[65nss4spdGTO]

Bob,

Do you see any changes to the casting process that can improve the casting quality as compared to the IA-II block?

Calvin Hill
Hill Performance
708-250-7420

[blueghoast]

Man I'm for it, As well as the IA II block has done against
The almighty fords and chevy's with it's perimeter limits
Like the first in the 4's in the 1/8 *I believe it'll be awesome.
And really have the other manufacturers nervous. JMO.

GT.

[mgarblik]

I am guessing you guys have already looked at this, but you mentioned a smaller main housing bore. Some current top fuel/funny car engines are running as small as 2.5" main bearings!. 2.750" is typical and considered kind of old school. So 8000 HP is OK on that small of a main bearing. I hope the new block can go that small and the saddles for #4 and #5 main designed to use a common available bearing and seal. I know you guys have the bases covered, just making a GREAT block even better. Just think how much stronger the block would be without those giant housing bores. The reduction in bearing speed would be huge too.

[Elarson]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

I like that...and if they can feed the drivers bank lifters from the front galley crossing over to passenger side galley or from passenger galley for that matter, it would feed the mains 1st.

The priority mains philosophy is important if you have restrictive passages that cause significant pressure drops along the way. Then it's important for the mains to have first crack at the oil (from the zone of highest pressure).

On the other hand, if the internal passages are large enough that the pressure drops are minimized, then it becomes a true parallel feed system and the flow circuit in the Pontiac block works well.

Eric

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by Elarson

The priority mains philosophy is important if you have restrictive passages that cause significant pressure drops along the way. Then it's important for the mains to have first crack at the oil (from the zone of highest pressure).

On the other hand, if the internal passages are large enough that the pressure drops are minimized, then it becomes a true parallel feed system and the flow circuit in the Pontiac block works well.

Eric

I'm looking at it from a what if you eject a lifter or two on the driver side perspective. That is a potential big bleed from the circuit feeding the mains. If ALL lifters are all fed last the mains would be less affected.

An alternative to a larger single feed driver side galley, both lifter galleys could be at size they are now, but tied to rear feed passage with feeds to mains from BOTH sides. The front crossover could be kept pretty much the same size and only the rear crossover/feed passage enlarged to .75".
Two 1/2" passages are equal to a single .707" passage in flow area. (Seeing that most race builds restrict lifter feed considerably anyway, perhaps a lifter ejection isnt going to bleed off too much oil.)

As a side note the main feeds could also be made progressively(or selectively) larger as you move forward in the block vs adding plumbing to feed from both ends.

[gene simmons]

Is the longer cylinder issue being addressed,either on the upper or lower side? Or is it Irrelevant?
It seemed to be a issue in another thread,kind of surprised no one has said anymore about it.

The new changes look good.

[Elarson]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

I'm looking at it from a what if you eject a lifter or two on the driver side perspective. That is a potential big bleed from the circuit feeding the mains. If ALL lifters are all fed last the mains would be less affected.

An alternative to a larger single feed driver side galley, both lifter galleys could be at size they are now, but tied to rear feed passage with feeds to mains from BOTH sides. The front crossover could be kept pretty much the same size and only the rear crossover/feed passage enlarged to .75".
Two 1/2" passages are equal to a single .707" passage in flow area. (Seeing that most race builds restrict lifter feed considerably anyway, perhaps a lifter ejection isnt going to bleed off too much oil.)

As a side note the main feeds could also be made progressively(or selectively) larger as you move forward in the block vs adding plumbing to feed from both ends.

Good discussion. We've always restricted the lifter feeds and never had a lifter eject so that isn't a prime worry.

The idea of feeding both galleries and drilling both of them down to the mains would be the ultimate in great oiling for the mains!!

Eric

[john marcella]

You want the block better? Start with copping darts oiling, use better material, dont have it hold 55 gal of water, make cylinders longer! , and dont have them machined where you do now. Just my 2 cents. And put more material at the back of block ar cam area for 60 + mm

[Robert C.]

All IA II motors come with the lifer bore oil feed holes tapped 1\4-20 thread. You install a set screw with a .035 drll hole in it. This controls how much oil gets to the lifter. If you totaly loose a lifter, it does not matter. The main bearings see the same amount of oil pressure. So the first oil from the oil pump goes stright to the main bearings and a small amount goes to the driver side lifters. The oil pass around the crankshaft bearings and pass up to the other side to feed the passenger lifters only. So how can you make that better?

And yes we are making the cylinders longer with other changes to make it sronger too.

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by Robert C.

All IA II motors come with the lifer bore oil feed holes tapped 1\4-20 thread. You install a set screw with a .035 drll hole in it. This controls how much oil gets to the lifter. If you totaly loose a lifter, it does not matter. The main bearings see the same amount of oil pressure. So the first oil from the oil pump goes stright to the main bearings and a small amount goes to the driver side lifters. The oil pass around the crankshaft bearings and pass up to the other side to feed the passenger lifters only. So how can you make that better?

Perhaps if its all in one post it will make more sense???
So here they are with emphasis on whats important and maybe answers your question.

