Print Page | Close Window

360 stroker help

Printed From: TheAMCForum.com
Category: The Garage
Forum Name: AMC V8 Engine Repair and Modifications
Forum Description: AMC-made V8 engine mechanical, ignition and fuel from basic repair to high-perf modifications
URL: https://theamcforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6457
Printed Date: Mar/28/2024 at 10:11am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 360 stroker help
Posted By: 81j10honcho
Subject: 360 stroker help
Date Posted: Sep/20/2008 at 9:48pm
hey guys  well im stroking a 360 with a 401 crank since a 401 block is tough to come by and one thing im woundering is that has anyone done this and if so what kind of torque am i looking at with a summit 8600 cam 650 holly evenger carb performer intake  im gonna clean the chambers on the head free from any lips and rhoads lifters



Replies:
Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Sep/22/2008 at 12:39am
I am not clear on why you want to attempt to use the 401 crank in a 360 block with 401 blocks still around in ample supply plus the 401 crank has a longer stroke of 3.574 rather than the 360 stroke of 3.440 which will make your 360 pistons stick out above the top of the block by .055.  The pistons height of the 401 is 1.508 and the 360 pistons are 1.601 so unless you are also planning to have custom, shorter 360 pistons made to accomodate the longer stroke from the 401 crank you are much better off building up the 360 or looking some more for a 401 block due to custom pistons costing about $100 per slug which should cover the cost of a rebuildable 401 motor.
 
You can get more power than you can possibly use by simply building up the 360 so I am not sure why you would need the 401 crank even if it didn't push the stock pistons out of the block.  The 360 is a more rev happy engine than the 401 so unless you are looking for bragging rites with the bigger cubic inches, which no one will believe anyway because the block will still have the 360 markings on it, why bother putting up with all the aggravation of trying to stuff the 401 crank in the 360???


-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: 74Bubblefender
Date Posted: Sep/22/2008 at 9:57am
Alot of 360s will handle the 4.165 bore so you can use a stock piston. Mostly these types of combos are used when you have to utilize what you have and dont have a large budget. After weighing the options you may find that a 401 crank in a 401 block makes more power and in the end its up to you what you need out of this motor. A stroker 360 definately gets props :)

-------------
We are just about to forge new AMC V8 crankshafts.. please check here
http://www.bulltear.com/forums/showthread.php?19564


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Sep/22/2008 at 10:02am
I am of the understanding that only a very small number of 360 blocks have the thick web casting that can be bored out to 4.165 and that the vast majority of your run of the mill 360s can take a max of .060 overbore which is only 4.140 which will run pretty hot and is still .025 shy of 4.165 let alone 4.195 which is the standard .030 overbore of a 390/401.

-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: Steve_P
Date Posted: Sep/22/2008 at 11:54am

there was a lot of discussion and info on this on previous forums, incl pics.  First off, the main bearing area web casting has nothing to do with the ability to bore the block- that's the ability to take a 4 bolt main cap.

IIRC, it was at least until the mid 70s that the 360 can go to std bore of a 401 as it used the same water jacket cores.  They also used the same water jacket cores with the 343 as the 390- this is how they ran a ~439 in the grant funny car with a 343 block.   Anyway, back on topic, IIRC, the 360s that could not go to a 401 bore had two extra core (freeze) plugs behind the bellhousing for easy ID.  Saying all that, a sonic check is always recommended and this is pretty standard equipment these days.
 
Finally, 401 blocks that aren't at least .030 over are NOT in ample supply.  Using the 360 makes perfect sense to me.


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Sep/22/2008 at 4:27pm
You missed my point on the thick webbing blocks. It is my understanding that there is no question that the thick webbed block can be bored to a 4.165 size whereas, and as mentionoed in your repsonse, there are other 360s that cannot be bored.  Regardless and no matter what you do to it internally, you will still have a block with 360 markings on the side. 
 
Whether we agree or disagree that there are still an ample supply of 401 blocks around (I know of both a NOS 401 block and a used standard bore right here in the Phoenix area as I write this response) plus there are also 68/69 390 blocks, 70 390 blocks and 390 and 401 service blocks around that you can use the 401 crank and pistons without having to bore the motor to accomodate the 401 pistons to go with the 401 crank which can't use the 360 pistons. 
 
I agree that there are far more 360s blocks around but I'm also willing to bet that a large percentage of them are the ones with the later style water jacket casting that cannot accomodate being bored to 4.165.  Plus, most people and and even a higher percentage of the machine shops would not know the larger bore capable 360 block from the one that is able to be bored to 4.165.  So my point is why run the risk of having the wrong 360 block if you can find a 390 or 401 block and not have to worry about whether you have the correct or incorrect 360 block! 
 
