Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer - NCRS Discussion Boards

Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Duke W.
    Beyond Control Poster
    • January 1, 1993
    • 15662

    Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

    Since Joe mentioned talking to me I figure it's okay for me to chime in and add a few comments.

    Prof. Taylor's similar engine rule states that two engines, identical other than stroke will make about the same peak power at about the same mean piston speed. Prof. Taylor managed the MIT Sloan automotive labs from the thirties to the sixties and wrote the two-volume 800-page tome, The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice that I consider the engine designer's "bible".

    Some of you may not be familiar with this term, but it's an excellent and easy to calculate way to compare any two engines even if they are of substantially different size and configuration like lawnmower engines and large two-stroke turbocharged marine diesel engines that power cargo ships and tankers.

    Mean piston speed is simply double the stroke, in feet, times RPM. If your 327 makes peak power at 6000 which is 3250 feet per minute, then Taylor's Rule says increasing the stroke to 3.75" with no other changes will make about the same peak power at about 5200 RPM.

    The higher an engine's peak power mean piston speed, the higher the specific output. The current limit is about 5200 FPM, which is typical of NASCAR Sprint Cup engines and F1 engines before they got rev limited and turboed in the last few years, and it's pretty amazing that a large pushrod V8 can peak at the same mean piston speed as a small DOHC 32-valve V8. Maybe pushrods aren't so bad after all! The LS7 is running 4700 FPM at the 7K redline, which is higher than any production engine other than a handful of exotics!

    Commercial engines that are designed to operate at or near full output most of the time run at much lower mean piston speeds. Big rig diesels that typically have 6" strokes are usually governed at 1800 RPM. You can do that one in your head - 1800 FPM. The largest marine diesel I know of has a bore of about three feet and a stroke of about seven feet. It can be configured with 5 to 14 inline cylinders and makes about 7000 HP per cylinder at 100 RPM. Typical cruise is about 90 RPM for about 15-16 knots, and the mean piston speed is 1260 FPM. Cruising on the freeway in a 327 runnning at 3000 is only 1625 FPM, and they are no where near maximum available power at that engine speed, so they are relatively loafing.

    I don't think Joe mentioned this, but the ...657 block has bearing retention notches for both main bores sizes. The transfer line must have broached both notches before the main bearing bores were machined. You can see them in photo #5, so all that's required is align boring to the larger size, and any competent machine shop should be able to do the job. That's a very nice feature that is unique to the '67 model year. It's even easier to stroke a 350 because you don't have to align bore, but you should still use a "stroker rod" and carefully check for adequate block and cam clearance.

    Joe used a roller cam, but my choice along with massaged heads would be the McCagh Special camshaft, maybe retarded a few degrees for an original 300 HP engine and the massaged heads along with the L-46/82 cam for an original L-79.

    ...great article, Joe, and hats off to you for your excellent research, block clearancing work, and documentation of the project!

    I LOVE CHEATER MOTORS!!!

    Duke
    Last edited by Duke W.; September 29, 2015, 08:56 PM.
  • Joe R.
    Extremely Frequent Poster
    • March 1, 2002
    • 1356

    #2
    Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

    Hi Duke:

    Glad you liked my 383 article. I hesitated to submit this to the Restorer for fear of offending NCRS purists, but your "Tale of Two Camshafts" article led the way. If Mike McCagh and Dennis Clark can make cheater motors, it must be okay (as long as they look NCRS correct).

    Regarding cams, I think the L46 would be a good choice for an OEM cam, but I wanted to use a roller cam to max out the "stealth" aspect of the build. I ended up with a Com Cams 280HR (224/224, .525 lift, 110 LSA) that is sort of like the L46 cam, but with more lift and a tighter LSA.

    Comment

    • Joe R.
      Extremely Frequent Poster
      • May 31, 2006
      • 1822

      #3
      Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

      Joe,

      I agree with Duke, great article!!! And Duke, thanks for this fine thread!!! I think I finally understand what stroking does, all else being equal.

      Joe

      Comment

      • Gary B.
        Extremely Frequent Poster
        • February 1, 1997
        • 7018

        #4
        Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

        Joe,

        Your stealth/stroker article is one of the most interesting ones that I've read in a long time. Great job.

        Gary

        Comment

        • Mark E.
          Extremely Frequent Poster
          • April 1, 1993
          • 4532

          #5
          Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

          I also enjoyed the article. The photography really helped to illustrate the clearance issues.

