I think if you want to run the 262 you would think about the 3 inch crank
and E class. Rich Fox
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Bond <kmb2@humboldt.edu>
To: Dick J <lsr_man@yahoo.com>; land-speed@autox.team.net
<land-speed@autox.team.net>
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 02:50 PM
Subject: Re: SBC
>At 10:21 AM 08/29/01 -0700, Dick J wrote:
>>I've been sitting here making good use of my
>>lunch hour looking at SBD dimensions and have
>>come up with a question. The weakling of all
>>SBCs had to be the 262 that was made during the
>>mid-seventies. It has a b/s of 3.671 X 3.1.
>>Could the 262 block be bored enough and keep the
>>3.1 crank be a good candidate to make a "D"
>>motor?
>>
>>Dick J
>
>Dick,
>
>In my opinion, NO it is not a good candidate.
>For small engines ("D" motors), the key
>seems to be to rev high to make horsepower.
>Large bore and short strokes are the wisdom of
>the day to rev high.
>
>Assuming you agree with the large bore, short stroke
>argument (and I do), then starting with a
>327 block (4" bore) and a 283 crank (3" stroke)
>gives you 302 cu in. With a .020 or .030 bore to clean up
>the block, you are at the top of the "D" class.
>
>No matter what you do with the 262, you still have
>the 3.1" crank and my 3.0" crank (or aftermarket 2.9"
>crank) will have an inherent advantage every time.
>
>My guess is that while the 262 can be made to work,
>"for the same money" the 327/283 combo will run faster
>every day. For a SBC "D" motor, the
>stroke of 3.1" is too long.
>
>Others, such as Keith will make the point that if you
>go to 4.060 bore and 2.9ish stroke you get the best
>option (but more money). My point is that you are going
>up hill on the stroke length issue.
>
>Just my thoughts
>
>KEN
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe land-speed
///
///
|