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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

2 Pages12>
SLENUT Offline
#1 Posted : Sunday, 16 April 2023 10:51:02 AM(UTC)
SLENUT

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 120

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hello all

Looking through some books, I've noticed some books list the 308/5litre V8 being 5047cc, from HT-HX era, after that listed as 5044cc.
I'm lead to believe its 5044cc up till the VK 304 came out.

Whats right and wrong?
The Commodore SL/E fanatic.
HK1837 Offline
#2 Posted : Sunday, 16 April 2023 11:38:13 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,597

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 487 time(s) in 464 post(s)
Work it out

308 is 4" bore and 3 1/16" stroke.

1" is 25.4mm

Using pi to 15 decimal places I get 5045.185cc. Anything else is rounding errors.

If you go into GMH Engineering technical Specifications, for example the HT one lists it as 5.047 litres but they also only list the stroke as 3.062" which is where the 5044cc comes from (5044.361cc) which is contradictory I know as - these docs only go to two decimal places. Normally these docs always round up to two decimal places, I've rarely seen a number like 3.0625" rounded down to 3.062". If it is rounded up to 3.063" that is where the 5047cc comes from - using 3.063" as the stroke you get 5046.009 which combined with a rounded pi probably gives the 5047cc figure.

The 3 1/16" comes from GMH Homologation documents, which is 3.0625" - BUT in the same paperwork GMH say 5047cc. In metric they say 101.6mm bore and 77.78mm stroke, using those metric figures with pi to 4 decimal places (3.1416) I get 5044.699 so basically 5045 again. Even if you use a truncated pi to 4 decimal places (3.1415) you get 5044.550cc so still 5045cc.

Edited by user Sunday, 16 April 2023 6:32:13 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Smitty2 Offline
#3 Posted : Monday, 17 April 2023 9:00:32 AM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 356
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 223 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 27 post(s)
Originally Posted by: SLENUT Go to Quoted Post
Hello all

Looking through some books, I've noticed some books list the 308/5litre V8 being 5047cc, from HT-HX era, after that listed as 5044cc.
I'm lead to believe its 5044cc up till the VK 304 came out.

Whats right and wrong?



.. interesting topic Damo.

VK 304 engine is specc'd at 4987cc (per various GMH tech, service and engineering bulletins I have from the time of release)
and that engine has FIA homologation at 4987cc
but
the same engine in VL (carby and PFI version) is 4983cc according to the Holden service and engineering info I have
and VN EFI engine info also states 4983cc

what happened to the 4cc?? Whistle



Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
HK1837 Offline
#4 Posted : Monday, 17 April 2023 9:55:24 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,597

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 487 time(s) in 464 post(s)
Rounding or truncation errors at play again. How much was the engine stroke reduced by? 1/32”? 308 was 3 1/16” or 3.0625”

Just playing with strokes:

Original 308 is 307.876ci.

If I use 3 1/32” stroke (3.03125”) I get 304.7345ci or 4993.704cc.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Dr Terry Offline
#5 Posted : Monday, 17 April 2023 2:38:43 PM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,030

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 198 time(s) in 181 post(s)
Yes, you see these small errors all the time, as Byron said "rounding errors".

AFAIK they reduced the stroke by 0.040" (from 3.0625" to 3.0225").

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
HK1837 Offline
#6 Posted : Monday, 17 April 2023 4:19:20 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,597

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 487 time(s) in 464 post(s)
That would make it 4979.289cc for the later VK onwards 5.0L.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Smitty2 Offline
#7 Posted : Monday, 17 April 2023 6:04:15 PM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 356
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 223 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 27 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Yes, you see these small errors all the time, as Byron said "rounding errors".

AFAIK they reduced the stroke by 0.040" (from 3.0625" to 3.0225").

Dr Terry


haha... maybe, figures can lie and liars can go figure!

