Applecrate - 1964 is the cutoff date for parts in the classified. I haven't found any other cutoff dates than that. I guess the most commonly accepted reason is so many '60s gassers and altereds used BBCs and 426 Hemis. Hell, I've even seen pix of A/FX mustangs, straight axle Chevelles, the 442 Much, etc.. I agree that things aren't consistant but that's the H.A.M.B. Your avatar is awesome!
If you like motors that 'rev', you should not be thinking big block. I limit my 460" BB to 6500 rpm. That cam sounds a bit radical to me. I make 600hp with a mild hydraulic cam. Best wishes.
thanks for all the info in your post...i have all kind of options to think about now, but if you look around 6.535" rods (.400" longer than stock) are readily available off the shelf, which would allow the use of stock height 427 pistons...with no use of any custom parts. Can you be more specific on the head options you talked about??
The rods are available most any manufacturer,but not cheap. Your original post stated you were on a college budget....does this mean you have the budget of what it cost to go to college to put into this engine or that you are going to college and do not have much budget to build this engine? If it is that you have money for college but are going to put it into this build, you are n track, but if you have a budget that is limited due to you paying for college, then you are going at this all wrong. You can have 600+ hp without all the wasted money on the expensive shit you have going into this build....roller cam, aftermarket +.400 rods, converted injection set-up..... So, what is your idea of a college budget?
I agree. I have a few tall deck distributors, I'll have to dig them out and check the part number on them. Squirrel, is it possible that there is a misprint? Maybe should be 427 - 366 ? I've never had a tall deck block with the standard length distributor in it....nor have any of my 327's had a long dist in them. Just curious. There wasn't a standard deck 366 was there? I always thought the 366 was only a tall deck....
i like the idea of revibility in a bbc. i think i just like the idea of building a motor to rev up to 7 g rpms with just a snack of the throttle in general though. good luck with your build dude
Wouldn't a 8100 crank be a one piece rear main seal? If it is how do you make it work? I'm running a tall deck but it's a bowtie block. It's really not a big deal for intake spacers and distributors. But if I was building something with a stock block I would go for a std. height 454 block.
The only investigating I've done on the subject was to look at a stock tall deck intake years ago...and I recall it looked like the distributor pad sat about a quarter inch lower than on a short deck intake. I really doubt it's a misprint. And the 366 is a tall deck block. Makes a lot of sense to me that Chevy would use the same length distributor...can you imagine the fun that would ensue if people swapped distributors and some were 1/4" shorter than others? just long enough to engage the gear teeth, but not long enough to engage the oil pump drive.
--------------------- I was assuming, perhaps wrongly, that there are adapters available - or that it would be possible to fabricate one - that would allow a Gen 5 or newer, one-piece rear main seal crank to be used in an earlier MK4 style, two-piece rear main seal style block. If not, another possibility, since the main seal is not a particularly high-stress item, *might* be, to build the seal area of the crank up by welding and than re-machining the welded area back down to a two-piece rear main seal configuration. Does anyone here have some thoughts or information on this, because other the rear main seal issue, it seems that the 8100 Vortec engine could be a source of readily available and relatively inexpensive stroker cranks for the earllier MK4 big blocks? Mart3406 =====================
Just a thought, but maybe it would be better to use an 8100 short block with aftermarket heads. My dad built a gen6 454 with mk4 heads. He had to use a gen6 hyd roller and you have use certain head gaskets.(can't remember which ones.) If you used the 8100 short block you would get the extra displacement.
I had this problem a few years back with an aftermarket intake manifold on a sbc. The intake manifold was not finished correctly, and the area where the distributor goes in was not right. The distributor did connect with the gear on the cam but was not engaging into the oil pump shaft....had a lot of head scratching going on and a lot of work to end up figuring out the intake was machined incorrectly!!! I'm not sure how many got through that way, but by the time the company had settled up with me, they said they had "discovered" a couple more of them. I will say, they definiatly stood behind thier product and made me a very happy customer. Didn't mean to highjack/side step the thread......
Might just as well buy a GMPP crate engine at this point... No offense to anyone (& not aimed at blown34), but we've moved pretty far from the original purpose of the thread, which was for the OP to see whether his plan for an engine, already owned by him, was valid, and to get further advice about it.
