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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

4 Pages<1234>
HK1837 Offline
#41 Posted : Sunday, 19 March 2017 1:07:41 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,077

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 168 time(s) in 166 post(s)
CWC is Campbell, Wyant and Cannon. Just another specialist supplier to the Vehicle Manufacturers, and they were more than likely consulted for many casting applications by GM. I'm pretty sure many GMH V8 camshafts have CWC on them.

http://www.cwctextron.com/history.html

https://www.kautex.de/en...ve/cwc-textron-castings

I'm not surprised Ford used an outsource for the alloy heads. As I said GM did the same for L88 heads and ZL1 blocks, plus all their alloy intakes - all from Winters. GMH used outside sources for their alloy Holden engine bits, not sure who yet. Possibly CAC whom GMH owned around 50% of.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HGV8 Offline
#42 Posted : Sunday, 19 March 2017 1:25:38 PM(UTC)
HGV8

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 403

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
I agree to a point though I don't think you give GMH enough credit. Holden post grey motor used in house engineers and pattern makers for ferrous metal casting patterns and cores.
When it comes to non-ferrous metal casting it's been an auto industry norm world wide to use outside casting expertise. Holden and Frigidair, Ford and Chrysler used foundry companies like Camalco and Thompson's and Skoogles for Aluminium castings.
Off the top of my head, a Japanese example is Toyota using Honda and Yamaha for Aluminium castings and machining in the 1960-70's.

Edited by user Sunday, 19 March 2017 1:52:34 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

j.williams
HGV8 Offline
#43 Posted : Sunday, 19 March 2017 1:41:57 PM(UTC)
HGV8

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 403

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
j.williams
wbute Offline
#44 Posted : Sunday, 19 March 2017 2:55:00 PM(UTC)
wbute

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 897

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 10 post(s)
It just makes no sense Castellan. Why would GM go to all the trouble to design a Holden block? What possible benefit would it have been to them? They already had their own successful designs. The Holden motor is significantly different too. External oil pump, different firing order etc.
I seriously doubt the theory of lacking ability to cast and design a block here too. I think that it would ring truer if the theory was based on economy of scale, not ability. However it was a motor that was intended to be in use for a long time so that would have made them cheaper in the long run.
I think you will find the Americans have designed and built a few duds over the years. International DV550 V8 diesel is one absolute shocker.
commodorenut Offline
#45 Posted : Sunday, 19 March 2017 4:22:45 PM(UTC)
commodorenut

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 2/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,135

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 32 time(s) in 31 post(s)
The old cast-iron V8 was one of the only factors that allowed Holden to survive the later part of the 80s prior to VN, and deserves a lot of respect for that.
The Nissan 6 was costing them dearly, due to the exchange rate problems between the AU$ the Japanese Yen.

The V8s were still profitable - their development costs had been amortised over thousands of previous engines, and the small amount spent on ULP development would have been recouped quickly too.
With lower spec VL Commodore 6s costing GMH money, only the higher spec models & V8s made money for them.
There's only so many Calais you can sell, hence the focus on the V8, and the V8 specials (like the Opera House) that were heavily promoted.
This also created some memorable ads - like the VL towing the yacht past the yank-tank in the desert, and pulling an aeroplane out of a hanger (later copied by VW for the Tourag).

Despite the whole "V8 til 98" campaign, Holden had already killed off the idea of the V8 with the release of the VL - as evidenced by the altered floorpan & trans tunnel - preventing the V8 from fitting with sufficient (legal) clearance. Had Brocky not persisted with developing the V8 for the VL, which Holden reluctantly agreed to - requiring significant structural changes around it's October '86 release, then the VL may well have caused enough red ink to prevent Holden even getting to the VN.
Remember too, that they had a number of years in the mid 80s where the books showed a terrible picture of doom & gloom, with rumours at the time that GM would pull the plug, so the pressure on Holden to survive was brutally intense.

The reason the first VNs were so coarse, and ran effectively a FWD version of the 3800, was because the RB30 was supposed to continue into VN, but the financial burden was so great, Holden rushed the V6 ahead of schedule to release it in July/August '88 and relieve that pain.

I know a fellow who was involved in the Port Melbourne plant upgrade for the EFI V8 line, and he is adamant that Holden did all their own cast-iron casting & machining. Sand-cast & die-cast aluminium was commonly given to outside suppliers, and I was personally involved with a company manufacturing pressure die-cast alloy EFI 5L components in the 1990s.