GMH hedged their bets... from the Improved Performance engine manual, engine details -
stroke is
3.057" to 3.067" .. or 3.062" being halfway or 77.648mm to 77.901 (or 77.775mm average)
but
VK Grp A SS manual for that A9L engine is 40thou or 1.01mm less at 3.020 to 3.028" but is 40thou less 3.0225"?

the VL Grp A SS (both carby and PFI) states stroke is 76.708 to 76.962mm (76.835 average).. note no imperial measures now.
and
with that info, 77.775 to 76.835 is not 1mm says my calculator!

but in final confusion, GMH signed the FIA homologation forms for the later (smaller ) V8 with its capacity stated on the 1st page as
... 4980.8cc Think

Edited by user Monday, 17 April 2023 6:06:01 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
HK1837 Offline
#8 Posted : Monday, 17 April 2023 6:31:40 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,597

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 487 time(s) in 464 post(s)
77.78mm stroke is what is stated in the L34 homologation docs, but that is against 3.0625" (also stated). However again this is truncation, if you multiply 3.0625 by 25.4 you actually get 77.7875mm which should be rounded to 77.79mm. In the end it is all errors and the ranging used later is for manufacturing tolerances. The VL 5.0L service manual supplement says 76.8, and as Smitty says the ranges in the GroupA supplements are given as stated! The real stroke was always imperial for 253 and 308 and it was 3 1/6" which is 3.0625". 40 thou de-stroke has to be 3.0225", can't be anything else, unless again allowing for manufacturing tolerances.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
 1 user thanked HK1837 for this useful post.
Smitty2 on 18/04/2023(UTC)
Castellan 2 Offline
#9 Posted : Monday, 4 March 2024 12:17:05 PM(UTC)
Castellan 2

Rank: Newbie

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/03/2024(UTC)
Posts: 9
Australia
Location: QLD

Thanks: 6 times
I remember back in the old days with the 308's people would put Chev 327 pistons in the 308's. reason why was because the Stock 308 piston was not as strong and when one had hotted up with bigger camshaft they would use this piston as nothing other was around but to go down this track, but the 327 piston sat to low down in the bore, i think 0.040 ? lower than the Stock Holden piston.

So reading this about what they did to make it the 4.9L crank ? could they do the same the other way and make a stock bore 308 become a 312ci and + 0.060 = 320ci. and use the 327 pistons as they will be at a good height in the bore then ? as 327 pistons sit way to low for good performance.

I can not remember the compression ratio of a stock 327 in a 308 comes to, as it's a flat top piston.
Not to mention if a 327 was sitting 0.040 higher maybe around 10.5:1 ? not bad with a big cam !

But then again one could stroke the std crank to what you wanted within it's limits ?
HK1837 Offline
#10 Posted : Monday, 4 March 2024 4:51:05 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,597

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 487 time(s) in 464 post(s)
HQ-HZ 308 with stock heads and flat tops works out about 10:1 with factory gaskets, although there is about 8cc in the top of Chevy pistons in the valve recesses - this is assuming the piston deck height is the same as a 308 which it isn't. As you say the 327 pistons sit down the bore a bit which means unless you decked it, it'd run like cr@p as the quench area is all wrong and you'd lose a lot of compression. The L34 used flat tops and it was 9.8:1, but it also had valve reliefs in the chamber for the larger valves.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
 1 user thanked HK1837 for this useful post.
Castellan 2 on 5/03/2024(UTC)
Smitty2 Offline
#11 Posted : Monday, 4 March 2024 5:32:15 PM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 356
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 223 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 27 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Castellan 2 Go to Quoted Post
I remember back in the old days with the 308's people would put Chev 327 pistons in the 308's. reason why was because the Stock 308 piston was not as strong and when one had hotted up with bigger camshaft they would use this piston as nothing other was around but to go down this track, but the 327 piston sat to low down in the bore, i think 0.040 ? lower than the Stock Holden piston.