On that subject, we currently have a used 390 service block in standard bore with 7/16ths head bolts holes and I have in my personal stash a NOS 390 service block that was decked .030 to accomodate the later model 401 pistons on stock 68/69 rods.  If anyone wants to build a clandestine motor that you can put in any 290 to 401 car without anyone being the wiser we have the blocks available. Wink.


-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: 74Bubblefender
Date Posted: Sep/22/2008 at 4:29pm
I havent seen a pre 78 360 block that couldnt take a 4.165 bore ;)

-------------
We are just about to forge new AMC V8 crankshafts.. please check here
http://www.bulltear.com/forums/showthread.php?19564


Posted By: 74Bubblefender
Date Posted: Sep/22/2008 at 4:34pm
I would steer clear of Rhoads lifters if you are going to try and use the pump up lifter. They work well in the passenger side bank of the AMC V8 but the rear drivers side cant seem to stay pumped and IIRC the mopar oil slot was wrong for any kind of lift.

-------------
We are just about to forge new AMC V8 crankshafts.. please check here
http://www.bulltear.com/forums/showthread.php?19564


Posted By: amcramblermarlin
Date Posted: Sep/24/2008 at 7:49pm
Agree and disagree; the discussion is still good to spit out all the nitty gritties of the issue! I have always been certain that the AMC 360 block casting does not have the same cast cylinder walls as the 401, and cannot be bored to accept the larger pistons because this is what all the AMC literature said, like their book "Performance American Style". There was a special "Trans-Am" block made in the early seventies for sure that does have thicker main webbing and cylinder walls that can be bored to the larger piston sizes, but I'm doubtful there is an ample supply of them out there. (uncertain how long AMC made the Trans-Am 360 block available) It seems the man who says that 360s will take the overbore has had some success with doing this. If so, this potential for bored out and/or stroked 360s is a newer discovery. He needs to assure the rest of us with some more specific info. (I seriously doubt that AMC would cast such fat cylinders for the standard 360s though because of cost and weight issues) Because AMC used higher quality nodular iron and carefully machined/snap in, very sturdy main bearing caps, I agree with "Performance American Style" that 4 bolt caps are not necessary, with exception of "Indy Cylinder Head" aluminum AMC V8 blocks; I have never heard of or experienced any weakness from the AMC V8 bottom end... in my opinion, this is a Chevy fix adapted to what is not a problem for AMC V8s. Something tells me that the man who wants to do the stroker 360 already knows he'll need new pistons. In my opinion, the 401 was never in ample supply, as a junkyard find or as stock equipment in an AMC product. But anyone with big money could  always buy one from somewhere... Many more 360s out there, and 304s; the "bread and butter" engines. In the "AMC Power Book" there is one article how to do a stroker 343 to 370 cid using a 390 or 401 crank and rods. They used custom forged pistons to compensate for the resulting change in piston pin height. The article concluded with an attitude of good success, as if the money was well spent. -Custom Pistons = how to 401 crank & rods in 360 block.                                                                                                                                                                                             The Chevy people have been doing the stroker thing for a while now; the 400 crank in the 350 block. What is not mainly expressed is that their 400 block has siamese cylinder walls; not good for shedding heat on performance built up engine. (the AMC 401 has full water jackets) Nevertheless, the Chevy people assert there is gain to be had from rod ratio geometry, citing the length of the rod has to do with how long the piston lingers at TDC. The idea is that a longer rod stalls the piston at TDC longer than a shorter rod, to take more advantage of valve timing. (On the other hand, there are those who argue that a shorter rod applies more leverage to the crank by it's geometry...) I've always been disturbed by the mainstream magazines who push for the stroker kits because I have read about piston temperature ranges -that they vary several hundred degrees from top to skirt, and this would affect the longevity of the piston pin -whether the oil there scalds or not. Whenever I rebuild and engine, I always notice scalded oil underside the piston top, inside the piston. Another complexity would be "piston slap" from the larger measure of piston pin height, saying that a numerically lower piston pin height affects less "piston slap", increasing the longevity of the bore from less rocking motion of the piston. I have not noticed any weakness in AMC engines due to piston slap, not even in the Rambler V8 that has over 1.6" of pin height; a good candidate for a stroker engine with it's long (6.+") forged steel rods and 3.25" short stroke crank.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Anyway, there is a more complex discussion to question how the rod ratio will affect the power output, of how the stroke will demand a different cam grind, of how the durability of the engine will be affected for good or bad. It is plausible in my mind that because of rod ratio and piston pin height the 401 crank and rods in the 360 block might have some undiscovered potential to be very torquey and durable. Shouldn't it weigh slightly less than a 401? The combo will yield approximately a 385 cid engine. It'll have good sized water jackets to shed heat. Not as much piston slap. The custom pistons should come out lighter from reduced pin height?... maybe this person is a Chevy spy merely posing the question to test the AMC guys, -to see if we know our block sides from a hole in the ground... and the other guy... to get our 360 blocks bored out too thin to try to eliminate some of the rompin stompin AMC drag cars out there! 