I ran that cam (.714/.680) and I liked it. Mine was 477 (+.100 454) and I twisted that one in the eyes at 7800 with a 6800 shift point. I got around 725hp with that get up but I was also 14.11:1 compression with iron heads. For lighter valve train demands I went with some chromemoly 3/8 pushrods that were .100 longer than stock for proper geometry on the idea that a 3/8 pushrod held less oil than a 7/16. Oil is weight, right? I also used titanium retainers and 10deg machined locks, springs were 1.630 (I can't recall exactly) K-Motions, K1000H I think was the part#. At my installed hgt I recall 260# seat pressure and 575# open. I ran Comp Cams roller lifters with good success. Don't over-think your top end oil limitations for the roller. I used restrictors with the O rings removed and O ringed the distributor which gave plenty of oil to the top for long spring life and didn't starve the bottom. You will need a stud girdle for the rockers. If you insist on that cam consider more static compression or it may not run worth a bent dick below 5000RPM. There's some overlap in that stick. I think it was installed 4deg retarded. Shit I'm going back to 93-4? The car was 3545 with 5gal of fuel and me in it, had a 29.5 tall 10.5 tire, 4.88 gears and a 5500 stall 400 with a brake. Launch was 4000 or 4500 depending on track conditions, 60' times were 1.40-1.42, best ET was 10.32 and best MPH was 129.89. BTW, the crank and rods were genuine GM parts and are still out there floppin around in somebody's bracket motor at Milan Dragway. I put over 400 passes on those parts and they never failed me or the other guy that put 150 passes on em. Crank was a GM "non-twisted" forging, dimple rods with good bolts. Have fun.
Great explanation of what to use to get decent perfomance out of a big block for not much money. If you can find a set of rectangular port closed chamber iron heads cheap, don't be afraid to use them, they work fine. The tall deck truck heads I've seen are normal oval port, but have very small valves (smaller than the normal car/pickup 2.06/1.72). They made the engines for a long long time, so there probably were quite a few different heads used on them over the years.
I can't believe I'm the first one to mention this..... you're going to put that motor in that COOOOL ass body on a Henry J chassis?? WTH are you thinking??
------------------------------ Other than the 4.25 inch bore size, and the rod and main journal sizes and location on the crank being the same as previous big block Chevy engines , the 8100 is pretty much a unique duck and not much interchanges with the earlier MK4 or even the newer Gen 5 or 6 engines. The heads and deck in particular have both the head bolt holes and the water passage locations moved from the usual MK4 or even Gen 5 and 6 locations so the earlier heads wont work. As far as I know, nobody in the aftermarket yet is making any 8100-specific style heads and if they eventually do, you can bet because of the limited demand and small production , they'll be pretty pricey. Mart3406 ===================
well thanks for calling me out on this? but if you must know i have been saving to build the short block for a while..seeing as that i am getting all of the machine work done for free really helped me get the project rolling. this wont be built overnight, but i want to get a plan together so i know what i am doing. i am going solid roller and aftermarket rods because well the i dont want a stock truck rod to get tossed through the block and ruin the whole thing, i love the sound/power/revs of a solid motor...so its not "wasted money". ohh and my idea of a college budget is to drink only half your earnings..
Mart3406 thank you for the awesome write up..how do your fingers feel? i have been reading up alot on heads and that, by far, explained the open/closed chamber difference the best. i have to many options to think about here haha, the heads i have in the garage are, from what i am told, a cast iron copy of the old aluminum ZL1 heads, open chamber, rectanlge port, 2.19"/1.88" valves...i am fine with running them, but my old man is pushing me towards aluminum heads for weight and the ability to run a little more compression on pump gas. but with aluminum comes cost...i could sell the iron heads but i am not sure what they are even worth? The body i have was made with no door cut outs, which ads to the coolness factor.....except i am going to have to hop over the side everytime. also, going to make it a tilt front end....the chassis will be based from a henry J thats all, it is sitting on a jeepster frame but its junk (been sitting for 25 years in the dirt).