So reading this about what they did to make it the 4.9L crank ? could they do the same the other way and make a stock bore 308 become a 312ci and + 0.060 = 320ci. and use the 327 pistons as they will be at a good height in the bore then ? as 327 pistons sit way to low for good performance.

I can not remember the compression ratio of a stock 327 in a 308 comes to, as it's a flat top piston.
Not to mention if a 327 was sitting 0.040 higher maybe around 10.5:1 ? not bad with a big cam !

...................................


I don't recall ppl putting in Chev pistons in 308s because they were stronger than the Holden version...

they went in because you could get FORGED Chev versions with DIFFERENT PIN heights that you did not have to sell a kidney or your children for
.. you would have trouble getting something like that for a 308 40 years ago. Nowadays is much better... I stipulate what piston I want in my race engines
always forged (after I broke an original hyper set) and I can get them in what ever height I want, for whatever ring set and whether with reliefs or flatops


latest set .... SRP these are


Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
 1 user thanked Smitty2 for this useful post.
Castellan 2 on 5/03/2024(UTC)
gm5735 Offline
#12 Posted : Tuesday, 5 March 2024 9:58:32 AM(UTC)
gm5735

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 16/04/2014(UTC)
Posts: 768
Man
Location: Victoria

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 47 post(s)
This one has surfaced again, but for a different reason.

The thing about a 308 is that it actually isn't 308 cubic inches swept volume. 308 is a marketing number.

1 cubic inch = 16.387cc. In HT times the metric capacity quoted for the "308" was 5047cc.

Using the marketing capacity and applying the conversion factor,

308 x 16.387 = 5047.2 cc. That's where 5047 comes from. It's a marketing number and not the actual swept volume.


The real swept volume of a "308", to 3 decimal places is Pi x 4 x 3.062 x 8 = 307.825 cubic inches.

307.825 x 16.387 = 5044.32cc, which is the real metric capacity at nominal size.

Edited by user Tuesday, 5 March 2024 10:00:09 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Dr Terry Offline
#13 Posted : Tuesday, 5 March 2024 2:02:56 PM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,030

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 198 time(s) in 181 post(s)
Originally Posted by: gm5735 Go to Quoted Post
This one has surfaced again, but for a different reason.

The thing about a 308 is that it actually isn't 308 cubic inches swept volume. 308 is a marketing number.

1 cubic inch = 16.387cc. In HT times the metric capacity quoted for the "308" was 5047cc.

Using the marketing capacity and applying the conversion factor,

308 x 16.387 = 5047.2 cc. That's where 5047 comes from. It's a marketing number and not the actual swept volume.


The real swept volume of a "308", to 3 decimal places is Pi x 4 x 3.062 x 8 = 307.825 cubic inches.

307.825 x 16.387 = 5044.32cc, which is the real metric capacity at nominal size.


Totally agree, the engine badge numbers are often not even close to the actual precise number of cubic inches.

There are several that are "off" by more than just being rounded. The 400ci Ford V8 seen in the early 70s LTDs etc. are actually 402ci. The Ford marketting guys probably thought that 400 was a nicer looking number than 402.

A Holden 202 is actually 201.25, but again 202 probably looks nicer & sounds better than 201.

The 308/5044/5047 thing is even worse with the 253 V8. The badge is 253 which converts to 4146cc (closer to 4.1 litres) is actually 252.85 ci which is 4143.7cc. Even closer to 4.1 litres.

Dr Terry

Edited by user Tuesday, 5 March 2024 2:13:14 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
HK1837 Offline
#14 Posted : Tuesday, 5 March 2024 3:37:37 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,597

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 487 time(s) in 464 post(s)
A 351 Ford is actually a 352. When GM released the 400 small block they actually increased the bore on the 396 which made it 402ci as obviously you want the big block to always be larger than the biggest small block available at the same time. Yet on some car lines they kept the 396 badging, others changed to 400 or 402. The reasoning I believe was that the 396 was well established in certain car lines.