Posted By: poormansMACHINE
Date Posted: Sep/24/2008 at 8:08pm
Originally posted by amcramblermarlin amcramblermarlin wrote:

It seems the man who says that 360s will take the overbore has had some success with doing this.  

Wouldn't simple sonic testing of the cylinders answer this this?


Posted By: 81j10honcho
Date Posted: Sep/24/2008 at 8:51pm
the 360 will be bored 030 overs stock bore im just wounderin wat kind of tq and hp 


Posted By: 74Bubblefender
Date Posted: Sep/24/2008 at 9:19pm
A sonic test tells you how far you can overbore. The area around the thrust wall in the cylinder about 1/3 of the way up gets thin on AMC motors. On early 360's it seemed almost that the thrust area thickness went 360 degrees around the cylinder. A sonic test will give you all the ammo you need. The best part about doing this is you can use 401 pistons if your block can handle the bore. The production 360 blocks dont have the thick webbing like the 401 block but that doesnt mean they cant build great torque and horsepower.

-------------
We are just about to forge new AMC V8 crankshafts.. please check here
http://www.bulltear.com/forums/showthread.php?19564


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Sep/24/2008 at 9:24pm
The overbore on the 360 alone will only minimally impact its power output.  It really depends on what else you are planning to do to the motor so if the answer is not much then your output will still be in the stock output range and will be more impacted by which compression pistons you put in the motor than the overbore.

-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: 81j10honcho
Date Posted: Sep/24/2008 at 10:11pm
since its a dished piston  its gonna get shaved


Posted By: amcramblermarlin
Date Posted: Sep/24/2008 at 11:07pm
I don't know about sonic testing; you tell me? I'm just quoting "Performance American Style" -AMC's factory performance book printed way back in the early seventies. It seems like someone could measure the two castings through the water jacket openings. Maybe AMC did use the same water jacket casting cores for the 360 and 401 to save money? -not sure at all.

Shave the stock cast 360 pistons? That might mess with the upper ring location and make it fail from heat or weakness of the ring lands. The stock cast pistons don't usually survive being pressed off the rods; they'll crack. Forged aluminum pistons usually do.

"AM Racing" at www.amracing.com/whatwedo/pistons.html sells trick AMC 360 pistons for $360. I bet these guys know what to do. -$45 a piston isn't too expensive? considering how the engine will be done "right", to offer a very durable combination. 


Posted By: amcramblermarlin
Date Posted: Sep/24/2008 at 11:21pm
I've had good results with Rhoads lifters. I used them in my tricked out 360 I built for my "back on the street" '69 AMX. (a former drag car that ran side by side with a real SS/AMX, having the same modifications; battery in the trunk, fuel line nipples onto the back of the gas tank for the electric fuel pump, modified front bottom out bumpers for popping wheelies, oversized rear wheel openings... named "High Roller") I employed all the oil system mods I show in my drawings at www.planethoustonamx.com/main/amc%20oil%20modification%20setup.htm I used a high rpm cam and kit from Isky, but my idle was smooth for my automatic and A/C. 


Posted By: amcramblermarlin
Date Posted: Sep/24/2008 at 11:34pm
385 cid will definitely make more power than 360 cid, but I'm curious about the rod ratio issue and stroke. I think the stock 360 cam won't be able to take advantage of the stroke change; might need a 390/401 cam that has a different lobe separation angle...


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Sep/25/2008 at 6:03am
AMRACING........Get away....FAST!!!!!


-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: 74Bubblefender
Date Posted: Sep/25/2008 at 9:57am
Man I dont know where to start.
 
 
Your drawing were beautifull and have probly helped many. There are hundreds who simply use a deeper sump pan and drag race without a valley line, drilling out the timing cover or porting out the oil filter adaptor. Not saying it doesnt help, many things help. The 385ci has been done lots and lots of times. Seeing as the 360 and 401 have the same deck height the increase in stroke should give him a nice increase in power even with the stock bore or stock cam. This engine may be going into a jeep!  You may want to check with AM Racing to see if they still offer 360 pistons for $360. IIRC their website hasnet been updated since 2002. It could be that those pistons are for a 4.125 bore chevy pin ( :D )
 
Sonic checking is the ultimate finality when checking the bore size you can open your block up to. As long and the person checking the block is very thourough...very thourough you will know exactly where the thin spots are :)


-------------
We are just about to forge new AMC V8 crankshafts.. please check here
http://www.bulltear.com/forums/showthread.php?19564


Posted By: tyrodtom
Date Posted: Sep/25/2008 at 2:21pm
I got the pistons from AMRACING about 4 years ago, I still haven't assembled the engine.
It took over 6 months, and several calls, for them to arrive.
They're hyperutechnic, not forged, and they are 4.125 bore,I'm pretty sure they're Chevy 396 pistons,  but the pin holes have been machined or honed out to AMC pin size, and the top looks like they've been machined to flat tops.
To tell you the truth, i'm a little unsure about them.


