Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

2 Pages12>
Liquefaction Offline
#1 Posted : Wednesday, 18 September 2019 1:03:42 PM(UTC)
Liquefaction

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 65
New Zealand

Thanks: 4 times
I’ve heard that the 202 pistons are prone to cracking as they are thinner than the earlier red engines
Also the block crack more often in the 202

Is the 202 a lesser quality engine than the 186? Or have I got it wrong
HK1837 Offline
#2 Posted : Wednesday, 18 September 2019 2:23:12 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,075

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 167 time(s) in 165 post(s)
They are basically the same thing. 202 is just a stroked 186 with larger main bearings. The very early 202’s had a piston issue but I doubt there is many of those left today still sporting original pistons.

For a street engine to get more performance you stroke it, which is why you see so many SBC’s built to 377ci today (302/327/350 with a 400 stroke crank) and most 302 Clevelands rebuilt as 351ci. It is easy, reliable power at lower rpm and massive torque increases. And with both of these you are building to factory GM and Ford capacities meaning easy to get pistons and heads to suit. Same with 304/308, GMH built these as 350ci standard so easy to get parts to do it. The 202 is the same, GMH did it all for you. If it wasn’t for the fact the bearing tunnels are different I reckon most 186 would be rebuilt as a 202. You can still make your 186 a 202 if you like, you just have to grab an early HQ 202 crank with rubber rear main seal and grind the mains down to 186 size, or tunnel bore the 186 block. And use a 202 cam with the rod bolt clearances in it. You can use a rope seal crank too just have to grind the seal journal down too. But why bother when there are still 202/3.3 blocks available cheap. They are not free any more like they were 10-15 years ago but there are many of them still out there still good to use. Pretty sure you can also use blue 173 blocks as well as I’m pretty sure these will bore to 186/202 piston size and have the 202 main bearings. These are real cheap and any bore size will do. Just check the block thickness before trying to bore it.

Edited by user Wednesday, 18 September 2019 5:43:14 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Fixed spelling mistake

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Warren Turnbull Offline
#3 Posted : Wednesday, 18 September 2019 5:30:01 PM(UTC)
Warren Turnbull

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 10/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,291

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 16 time(s) in 16 post(s)
As Byron said a 202 is a stroked 186. The 186 is more revy, due to the shorter stroke, which is why many like them over the 202.

Personally I would go a blue 202 to mild or factory spec, they make great torque, due to the longer stroke, have good breathing, mechanical secondary carby (spend time getting the auto choke right) stronger rod bolts etc.
Premier 350 Offline
#4 Posted : Wednesday, 18 September 2019 6:43:32 PM(UTC)
Premier 350

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 522
Man
Australia
Location: On a build over WWII airfield. Got the .50 cal cases from my driveway to prove it

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Interesting comments. In my limited exposure to both I thought the 186 was a sweeter, smoother engine. Less overall torque than the 202, but to me the 186 seemed more flexible. ie in a lightly loaded HK manual it would pull away smoothly in second from almost walking pace.

Just my ratbag opinion.
Attn camry drivers. The accelerator is the skinny pedal on the right.
Liquefaction Offline
#5 Posted : Wednesday, 18 September 2019 8:35:08 PM(UTC)
Liquefaction

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 65
New Zealand

Thanks: 4 times
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
As Byron said a 202 is a stroked 186. The 186 is more revy, due to the shorter stroke, which is why many like them over the 202.

Personally I would go a blue 202 to mild or factory spec, they make great torque, due to the longer stroke, have good breathing, mechanical secondary carby (spend time getting the auto choke right) stronger rod bolts etc.

What about block thicknesses and quality of metal used in the block, did that change?was there a high nickel block ?
The blue and black pistons were lighter (weaker) ?
HK1837 Offline
#6 Posted : Wednesday, 18 September 2019 8:37:31 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,075

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 167 time(s) in 165 post(s)
It depends on the 202 and how it setup. If they have the same carbs and ignition, similar cam and compression the 202 will drive better for an average runaround. It’s a bit like the 327 vs 350 argument I guess, one revs better which suits spirited driving but the other will pull harder which more suits city driving. With these two, all else equal the difference is 20hp (using 1968 L30 vs L48 figures) and 40lbft from memory, at similar rpm. These have the same heads and cam, carb and intake too. But with stock 202 vs many 186 the cam is also much smaller on the 202 as many 186 got the 186S camshaft. When you are rebuilding though you’d be not using a stock 202 camshaft.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Warren Turnbull Offline
#7 Posted : Wednesday, 18 September 2019 8:48:41 PM(UTC)
Warren Turnbull

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 10/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,291

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 16 time(s) in 16 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Liquefaction Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
As Byron said a 202 is a stroked 186. The 186 is more revy, due to the shorter stroke, which is why many like them over the 202.

Personally I would go a blue 202 to mild or factory spec, they make great torque, due to the longer stroke, have good breathing, mechanical secondary carby (spend time getting the auto choke right) stronger rod bolts etc.

What about block thicknesses and quality of metal used in the block, did that change?was there a high nickel block ?
The blue and black pistons were lighter (weaker) ?


I have seen a few red 202s throw number 5 out the side, but not on a blue.

As for lighter pistons prone to break, I remember the ecotec when it came out, thinner rings etc, would not last, they have great longevity.

I guess it depends on what you are using it for, I would choose a blue 3.3 because I would be using it as a cruiser and I found that it was smoother and more economical in my HZ than the red 202. Admittedly I had auto air and steer on it, and it still went very well, for what I wanted.
HK1837 Offline
#8 Posted : Wednesday, 18 September 2019 9:20:05 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,075

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 167 time(s) in 165 post(s)
I still reckon one reason the HQ GTS was dropped before production may have been it was quicker to 60mph than a stock HQ V8 GTS. The HQ GTS was to get a 202S which would have been identical to a HT-HG 186S except for the stroke. You’d be looking at close to 160hp from this, combined with an Aussie M20 and 3.55 or 3.36 rear axle it’d have been pretty quick compared with a 253 with the same carb, same gearbox, 3.08 rear axle and the same exhaust.

My ideal street 202 would be:
Rope seal red, blue or black block.
Blue/black crank and rods.
Flat top pistons (around 9.7:1).
Good old used Yella Terra 179, 186 or 202 red head.
186S intake and headers.
WW Stromberg or Ford Weber carby.
Blue/black HEI dizzy and coil.
If at all possible a hydraulic roller cam and some roller rockers.
You’d need 98 for this probably.

BUT I’d not bother today, for any post HG a used VN-VS 5litre and 4L60/4L60E conversion would be cheaper and more economical. Plus heaps more powerful! For HK-HG you’d have to use a TH350/Trimatic or a T10/Muncie unless you made Engineered floor mods. Although a HT-HG with an injected 304/308 and a good old column 3spd manual would be cool.

Edited by user Wednesday, 18 September 2019 9:27:00 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#9 Posted : Thursday, 19 September 2019 9:12:40 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,341

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Liquefaction Go to Quoted Post
I’ve heard that the 202 pistons are prone to cracking as they are thinner than the earlier red engines
Also the block crack more often in the 202

Is the 202 a lesser quality engine than the 186? Or have I got it wrong


The 202 block has the mains caps wider apart from the rest and I think that this adds to the block splitting if they make a lot of power, I have seen 186 split as well but looks like much more power to do so.

Apart from that the blocks are much the same, but for the 202 that has the ribbed blocks are better, the ribs can be seen behind where the oil filter goes on and this casting strengthens the block as in twisting I believe, so as power increase the block try's to twist from the passenger side front to the driver side rear and the ribs help strengthen this also the engine mounts are yanking on the passenger side of the block and Holden 6 has the camshaft on the wrong side of the block as it would be better to have this on the passenger side to strengthen that side.

I believe that the mains bolts being wider apart adds to the pressure adding to the passenger side of the block so she can split that part but it takes over 200hp to do this.

As for block casting metal being used I think that this changes as the years go by and it has been said that many a blue head had valves sinking issues to do with soft castings.

But as for a harder casting metal I think that the last of the 202 XU-1 may of had this high nickel content, some say that you can tell by the feel of the surface of them is some what shaper feel, I am not sure it's true but maybe HK1837 could look into that with all the Chevy info he has.

As for Blue 202 pistons I remember that Holden was boasting that the Blue pistons were stronger than the Red, not to mention that the Blue is making much more power and that the main reason for cracked pistons has to do with fools driving flat out from cold and as for numbers there were a lot more 202 made and a lot of idiots are out their abusing their cars, so I would think that would be the main problem, I don't think that the pistons were a problem at all, but more to do with idiots and out of tune engines and driving around with them pinging.