Reality is though the stroke on a 253 and 308 is 3 1/16", so the true capacity of a 308 is always based upon 4" bore and 3.0625" stroke. If you use pi to 4 decimal places rather than 3 to remove it from significant errors in the equation (ie 3.1416) you get 307.876ci. Doing this metric (multiplying each imperial measurement by 25.4) gives you 5045.185cc. This is the true capacity of a 308 based upon the original imperial measurements and using pi as 3.1416.

Edited by user Wednesday, 6 March 2024 5:23:39 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Typo fixed

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Smitty2 Offline
#15 Posted : Wednesday, 6 March 2024 4:45:02 PM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 356
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 223 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 27 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
A 351 Ford is actually a 352. When GM released the 400 small block they actually increased the bore on the 396 which made it 402ci as obviously you want the big block to always be larger than the biggest small block available at the same time. Yet on some car lines they kept the 396 badging, others changed to 400 or 402. The reasoning I believe was that the 396 was well established in certain car lines.

Reality is though the stroke on a 253 and 308 is 3 1/16", so the true capacity of a 308 is always based upon 4" bore and 3.0625" stroke. If you use pi to 4 decimal places rather than 3 to remove it from significant errors in the equation (ie 3.1416) you get 307.876ci. Doing this metric (multiplying each imperial measurement by 25.4) gives you 5054.185cc. This is the true capacity of a 308 based upon the original imperial measurements and using pi as 3.1416.


next...?

lets talk about factory hp ratings Boo hoo!
Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
HK1837 Offline
#16 Posted : Wednesday, 6 March 2024 5:35:34 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,597

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 487 time(s) in 464 post(s)
For a 308? That is easy! These are the stock regular variety production engines, left out the L34, Bedford and the HDT variants of the 308/5.0L.

HT-HQ and early LH: 227hp SAE Gross (GM20) (advertised as 240hp).
HJ, later LH and early LX: 250hp SAE Gross.
HX-HZ, later LX and VB with 9.7:1: 216hp SAE Gross.
Later HZ and VB with 9.4:1 125kW DIN with dual exhaust.
WB and VC-VK: 126kW DIN with dual exhaust.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
 1 user thanked HK1837 for this useful post.
Smitty2 on 7/03/2024(UTC)
Castellan 2 Offline
#17 Posted : Saturday, 16 March 2024 11:36:43 AM(UTC)
Castellan 2

Rank: Newbie

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/03/2024(UTC)
Posts: 9
Australia
Location: QLD

Thanks: 6 times
Holden's 173 is 2.850L on the badge !

When a engine comes close to something like 2850cc then they called it a 2.850L. if it was on the lower range under 2850cc it was called a 2.8L and if it was on the higher range of 2850cc they called it a 2.9L.

Look at Holden 202 and fords 200 6 cyl, why, marketing comes into it ? because many people are dumb ? and would think that the engine is the same engine ? and then comes the 3.3L both are 3.3L but just as the Chev Gen 3 is called a 5.7L many people claimed this was a 350 chev engine but it's not 350ci at all.
So this dude i know claimed that they used the old 350 pistons from the Iron cast 350 blocks and that is why they used oil ? I said not at all, because you can not fit a 350 piston into a Gen 3 bore in fact regardless ! because the Gen 3 has a smaller bore !

Another pain was the Ford Windsor 302 and the Windsor 351 ? because the 351 Cleveland is a 351 as well and people can mistake such off the bat ! and then Australia made the 302 Cleveland to make more mistakes possible when talking or looking up figures regarding such things.

I had some people think my HG 253 Premier was a 327 Chev engine, why because i dragged them off ! and they mistaken the oil filler breather as a Chev thing, but they were on all Holden V8's from HT-G in fact. even to this day some think i am having them on, that it was only a 253, because it was from take off neck and neck with a XC 5.8L with stock dual exhaust to 112MPH my HG only had a single 2 1/4 in exhaust with free flowing muffler and that picks up the performance well on a stock 253.

