[JC455]

That's impressive! I noticed it really went lean at 4500- maybe it's got a lot more in it with the other carb?

[tom s]

I pulled the plug today,for some reason compression is low across all cyc.150 lb on all.Not sure what we have for a cam,Dave was afraid of the lean condition on the exhaust valves.I just dont want to get anymore money in labor or dyno time for a dyno mule.Proved it was possible,the block held water with a std pontiac head gasket and std pontiac head.Only real issue was the spacer.Will pull the pan when I get it home and check out the bottem end.Tom

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by tom s

I pulled the plug today,for some reason compression is low across all cyc.150 lb on all.Not sure what we have for a cam,Dave was afraid of the lean condition on the exhaust valves.I just dont want to get anymore money in labor or dyno time for a dyno mule.Proved it was possible,the block held water with a std pontiac head gasket and std pontiac head.Only real issue was the spacer.Will pull the pan when I get it home and check out the bottem end.Tom

Tom,
If you have the means do a leak down test. Who would know the cam specs?

Stan

[tom s]

Joe has them,will have them later in the week.Stan,did what I wanted,spent a good sum of money for research and don't want to spend more on a engine I don't have a car for.I can use many of the parts off the engine to build my 366 NASCAR engine for my bird.Im sure I can sell the heads to someone building a 350.Cam,lifters,rockers pan,dist valve covers etc will work well for the 366.

[Stan Weiss]

Tom,
I was just playing some games on my computer with some of the data from you dyno sheet. I have to say thanks to Joe because not everyone prints data in all of those columns. Does the top of the dyno sheet have the dyno correction factor on it? I come up with 1.05 plus or minus .0025.

Thanks,
Stan

[tom s]

No it does not,just says corrected TQ and power.I will get you cam specs and correction when I go there tomorrow.When I started this deal I was thinking of it for a 63 tempest wagon,the reason I used a 63 326 crank.Have moved on and bought my 69 bird back and want to put the 366 NASCAR engine in it.Tom

[hurryinhoosier62]

Tom,

Just saw the dyno results. Impressive. The torque curve was pretty flat. Goes to show the 301 isn't the dog we always believed it was.

[Ragtop Man]

Super cool project! Great that you got the results, and even better that you did it with almost ALL Pontiac parts.

FWIW, in a recent HPP, Tom Nell (I think) mentioned that engineering proposed converting all the big Pontiac engines to low deck (without the 301's bigtime lightening), and that it would actually improve cost, performance and fuel economy.

Marketing, normally progressive, said WTF -- we need engines big as Buick and Olds!!!

Looks like you got a long way to their goal!

The one stopper card in the deck: the intake. Somewhere, there has to be a blueprint of a regular, Pontiac type Q-Jet flanged low deck production manifold.

Maybe the IA guys? What about a low-deck 301/366 block of the same sturdiness of the giant one? There are a lot of classes where taking the weight out would be a big help. And as I have often wondered, it would be mighty hard to tell one apart from factory under the hood of an IPC '80-'81 Turbo.

Anyway, awesome job on the engine, hope you get around to putting another together when the right car comes along.

[hellerods]

Thanks for all your hard work and $$ for this interesting project Tom. I followed you and your engine from start to finish and want to thanks you for posting all this great info for the little Pontiac guys like me who don't have the time or $$ for a project like this but always daydream about doing it, thanks again Lee.

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by Ragtop Man

Super cool project! Great that you got the results, and even better that you did it with almost ALL Pontiac parts.

FWIW, in a recent HPP, Tom Nell (I think) mentioned that engineering proposed converting all the big Pontiac engines to low deck (without the 301's bigtime lightening), and that it would actually improve cost, performance and fuel economy.

Marketing, normally progressive, said WTF -- we need engines big as Buick and Olds!!!

Looks like you got a long way to their goal!

The one stopper card in the deck: the intake. Somewhere, there has to be a blueprint of a regular, Pontiac type Q-Jet flanged low deck production manifold.