-------------
66 American SW, 66 American 2dr, 82 J10, 70 Hornet, Pound, Va.


Posted By: Alliups
Date Posted: Sep/25/2008 at 4:19pm
Originally posted by tyrodtom tyrodtom wrote:

I got the pistons from AMRACING about 4 years ago, I still haven't assembled the engine.
It took over 6 months, and several calls, for them to arrive.
They're hyperutechnic, not forged, and they are 4.125 bore,I'm pretty sure they're Chevy 396 pistons,  but the pin holes have been machined or honed out to AMC pin size, and the top looks like they've been machined to flat tops.
To tell you the truth, i'm a little unsure about them.


A trusted machinist could tell you if they are quality or not by how accurate the machining is. The next deal , I'm sure because you're a racer,  you know whether the pin compression height , etc. is what you're going to use the engine for.

Steve


Posted By: Alliups
Date Posted: Sep/26/2008 at 10:05am
Originally posted by amx39068 amx39068 wrote:

The overbore on the 360 alone will only minimally impact its power output.  It really depends on what else you are planning to do to the motor so if the answer is not much then your output will still be in the stock output range and will be more impacted by which compression pistons you put in the motor than the overbore.


An overbore alone or an overbore with a stroke increase would pump up your torque as well as make the engine more "flexible" in terms of 'lugging" it. You won't have to downshift as often.

Steve


Posted By: tyrodtom
Date Posted: Sep/26/2008 at 11:57am
   You bore a engine out .030, how much added displacement do we have ? 5-6 cubic inches .
   You've got a engine that maybe, maybe, can make 1 hp per cu in, if it's really tuned. So at the best you're looking at a added 5-6 hp from the added displacement.
   How much do the pistons cost ? $500 maybe . Bore- $200+, if you do all the work yourself, and just farm out the machine work, you've just spent over $100 per added HP.
Boreing out a engine for added hp isn't very cost effective.
   You'll get more added hp from your old engine, if you bore it. from the improved ring seal on fresh, straight, cylinder walls than you'll get from the added displacement .
    Of course, if the engine needs a overhaul, by all means bore it, myself I don't like to bore to the max because of possible heat problems with thin cylinder walls. But it's your engine. 
   Then there's offset grinding a crank for added displacement. How much added displacement verses how much money spent ?


-------------
66 American SW, 66 American 2dr, 82 J10, 70 Hornet, Pound, Va.


Posted By: Alliups
Date Posted: Sep/26/2008 at 12:40pm
I should have said "big bore". If someone were going to go 45 thou or above that'd be be a big bore. I was referring to the AM racing pistons and the original poster's interest in putting big pistons in. It's really only cost effective if the work is going to be done anyway. With an AMC offset grinding the crank would be more cost effective than switching everything over for a 390 or 401 crank.
    However, it is an interesting exercise and I think that after doing the engine math all AMC parts could be used. The piston doesn't know what rod or crank it's attached to. So-
9.208-3.57/2 +5.790 =1.633. That'd be a very tall topped piston. Unless you decked the engine and perhaps used 343 pistons. I'll check later when I have time. The point is you can up the size of the engine if that is your aim, without getting custom parts. The above example would require bushing the small end of the rod.
 Steve


Posted By: Alliups
Date Posted: Sep/26/2008 at 10:52pm
 Naturally, you are "only" getting a 374 C.I. engine unless you also ordered .040" over pistons which would be 378- 379 C.I. couple these changes to the right head and cam mods and you'd have a relative revver compared to a 390 with alot more torque than a 360- plus fairly cheap forged parts.
 Steve


Posted By: Alliups
Date Posted: Sep/26/2008 at 11:17pm
Ok, here's an affordable combo:  9.208" deck height- 3.57/2 ( 390 crank stroke divide by 2 )+ 5.858" ( '70 390/401 rod length )= 1.565 CH ( compression height ). Egge apparently makes some 1.57" CH 343/360 pistons. That would leave you at .005" below deck height. Not sure what the compression would be but 10.7 to 1 would probably be on the low end- closer to 11 to 1 is my guess. Put in a cam that limits dynamic compression and you have a sweet running engine that is just shy of 380 cubes with some relatively light pistons as compared to a390 along with a smaller flame front area meaning it would be less prone to detonate. You are also using all AMC parts. Again the rod would have to be bushed for the smaller piston pin.

