Dave,
I just spoke to mthe shop that is doing my motor.
They indicated that they could fit the 300 crank in either way.
Line boring or machining the crank.
Maching the crank is $150 and they indicate not a problem for strength.
In fact it is the method they also recommend/prefer. (Also the Adapter
from D&D ($90) will match correctly to the crank and Block)
Cost is about double to align-bore the block to fit the crank.
Then you still need to have an adapter fabricated for the back of the
block. (More $$$)
Later... MGB/Z ='74 MGB w/'63 OLDS 215 V8 T50-5 speed '78 Monza Rear
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ Bill Zenkus
_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ 22 Wycliff Terr
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ Seymour,Ct.06483
_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ E-Mail address;
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ bill.zenkus@gdc.com
David Kernberger wrote:
> Micke,
>
> I don't know your e-mail address but you touched on a subject I
> very much want to get an answer to. Does it work well to align-bore a 3.5
> block to the larger 2.5 inch main bearing size when adapting a 300
> crankshaft??? Baker says to grind the crank journals down to 2.3 inches,
> but I would be afraid of weakening the crankshaft that way. It already has
> considerably less journal overlap than a stock 2.8 stroke crank. David
> Hardcastle's book mentions some special cranks made for the 3.5 which have
> 2.5" journals but does not make any definite statements whether
> align-boring is the way to go. I have found out that 300 main bearing caps
> will bolt right on to the 3.5 block, and they are definitely meatier. It
> should be no problem for a machine shop to face them off a bit and use them
> for the align-bored block. Maybe this would the best of both worlds????
>
> I would love to hear from anyone else on this matter also.
>
> Cheers, Dave Kernberger
|