          The risk of grinding into a water jacket while clearancing the block was mentioned. How much material can be safely removed?

          I'm looking forward to the follow up article(s) about the engine assembly and performance results. I like the idea of a sleeper 383 lurking in an original looking car.
          Mark Edmondson
          Dallas, Texas
          Texas Chapter

          1970 Coupe, Donnybrooke Green, Light Saddle LS5 M20 A31 C60 G81 N37 N40 UA6 U79
          1993 Coupe, 40th Anniversary, 6-speed, PEG 1, FX3, CD, Bronze Top

          Comment

          • Gene M.
            Extremely Frequent Poster
            • April 1, 1985
            • 4232

            #6
            Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

            Joe,
            I got to disagree the cam you are running is nothing like the L82/L46. Your Comp Cam is much faster ramp rise rate/close rate, more lift and closer lobe separation. Your roller has only a duration figure at .050" in common but the rates are total different. This can be seen in the greater spring forces your roller requires.
            L46/L82 spec Duration is 320* advertised (0 lash), 224* @ .050" (int & exh), .450"/.460" lift, on a 114* L/S a fairly lazy cam at total 96 degrees under .050 lift.

            But I love the article in the Restorer. I like a lot of details. Well done.

            Comment

            • Joe R.
              Extremely Frequent Poster
              • March 1, 2002
              • 1356

              #7
              Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

              Originally posted by Gene Manno (8571)
              Joe,
              I got to disagree the cam you are running is nothing like the L82/L46. Your Comp Cam is much faster ramp rise rate/close rate, more lift and closer lobe separation. Your roller has only a duration figure at .050" in common but the rates are total different. This can be seen in the greater spring forces your roller requires.
              L46/L82 spec Duration is 320* advertised (0 lash), 224* @ .050" (int & exh), .450"/.460" lift, on a 114* L/S a fairly lazy cam at total 96 degrees under .050 lift.

              But I love the article in the Restorer. I like a lot of details. Well done.

              Hi Gene:

              Glad you liked the article. Regarding my statement about comparing the L46 to the 280HR, I think I stated it correctly when I said, "I ended up with a Comp Cams 280HR (224/224, .525 lift, 110 LSA) that is sort of like the L46 cam, but with more lift and a tighter LSA." Both cams have the same timing at .050, but as I noted, that's the only parameter they have in common.

              By the way, I did a detailed comparison of the L79 lobe (222 degrees) and the 280HR lobe (224 degrees). In the attached plot they aren't quite centered, but you can see that the .050 timing shows only a small difference, as expected. Interestingly, the ramps below .050 look similar, at least at this resolution. The big difference is beyond .050 lift.

              Attached Files

              Comment

              • Gene M.
                Extremely Frequent Poster
                • April 1, 1985
                • 4232

                #8
                Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

                Joe,
                The entire area under the curve even using .300 lobe lift as a maximum is far greater on the 280HR cam. The total character of the profile is nothing close to the L46/L82 grind. Appearance of the profile is only part of it. The entire area under the curve is a huge difference. Also cylinder pressure build at a faster rate cause the overall profile is shorter at .006 lifter lift (280 vs 320 degrees) during overlap period. Roller rate of rise is far more than the flat tappet profile at the valve too. Your overall power would be far lower with the stock chevy cam in your engine if you changed it. The two are not similar.

                You have other real cool things that you did with your 67 that would be of interest to NCRS. More to follow?

                Comment

                • Joe R.
                  Extremely Frequent Poster
                  • March 1, 2002
                  • 1356

                  #9
                  Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

                  Originally posted by Gene Manno (8571)
                  Joe,
                  The entire area under the curve even using .300 lobe lift as a maximum is far greater on the 280HR cam. The total character of the profile is nothing close to the L46/L82 grind. Appearance of the profile is only part of it. The entire area under the curve is a huge difference. Also cylinder pressure build at a faster rate cause the overall profile is shorter at .006 lifter lift (280 vs 320 degrees) during overlap period. Roller rate of rise is far more than the flat tappet profile at the valve too. Your overall power would be far lower with the stock chevy cam in your engine if you changed it. The two are not similar.

                  You have other real cool things that you did with your 67 that would be of interest to NCRS. More to follow?
                  Hi Gene:

                  I think we are in total agreement on this, and we are just using different words to describe the same set of facts. I did not intend to suggest that L46 cam would develop equivalent power to the 280HR. I agree that "area under the curve" is a big deal, and I posted the plot to demonstrate how big the difference is. This is why I decided to use a roller cam instead of a vintage OEM cam.

                  Regarding the "other cool things" you refer to, I presume you are talking about the rest of my 383 build. I'm hoping to dyno test the engine and then write a second article about the "stealth" aspects of the heads, cam, intake, and exhaust. The engine is about 95% complete and I hope to get the dyno testing done by the end of the year.

                  Comment

                  • Gene M.
                    Extremely Frequent Poster
                    • April 1, 1985
                    • 4232

                    #10
                    Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

                    Joe
                    I kinda recall you have 5 speed, gears, etc. Everything done in taste to retain the original look...... yes?
                    Would be of great interest. You make a nice Restorer article presentation.

                    Comment

                    • Joe R.
                      Extremely Frequent Poster
                      • March 1, 2002
                      • 1356

                      #11
                      Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

                      Originally posted by Mark Edmondson (22468)
                      I also enjoyed the article. The photography really helped to illustrate the clearance issues.

                      The risk of grinding into a water jacket while clearancing the block was mentioned. How much material can be safely removed?

                      I'm looking forward to the follow up article(s) about the engine assembly and performance results. I like the idea of a sleeper 383 lurking in an original looking car.

                      Hi Mark:

                      The question of how much material can be safely removed is difficult to answer, and it depends partly on the specific block you are working with, as I will explain in a moment.

                      For starters, though, let's agree that "none" is the safest answer, since it involves no risk at all. With the right rod, I think "none" can be achieved when putting a 350 crank in a 327 block. However, I think that at least some material will always have to be removed if you put a 383 crank in a 327 block.

                      The best rod combination I could come up with was the Manley Sportsmaster rod with an alternate, low-profile ARP bolt, but that combination provides only slightly more clearance than the Scat Pro Comp rod that I used, and you can see in the photos that material had to be removed for the Scat rod. Note that the clearance target I used was .050", but after further analysis I think .025" would be sufficient. So, that helps a bit.

                      I should also mention that there is a semi-standard stroker crank available that has a 3.625" stroke, halfway between the 350 and 383. With a 4.030 bore, this stroke yields 370 CID. So, that is another way to reduce or eliminate the amount of material that has to be removed.

                      Lastly, another way to reduce the amount of material removed would be to have the rod journals turned down to the 2.0" diameter used by the 327, rather than the 2.1" diameter used by the 350. That buys you an extra .050" clearance right there. The selection of available small-journal rods is smaller than the selection of large-journal rods, so you would have to make sure that the rod you use provides a net clearance benefit. Also, for a 383 crank, I would be reluctant to use a small-journal rod in combination with small journal mains, for fear of weakening the crank. However, I think using the small journal rod with large journal mains would be fine. Racers have been doing that for years, and many racers even use the so-called "Honda" rod journal size, which is 1.888".

                      So now I think I have summarized all the ways I can think of to get to "none," or perhaps only a small amount of material removed. Now I will try to answer your question of how much can be removed. I believe that a "typical" 327 block has about .200" thick cylinder walls and .200" thick floor in the water jacket. The grinding takes place where these two surfaces meet, and the grinding is done at about a 45 degree angle. So, in theory there would be .282" of material when grinding at a 45 degree angle toward the junction inside the water jacket. That sounds good, but in practice some of that material is already gone, because the casting itself has an external bevel or a slight notch already present. So, let's just say that the material thickness might be around .200" in the direction you are grinding. But that is only for a "typical" block.

                      Unfortunately, when blocks were cast there was an inner sand core and an outer sand core, with molten metal filling the gap in between. If the two cores were not perfectly aligned, you would get what is called "core shift." This could cause one side of every cylinder wall to be thinner than the opposite side, or it could cause one cylinder bank to be offset slightly from the other. So, every block is different, and some blocks have more core shift than others. You could get unlucky and have a thin wall right where you are grinding.

                      It is possible to have a block sonic tested to determine the thickness of the cylinder walls and determine whether there was a lot of core shift. This is a good first step in evaluating a block. My block tested fine.

                      In summary, for a "typical" block with minimal core shift, I think you could safely remove .100" of material. Some people would say even more is okay. If you talk to people who have built dozens or hundreds of 383 strokers, you might be able to get a better answer than I can give.

                      Maybe some others on the TDB can chime in and say what they think is a safe number.