Holden can rightly lay claim to having some of the best design & development engineers in the world, and the parts they have produced over the last 50+ years is a testament to that.
Cheers,

Mick
_______________________________________________________________

Judge a successful man not on how he treats his peers, but on how he treats those less fortunate.
Dr Terry Offline
#46 Posted : Sunday, 19 March 2017 6:50:35 PM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,544

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 81 time(s) in 76 post(s)
This whole thing about Holden not having the knowhow to design & cast their own engines is ridiculous. GM-H built their first foundry in 1940 to produce many different engines & munitions etc. for WWII, well before the very thought of a 48 series.

Sure the original 1948 Grey motor engine block would been cast here using US tooling/moulds etc. but each of the upgrades where small improvements were made were carried out in-house.

By the time the Red motor 6-cyl arrived we had become very proficient. So a 100% in-house V8 was not that hard to believe. There is a lot a literature on the development of the Holden V8 & the early days make interesting reading.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
wbute Offline
#47 Posted : Sunday, 19 March 2017 7:18:37 PM(UTC)
wbute

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 897

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 10 post(s)
I believe that if Holden had been allowed a free reign they would have produced world class cars for the last 50 years. Unfortunately GM seemed determined to not let Australia show them up. The best way to stop that happening was to control everything they produced. There were glimpses of the potential with cars like the Commodore based Monaro and the non event GTRX Torana. Not to mention VE Commodore and other cars no doubt.
To say they were not capable is an insult to Australian ingenuity and determination really.
castellan Offline
#48 Posted : Monday, 20 March 2017 2:13:27 PM(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: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
This whole thing about Holden not having the knowhow to design & cast their own engines is ridiculous. GM-H built their first foundry in 1940 to produce many different engines & munitions etc. for WWII, well before the very thought of a 48 series.

Sure the original 1948 Grey motor engine block would been cast here using US tooling/moulds etc. but each of the upgrades where small improvements were made were carried out in-house.

By the time the Red motor 6-cyl arrived we had become very proficient. So a 100% in-house V8 was not that hard to believe. There is a lot a literature on the development of the Holden V8 & the early days make interesting reading.

Dr Terry


I never said Holden did not cast or design their own engines yes they did.
Fred James was the top man for the Holden V8 and I am not saying is was not, but there is a bit more to it all then just him, he started and finished the work but he had help from GM to do it all.

When GMH went to GM so as to get the ok to make their own Holden V8 GM tried to talk Fred out of it but he managed to talked them into it. as the chev V8 was no good.Shhh for what they truly were looking for. they could of easy just dump off the tooling to make the chev V8 here, like they did with the Ford V8 and Ford Austalia made a 302 out of the 351 Cleveland it's a bit of a bodge job when you know what your talking about but it did the job that they were looking for without having to be casting 2 different type of blocks, one Windsor and one Cleveland or even a Windsor 351 needs another casting setup.

So the Chev V8 was really to big for making a 253 out of it as this was the main selling engine that they were hoping that it would become.

The first lot of Grey motors has CWC cast on the block and heads, as I have seen it.

I know all about the WW2 stuff GMH and Ford did here.

I remember the BS story old Fred said about that the Holden V8 was made to go out to a 350ci they don't, not with a bit of work to the blockLaugh and now with modern day short skirt pistons we can now use. the Holden at 350ci with old long type piston skirts you have to go a shorter rod and that destroys the performance, so it never truly was made for that when he designed the block back in the 60's Love they did cast the blocks for it later on.

Edited by user Monday, 20 March 2017 2:18:40 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

castellan Offline
#49 Posted : Monday, 20 March 2017 2:25:13 PM(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: wbute Go to Quoted Post
I believe that if Holden had been allowed a free reign they would have produced world class cars for the last 50 years. Unfortunately GM seemed determined to not let Australia show them up. The best way to stop that happening was to control everything they produced. There were glimpses of the potential with cars like the Commodore based Monaro and the non event GTRX Torana. Not to mention VE Commodore and other cars no doubt.
To say they were not capable is an insult to Australian ingenuity and determination really.


