as the motor can withstand me winding out 1st and second gears often, but not over 5,400 RPM, and maybe once a year going to the track, I'm happy.

didnt mean to imply he intentionally lied. especially if he is considered a friend, he probably got the info wrong... or may have been provided wrong info.

you should be fine under 5500 if its not abused too bad. on the street the tires will break free before too much stress is applied on the driveline & engine. its at the track with goood traction & hard launches that the stresses can break things.

[AdamIsAdam]

I've known him a long time and I know he can stretch the truth! That's why there were quotes around the word friend. LOL. That being said, my other buddy helped build most of the car which is why I bought it. But yes, he likely knew the block and implied it was a 1970. He probably got it cheap. That, he's the master in. But I do believe the butler inners are there.

[STEELCITYFIREBIRD]

I'd have to know whats in it, that's my nature.

[grivera]

based on the performance you described I'd bet the internals are what you think they are, fwiw

[AdamIsAdam]

Originally Posted by grivera

based on the performance you described I'd bet the internals are what you think they are, fwiw

That's sort of what I'm thinking. The bottom line is that it runs strong (when tuned right), certainly strong enough for around-town spirited driving and smokey burnouts for the kids (yes officer, it was for the kids). I want to get down the 1320 in the 12s, even 12.99, and I'd be VERY happy. I'd also like to see 400hp / 500ft lbs on the dyno at the rear wheels too.

But most importantly, is to run reliably and smoothly -- and to last a long time without exploding

[PontGuy]

Lets give him the benefit of doubt- he probably just didn't know about the weaker 557 blocks, at least when he started the project. I didn't know about them until becoming active here. The receipts all look good to me and the guy that ported the heads obviously assumed they were going on a 400 with flat top pistons.

The big question I have is why the engine was built with so much compression- I get at least 10.5 and that's assuming a .020 deck height. It seems to be working OK and making great power but it must be on the razor's edge. I definitely would not put much vacuum advance on it. And figure on upgrading the cooling system to get the temps down especially on hot summer days.

Can't speak to longevity of the block since I have absolutely no experience there.

[STEELCITYFIREBIRD]

FWIW, I am putting together a 400, same exact block,75 on valley... Original block that came in my 76 formula. I have an earlier 1970 block that I am saving for a long stoke motor.
At the (dirt) racetracks they use a cube checker in the limited classes, measures amount of air displaced by sweep of one piston. Not sure if anyone else does that.

Someone probably has a good reliable way to measure the stroke assembled, that may chime in. I've never done it, but I am sure it can be done.
Pulling the right plug may allow you to see in a cylinder to see if it has dished or flat top pistons in it, that might be very telling.
I'd have to know weather me and him need to have a chat.
The block isn't a reason to have a "chat", the rotating assembly would be.
Don't despair over the block, just try to verify what is inside so your not chasing your ass tuning it.

She is a nice ride, just don't hammer her too hard!
No 4g holeshots!

[AdamIsAdam]

cooling system consists of an aluminum radiator and a two speed electric fan from a Taurus. Last summer it worked well. Tstat is 180*, so I"m told. And I run Evan's waterless coolant for some added protection.

When you say no 4,000 RPM wholeshots. You mean don't dump the clutch at 4k, right? Because I do like a long, smokey burnout once the tires are spinning already, but that shouldn't stress the engine too much since the tires are spinning.

[ta man]

Originally Posted by AdamIsAdam

That's sort of what I'm thinking. The bottom line is that it runs strong (when tuned right), certainly strong enough for around-town spirited driving and smokey burnouts for the kids (yes officer, it was for the kids). I want to get down the 1320 in the 12s, even 12.99, and I'd be VERY happy. I'd also like to see 400hp / 500ft lbs on the dyno at the rear wheels too.

But most importantly, is to run reliably and smoothly -- and to last a long time without exploding

400 hp at the rear wheels will easily put you in the 12's..I wouldn't fret over the 557 block much..unless you are launching the car with full traction all the time it will last.

[HWYSTR455]

46 heads with screw in studs are of 2 varieties, one is 98 cc, the other 89 cc. And usually, they are bigger than advertised by a few CCs. Your deck height is .010, with a 17cc dish, 4.190 bore, 4.250 stroke, you are in the 9.3 - 9.8 range. Which makes more sense.

The info on the head flow sheet is bogus, the guy just plugged something in to do initial calculations, it's the flow data that is important.

.

[AdamIsAdam]

Originally Posted by HWYSTR455

46 heads with screw in studs are of 2 varieties, one is 98 cc, the other 89 cc. And usually, they are bigger than advertised by a few CCs. Your deck height is .010, with a 17cc dish, 4.190 bore, 4.250 stroke, you are in the 9.3 - 9.8 range. Which makes more sense.

The info on the head flow sheet is bogus, the guy just plugged something in to do initial calculations, it's the flow data that is important.

.

ohhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!! That makes much more sense!!! And makes me feel better that it's not such a high CR. THANKS!!!

Just curious, how come you can't calculate the exact CR? Are you missing some piece of info?

Also, these heads were converted to screw in. Not sure if that helps you any.

Is there anything else you can tell me from the paperwork that I either had wrong or didn't know? This is great stuff. It's like tracing a family tree all the way back

[HWYSTR455]

If they originally were non-screw in studs, they are in the 96-98cc advertised range, so it would be closer to 9.3 SCR. And no, there's no other info on the docs that you really need to know, all standard stuff.

.