Steve


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Sep/27/2008 at 12:22am

There is no way a simple .030, 040, or .060 overbore is going to have any measurable impact on torque, horsepower or anything else that an engine produces. And anyone who thinks that such a small overbore alone will impact an engine's output is ignoring a host of other factors that affect the output of power and torque on an internal combustion engine.  A piston swap with a shorter piston height on an otherwise stock setup will pretty much cancel out any gain that the nominal increase in bore might produce so there may not be any measurable gain at all other than what you would normally get from freshening up an engine.

On the other hand, stroking an engine or using a crank with a longer throw for bigger cubes or improving the intake flow and carb size, improving the valve train flow and/or increasing exhaust flow will indeed have a signficant impact on the engine's output .  The bore size alone, as mentioned above, will prodice 6-8 morre cubic inches than the stock bore, or around 2% of the total engine's displacemen so in the grand scheme of things that nominal increase in engine size is a very small factor in an engine's output.
 
As for specifcs, the above referenced:
"affordable combo" of  9.208" deck height- 3.57/2 [not sure where that comes from as the 390 is 5.74] ( 390 crank stroke divide by 2 )+ 5.858" ( '70 390/401 rod length )= 1.565 CH ( compression height ). Egge apparently makes some 1.57" CH 343/360 pistons. That would leave you at .005" below deck height.
 
will actually result in the pistons poking out of the block by .007 (with the 1.57 EGGE pistons), which is actually a -.007 deck height not .005 so the valve to piston clearance should be checked to make sure the valves do not come in contact with the top of the piston particularly when using a cam with a hefty lift. 
 
The compression ratio at .030 with the above combination will be of 11.1:1 with 50.6cc heads and 10.2:1 iwith 58cc heads and stock 18cc valve reliefs. The size of the valve reliefs will significantly impact the comrpession ratio if the valve reliefs are smaller that the stock 18cc's.  The cubic inches will be 379.33 at .030 over the strandard bore of 4.080.


-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: Alliups
Date Posted: Sep/27/2008 at 10:42am
Originally posted by amx39068 amx39068 wrote:

There is no way a simple .030, 040, or .060 overbore is going to have any measurable impact on torque, horsepower or anything else that an engine produces. And anyone who thinks that such a small overbore alone will impact an engine's output is ignoring a host of other factors that affect the output of power and torque on an internal combustion engine.  A piston swap with a shorter piston height on an otherwise stock setup will pretty much cancel out any gain that the nominal increase in bore might produce so there may not be any measurable gain at all other than what you would normally get from freshening up an engine.

On the other hand, stroking an engine or using a crank with a longer throw for bigger cubes or improving the intake flow and carb size, improving the valve train flow and/or increasing exhaust flow will indeed have a signficant impact on the engine's output .  The bore size alone, as mentioned above, will prodice 6-8 morre cubic inches than the stock bore, or around 2% of the total engine's displacemen so in the grand scheme of things that nominal increase in engine size is a very small factor in an engine's output.
 
As for specifcs, the above referenced:
"affordable combo" of  9.208" deck height- 3.57/2 [not sure where that comes from as the 390 is 5.74] ( 390 crank stroke divide by 2 )+ 5.858" ( '70 390/401 rod length )= 1.565 CH ( compression height ). Egge apparently makes some 1.57" CH 343/360 pistons. That would leave you at .005" below deck height.
 
will actually result in the pistons poking out of the block by .007 (with the 1.57 EGGE pistons), which is actually a -.007 deck height not .005 so the valve to piston clearance should be checked to make sure the valves do not come in contact with the top of the piston particularly when using a cam with a hefty lift. 
 
The compression ratio at .030 with the above combination will be of 11.1:1 with 50.6cc heads and 10.2:1 iwith 58cc heads and stock 18cc valve reliefs. The size of the valve reliefs will significantly impact the compression ratio if the valve reliefs are smaller that the stock 18cc's.  The cubic inches will be 379.33 at .030 over the strandard bore of 4.080.


Well, I'm one of those that does feel that any overbore past .040"  AND maintaining the original piston height to deck clearance or BETTER will produce noticeable seat in the pants torque improvement as well as quantifiable improvement. Anyone that thinks otherwise ignores basic physics. A .060 overbore represents about a 3.9% displacement percentage. if one's aim was purely to bore out then the 6% threshold ( about .080" over) would be a rough thumbnail for going that route to increase displacement. The lower overbores were just free rides- if you are going to stroke and go with an overbore- then the combination makes a great wallop in the rear.
    Yes the Egge pistons have a lower than stock CH which is perfect for the exercise I chose. If overboring alone one would have to take into account the CH loss and either shave the head or find other pistons. The simple overbore was never my focus and certainly digresses from the original poster's aim. I hope this closes beating a dead horse on the overbore issue. Moving on.
  