All this BS about world class cars nowadays, shit the FX was a world class car by far in it's day and not only the world but especially for Australia.
Nothing was wrong with our truly Holden cars ever.
castellan Offline
#50 Posted : Monday, 20 March 2017 3:00:44 PM(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: commodorenut Go to Quoted Post
The old cast-iron V8 was one of the only factors that allowed Holden to survive the later part of the 80s prior to VN, and deserves a lot of respect for that.
The Nissan 6 was costing them dearly, due to the exchange rate problems between the AU$ the Japanese Yen.

The V8s were still profitable - their development costs had been amortised over thousands of previous engines, and the small amount spent on ULP development would have been recouped quickly too.
With lower spec VL Commodore 6s costing GMH money, only the higher spec models & V8s made money for them.
There's only so many Calais you can sell, hence the focus on the V8, and the V8 specials (like the Opera House) that were heavily promoted.
This also created some memorable ads - like the VL towing the yacht past the yank-tank in the desert, and pulling an aeroplane out of a hanger (later copied by VW for the Tourag).

Despite the whole "V8 til 98" campaign, Holden had already killed off the idea of the V8 with the release of the VL - as evidenced by the altered floorpan & trans tunnel - preventing the V8 from fitting with sufficient (legal) clearance. Had Brocky not persisted with developing the V8 for the VL, which Holden reluctantly agreed to - requiring significant structural changes around it's October '86 release, then the VL may well have caused enough red ink to prevent Holden even getting to the VN.
Remember too, that they had a number of years in the mid 80s where the books showed a terrible picture of doom & gloom, with rumours at the time that GM would pull the plug, so the pressure on Holden to survive was brutally intense.

The reason the first VNs were so coarse, and ran effectively a FWD version of the 3800, was because the RB30 was supposed to continue into VN, but the financial burden was so great, Holden rushed the V6 ahead of schedule to release it in July/August '88 and relieve that pain.

I know a fellow who was involved in the Port Melbourne plant upgrade for the EFI V8 line, and he is adamant that Holden did all their own cast-iron casting & machining. Sand-cast & die-cast aluminium was commonly given to outside suppliers, and I was personally involved with a company manufacturing pressure die-cast alloy EFI 5L components in the 1990s.

Holden can rightly lay claim to having some of the best design & development engineers in the world, and the parts they have produced over the last 50+ years is a testament to that.


Yep I agree with all that, but for the casting of blocks I never said they did not cast the blocks at all, I have seen them casting them in pictures and a mate worked doing the casting, what I was on about was the setting up of the 1st production of the initial casting from the drawing board testing, nothing to do with any Holden casting it's finished product for the publics engines at all.

I am on about the 1st casting block ever and the rest of them testing blocks until they were given the green light to go with it all for the public use.

The first Grey motors were 1st done in USA as were the red 6 CYL as was the Holden V8 I am sure of it, but that does not take anything away from it being Fred James Aussie V8 at all because it truly is an Aussie V8 and no one can say it's not.

Well in South Africa the Holden 308 V8 is called a Chev engine in the SS Chevy, on the air filter lid it says so.Applause but it's not truly speaking.

One thing how ever is that Holden were going to cast the Aloytec V6 engine blocks, but they failed, well IRON the company who makes Holden's blocks failed and it all cost millions, I will have to look it up as I can't remember the total cost, but not one Aloytec V6 block was cast here, they were all imported and machined here and assembled here, but the cyl heads were cast here and all.
castellan Offline
#51 Posted : Monday, 20 March 2017 3:13:58 PM(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
CWC is Campbell, Wyant and Cannon. Just another specialist supplier to the Vehicle Manufacturers, and they were more than likely consulted for many casting applications by GM. I'm pretty sure many GMH V8 camshafts have CWC on them.

http://www.cwctextron.com/history.html

https://www.kautex.de/en...ve/cwc-textron-castings

I'm not surprised Ford used an outsource for the alloy heads. As I said GM did the same for L88 heads and ZL1 blocks, plus all their alloy intakes - all from Winters. GMH used outside sources for their alloy Holden engine bits, not sure who yet. Possibly CAC whom GMH owned around 50% of.


I have never seen a CWC cam come out of a original Holden engine, the CWC cams are a quality billet cam that you buy when you are looking to build a good engine and not using some shit regrind crap that originally came out of the engine.

