Slant Six Forum
https://slantsix.org/forum/

street rod engine choice help!!!!!
https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37588		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  dash riprock [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:26 am ]
Post subject:  street rod engine choice help!!!!!
hi guys! here is what i've got going on, 1947 ford pu that i've nova subframed [narrowed 2"], that i would prefer to go /6 ! i have a good 82 rear sump lean burn, & a 62k 67 [solid lifters?] that runs like new! i like the old skool dist. ignition, not sure if i like solids for a dailey [sorta] driver, & regardless of which one i drop in it will have an 833od behind it. both /6's are bone stock, i'm looking for mpg. so my Q's are is wiring up the electronic dist.ignition worth it?, & does anyone have wiring diagram? i will add dultra duals, keep the 1 barrel. the big Q is what kind of mpg am i really going to get? 3.42 rear, 2000# pick up,driven by 53 yr old. any & all input would be greatly apprecaited!!!!!!!!!!!! dash
Author:  Krooser [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wiring the electronic ignition isn't hard but you can keep the early dizzy and use a Pertronix unit to replace the points.

Solid lifters are a once a year adjustment for most people... maybe every other year unless this will be your daily driver.
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: street rod engine choice help!!!!!
Quote:
hi guys! here is what i've got going on, 1947 ford pu that i've nova subframed [narrowed 2"], that i would prefer to go /6 ! i have a good 82 rear sump lean burn, & a 62k 67 [solid lifters?] that runs like new!
That choice is easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy: The '67 engine. You'd wind up removing the Lean Burn from the '82 engine anyhow. Valve adjustment is not difficult — see valve adjustment procedure.
Quote:
is wiring up the electronic dist.ignition worth it?
Yes, but not the Lean Burn distributor. Use a Chrysler single-pickup electronic distributor with vacuum advance. See HEI upgrade.
Quote:
I will add dultra duals, keep the 1 barrel. the big Q is what kind of mpg am i really going to get? 3.42 rear, 2000# pick up,driven by 53 yr old.
Dutra Duals, good pick. "Your mileage may vary". Should be pretty good with an 833OD and 3.42 rear axle, assuming a well-tuned engine and a carburetor in good shape.
Author:  jason white [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
In my bone stock '87 D150 I am getting about 22-24mpg leanburn and all and I also have the od 4speed
Author:  Reed [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
If the 64 is in good shape, I would run that one. However, I would run the head from the 82 with the 67 rocker arms and shaft.

The 82 does have some advantages- the hydraulic lifters, a lighter crankshaft, the revised combustion chamber in the cylinder head, possibly the factory one barrel intake manifold.

Really, it comes down to which short block is in better shape.
Author:  Charrlie_S [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
You will need the correct flywheel for whichever engine you choose. The 67 engine should have a smaller crank pilot then the 82 engine. The center hole in the flywheel must match.
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
If the 64 is in good shape, I would run that one. However, I would run the head from the 82 with the 67 rocker arms and shaft.
Uh…why would you do that? Heavier head with fewer spark plug options...where's the advantage?
Quote:
The 82 does have some advantages- the hydraulic lifters
That's an advantage in that you needn't adjust the tappet clearance, but it's a disadvantage in that the camshaft selection is much narrower and the oiling system has many more potential trouble spots.
Quote:
a lighter crankshaft
A weaker crankshaft.
Quote:
the revised combustion chamber in the cylinder head
...which the '67 also has...
Quote:
possibly the factory one barrel intake manifold
Intake manifolds are bolt-on items. If the '82 engine has the good 1-piece aluminum intake, it can easily be swapped onto the '67 engine.
Quote:
Really, it comes down to which short block is in better shape.
Really, it comes down to accurately presenting the differences between the engines and the benefits and drawbacks of each. Either will work fine if in good condition. My choice would be the '67 engine, all else being equal.
Author:  dash riprock [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
hey guys so far lotsa good input! i said i have a leanburn 82/6, but i 'm just assuming the 82 electronic ignition means that is what 82's had? also it sounds like i need a 67 fly wheel, which i don't have,[the 82 came w/833od.have no clue where to find 67 flywheel ! also the 82 sure seems to have the bad welded intake, instead of the 1 piece.still need help w/electric ignition wiring diagram. /6's are too cool! thanks!! dash
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
i said i have a leanburn 82/6, but i 'm just assuming the 82 electronic ignition means that is what 82's had?
If it has Lean Burn, there'll be a control box perched on the side of the air cleaner. But in either case, the '82 distributors and carburetors are inferior to other (earlier) options.
Quote:
still need help w/electric ignition wiring diagram.
See the HEI link provided above.
Author:  Reed [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't know about the lighter/weaker crank. Sure if you are building a drag racing monster slant you might worry about the weaker crank, but for a daily driver the lighter weight = better performance and better MPG.

I thought the revised combustion chamber occurred in 68?

Oh well. Foiled again.
Author:  Dart270 [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yes, '68 was revised combustion chamber.

375+ HP has been made on a cast crank motor, and many others with ~300 HP. I am screwing together a cast cranker to make about 270-280 HP for my '64 Dart. Not many people get this kind of power out of a 225, period.

Lou
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Yes, '68 was revised combustion chamber.
Nope, it was '67. Dig through your pile of heads and find some with '67 date codes; you'll find none of them has the '66-down 2206035 casting number. Or you can go look it up in the relevant MTSC book, emissions engineering book, or just the FPCs. First year for the revised cylinder head #2843 819 is 1967, and that continues as the only one through '69.

As for the cast crank: Yep, it generally works despite being made of a weaker material than the forged crank, and with inferior (smaller) bearings. Is it enough weaker to make a practical difference? Nope, not for most applications. By the same token, it's not enough lighter to make a practical difference in most applications, either. :cool:
Author:  Dart270 [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:57 am ]
Post subject: 
OK, thanks for the clarification on the head, Dan.

I don't know the year break point, but the later 80s cranks were 60 lbs vs. 76+ lbs for forged cranks. That's a big difference in my book. Mine is 60.2 lbs bare (Longacre scales) with no grinding.

Lou
Author:  Reed [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:04 am ]
Post subject: 
Plus, the weight of the crank is rotating weight, as opposed to the dead weight in the head. Seems to me that that much reciprocating weightwould make the motor rev much quicker and easier. :?
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/