I went over to the Dark Side....
#31
You can build the stroker with stock rods plus better rod bolts. When you buy the pistons the pin height adjusts for the length of rods being used. Take photos of the combustion chamber and also the intake port side of the head. That will give us a good idea of what you have. Chevy cast pass and hiperf under the valve covers as an easy identification aid.
#32
The intake surface you show is a closed chamber, small port head. A torque head mainly. Used in '66 396 360hp Chevelles, 427 390hp Vette's, all hyd cam motors & some trucks. The other (blue) heads are open chamber heads. Can't see the intake side, but if the intake ports are larger, more rectangular shape then they are hi-po type heads. But they would still make plenty of torque on a 454.
Hammer
Hammer
#35
This site has a 4.25 stroke crank mixed with a 6.135 rod and obviously a piston with the pin "lower"
http://www.rpmmachine.com/454-496-ca...roker-bb.shtml
http://www.rpmmachine.com/454-496-ca...roker-bb.shtml
#36
You could either have those heads ported (to better handle the displacement), or get a good set of the rectangle port heads without porting, (probably the cheaper route). I've been told that the small port heads when properly ported are very good all around heads although every BBC that I've built used the big heads. But that was to race. We're talking about a tow vehicle here.
If it was mine I'd get a price to port the open chamber small port heads & if it was too high compared to the price of a good set of rectangle port heads I'd get the larger heads & just set them up well. They're millions out there & cheap.
Hammer
If it was mine I'd get a price to port the open chamber small port heads & if it was too high compared to the price of a good set of rectangle port heads I'd get the larger heads & just set them up well. They're millions out there & cheap.
Hammer
#37
#38
It sounds good to me for the most part except........
1. 2.19 intakes are fine for a blown motor, 2.25 isn't necessary.
2. I would never mess with the short side radius of any motor I've ever built unless it was an all out race motor & then only if there was some deficiency in the original design.
3. I would never back cut a valve in a street motor.
My 2c.
Hammer
1. 2.19 intakes are fine for a blown motor, 2.25 isn't necessary.
2. I would never mess with the short side radius of any motor I've ever built unless it was an all out race motor & then only if there was some deficiency in the original design.
3. I would never back cut a valve in a street motor.
My 2c.
Hammer
#39
I think I will stick with the Oval port heads to save the "funds" maybe for some other stuff that I will need. If I can keep the 6.135 rods but still get the 4.25 stroke, thats even better.
Hammer, or anybody think a 4.5" stroke crank would fit in this block?
Hammer, or anybody think a 4.5" stroke crank would fit in this block?
#40
#41
Hammer
#42
I am sure 496 is big enough.
#43
I'd use the blue heads. With the stroker engines you can run about 9.2 to one compression with a flat top piston. On a quench head a flat top is ideal. If you use the closed chambers you'd need a dished piston to keep the compression down. 2.19 intakes and 1.88 exhausts would be fine. The open chambers were designed to burn cleaner but they also make more hp.
#44
I'd use the blue heads. With the stroker engines you can run about 9.2 to one compression with a flat top piston. On a quench head a flat top is ideal. If you use the closed chambers you'd need a dished piston to keep the compression down. 2.19 intakes and 1.88 exhausts would be fine. The open chambers were designed to burn cleaner but they also make more hp.