RE: heads

[Jim Grammer <jimg@domain.elided>]

>Jim, Joel, anyone else who cares,
>	I have to agree with the info in Joel's chart, but a 345 isnt a
>stroked 304.

Sorry I wasn't more specific, that's what my reference to deck height was 
about. The 345 surely isn't just a stroked 304, since there wouldn't be 
enough deck height for it to work.

>Back to IH, if you used a
>345/392 crank in a 304 bored .060" with shorter conrods, then you'd have a 
>stroker 304, didnt calc final displacement.

Nobody got very excited about this when I suggested it awhile back(or 
destroking a 392, FTM). Advantages might be elusive, since there's not that 
much difference in weight(relatively speaking) between the two blocks.

>So is the switch to smaller chamber (345 head
>on 392) worth the loss of air/fuel charge flow by way of smaller valves? 
 I
>would think if we could shave the 392 heads and make clearance for the
>valves at TDC with pistons and cylinder walls, we could achieve higher
>combustion with the big valves, and even run 392 heads on 345.
	
IIRC, the last time we kicked this around it seemed that the differences in 
flow would only matter at RPM's most of our engines will never see.

>always looking for more horsepower, torque is abundant

Torque turns my wheels ;), bring it on...

Jim
Bindertown U.S.A.
'38 D-2 pickup
'53 R-110 Travelall(Delilah)
'56 S-102 pickup
'56 S-120 AWD pickup
'60 B-102 pickup(72 miles every day, still no radio)
'63 Scout 80(Theodore)
'64 C-1000 Travelall(Virginia Lou)
'68 1100C AWD Travelall(Rosemary)
'70ish 1110 pickup
73 1110 AWD pickup(sort of)

B-town rules: ya gotta run and drive to get a name ;)

'