You would of seen the CWC casting on cams that were not stock production engines.
castellan Offline
#52 Posted : Monday, 20 March 2017 3:24:55 PM(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: HGV8 Go to Quoted Post
I agree to a point though I don't think you give GMH enough credit. Holden post grey motor used in house engineers and pattern makers for ferrous metal casting patterns and cores.
When it comes to non-ferrous metal casting it's been an auto industry norm world wide to use outside casting expertise. Holden and Frigidair, Ford and Chrysler used foundry companies like Camalco and Thompson's and Skoogles for Aluminium castings.
Off the top of my head, a Japanese example is Toyota using Honda and Yamaha for Aluminium castings and machining in the 1960-70's.


Valiant cast the blocks for Nissan 1.6L and 2.0L and sent them to Nissan were they did the machining and assembling of them, for the Stanza and 200B both the 1.6L and 2.0L use the same block only the 1.6L bores are smaller, like the way that a 161 red and 186 use the same block but for that difference.

There you go you could toss a 200B engine in a Stanza of Datsun 1600 and go rally driving Love
HK1837 Offline
#53 Posted : Monday, 20 March 2017 4:16:32 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,077

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 168 time(s) in 166 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
CWC is Campbell, Wyant and Cannon. Just another specialist supplier to the Vehicle Manufacturers, and they were more than likely consulted for many casting applications by GM. I'm pretty sure many GMH V8 camshafts have CWC on them.

http://www.cwctextron.com/history.html

https://www.kautex.de/en...ve/cwc-textron-castings

I'm not surprised Ford used an outsource for the alloy heads. As I said GM did the same for L88 heads and ZL1 blocks, plus all their alloy intakes - all from Winters. GMH used outside sources for their alloy Holden engine bits, not sure who yet. Possibly CAC whom GMH owned around 50% of.


I have never seen a CWC cam come out of a original Holden engine, the CWC cams are a quality billet cam that you buy when you are looking to build a good engine and not using some shit regrind crap that originally came out of the engine.

You would of seen the CWC casting on cams that were not stock production engines.


I said i'd seen plenty of GMH V8 camshafts with CWC on them. I didn't say they were originals.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
commodorenut Offline
#54 Posted : Monday, 20 March 2017 9:28:25 PM(UTC)
commodorenut

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 2/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,135

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 32 time(s) in 31 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
I remember the BS story old Fred said about that the Holden V8 was made to go out to a 350ci they don't, not with a bit of work to the blockLaugh and now with modern day short skirt pistons we can now use. the Holden at 350ci with old long type piston skirts you have to go a shorter rod and that destroys the performance, so it never truly was made for that when he designed the block back in the 60's Love they did cast the blocks for it later on.

Whilst they did alter the blocks in 1993/94 for the HSV 5.7L stroker, by removing metal from the bottom of the bore (for rod bolt clearance) and off the pan rail (for the same reason), I have a car in my garage that calls BS on your take on this.

In 1986/87 HDT produced the 5.6L/346ci stroker, and I own one. After having it apart, I can tell you that the only thing different to a regular 308/304 in the bottom end is the crank (completely different casting, with a counterweight on the rear flange) and pistons (different pin height, but the same style skirts as originals - perhaps a few mm shorter, if at all). It has standard A9L rods as used in the Group A engine of the era.

Now OK, it's just 4 cubes shy of 350, but it still proves how far they could go without altering the original casting - the bottoms of the bores, and the pan rail, have not been touched in my HDT stroker. I could put the rotating assembly into any red 308 block and it won't have clearance problems.
Cheers,

Mick
_______________________________________________________________

Judge a successful man not on how he treats his peers, but on how he treats those less fortunate.
castellan Offline
#55 Posted : Tuesday, 21 March 2017 12:11:47 PM(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: commodorenut Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
I remember the BS story old Fred said about that the Holden V8 was made to go out to a 350ci they don't, not with a bit of work to the blockLaugh and now with modern day short skirt pistons we can now use. the Holden at 350ci with old long type piston skirts you have to go a shorter rod and that destroys the performance, so it never truly was made for that when he designed the block back in the 60's Love they did cast the blocks for it later on.

Whilst they did alter the blocks in 1993/94 for the HSV 5.7L stroker, by removing metal from the bottom of the bore (for rod bolt clearance) and off the pan rail (for the same reason), I have a car in my garage that calls BS on your take on this.