 Actually you are correct, in part on the stroke- the 390 has a 3.574" stroke. And yes the piston would be 7 thou above the deck. The machinist could best determine if any shaving would be necessary. The point which seems to be lost in all the trips down overbore lane, is how to jump on a 360, or 343 for that matter, and do with it what has been done with the ubiquitous ( look it up- or look at the context and stretch your vocabulary a little if you are a reader that has a problem with "big" words- I use what I use ) Chevy smallblock in the 383 configuration. 400 crank in a 350 block- brilliant.
   If you have or are considering getting a 390 or 401- that's great- but were dealing with 360's which in AMC land are the Chevy smallblock of the litter- quantity wise. But more important is it stretches people's imaginations and ingenuity to play with the 343/360's and make them do different things. People take 401's out to 422 and 434 CID. So if you can score just a 390 or even 401 crank and rods- why not play with a 360 too? If you can't afford or find these then offset grind the 360 crank - use some SCAT or other forged rods or simply inspect ( magnaflux ), clean up ( removing sharp edges and casting flash ) and ARP bolt a set of stock rods and stroke the crank to a level that allows picking the most readily available pistons while having to do minimal machining.
Then.......
 HAVE FUN!Tongue

Steve
     


Posted By: kc eatman
Date Posted: Jan/30/2009 at 10:52pm
i have ran a 360 bored to 4.125 , 6" alu. rod with 3.910 stroke to make 418 cubes. it also has a 700" roller @ alu. indy heads & je pistons. it makes a little over 700 hp.  been running it for 8 years with no problems other than an ocasoinal rod change. i would think you could do what your wanting to with no problem.


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Jan/31/2009 at 7:15am
Originally posted by kc eatman kc eatman wrote:

i have ran a 360 bored to 4.125 , 6" alu. rod with 3.910 stroke to make 418 cubes. it also has a 700" roller @ alu. indy heads & je pistons. it makes a little over 700 hp.  been running it for 8 years with no problems other than an ocasoinal rod change. i would think you could do what your wanting to with no problem.
Finally some reality and not theory..or percieved theory...Clap


-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: Alliups
Date Posted: Jan/31/2009 at 9:18am
Originally posted by Hurst390 Hurst390 wrote:

Originally posted by kc eatman kc eatman wrote:

i have ran a 360 bored to 4.125 , 6" alu. rod with 3.910 stroke to make 418 cubes. it also has a 700" roller @ alu. indy heads & je pistons. it makes a little over 700 hp.  been running it for 8 years with no problems other than an ocasoinal rod change. i would think you could do what your wanting to with no problem.
Finally some reality and not theory..or percieved theory...Clap


Of course, the "theories" or " perceived theories " were based upon real world examples preceding them.ClapClapClap The above is another example to add to the archive to draw from and backs up those so called" theories". Wink

Steve


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Jan/31/2009 at 4:32pm
 I have not seen any other real world examples in the thread other than Mr. Eatmam...
 It's all- I think....It should..... or a bunch what performance american style says...
 That book is good for nothing more than looking at some good old pics or wiping your butt with it(and still not what you want for that job)..because it sure doesn't tell you how to port an AMC head properly..any specific info to performance is outdated in it...
 I think Matt and Ron mentioned a sonic checker? but that went right back to P.A.S. book...
 No one has addressed that an overbore will allow a cylinder head to flow better? and what impact that might have..just personal theory...Now when someone steps up with some actual flow bench data with the effects of different bore sizes and some dyno #'s then I'm all ears..otherwise it's all conjecture imo....
Mr Eatman has some real world info with excellent results he laid down for you all...but I have found too many times that for some that is not good enough...
 
 


-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: Alliups
Date Posted: Jan/31/2009 at 7:08pm
Originally posted by Hurst390 Hurst390 wrote:

 I have not seen any other real world examples in the thread other than Mr. Eatmam...
 It's all- I think....It should..... or a bunch what performance american style says...
 That book is good for nothing more than looking at some good old pics or wiping your butt with it(and still not what you want for that job)..because it sure doesn't tell you how to port an AMC head properly..any specific info to performance is outdated in it...
 I think Matt and Ron mentioned a sonic checker? but that went right back to P.A.S. book...
 No one has addressed that an overbore will allow a cylinder head to flow better? and what impact that might have..just personal theory...Now when someone steps up with some actual flow bench data with the effects of different bore sizes and some dyno #'s then I'm all ears..otherwise it's all conjecture imo....
Mr Eatman has some real world info with excellent results he laid down for you all...but I have found too many times that for some that is not good enough...
 
