Posted by clueless [201.202.29.210] on Friday, April 19, 2013 at 09:38:54 :
In Reply to: Re: reminds me of the guy posted by dan m [108.1.88.17] on Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 22:39:41 :
After my weekend excursion with the Sr.Hudson, he pointed out a few errors in my cid posts. I would like to make the neccessary corrections and also do that in the original posts as well.
First, the bore of the bigger engines is not 3.5", its actually 3.438". I had made my notes based upon "what could be" as my dad's material is "as manufactured". I didn't have the mfg's spec data and used my incorrect bore info to deduce the stroke of the 265 engine. Its actually 4.750! I know this disappoints you *laughing*.
Why did I error in my measurement? Because the chrysler engines are actually a "dry sleeve" design, with a very thick sleeve. If you really clean your block deck good, you can see it, but it is a very good press fit. Dont automaticly assume that you can run without this sleeve, as it is very good hardness and the block is very soft.
The larger bore 4.750 stroke, a 250 crank offset ground to the small 218 rod, is my favorite compromise in relation to rod ratio, numerous parts sources, and cid. One could offset grind the 4.75 large journal crank out to 5.00, but the piston speed really robs Hp at this stroke in the higher rpm levels. If you were going for a low rpm torquer, the stroked 5.00" would be good, but with a loss in rod ratio that may not make up the extra cubes.
I'll edit my other posts accordingly
Follow Ups: