Found this in my oil pan

[patrickt]

You ought to just post it here so that anybody that does a search can find it. I get "thank you" notes from guys that stumble on my posts from ten years ago. I'll tell you, nothing is more irritating than finding a thread that has your exact problem, and then you read that the solution was PM'd to the guy. We have one guy on this forum that's famous for posting responses with "PM sent." Jeez, just post the damn answer.

[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by patrickt

You ought to just post it here so that anybody that does a search can find it. I get "thank you" notes from guys that stumble on my posts from ten years ago. I'll tell you, nothing is more irritating than finding a thread that has your exact problem, and then you read that the solution was PM'd to the guy. We have one guy on this forum that's famous for posting responses with "PM sent." Jeez, just post the damn answer.

PM sent.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by dcdoug

PM sent.

Ehhhrrrggggg.

[Shootnride]

Originally Posted by patrickt

You ought to just post it here so that anybody that does a search can find it. I get "thank you" notes from guys that stumble on my posts from ten years ago. I'll tell you, nothing is more irritating than finding a thread that has your exact problem, and then you read that the solution was PM'd to the guy. We have one guy on this forum that's famous for posting responses with "PM sent." Jeez, just post the damn answer.

Amen !!!

Ted

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by patrickt

I get "thank you" notes from guys that stumble on my posts from ten years ago.

Ya, sure you do. I "know" another guy who claims he gets thank you's too, even though the people supposedly thanking him completely deny it.

[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Ya, sure you do. I "know" another guy who claims he gets thank you's too, even though the people supposedly thanking him completely deny it.

Actually, those people deny even talking to him in the first place...

[dcdoug]

More bad news on the engine front. The machine shop found a hairline crack in the original 427 crank and while it may be repairable, I don't want to go that route. So I can add a new crank to go with my new pistons. I do plan to reuse the Lemans rods.

I am leaning towards going with a Scat forged 428 crank and picking up some displacement. Since 427's are internally balanced and 428's aren't, how does that work with a 428 crank and allow the engine to remain internally balanced?

And that probably means I should do a cam upgrade. Any thoughts? My current cam is a Holman Moody vintage B style grind (specs below):

Exhaust Duration = 242
Intake Duration = 242
Intake Center Line = 105
Exhaust Center Line = 107
Lobe Separation Angle = 106
Cam installed w/ key 2 deg advanced (I think)
Gross lift = .526
Overlap at .050 = 30 deg
Rocker ratio: 1.76
Cam card is here if you want to see it: http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/pict...pictureid=2787

I will probably try to stay with Holman Moody since I have their lifters and push rods too and I know manufacturers don't like mixing brands.

My heads are stock iron medium risers and I'm not changing those.

[patrickt]

Well I'm sorry to hear that. You might seriously consider scrapping those beloved rods and going for a SCAT stroker with the 6.7" rods. Both the 4.125 and 4.250 are internally balanced. I have the former, most have the latter. I think you could keep your cam and heads with that and you'd be just fine.

[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Well I'm sorry to hear that. You might seriously consider scrapping those beloved rods and going for a SCAT stroker with the 6.7" rods. Both the 4.125 and 4.250 are internally balanced. I have the former, most have the latter. I think you could keep your cam and heads with that and you'd be just fine.

You don't think I'd be even more under-cammed if I did that?

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by dcdoug

You don't think I'd be even more under-cammed if I did that?

You and I have the same cam lobe profiles, but your LSA is tighter. With my 4.125" stroker SCAT, and a slight increase in bore, I'm at 447 CID. I absolutely love my cam and wouldn't change it. A stroker crank in your block is going to be a few cubes larger than mine, but not a whole lot. Now, a new SFT cam, cut to your specs, is only a couple of hundred bucks, so it's not a big deal. But I don't think I'd go with a 428 crank and then internally balance it -- I'd just go stroker. Now, I'll vote for the 4.125", but most people around her will say go with the 4.250".

[blykins]

You don't need forged, and scat doesn't make a steel 428 crank anyway.

I personally would go with a 4.250, and yes, when you add 30-60 cubes, the cam selection will change. The cam you have will be much milder with a larger engine. If that's something you can deal with, then no need to change. Also no problem with mixing manufacturers if you do change.

Save the $500 that you would spend on a steel crank, get a cast 4.25 stroke, and buy a new set of rods and piston rings with the money.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by blykins

You don't need forged, and scat doesn't make a steel 428 crank anyway.

I personally would go with a 4.250, and yes, when you add 30-60 cubes, the cam selection will change. The cam you have will be much milder with a larger engine. If that's something you can deal with, then no need to change. Also no problem with mixing manufacturers if you do change.

Save the $500 that you would spend on a steel crank, get a cast 4.25 stroke, and buy a new set of rods and piston rings with the money.

Doug, you should listen to Brent, he's much brighter than I am on these matters. But, I will throw this in: I know you're younger than I am (because I've met you) and I know you run your car harder than I do mine (because you break it every couple of years). If you don't want to do all of this again, err on the side of "less is more" on your rebuild. A slightly shorter stroke, slightly less cam lift, and slightly less power, will let your engine live longer and, that way, the next "major rebuild" will be undertaken by your heirs.

[blykins]

Gonna call you out on the stroke part.

I'd put a 6" stroke in if it would fit.

Absolutely zero issues with longer stroke.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by blykins

Gonna call you out on the stroke part.

I'd put a 6" stroke in if it would fit.

Absolutely zero issues with longer stroke.

Well, alright... but you're still brighter than I am.

[blykins]

Brighter? Nope. I just have more experience than you in engine building and that's to be expected since that's what I do.

Wouldn't know where to start on lawyer'in.

[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by blykins

Gonna call you out on the stroke part.

I'd put a 6" stroke in if it would fit.

Absolutely zero issues with longer stroke.

So would you leave the cam alone? I know it's not the most efficient profile, but I do like the sound and feel of it quite a bit. BUT, if I'm going to do it, I'd rather do it now and I'm not against more power although no one really needs it in these cars...

[blykins]

Figure out the crank first, then go from there.

[dcdoug]

OK, I think you guys have sold me on going with a full stroker kit and an entirely new rotating assembly. Likely a bore of 4.250 and stroke of 4.250.

What cam profile do I need to keep similar sound characteristics to my current cam in my current engine?

[blykins]

A lot more duration. Rough rule of thumb is 12 degrees per 30 cubes.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by dcdoug

Likely a bore of 4.250 and stroke of 4.250.

At 482 cubes, your cam will not be an aggressive SFT. I wouldn't call it "mild," maybe a little bit over that. You'd still be making close to 500HP, and it would be easier on the street. But Brent is going to tell you that you're leaving potential horsepower on the table.