In 1986/87 HDT produced the 5.6L/346ci stroker, and I own one. After having it apart, I can tell you that the only thing different to a regular 308/304 in the bottom end is the crank (completely different casting, with a counterweight on the rear flange) and pistons (different pin height, but the same style skirts as originals - perhaps a few mm shorter, if at all). It has standard A9L rods as used in the Group A engine of the era.

Now OK, it's just 4 cubes shy of 350, but it still proves how far they could go without altering the original casting - the bottoms of the bores, and the pan rail, have not been touched in my HDT stroker. I could put the rotating assembly into any red 308 block and it won't have clearance problems.


Yes but in 1969 you could not go 350 stroke.

What I meant by pistons is that the piston skirt design and as in that design also the pin height as a package working together.
They did not use the thin width rings back in the day as we do nowadays and they have now got a handle on the piston skirt design as well nowadays.
It was a big thing back in the days of 1960's 70's to get a piston design for long life and oil control and the rod ratio to work well with that piston as such.

As a product in producing mass engines cheaply and long lasting being number one priority you could not make it into a 350 back in the day that Fred designed it for.

A lot of people I know did stroke the old 308 but only one type worked well of about 330ci the rest were crap for power but some good for towing, because of the rod ratio and only some of the pistons that could be used made it bodgie setup.

A lot of people used the chev 327 piston in the normal stroke 308 but it was crap because it just sat to low down in the bore, so they only lost power by using them.
So many people would say that the 308 was a crap engine to bomb up in the early days.

Your 5.6L is something that they made in 1986 tec has moved along in them 20 years.

I think that crank of yours was cast especially for the job, but in the days before you had to use other cranks out of other engines and machine them to fit.
You could not just go cast a crank up for the job like so.

Once one starts talking about specialty engines that's another subject on it's own, I was on about production engines as to Fred and his creation.

Make me wonder why Holden did not just use your type of crank for the 5.7L Blink Laugh
wbute Offline
#56 Posted : Tuesday, 21 March 2017 12:38:45 PM(UTC)
wbute

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 897

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Seems to me that if Holden had wanted to make the 308 larger back in the beginning they would have easily done it (they more or less had it ready to do).Saying you could not get any good aftermarket parts to do it just points to our small market at the time, not poor design.
Clearly they had access to cheap 350 Chevy motors that suited the application and then the need for a 350 evaporated, until they re-introduced it at the demise of the 308. I bet that if GM were ignored by Holden they would have developed the 308 into an overhead cam engine. Hard to know now what they were capable of though. Between GM putting the handbrake on most of our local development and then putting an end to it altogether we may never know.
HK1837 Offline
#57 Posted : Tuesday, 21 March 2017 1:48:51 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,077

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 168 time(s) in 166 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: commodorenut Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
I remember the BS story old Fred said about that the Holden V8 was made to go out to a 350ci they don't, not with a bit of work to the blockLaugh and now with modern day short skirt pistons we can now use. the Holden at 350ci with old long type piston skirts you have to go a shorter rod and that destroys the performance, so it never truly was made for that when he designed the block back in the 60's Love they did cast the blocks for it later on.

Whilst they did alter the blocks in 1993/94 for the HSV 5.7L stroker, by removing metal from the bottom of the bore (for rod bolt clearance) and off the pan rail (for the same reason), I have a car in my garage that calls BS on your take on this.

In 1986/87 HDT produced the 5.6L/346ci stroker, and I own one. After having it apart, I can tell you that the only thing different to a regular 308/304 in the bottom end is the crank (completely different casting, with a counterweight on the rear flange) and pistons (different pin height, but the same style skirts as originals - perhaps a few mm shorter, if at all). It has standard A9L rods as used in the Group A engine of the era.

Now OK, it's just 4 cubes shy of 350, but it still proves how far they could go without altering the original casting - the bottoms of the bores, and the pan rail, have not been touched in my HDT stroker. I could put the rotating assembly into any red 308 block and it won't have clearance problems.


Yes but in 1969 you could not go 350 stroke.

What I meant by pistons is that the piston skirt design and as in that design also the pin height as a package working together.
They did not use the thin width rings back in the day as we do nowadays and they have now got a handle on the piston skirt design as well nowadays.
It was a big thing back in the days of 1960's 70's to get a piston design for long life and oil control and the rod ratio to work well with that piston as such.