----------------------------- Do you have the casting numbers from those heads handy? If so, I should be able to tell you exactly what the original application was. Without seeing them or knowing the casting numbers, I would suspect that your iron heads are probably what we knew as either first or second design 'L88 heads;, rather than as you describe them - "Iron copies of the ZL1 aluminum head". I remember when the 'aluminum block & head' ZL1 engines were first released and the heads and other parts started becoming becoming available as 'over the counter dealer 'service parts; that the original 'first design' ZL1 aluminum head had unique 'round'' exhaust ports. It was soon found though that the round exhaust ports heads didn't work well and that head was eventually replaced by a revised or 'second design' ZL1 head with much improved D-shaped exhaust ports. I could be wrong, because the late- '60's-early-70's were the hey day of big block Chevy development at GM and elsewhere. Everybody had a pet theory or idea as to what worked or didn't work and things could and did change almost weekly sometimes - so there's a lot of odd-ball, experiential and low-production 'over the counter' stuff floating around out there, But I've never seen or heard of a ZL1 style 'round or D port head that was cast in iron.. By the way, In your first post, I just noticed you described the heads as "ZLX's". Where did you get that designation from? Is there a ZLX stamp or any markings anywhere on the heads? The reason I ask, is that 'ZLX' was never a code used by GM - but Joel Rosen's 'Motion Performance" on Long Island NY sold modified big block Chevy heads that they labeled as as ZLX heads. The modified 'ZLX' heads - they had numerous levels and options of mods depending on your budget and needs - were sold by mail-order, over the counter and as an available option installed on any new "Baldwin-Motion Supercar". If there are any markings on your heads that could positively identify and verify them them as actual Motion ZLX heads, they'd be worth big dollars and you could probably sell them to a collector for enough money to buy just about any new aftermarket heads you want! Mart3406 ==================
------------------------ Re: Your LaDawri body - those things are gorgeous! Back about 1973, I passed up a chance to buy a LaDawrie coupe on a '64 Corvette chassiis, with a 6-2bbl carbed 354 Chrysler hemi and a Clutchflyte tranny.... for $2200!!! The car was a drag car- a recently obsoleted NHRA A/MSP class racer, but with a bit of work it could have been put on the street, which is what I wanted to do with it! I think I offered the guy $1800 , but he wouldn't come down any on the price and I either wouldn't or couldn't go up any! 37 years later, I'm still kicking myself for letting that one get away!!! Mart3406 =================
I just finished reading through this thread and from the sound of things my parts bin is going to get hit pretty hard; the La Dawri, my ZLX heads, my locker, 427 tall deck etc., etc. This is going to be done on a budget although I won't let him skimp on parts like pistons etc. that he must have to twist the motor to 7000+ and keep it reliable. The Kinsler may be a future addition after he graduates and gets a job. If he had his way and some money it would be powered like Squirrel's 55. [blown] He is building a frame which will closely resemble the dimensions of a Heny J as that is what the La Dawri body fits suposedly. It is on a jeepster frame now. All your help and advise is appreciated. I aquired the ZlX motor around 1976 and it has been sitting ever since. It is a 512 block, 7/16 rods, open chamber, 12.5 c.r. The heads are cast iron and look exactly like a 435 h.p. head except they are open chamber. The carb is a 950 3bbl holley. I traded the bare intake years ago for a 67 vette tri power set up, with carbs and air cleaner. [couldn't pass it up] From what I remember the intake was just a rectangle port big block high rise with the center divider removed. There were 3 cams with it, a Can Am .600 in. .600 ex., a ZL1 560 in. 600 ex., and a mlder one which I think was just a step above a 435 cam. I believe the motor was purchased from Baldwin late in 69. Some other points of interest. The bare tall deck truck block weighs 226# with main caps, the 512 block weighs 209# only 16# difference. In 1970 I tried a set of Zl-1 heads on a 12.5 427 closed chambered piston engine. I know I had a lot less compression with these heads but I also had a lot less perfomance. I'm not convinced that the open chamber heads perform any better than the closed chamber heads when run through a reasonably quiet exhaust system. My friend could not get his to run as good although uncorked with a tunnel ram I'm sure the open chambered heads would have a big h.p. advantage. Again we thank you for you help and information. I also agree with Applkrate that big blocks are not traditional so I will shut up now. I hope those Pontiac blocks Applekrate is using have the starter mounted on the traditional left side. LOL
The Jalopy Journal