Maybe the IA guys? What about a low-deck 301/366 block of the same sturdiness of the giant one? There are a lot of classes where taking the weight out would be a big help. And as I have often wondered, it would be mighty hard to tell one apart from factory under the hood of an IPC '80-'81 Turbo.

Anyway, awesome job on the engine, hope you get around to putting another together when the right car comes along.

FWIW only the pre 80 non turbo was a gutted lightweight... 79 301T and 80-81 301 blocks are right there with a early 70's 400 casting... Quite strong for small displacement apps... Granted the stock crank was still lacking.

As far as casting intakes...there would need to be sufficient demand... otherwise cost wouldnt be any better than cutting/welding std. intakes to fit. However I still think that early on someone did offer a 301 intake...though I might be confusing it with something else from that era.

[BruceWilkie]

Nice job Tom... certainly a more budget oriented piece than the monster Bill Anderson is building... will be interesting to see his results once finished. What I've physically seen of his is truly impressive(and nothing "budget" about it.)

[tom s]

Got the cam card.Lobe #4639B and 4641B on a 111.230-238@ 50 and 4070-4170 lobe lift .016 lash.Tom

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by tom s

Got the cam card.Lobe #4639B and 4641B on a 111.230-238@ 50 and 4070-4170 lobe lift .016 lash.Tom

Tom,
This is from an older catalog. I am not sure what the "B" means.

Stan

[analogkid455]

I think your biggest problem is the intake manifold. The runners are to short and the runners might be to big. That's why your torque peak and hp peak is so close together. Do you know what the CSA is on the intake?

I think you will pick up 30 hp once you get it tuned right.

I forgot to ask, did you advance the cam and how far? Is there advance built into the cam?

And yeah, you should be getting at least 170 psi cylinder pressure with that cam and compression. Probably higher and being such an aggressive solid roller, even though it's small, it should be making quite a bit more power AND torque! I would say you have some more work to do. Keep up the good work! Thanks for bringing this project to us!

[tom s]

Never really cared about any of that stuff.This build was to explore IF a stock pontiac head and head gasket would work on a 301 block without welding the block as Herb Adams said.Also how hard would it be to drop a stock 3.75 stroke crank in a 301 block without a custom crank or welding up the thrust on the crank.What lifters to use in a 301 block.Even more to see if the 301T block would handle more than 200 HP without puking the crank on the shop floor.HP was secondary to any of those.I think there might be some issues with the build but the single plane intake that Dave picked was by far the easiest and cheapest to do for this build.The cam used was NOT the intended cam,it was chosen by Joe after we found I had given him a RA V cam.He picked it as if building a 383 SBC.IF I actually had a car that I wanted to put this in,I would buy a old set of FI like a Hilborn,convert to EFI and would not have any money involved in having to make a intake.This was a dyno mule I spent stupid money on in R&D and labor because so much was trail and error.Im not sure if I was to do over I might use 2 spacers,one on each side of the thrust bearing.Nunzi thought that is what to do like they do on the 400-455 swaps.I know the BBC rods are the right way,I know the 3.75 stoke is the right way.A ton of money could have been saved with a hyd FTC and lifter and stock rockers.Was there more HP,FORSURE,maybe another 50 with dyno time and tuning.I just wanted to get the thing running,make a couple pulls and see what it did.Tom

[analogkid455]

Well you certainly proved all those things! Good job and thank you!

[Will]

I love stuff like this - pursuing an idea that's out of the mainstream just to see if it works.

My hat's off to you, sir!

[Stan Weiss]

Tom,
First remember that this is just the results of a computer simulation.

Using 5300 RPM as a fixed point. If from that point on I keep the A/F a constant 14.2 and the BSFC is a constant .53, then using the VE and RPM from your dyno sheet with a 1.05 dyno correction factor. I get the following high end HP as shown on the graph with the HP and torque from your dyno sheet.

Stan

[PONTIAC LARRY]

Nice work Stan that looks alot like what was expected

[Rocco Testa]

PM Sent.