As a product in producing mass engines cheaply and long lasting being number one priority you could not make it into a 350 back in the day that Fred designed it for.

A lot of people I know did stroke the old 308 but only one type worked well of about 330ci the rest were crap for power but some good for towing, because of the rod ratio and only some of the pistons that could be used made it bodgie setup.

A lot of people used the chev 327 piston in the normal stroke 308 but it was crap because it just sat to low down in the bore, so they only lost power by using them.
So many people would say that the 308 was a crap engine to bomb up in the early days.

Your 5.6L is something that they made in 1986 tec has moved along in them 20 years.

I think that crank of yours was cast especially for the job, but in the days before you had to use other cranks out of other engines and machine them to fit.
You could not just go cast a crank up for the job like so.

Once one starts talking about specialty engines that's another subject on it's own, I was on about production engines as to Fred and his creation.

Make me wonder why Holden did not just use your type of crank for the 5.7L Blink Laugh


I know guys that were stroking 308's in the 80's. They used a forged or cast 350 crank modified to fit, which involved building a different thrust journal (like a Cleveland in the centre bearing I think it was done). As the crank is 3/4" longer they used a TH to trimatic spacer and moved the starter motor backwards. Just used SBC rods with 377 (400 crank in 4" bore block) pistons. In a HT-HG it didn't make any difference, you just used SBC in same car tailshaft, gearbox crossmember etc as the back of the crank in this combination was sitting exactly where a SBC one does. In a HQ onwards everything had to be moved back 3/4" as in these the SBC is pushed forward so the back of the GMH and SBC engines are in alignment.

Those offset ground strokers had plenty of pistons available depending upon what rods were used. Normally you used 350 pistons with SJ327 rods and decked the block about 50 thou. If you used stock stroke 308 you used 327 pistons and decked the block about 50 thou. Blokes who were building hipo stuff always decked the blocks anyway to near to zero deck height, so even with normal 308 pistons you'd take 15-20 thou off anyway, so no great problem with another 20-30.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#58 Posted : Tuesday, 21 March 2017 5:48:18 PM(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: commodorenut Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
I remember the BS story old Fred said about that the Holden V8 was made to go out to a 350ci they don't, not with a bit of work to the blockLaugh and now with modern day short skirt pistons we can now use. the Holden at 350ci with old long type piston skirts you have to go a shorter rod and that destroys the performance, so it never truly was made for that when he designed the block back in the 60's Love they did cast the blocks for it later on.

Whilst they did alter the blocks in 1993/94 for the HSV 5.7L stroker, by removing metal from the bottom of the bore (for rod bolt clearance) and off the pan rail (for the same reason), I have a car in my garage that calls BS on your take on this.

In 1986/87 HDT produced the 5.6L/346ci stroker, and I own one. After having it apart, I can tell you that the only thing different to a regular 308/304 in the bottom end is the crank (completely different casting, with a counterweight on the rear flange) and pistons (different pin height, but the same style skirts as originals - perhaps a few mm shorter, if at all). It has standard A9L rods as used in the Group A engine of the era.

Now OK, it's just 4 cubes shy of 350, but it still proves how far they could go without altering the original casting - the bottoms of the bores, and the pan rail, have not been touched in my HDT stroker. I could put the rotating assembly into any red 308 block and it won't have clearance problems.


Yes but in 1969 you could not go 350 stroke.

What I meant by pistons is that the piston skirt design and as in that design also the pin height as a package working together.
They did not use the thin width rings back in the day as we do nowadays and they have now got a handle on the piston skirt design as well nowadays.
It was a big thing back in the days of 1960's 70's to get a piston design for long life and oil control and the rod ratio to work well with that piston as such.

As a product in producing mass engines cheaply and long lasting being number one priority you could not make it into a 350 back in the day that Fred designed it for.

A lot of people I know did stroke the old 308 but only one type worked well of about 330ci the rest were crap for power but some good for towing, because of the rod ratio and only some of the pistons that could be used made it bodgie setup.

A lot of people used the chev 327 piston in the normal stroke 308 but it was crap because it just sat to low down in the bore, so they only lost power by using them.
So many people would say that the 308 was a crap engine to bomb up in the early days.

Your 5.6L is something that they made in 1986 tec has moved along in them 20 years.

