Register now to get rid of these ads!

Budget Big Block Chevy Build - advice, thoughts

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by BOSTONCAMARO, Jun 15, 2012.

  1. Ok, so I had another thread on id'ing some pistons as we want to build a low buck motor as a spare for my dads car as my dads car is pretty radical. 12.5 to 1, solid roller, .677 lift etc, 2.30 intake valves etc.

    So I have a standard bore 454, was honed, checked at shop, barely any wear, fine to stay stock bore. Also came with the following: A set of brand new TRW L2465 pistons on resized rods, new rod bolts etc. i also have brand new piston rings etc.

    I have a set of '820' heads that someone had put 2:19's in and have a hydraulic cam with like a .550 or so street cam. I have a set of good used Crane gold race rockers and likely will do a mild port job on the heads.

    I also have a Performer intake and a Torker 2. What would be the better choice? or should I find a Performer RPM.

    Key is to stay cheap, have almost nothing into the parts we have. Point is will be a good basic motor that will still make some power and be driveable. It will have a somewhat vintage late 60's street machine look, run MT valve covers, maybe paint motor gold etc...so am thinking the Torker 2 may be a good choice.

    Thanks, Tim
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2012
  2. fiveohnick2932
    Joined: Mar 29, 2006
    Posts: 916

    fiveohnick2932
    Member
    from Napa, Ca.

    Go with the performer intake and throw those M/T valvecovers in the swapmeet pile (my 2 cents) and get some Cal-Custom ones. Gold motor with white headers....totally *****in 60s! Oh and keep it real and dont run an HEI, get an old Mallory and throw a pertronix unit in it.
     
  3. Heo2
    Joined: Aug 9, 2011
    Posts: 660

    Heo2
    Member

    From what i remember the torker2 was a good
    street intake...
     
  4. I do have a line on some Cal Customs....and of course recently sold a pair, before this project came to light oh well

    haha
     
  5. 38Chevy454
    Joined: Oct 19, 2001
    Posts: 6,800

    38Chevy454
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Since you can't really kill the torque on the big engine, the torker intake will be better for appearance and more top end power. The Performer would be better for the street. Use what you have to save money and comes down to how you plan to drive it more.

    No idea what compression ratio you have with those pistons, I did not look up, but unless it comes out too high, just run what you have. Even low 8.5 compression pistons with a larger cam will make good power, just be a bit sluggish response on low end. Advance the cam 2-4 degrees, run a lot of initial advance and it will work good.

    Your proposed setup is not far from what I run in my 38 Chevy. Mine is 454 bored .060 with flat tops, I have World Products Merlin oval port heads (2.19/1.88 valves), hydraulic flat tappet cam 253 degrees at .050, .575 lift; and roller rockers. I use a Performer RPM intake with a mech secondary 750 carb, block hugger headers. It runs great on the street, even at low compression. Use cheapest regular gas, no pinging. My cam is very aggresive sound, but the low cylinder presssure requires about 16 degrees initial advance. It works for me and sounds great with true dual exhaust.

    Used to race this engine, with different intake and bigger carb and of course better flowing exhaust. Even at low comp it worked great. Cast crank 2 bolt block and would buzz 6000 shifts and run through the trap at about 6200. Just an old street shortblock with better heads and big cam. Reliable as can be.
     
  6. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 60,040

    squirrel
    Member

    Neat idea, but the performer would blow the whole thing.....gotta use an old intake. One of the early Edelbrock dual plane intakes would be good (like a C396 if you can find one).

    I just got my old truck running again, it has a budget 454, flat top forged pistons, oval port early heads with 2.19/1.88 valves installed, .550ish lift hydraulic cam, etc. pretty similar to what you're building. Runs good....I have a Qjet on an early iron intake, but I could probably run a torker II on it if I wanted it to look right. No one in their right mind ever ran a Qjet back then, except the Stock racers who had to. and they went pretty quick.
     
  7. fiveohnick2932
    Joined: Mar 29, 2006
    Posts: 916

    fiveohnick2932
    Member
    from Napa, Ca.

    I know but I just cant stand those torquer intakes with their ports entering the head at such an angle. If it was my motor I would find a C396.
     
  8. it should be 9 to 1 compression...I'm gonna look for one of those intakes...they came in oval port?

    thx
     
  9. and i do have a Mallory dist...I also see they are oval port intakes, emailed on a couple that were modified for a 3 barrel...and you know what, I have a couple three barrels!!

    hmmmm
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2012
  10. getting back on this motor tomorrow....been finishing up on my Corvette and we are finishing the brakes on my dads car...so getting back to this motor. I did pick up a C 396 intake for it...and have a Mallory distributor for it
     
  11. lippy
    Joined: Sep 27, 2006
    Posts: 6,856

    lippy
    Member
    from Ks

    Yeah on the q-jet deal, ask Val headworth. :D
     
  12. This is the cam I have, I had it laying around, nearly new...had some surface rust but emery cloth took care of that

    Crane Cams CCH-304-2 NC hydraulic cam, which specs out at 234/244 at 0.050-inch tappet lift and 0.553/0.576-inch max lift, and is ground on 114 centers

     
  13. This block had been prepped then sat for years...new freeze plugs etc. I ended up stripping the whole thing the other day. Still need to rehone the cylinders quick...this is going to be a quick ring and bearing beater.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.