I had one bloke claiming that if you drive you car easy you will not blow head gaskets, I said bull shit you can drive a engine as hard as you like and that will not affect the head gaskets at all, only think is that it's all about fools that destroy engines because they do not understand what is going on, so some fool could drive around easy but the engine is pinging and bingo you are asking for troubles and the list goes on.
castellan Offline
#10 Posted : Thursday, 19 September 2019 9:20:21 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,341

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Just looked up my old Wheels 4/1980 mag and it says that the Blue pistons got a thicker top deck and strengthening and nothing about being lighter.
HK1837 Offline
#11 Posted : Thursday, 19 September 2019 9:29:44 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,075

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 167 time(s) in 165 post(s)
173 from a certain time used the same caps as 202 as well. I don’t think you are going to break any Holden 6 unless it is pumping out huge power and revved to stupid numbers. Or abused. Dave McLean (Alan Grice’s XU1 engine builder) reckons that later XU1 blocks are different material, like the F5000 Holden V8 blocks. He says you can feel it when you are boring them.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#12 Posted : Thursday, 19 September 2019 10:10:56 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,341

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Liquefaction Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
As Byron said a 202 is a stroked 186. The 186 is more revy, due to the shorter stroke, which is why many like them over the 202.

Personally I would go a blue 202 to mild or factory spec, they make great torque, due to the longer stroke, have good breathing, mechanical secondary carby (spend time getting the auto choke right) stronger rod bolts etc.

What about block thicknesses and quality of metal used in the block, did that change?was there a high nickel block ?
The blue and black pistons were lighter (weaker) ?


I have seen a few red 202s throw number 5 out the side, but not on a blue.

As for lighter pistons prone to break, I remember the ecotec when it came out, thinner rings etc, would not last, they have great longevity.

I guess it depends on what you are using it for, I would choose a blue 3.3 because I would be using it as a cruiser and I found that it was smoother and more economical in my HZ than the red 202. Admittedly I had auto air and steer on it, and it still went very well, for what I wanted.


As for the ecotec VS V6 pistons they were more about design advancement tec with short skirt pistons, they used a bit more oil tho, 1 1/2 litre to 10,000km was the norm out of both that I had.

Bike engines had used the thinner rings with no problems before cars got them, better quality I believe.

I found that the 161 was a much smoother engine to rev than the 186 and 202 due to 161 piston being lighter, but the main point in all this was that Holden did not balance it's engines and that made some engines more harsh than others by a lot at times I remember one bloke reving his blue 202 and I thought f that is real bad for a blue motor to be that harsh. when looking at any Holden's red or blue or black motor conrods you can see it's a dogs breakfast it's pathetic as the rods are the most out of balanced part by far, with huge differences in the weight pads on both ends being big or small all over the place in all.

202 were harsher than a 186 due to the piston moving longer stroke, like a Ford 250 is harsher than a 200 when reving it out but same piston size.

My wife's Aurion V6 uses no oil at all it did 16,000km once without a oil change but most of that was highway driving, but the pistons in them are high tec short skirts thin ring and a much smother V6 than any Holden V6 rubbish and I believe that if you use 95 octane it's got 235KW, but on 91 it's only 200KW, but you sure do notice the power difference with 95 or E10 94 even the wife can tell that.

I would bet that the VN-P-R V6 rods were out of balance dogs breakfast as well, but the VS V6 must of been ok as you could rev them to 5000 and not complain about the harshness being total crap or it wanting to try and explode.
HK1837 Offline
#13 Posted : Thursday, 19 September 2019 10:18:20 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,075

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 167 time(s) in 165 post(s)
My VS went quite well. Gutless but smooth and no issues. It was a August 2000 or thereabouts manual so whatever engine they had. I sold it when it was 2 years old and replaced with a VY SS Ute.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#14 Posted : Thursday, 19 September 2019 10:26:51 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,341

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
173 from a certain time used the same caps as 202 as well. I don’t think you are going to break any Holden 6 unless it is pumping out huge power and revved to stupid numbers. Or abused. Dave McLean (Alan Grice’s XU1 engine builder) reckons that later XU1 blocks are different material, like the F5000 Holden V8 blocks. He says you can feel it when you are boring them.


I agree.