I think that crank of yours was cast especially for the job, but in the days before you had to use other cranks out of other engines and machine them to fit.
You could not just go cast a crank up for the job like so.

Once one starts talking about specialty engines that's another subject on it's own, I was on about production engines as to Fred and his creation.

Make me wonder why Holden did not just use your type of crank for the 5.7L Blink Laugh


I know guys that were stroking 308's in the 80's. They used a forged or cast 350 crank modified to fit, which involved building a different thrust journal (like a Cleveland in the centre bearing I think it was done). As the crank is 3/4" longer they used a TH to trimatic spacer and moved the starter motor backwards. Just used SBC rods with 377 (400 crank in 4" bore block) pistons. In a HT-HG it didn't make any difference, you just used SBC in same car tailshaft, gearbox crossmember etc as the back of the crank in this combination was sitting exactly where a SBC one does. In a HQ onwards everything had to be moved back 3/4" as in these the SBC is pushed forward so the back of the GMH and SBC engines are in alignment.

Those offset ground strokers had plenty of pistons available depending upon what rods were used. Normally you used 350 pistons with SJ327 rods and decked the block about 50 thou. If you used stock stroke 308 you used 327 pistons and decked the block about 50 thou. Blokes who were building hipo stuff always decked the blocks anyway to near to zero deck height, so even with normal 308 pistons you'd take 15-20 thou off anyway, so no great problem with another 20-30.



Right you are, but a lot did not deck the block for 327 pistons.
On my 1st 308 with stock pistons the deck was enough to wipe off the 308H engine number totally, but the 2ed 308 was clearly 11QT to be seen.

I don't know about taking to much off the deck as I think it can weaken it, the VN 5.0L block has more meat on the deck than the early 308's.

One 308 that I changed the head gasket on, some of the head bolts bottomed out and the deck was not totally flat as it was lower on both ends, it had lumpy top 327 pistons in it and he was blowing head gaskets every month or so on the street, it performed well tho but over 6500RPM is when she would blow gaskets as I found out, the owner said take it out to 7000 and I said no, but he insisted and Shhh it was a bloody nice HZ Sandman all decked out 9in diff 4 wheel disk big money had been spent on it all and my mate bought it as was and spent big money on that engine and it was eating T400 autos up as well. but the bastard would wheel stand taking off.
I would of just put a good worked 350 chev in it, but he sold it at the drop of a hat one day to some dude in Townsville and came back in a RS2000 Escort with twin carbys and picked me up and was on the way home sitting on 6200RPM in top when she dropped a valve d'oh! and f ed that off and got a XA GT.
castellan Offline
#59 Posted : Tuesday, 21 March 2017 5:57:58 PM(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: wbute Go to Quoted Post
Seems to me that if Holden had wanted to make the 308 larger back in the beginning they would have easily done it (they more or less had it ready to do).Saying you could not get any good aftermarket parts to do it just points to our small market at the time, not poor design.
Clearly they had access to cheap 350 Chevy motors that suited the application and then the need for a 350 evaporated, until they re-introduced it at the demise of the 308. I bet that if GM were ignored by Holden they would have developed the 308 into an overhead cam engine. Hard to know now what they were capable of though. Between GM putting the handbrake on most of our local development and then putting an end to it altogether we may never know.


I like the 5.7L Holden engine better than the Gen 3 any day as it had much more low down torque. alloy heard would of saved it and we could of had a 5.0L as well.

OHC V8 would of been no good as they loose bottom end torque and all them timing chains are just crap.
wbute Offline
#60 Posted : Tuesday, 21 March 2017 8:28:17 PM(UTC)
wbute

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 897

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Oh. Use desmodromic drive or timing gears instead. Why would overhead cam loose torque? Isn't stroke, rod length and flywheel weight and general reciprocating mass what determines torque? Doesn't a cam determine where and how power is delivered?
There are plenty of old style dirt bikes that are torquey with over head cams. I mean my XR 500 has over head cam, radial/hemispheric valves. Huge reciprocating mass and long piston skirt. My Husaberg 450 has overhead cam, low reciprocating mass, next to no piston skirt and obviously an overhead cam yet makes probably less torque but three times as much power.
Or do you mean that the overhead cam will allow for higher revs due to less valve float which will lead to potential to reduce reciprocating mass, higher revs, more power but sacrificing torque?
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
4 Pages<1234>
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 0.973 seconds.