[DeTomaso] Fwd: Re: Wear particles.

[dave londry]

Interesting.
My crank is stock ford, ground to 3.7", but somebody put a lot of time
into balancing it.
It must have 30 removal pits.
I weighed the rods and the pistons and they have been completely matched
too.

I think I could go up to 3.9" in a quality stroker.
I'm not up for undersquare.
But that's probably just because I spent too much time as a kid looking
down my nose
  at all those old long-stroke engines.
The only one I ever owned was a 1600cc BMC engine (and I broke it!)
dave

On 08/02/2013 5:52 PM, Charles Engles wrote:
> Dear Dave,
>
>
>              All of my engines are stock stroke.  The only strokers I would consider building are the 377 and 383.  Maybe....after I finish the Mark III and Mark IV engines, I might do a stroker--a 377 ci stroker.
>
>                       Warmest regards,  Chuck Engles
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dave londry [mailto:davel at emspace.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 7:34 PM
> To: cengles at cox.net
> Cc: detomaso at poca.com
> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Wear particles.
>
> Thanks Chuck. I do like having re-enforced delusions.
>
> The 377 is great.
> I got a pretty aggressive hydraulic roller cam
>    (under close supervision from Dan Jones and arm-wrestling with the Cleveland guy at Bullet cams).
>    It has an 800 Thunder on an AirGap manifold.
> The heads are seriously-ported 4Vs and the CR is 10.8.
> The exhaust is now 2 1/2" all the way to the mufflers and 2 x 2 1/2"
> through the mufflers.
>    - bitch of a time building that up through between the halfshaft and the lower A-arm.
> Dan's simulation corrected to 10.8 would be about 505 at 6000 (so real-world will be discounted from that) It idles in a very nice, lumpy way, but surprisingly it pulls smoothly from 1500.
> dave
>
> On 08/02/2013 5:55 AM, cengles at cox.net wrote:
>> Dear Dave,
>>
>>
>>                Considering your story of the engine and rebuild and
>> considering the volume of schmutz that you describe on your
>> inspections, my limited *amateur* opinion is that it is OK.
>>
>>
>>                How does the 377 Cleveland run?
>>
>>
>>                              Warmest regards, Chuck Engles
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, dave londry wrote:
>>
>>> Hey you engine analysts.
>>> I'm installing A Kevco Racing pan right now,
>>>    so I got to take an inventory of the contents of the pan and the
>>> filter.
>>>
>>> I rebuilt this engine (377 Cleveland) last year and put 100 miles on
>>> the break-in oil.
>>> Everything was new or newly ground but the rings.
>>>    I kept them because there was very little mileage on the previous
>>> build,
>>>    (which I inherited along with some very special quality problems).
>>> When I changed the break-in oil,
>>>    I got about the volume of 2 BBs in magnetic muck on the drain-plug
>>> magnet.
>>> It wasn't very magnetic, so I'll BS-guess and say it was less than
>>> 10% steel/iron.
>>> I didn't recover anything when I tore the filter apart (K&N)
>>>    so it was probably just too well distributed for me to find.
>>>
>>> Then I put 1200 miles on a fill of Royal Purple synthetic.
>>> I got exactly the same result again with with the drain-plug and the
>>> filter.
>>>   From the pan I got about a half-dozen chips
>>>    about 0.020 x 0.020 x way thinner than I can get ahold of. Maybe
>>> 0.002 or 0.003.
>>>
>>> This all seemed pretty OK to me.
>>> I think the flakes were one-time sharp edges left from the machine-work.
>>>
>>> So - am I delusional guys?
>>> Comments please, I can take it.
>>> dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Dave Londry
>>> Embedded Spaces Inc. (ESI)
>>> davel at emspace.com
>>>
>>> 604 589 9183 phone/fax
>>> 604 72l 2278 cell
>>> 904 429 1937 Skype cell, Saint Augustine FL Skype:embeddedspaces
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>>>
>>> DeTomaso mailing list
>>> DeTomaso at poca.com
>>> http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>>
>
>
>