Blue motor 173 got 202 mains so the caps would be the same.

But as to the blue 173 block being the same casting we do not know that for sure yet, why put the 2.85 casting on them then if they were the same block.
Ford 188 and 221 were the same block so no casting was needed to differ them apart and the same with xy to XB as the 200 and 250 are the same block and as for all X Flows and OHC 6 but the XR 200 had 200 and 170 had cast on them blocks.


Maybe it's the harmonic period at about 6300 RPM that the Holden 6 is at it's worst in trying to split apart.
gm5735 Offline
#15 Posted : Thursday, 19 September 2019 10:48:57 AM(UTC)
gm5735

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 16/04/2014(UTC)
Posts: 738
Man
Location: Victoria

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 41 time(s) in 40 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
173 from a certain time used the same caps as 202 as well. I don’t think you are going to break any Holden 6 unless it is pumping out huge power and revved to stupid numbers. Or abused. Dave McLean (Alan Grice’s XU1 engine builder) reckons that later XU1 blocks are different material, like the F5000 Holden V8 blocks. He says you can feel it when you are boring them.


There's nothing particularly special about a Repco F5000 block casting. They were purchased as a raw casting from Holden by Repco Engine company and specially machined, useless protuberances lopped off, oil galleries opened up in places, bored, line bored etc etc.
Ditto the crankshaft, which was a production item offset ground to get below the 5 litre formula limit.
The rods were special Repco forgings, as were the pistons.
HK1837 Offline
#16 Posted : Thursday, 19 September 2019 11:21:25 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,075

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 167 time(s) in 165 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
173 from a certain time used the same caps as 202 as well. I don’t think you are going to break any Holden 6 unless it is pumping out huge power and revved to stupid numbers. Or abused. Dave McLean (Alan Grice’s XU1 engine builder) reckons that later XU1 blocks are different material, like the F5000 Holden V8 blocks. He says you can feel it when you are boring them.


I agree.

Blue motor 173 got 202 mains so the caps would be the same.

But as to the blue 173 block being the same casting we do not know that for sure yet, why put the 2.85 casting on them then if they were the same block.
Ford 188 and 221 were the same block so no casting was needed to differ them apart and the same with xy to XB as the 200 and 250 are the same block and as for all X Flows and OHC 6 but the XR 200 had 200 and 170 had cast on them blocks.


Maybe it's the harmonic period at about 6300 RPM that the Holden 6 is at it's worst in trying to split apart.


From memory it was also red 2850 from a certain time with the larger mains too.

I don’t think blue 2850 and 3300 blocks are the same casting but I have been told that they are like an EH 179 block and have thick cylinders so can be significantly overbored 1/8” or 125 thou. From memory as RS2000 piston will also work but be a smaller bore than a 202.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HK1837 Offline
#17 Posted : Thursday, 19 September 2019 11:37:11 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,075

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 167 time(s) in 165 post(s)
Originally Posted by: gm5735 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
173 from a certain time used the same caps as 202 as well. I don’t think you are going to break any Holden 6 unless it is pumping out huge power and revved to stupid numbers. Or abused. Dave McLean (Alan Grice’s XU1 engine builder) reckons that later XU1 blocks are different material, like the F5000 Holden V8 blocks. He says you can feel it when you are boring them.


There's nothing particularly special about a Repco F5000 block casting. They were purchased as a raw casting from Holden by Repco Engine company and specially machined, useless protuberances lopped off, oil galleries opened up in places, bored, line bored etc etc.
Ditto the crankshaft, which was a production item offset ground to get below the 5 litre formula limit.
The rods were special Repco forgings, as were the pistons.


I was under the impression the F5000 and the L34 blocks were special cast material by GMH. They introduced the stronger block casting that appeared in normal production with HJ 253 and 308. The F5000 engines had slightly smaller (undersize) bores to stay under the 5litre limit hence the special pistons. The F5000 blocks were cast around early 1973 from memory and lots have a big X in the casting, a few have appeared in L34 which often also have an X across the 308 cast mark.

Edited by user Thursday, 19 September 2019 11:40:59 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
abi Offline
#18 Posted : Thursday, 19 September 2019 9:09:38 PM(UTC)
abi

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/07/2010(UTC)
Posts: 57

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I recall the 202 pistons cracking from the translot (oil slot behind the oil ring) through the steel struts which were cast into the piston pin boss. the piston design was similar to the 186 but the longer stroke 202 had higher piston speed and a shorter compression height making the steel struts shorter. All these problems were fixed later on in the 70's.