 


I agree on some points not on others. Here's the deal. You are a drag racer. You have a built engine. You've got experience. Some of us have different backgrounds- different engines, similar principals.  Trying to help someone out is the name of the game. Mr. Eatman provided the real world recent example to back up some of  the "I thinks" and so on. But it took the thread 4 pages and five months to get to Mr. Eatman. The title and the contributions before brought the horse to the water so to speak, and he drank. So it's all good.
  Bigger bores can allow for better breathing assuming there was shrouding before hand and along with the bigger bore deeper breathing action occurs elsewhere- valve cuts and angles to draw the flow past the valve heads and a cam and porting that complement each other and the cylinder volume.
  The biggest point, to you, is, if you have the knowledge share it. When you sit back after months of hearsay, theorizing, and quotes from inaccurate books, from your perspective, and then say" I told you so" - makes it seem you just wanna be smug and try to crap on people's, or some very specific people's, desire to help others. Where's the help and the benefit? Not everybody is gonna say, "nunhh unnhh" out the gate when experience speaks.Some are. So what. That's in every arena and avenue of life. Some aren't. Some are, and once experience explains they see the point. Give people a chance rather than painting all with the the naysay brush. You may find your "prophesy" isn't self-fulfilling that way. In any case we can agree that boring and stroking will likely lead to better power if done right. Mr. Eatman's example would be one of those, "done rights". I would imagine the results behind your engine's build is another done right.


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Feb/01/2009 at 6:49am
Originally posted by Alliups Alliups wrote:

Originally posted by Hurst390 Hurst390 wrote:

 I have not seen any other real world examples in the thread other than Mr. Eatmam...
 It's all- I think....It should..... or a bunch what performance american style says...
 That book is good for nothing more than looking at some good old pics or wiping your butt with it(and still not what you want for that job)..because it sure doesn't tell you how to port an AMC head properly..any specific info to performance is outdated in it...
 I think Matt and Ron mentioned a sonic checker? but that went right back to P.A.S. book...
 No one has addressed that an overbore will allow a cylinder head to flow better? and what impact that might have..just personal theory...Now when someone steps up with some actual flow bench data with the effects of different bore sizes and some dyno #'s then I'm all ears..otherwise it's all conjecture imo....
Mr Eatman has some real world info with excellent results he laid down for you all...but I have found too many times that for some that is not good enough...
 
 

  The biggest point, to you, is, if you have the knowledge share it. When you sit back after months of hearsay, theorizing, and quotes from inaccurate books, from your perspective, and then say" I told you so" - makes it seem you just wanna be smug and try to crap on people's, or some very specific people's, desire to help others. Where's the help and the benefit? Not everybody is gonna say, "nunhh unnhh" out the gate when experience speaks.Some are. So what. That's in every arena and avenue of life. Some aren't. Some are, and once experience explains they see the point. Give people a chance rather than painting all with the the naysay brush. You may find your "prophesy" isn't self-fulfilling that way.
I've been around these message boards for years and AMC's much longer..
over and over again people that are "in the know"post fact and are ridiculed by experts that really have no background or experience in a given area..Now I am not describing this thread that way so much. I am just generalizing........I have seen it over and over again...so why would somebody want to get involved when theyhave spent hard earned money and lots of time to just to be minimized by maybe's and should haves...?????  you can see it coming..just like death and taxes!
I know several very knowledgable AMC buildersthat do not partake in public discussion for that very reason..and one that has recently signed on has regretted it I'm sure by the way his information was discounted ......
I am really surprised to get a speech like that from somebody that just a week ago said bye bye to everybody because of the same thing maybe??
I am always interested in helping people in the AMC world..anyone can e-mail me anytime..and If I do not know the answer I bet I know  somebody that does and will direct them that direction!
Steve I am aware of my personality and my ability to give myself a Ouch...sometime I just can't hold backLOL
 


-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Feb/01/2009 at 7:54am

Yep.  Keyboard experts are everywhere but there is no substitute for real life experience. 



-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: poormansMACHINE
Date Posted: Feb/01/2009 at 8:50am
Originally posted by Hurst390 Hurst390 wrote:

why would somebody want to get involved when theyhave spent hard earned money and lots of time to just to be minimized by maybe's and should haves...?????

I know several very knowledgable AMC builders that do not partake in public discussion for that very reason.


There's a few that I've asked over the years and they won't go on line for that reason.
They've lurked and decided there's better things to do.