                      Comment

                      • Tom P.
                        Extremely Frequent Poster
                        • April 1, 1980
                        • 1814

                        #12
                        Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

                        I also read Joe's article, and then sent him an email regarding similar engines I have built. As Duke refers to "cheater" engines, my favorite small block build is a SB400. With a stock GM 400 block, they CAN BE taken up to 434ci, but that sure pushes the envelope! I prefer to limit the displacement of a stock GM 400 block to 420ci. Also, they can quite successfully be take to 427, although, this requires a VERY short piston with a short skirt--------------------AND---------------the wrist pin is in the oil ring groove, which I personally do not like (I suppose that is just me)!
                        The engine in my 56, with a Bill Thomas modified FI unit, is a .030 over 400 with the longer 350 rods. A very straight forward build with no issues. In an effort to retain a pseudo 57 283 FI appearance, I used 66 462 heads with the double humps ground off and pyramid symbols shaped on the ends, ala 57 539 heads. Then I had extra bosses welded, drilled and tapped so that I could install 9-fin staggered bolt pattern valve covers. I drilled a hole from the rear of the block into the lifter valley and fabricated plumbing for a PCV valve. Thus, NO HOLES in the valve covers. Since 400s as well as 383s require a 400 style balancer and flywheel, I use a finned 327 balancer and a 454 flywheel with appropriate balancing.















                        Comment

                        • Joe R.
                          Extremely Frequent Poster
                          • March 1, 2002
                          • 1356

                          #13
                          Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

                          Originally posted by Gene Manno (8571)
                          Joe
                          I kinda recall you have 5 speed, gears, etc. Everything done in taste to retain the original look...... yes?
                          Would be of great interest. You make a nice Restorer article presentation.
                          Yes, I mentioned the 5-speed in the introduction part of the article. The only clue when looking at the cabin is the 5-speed pattern on an original-style insert. Of course, when you look underneath it's clear that it's not a Muncie. This is a full-deduct for the transmission in NCRS judging (25 points). You can also lose operations points because the Tremec does not have reverse lockout, although I managed to add a reverse lockout so I could pass the ops test for the Founders Award. My solution was not very pretty, but it worked.

                          While I love having a 5-speed and I would recommend it to anyone who does a lot driving, I don't think an article about the conversion would be a good candidate for the Restorer. I figure I have already stretched things a bit with the 383 article, but at least that article is about maintaining original appearance.

                          Comment

                          • Joe R.
                            Extremely Frequent Poster
                            • March 1, 2002
                            • 1356

                            #14
                            Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

                            Originally posted by Tom Parsons (3491)
                            I also read Joe's article, and then sent him an email regarding similar engines I have built. As Duke refers to "cheater" engines, my favorite small block build is a SB400. With a stock GM 400 block, they CAN BE taken up to 434ci, but that sure pushes the envelope! I prefer to limit the displacement of a stock GM 400 block to 420ci. Also, they can quite successfully be take to 427, although, this requires a VERY short piston with a short skirt--------------------AND---------------the wrist pin is in the oil ring groove, which I personally do not like (I suppose that is just me)!
                            The engine in my 56, with a Bill Thomas modified FI unit, is a .030 over 400 with the longer 350 rods. A very straight forward build with no issues. In an effort to retain a pseudo 57 283 FI appearance, I used 66 462 heads with the double humps ground off and pyramid symbols shaped on the ends, ala 57 539 heads. Then I had extra bosses welded, drilled and tapped so that I could install 9-fin staggered bolt pattern valve covers. I drilled a hole from the rear of the block into the lifter valley and fabricated plumbing for a PCV valve. Thus, NO HOLES in the valve covers. Since 400s as well as 383s require a 400 style balancer and flywheel, I use a finned 327 balancer and a 454 flywheel with appropriate balancing.

                            Hi Tom:

                            That 400 looks terrific. Have you ever taken an unsuspecting Corvette guy for a ride in your "283" Fuelie? Did they think it was the strongest "283" that they ever experienced?

                            Comment

                            • Tom P.
                              Extremely Frequent Poster
                              • April 1, 1980
                              • 1814

                              #15
                              Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

                              Originally posted by Joe Randolph (37610)
                              Hi Tom:

                              That 400 looks terrific. Have you ever taken an unsuspecting Corvette guy for a ride in your "283" Fuelie? Did they think it was the strongest "283" that they ever experienced?
                              Yes, frequently, and I seriously flog it at every opportunity.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              Searching...Please wait.
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                              There are no results that meet this criteria.
                              Search Result for "|||"