Adrian
castellan Offline
#19 Posted : Friday, 20 September 2019 8:53:19 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,341

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
173 from a certain time used the same caps as 202 as well. I don’t think you are going to break any Holden 6 unless it is pumping out huge power and revved to stupid numbers. Or abused. Dave McLean (Alan Grice’s XU1 engine builder) reckons that later XU1 blocks are different material, like the F5000 Holden V8 blocks. He says you can feel it when you are boring them.


I agree.

Blue motor 173 got 202 mains so the caps would be the same.

But as to the blue 173 block being the same casting we do not know that for sure yet, why put the 2.85 casting on them then if they were the same block.
Ford 188 and 221 were the same block so no casting was needed to differ them apart and the same with xy to XB as the 200 and 250 are the same block and as for all X Flows and OHC 6 but the XR 200 had 200 and 170 had cast on them blocks.


Maybe it's the harmonic period at about 6300 RPM that the Holden 6 is at it's worst in trying to split apart.


From memory it was also red 2850 from a certain time with the larger mains too.

I don’t think blue 2850 and 3300 blocks are the same casting but I have been told that they are like an EH 179 block and have thick cylinders so can be significantly overbored 1/8” or 125 thou. From memory as RS2000 piston will also work but be a smaller bore than a 202.

I do not see why the 173 would be like the 179 casting was especially in the HQ up to the time that they got the 202 mains, then they could be the same block but I don't thinks so.
The EH to HD 179 was most likely a safety measure and then they went ahead with the bore to a big 186 because it was all fine.

I don't know of the 149 bore wall thickness but you can not bore them out to 161 or never heard of one being done so a 149 + 0.060 = 155 and 0.120 would make a 161.
But then again a 161 can go out to a 167 at 0.060 and 0.120 would be 173.
But a 173 + 0.060 = 179 and 0.120 = 186 but could you stretch it out to a 192 ? well when the 186 is taken out to 192 they come into problems of running to hot as do the 202 at 208.

If I bored a high performance 202 out I would not want to go 0.060 I think 0.040 is max that I would go.
I am sure that given the right block if it's a exceptional good casting you could make a HQ 173 go out to a 186 but I would keep it a stock powered engine for a grand mother.

But it would be great if the late 173 was just as the 202 block is as you can just drop a 202 crank in it and go 208, but at best I think the 173 could become a 195 if a piston was made but at best a 173 into a 202.

It should be easy to spot if a late 173 bore is the same as a 202 by just popping a welch plugs out, as 0.120 should be able to be seen maybe straight up.
HK1837 Offline
#20 Posted : Friday, 20 September 2019 1:29:26 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,075

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 167 time(s) in 165 post(s)
They are almost all 1/8” (0.125”) between sizes except the 179 sits right between 173 and 186 (1/16” (0.0625”) over 173 and under 186) plus of course the 202 being the only one that isn’t 3” stroke.

The odd one is the 130 that is not 1/8” or 1/16” smaller than the 138.

I doubt you’d be able to go 3/16” over 3.5” on a blue 2.85 block to make 208ci with a blue 202 crank, but I have definitely heard of them going easily 1/8” oversize to 202ci with a 3.25” stroke (202 crank). I used to buy blue 173 short motors 10-12 at a time for $5 each, I remember my poor old WB 6cyl tonner with M20 and 3.08 rear axle struggling to reverse with them on! I used to strip them for their rods and scrap the whole lot. I can tell you that on a few they’d corroded above a few pistons due to water sitting there for a while so I had to bust the piston and sometimes the bore to free it up enough to turn to undo the rods. The bores were damn thick compared to a blue 202. I think it may well be commonality of casting patterns used to make the sand moulds, as Canadian 307 are the same, you can also bore these 1/8” to build a 327 or 350. My mate had his original HK 307 GTS block at 4.040”, with a 350 crank it was punching out over 400hp doing flat 13s quarters with a Toploader and 3.7 gears, until it dropped a rod. The rod went out through the bore and it still had more in it, looked like it could have gone another two sizes up again. Incidentally the heads off this engine are going on my 385ci SBC in my HK.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2019, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.703 seconds.