Then again when talking about engines in cars, one can talk about what is a reasonable price to fork out just to get the engine performing better ? Like option a new VB-C-H-K-L Commodore V8 to get the dual exhaust, the DIN Figures do not lie !

The we could talk about head work and Camshaft spec that are with in the range of a stock engine but liven it up well ! nothing to do with becoming a hot rod rocket ship at all, just truly sensible mods that a 90yo could drive even and no lose of torque down low ! and not many people talk about such a thing. because such talk in the main goes off with the pixies on high performance rubbish with some one using 6000 RPM to 7000 RPM with good power at that rev range ! no one wants that unless you are being a rat bag on the road ? and yes i do like such a rat bag engine and to fang such a thing but i am not on about such now ! only within the limits of a good stock range with no lumpy cam, that no one can pick that you have a full on done your home work and came up with a stock type of engine that will blow the doors of what was original spec engine setup ! I would let people drive my 308 P Van and they were totally blown away, saying f she goes ! what the f ! that's a freak motor, etc.

I had a dude come up to me who had bought my HQ 202 98.000 miles up on it never been touched ! and only a 2 in exhaust and a good reasonable quiet muffler, that's what did the trick ! but i seen people fut on a smaller exhaust than standard, why, because such was a cheaper option, they had no idea or could not care less.
wbute Offline
#18 Posted : Thursday, 21 March 2024 6:22:00 AM(UTC)
wbute

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,116

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 17 time(s) in 16 post(s)
Did they build blue and black 5 litre at the same time? WB and VK? How do you tell them apart if they have the engine number decked off?
Smitty2 Offline
#19 Posted : Thursday, 21 March 2024 8:31:19 AM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 356
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 223 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 27 post(s)
Originally Posted by: wbute Go to Quoted Post
Did they build blue and black 5 litre at the same time? WB and VK? How do you tell them apart if they have the engine number decked off?


no...
GMH stopped painting them blue one day and started painting them black*... there was a breakpoint and bingo all were black from then on.

didn't really matter as a VH 5.0 was the same engine black in VK (until some of the hipo specials appeared... A9L, V7X etc)

If the engine number if not there, being decked... yeah a bit of a problem
unless you are expert, you cannot tell the difference between a normal VT, VA, VB, VG or VJ numbered engine,
VC coded is easy as they are RED being the A9L 'Grp A' engine but the others???

The VT numbered engine won't have the better inlet manifold (used on VA, VB VG engines) and even having an EGR
valve is no help. ALL VJ engines (auto and manual) had them but they are not on VB and VG coded 'manual' engines.

WB exhaust manifolds differed from Commodore .. but who has the original exhaust on it these days?

Ignition distributors did help when blue V8s were introduced as auto manual and 253/308s all got differing
coloured paint dots (the GMH manual tells you which belongs on what engine) but now... do you have the original dizzy?



*I have ignored those painted silver for the various series of Bedfords that were fitted with Holden V8s
(low comp with 2BBL carbs they were)

Edited by user Thursday, 21 March 2024 8:32:20 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
Dr Terry Offline
#20 Posted : Thursday, 21 March 2024 10:03:08 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,030

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 198 time(s) in 181 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post

no...
GMH stopped painting them blue one day and started painting them black*... there was a breakpoint and bingo all were black from then on.


I was trying to work out the logistics of that. I have it that the last 4.2 V8 was built on Nov 2 1984 & it was painted blue. This coincided with the cessation of WB production. I thought that all V8s fitted to WBs were painted blue.

The VK was released in Feb 1984 so Black 5.0 production must have begun in late 1983. Blue 5.0 V8s were still to WBs being fitted almost a year later. Are you saying that 5.0 WBs built in 1984 had 1983 built motors.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
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 © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.186 seconds.