Re: [ihc] Which 392 makes the best builder?

[tsm1@xxxxxxxxx]

> Ok, can the non IC block be converted over to the IC or was the IC block
> specially cast? Someone on another list has said that what I needed was an
> early 80's big truck engine. They said that that engine (the early 80's)
> would have sodium valves, steel crank and good flowing heads. I have
> accesss
> to other 392's but I need to be sure that I get the right info before
> those
> are hauled off to the scrap.

The pre-IC and post-IC 392s both used sodium exhaust valves, steel crank. 
None of them ever used "good flowing heads" (ROFL!)

Use an IC if you're going to run it flat-out, loaded down, for 12 hours a
day.

Or if you need the side motor mount bosses to put the motor in a 1974/75
IH pickup or Travelall.

Otherwise, you the pre-IC will probably be fine.  You can also find the
1972 non-AIR hump heads that will at least save you some time on your
porting.

All of the 392 heads use the same size valves, and I don't think there's
any significant flow differences between the two (tho' the non-humped may
flow better than the humped.. but again, you can fix the humped heads with
a die-grinder).

I chose an IC for my Travelette, because I intend to load it down (though
not "Loadstar Level") for long periods of time, and because it was easiest
to bolt into my '74 Travelette with the side motor mounts.

I offset ground a 345 crank to stroke it, used some of the later/lighter
345/392 common rods (from a '74 IC392 core), aftermarket hypereutectic
pistons.  I went with heads from a different 74/5 IC392 (mine were
cracked), back-cut (by Dave Sr) sodium filled exhaust valves, an Isky
cam.. and I spent some time with a die grinder porting both heads,
including removing the exhaust humps, blended the valve stem boss, some
bowl work, etc.  I used the earlier welded-style rocker arms and shaft,
though only 5-stand.

-Tom