Originally Posted by Elarson
Based on our destructive testing, our wish for a better Pontiac block would include a larger diameter left-side oil gallery (hopefully 3/4") with a pre-tapped front feed port.

It would benefit blown alcohol and nitro applications that use lots of high viscosity oil. It would also benefit those who want to run really low pressure and can't tolerate much pressure loss from back to front of engine.

JMHO,
Eric

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie
An alternative to a larger single feed driver side galley, both lifter galleys could be at size they are now, but tied to rear feed passage with feeds to mains from BOTH sides. The front crossover could be kept pretty much the same size and only the rear crossover/feed passage enlarged to .75".
Two 1/2" passages are equal to a single .707" passage in flow area. (Seeing that most race builds restrict lifter feed considerably anyway, perhaps a lifter ejection isnt going to bleed off too much oil.)

As a side note the main feeds could also be made progressively(or selectively) larger as you move forward in the block vs adding plumbing to feed from both ends.

The idea of feeding both galleries and drilling both of them down to the mains would be the ultimate in great oiling for the mains!!

Eric

[Jack Gifford]

Originally Posted by Robert C.

... Spread bore up to 4.750 center to center...
... Moved Lifter bores to better line up the push rods...
... The user could still bolt a stock head to the block...
... Use a stock crankshaft...

Bob C- Please help me understand-

> 4.75" bore centers with a stock crank would create as much as .195" misalignment between the centerline of a piston and its rod's big-end (at the end cylinders), right? Is there a successful example of this in a race engine? [Even the old slow-speed Mopar flathead inline-six was known for vibration problems due to its rod ends being offset about .060"].

> How can you determine better lifter-to-pushrod alignment without specifying a particular head and rocker layout?
Would you move lifters enough to require a non-Pontiac cam billet?

> "bolting on a stock head" would imply to me that the chambers would align with the bores; but that's just me.

It's good that you'll be offering an improved IA block.

[Jack Gifford]

Originally Posted by Elarson

... The priority mains philosophy is important if you have restrictive passages that cause significant pressure drops along the way...
... On the other hand, if the internal passages are large enough that the pressure drops are minimized, then it becomes a true parallel feed system and the flow circuit in the Pontiac block works well...

Eric- thanks for clarifying that for everybody here.

I've enlarged the driver's side gallery in the Harvey-Aluminum block of my hemi. I would have said to 9/16" diameter, but I just went out and measured the only drill bit to which I had welded a 9" long extension- it's 5/8"! This block was cast using 1960 389 patterns, so I would think that any Pontiac V8 block could have the gallery drilled this large. The hemi never hurt a main bearing, seeing 9,000 RPM on the track, while flowing very high oil volume- both mains and rods are darn near .005" clearances.

[Robert C.]

Jack,

This motor IA IIR would be a base. The Builder would order his own custom cam and Crankshaft lobes centerline. The chamber for what ever head is custom too. Race motor. Stock apearing outside. You make it what you want. You could use a stock crankshaft and start it right? Did not say it was right to run a off set on a wrist pin that far and race it? Or bolt a stock head and race it? But it would run. Right? Custom parts. You have to have them made anyway so mover them where they need to be. Race motor. Not the average person is going to want a all out balls to the walls block.

[J.C.you]

I assume the cam tunnel is raised and can go 70mm?

[Tom Vaught]

Machining is machining.

Some "389" cid engines (4.0625") were bored to 4.155" bores.
You could bore the block on exactly the same centerline as the factory or given a good enough cnc boring machine offset bore a existing block from 4.62" to another dimension.

Same deal for the Billet crankshaft from Moldex, you can put the throws where you want them. I could easily take one of my raw 366 forgings and move the rod journals .150" to a new location. And the average Pontiac guy looking at the crankshaft or block would never know the difference. Same deal with the head machining on a fresh head casting from Don.

Tom V.

[cgeise]

Just a thought An improvement to one camp is an obstacle to another, Do the obvious stuff and leave the rest to "custom order" status. A guy doing a blower deal needs diff stuff than a guy doing a Comp style motor. One size does not fit all, JMO

[Robert C.]

Originally Posted by cgeise

Just a thought An improvement to one camp is an obstacle to another, Do the obvious stuff and leave the rest to "custom order" status. A guy doing a blower deal needs diff stuff than a guy doing a Comp style motor. One size does not fit all, JMO

Correct. We will have a order for that will be fill out with a deposit.

[john marcella]

I can tell you guys this, i have just gone from a 4.400 bs sbc to a 4.500 bs sbc and that .100 bs difference feels like a can of worms. Lot of engineering had to go into EVERYTHING to make things right. Dont get me wrong, its the right thing to do , but just know what you're in for if you want stuff that is right. Custom everything , engineered by YOU !

[ho428]

A lighter weight lower cost 3" main Sportsman Block ($2200-$2500-ish) for those that don't want or need a max cube max effort engine.

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by ho428

A lighter weight lower cost 3" main Sportsman Block ($2200-$2500-ish) for those that don't want or need a max cube max effort engine.

Agree, I don't think anyone expects SBC prices . Just something stronger than a typical 400 block with braced lifter bores cast in. . 4.12 bore to 4.35 bore max perhaps?