Posted By: Alliups
Date Posted: Feb/01/2009 at 11:16am
If that is an accurate reflection of things then no one with any knowledge should post. I'm keenly aware of the folly that happened on other forums long ago. I got caught up in that crap. Took me a long while to mature and learn and this boy is far from perfect. I also understand withdrawing help when you feel shi_ on by others. I do it myself- stop posting, purposely erase posts, etc. I don't mind telling the truth, got nothing to hide.You do what you can to keep your self respect. Still, one that helps others always returns to that which they are- helper. The difficulty is in withstanding actions, opinions, and subterfuge that goes with it. Sometimes you fall, and sometimes, in the words of Henry Rollins- you " rise above ". Besides, debate, doubt, argument, and new ideas are all a part of sharing experience. If the end result is knowing new things for everyone- then getting dissed- if that's what it is is minor. Disagreement alone doesn't mean you're getting shot down either. Can't help what the big boys have decided to do- or not- via the board- but there are guys like you, Ron, Dan, sometimes myself, and others that can share stuff. It'll get through to someone.Big%20smile
SA


Posted By: Alliups
Date Posted: Feb/01/2009 at 11:22am
It shouldn't be surprising coming from me then, sometimes I'm my own worst enemy- like you I know myself pretty well. I pick myself up, brush myself off, and keep movin' ahead.
Steve


Posted By: poormansMACHINE
Date Posted: Feb/01/2009 at 1:12pm
Originally posted by Alliups Alliups wrote:

Besides, debate, doubt, argument, and new ideas are all a part of sharing experience.

That's just it. Part of the experience many would not rather share and don't.
Many have a working/proven setup. Then it goes into a debate. The only way it would work is for them to post their setup and then lock it from further comment. Then it's up to the individuals that may be interested in reading it to make their own conclusions and decide for themselves, keeping it to themselves if it's feasible (to them) or not.
That won't happen on the web since there's too many master debaters.


Posted By: purple72Gremlin
Date Posted: Feb/01/2009 at 2:35pm
Originally posted by poormansMACHINE poormansMACHINE wrote:

Originally posted by Hurst390 Hurst390 wrote:

why would somebody want to get involved when theyhave spent hard earned money and lots of time to just to be minimized by maybe's and should haves...?????

I know several very knowledgable AMC builders that do not partake in public discussion for that very reason.


There's a few that I've asked over the years and they won't go on line for that reason.
They've lurked and decided there's better things to do.


You got that right PMM. Ive had them tell me the same thing.


Posted By: purple72Gremlin
Date Posted: Feb/01/2009 at 2:39pm
Originally posted by poormansMACHINE poormansMACHINE wrote:

Originally posted by Alliups Alliups wrote:

Besides, debate, doubt, argument, and new ideas are all a part of sharing experience.

That's just it. Part of the experience many would not rather share and don't.
Many have a working/proven setup. Then it goes into a debate. The only way it would work is for them to post their setup and then lock it from further comment. Then it's up to the individuals that may be interested in reading it to make their own conclusions and decide for themselves, keeping it to themselves if it's feasible (to them) or not.
That won't happen on the web since there's too many master debaters.
I dont blame them for not sharing either, its their right to decide whether they want to share or not. some people dont like/or dont understand why. well, I have no problem with that. I am on good terms with all the AMC'ers that I have met and I see no reason to be otherwise.Wink


Posted By: Alliups
Date Posted: Feb/01/2009 at 2:47pm
That is one approach. It's on this forum already. Wouldn't work for me personal but understand it works for some. Actually at some point I can see the value personal- may go that route as an alternative on the Hurst SC thing and then if someone else has something new or different they can create their own thread. But that is a way ways off.
   As to the big boys that have been paid for their expertise- even they differ. When you see the PH Engine Masters Challenge, as an example, the ones at the top take different approaches to reach the challenge goals. If you are saying that a master doesn't want to reveal their secrets- this example not being in that vein, as the winner of the challenge's secrets are subsequently put out.
   I guess what I'm saying, and we all know it has affected me at times as well, which simply means finding out the real reason for suddenly get pissed off- like asking questions-"hey howcome you seem to be such a dic_- or why aren't you answering the question",and so on would help avoid meltdowns. The other obvious point is that of growing thicker skin. If that isn't really the crux then the worry that some people are gonna lose the good points amidst all the second guessing or outright opposition to expert advice withoutthe opposition really having a leg to stand on- yes- that's a factor. But how much greater a factor exists that no one benefits from experience if somedone's background isn't shared at all? I'm not saying anyone has an obligation to share either. If they want to- good- if not- not so good- but their choice- naturally. In the long run though- if you have things to help peop[le- and it's what you do- keep doing it- even through the set-backs- self created or no.  My owe tooTwoCents

He Who Shoots Himself In The Foot ( my American Indian name-LOL )



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net