[napster]

Originally Posted by Verdoro 68

I just chatted with Butler. The tech portrayed the 230/236 cam as a solid choice that's and easy driver that would produce good power. Like you all, he said I wouldn't be giving anything up by going to the 236/242, especially on a 114, but I may need a bigger converter. Said there's maybe 10-15 ft/lbs and 15-20 hp difference between the two. Obviously, my heads are the overall limiting factor.

I asked about the RAIV roller grind and he said he'd choose the 236/242 hands down over it. He also indicated that it's geared more towards iron d-ports that need more help on the exhaust.

425-450hp is a nice step up from what I had, but I think I'd be disappointed with the mellowness of the 230/236. I'd much rather change out a converter than a cam later, so I'm inclined to switch it up and go with the bigger cam on the 114.

V 68,

Will you have the engine dyno'd before you put in the car? If you do, could you show the results? I plan on using the cam my engine builder suggested. He hasn't let me down yet. Besides, there is not much of a difference between them. I will post the results when the engine is dyno'd. Unfortunately, that may be a while.

Cool build!!!!

My RAII is going into a 1969 GTO, Limelight green with dark green cordova top and dark green interior.

[Verdoro 68]

I'd love to dyno it when it's put together, but I haven't been able to find an engine dyno around here. I'll keep looking though.

I ordered the 236/242 114 cam this afternoon and just got a notification that it already shipped. Sure beats the 4 months I waited for a cam last time. The guys at Butler are probably tired of hearing from me by now, so maybe they're eager to get my junk shipped off and so I get out of their hair LOL.

[jhein]

The people at Butler have always been very pleasant to deal with for me. I talked to this guy there named David multiple times. Super nice helpful guy. Then one day I realized it was actually David Butler I had been talking with. LOL.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Verdoro 68

I'd love to dyno it when it's put together, but I haven't been able to find an engine dyno around here. I'll keep looking though.

I ordered the 236/242 114 cam this afternoon and just got a notification that it already shipped. Sure beats the 4 months I waited for a cam last time. The guys at Butler are probably tired of hearing from me by now, so maybe they're eager to get my junk shipped off and so I get out of their hair LOL.

LOL

That's cool. Try it with the current converter and see how it acts. My thought is no sense in spending money on another custom unit until you've put some drive time on it to come to a conclusion. And a good comparison to a new converter if you so choose.

Not sure how your 13" Continental acts, but I wonder if it would be anything like the GM L88. I've had experience with those in the past and currently run one in the Firebird. They are 13" and typically they only flash up around 2400. Might flash to maybe 2600 if it were behind a really torquey Pontiac but generally, the L88 converter drives around tight and doesn't flash all that high. Fine on a mild street car and doesn't complain when you don't have much rear gear either.

The one I'm currently running, I'd have no issues trying it behind a 236 @ .050 cam on a 114 in a well built 455, and some day I'll try that.

The 239 on a 112 idle clip I posted above is using a custom TSP 9.5" converter that flashes up around 3400-ish but drives around town really nice. Your 236 on a 114 should idle even smoother than that one.

[Verdoro 68]

I have never been thrilled with the 13" and I always regretted not getting the 10" Continental. It worked ok behind the cam I originally had (Crower 60916), but I don't think it was a great match for my last cam (Lunati 702) as I found myself manually downshifting a lot to get it in the power range. I started a thread about converters back when I was having the trans rebuilt. Consensus was that the 13" will stall higher with the bigger cubes (the guy at Butler said so too), so I should give it a shot. We'll see how it goes. When I had the trans rebuilt, the shop insisted on including a converter, so I also have a reworked 12" (looks like an old TCI) that he said would stall around 2500. I can always try that one if the Continental isn't optimal.

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...7802&p=6332129

I feel like this build is the application of all the knowledge I've been soaking up in the forum over the last 20 years - and yet I'm still learning from you all!

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Verdoro 68

I have never been thrilled with the 13" and I always regretted not getting the 10" Continental. It worked ok behind the cam I originally had (Crower 60916), but I don't think it was a great match for my last cam (Lunati 702) as I found myself manually downshifting a lot to get it in the power range. I started a thread about converters back when I was having the trans rebuilt. Consensus was that the 13" will stall higher with the bigger cubes (the guy at Butler said so too), so I should give it a shot. We'll see how it goes. When I had the trans rebuilt, the shop insisted on including a converter, so I also have a reworked 12" (looks like an old TCI) that he said would stall around 2500. I can always try that one if the Continental isn't optimal.

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...7802&p=6332129

I feel like this build is the application of all the knowledge I've been soaking up in the forum over the last 20 years - and yet I'm still learning from you all!

I think I remember that, you had this 13" behind a 400....

Yes the 455 is going to change how that converter acts. Whether it's to your liking is just something you'll have to test. It's just one of those things no one can predict accurately.

[Verdoro 68]

Did a bunch of measuring on the bearings and journals last night. If I want to use the Clevites, I'll need the mains turned down about .0012. The good news is they measure consistently across the board, unlike the other brands.

I have a potential shade tree mechanic question though. Out of curiosity, I picked up a set of SpeedPro 113M bearings. They're too tight on 1-4 (.018-.020), but the #5 bearing puts me at .025. Is there any reason why I couldn't, or shouldn't, use the King extra clearance bearings on 1-4 and the Speed Pro on #5?

For what it's worth, all three bearing brands I've tried measure different thicknesses +/- amateur measurer tolerances.

King: .976
Speed Pro: .0973
Clevite: .0983

For whatever reason, the Speed Pro bearings are thicker on on 1-4 at .0980. King and Clevite are consistent, with Clevite being the most consistent.

I'm wondering if the difference I saw on #5 with the King bearing (.035) is due to lack of crush or something since it's in the ballpark of the thickness of the SpeedPro and the same thickness of the others in the set. Make me wonder if my line hone was bungled.

[HWYSTR455]

That's why in a previous post I was asking how you measured.

Just to say out loud, the bearings should be installed dry, on clean surfaces, in the block. Crank should be laid in clean & dry as well.
All caps should be torqued to spec in the required sequence, and proper lube used on the fasteners.
Remove the caps, remove the crank, reinstall the caps w bearings, retorque as done previously, then measured.

This will ensure you have the proper crush on the bearings with the block & crank intended for the completed assembly. You will get the most accurate measurements this way.

And no, you can't use plastigauge.

Additionally, all parts need to be @ 70 degrees for at least 24 hours prior, and be at the same temp when measuring.

I wish I could look up the clearance specs from my go-to notes & resources, but unfortunately, it's all in boxes at the moment. I would like to confirm if in fact a wider clearance spec is called for on the #5, or if it's specifically for only certain conditions.

If in fact the measurements you have are accurate, depending on the conditions that may be required/desired for additional clearance on #5 or not, I personally don't see anything 'wrong' with using a different brand of bearing on #5 to reach the desired clearance.

.

[Verdoro 68]

I'm measuring things dry and clean. Caps torqued to spec in order with ARP Ultra Torque lube. All the parts have been in the same environment for the last week. It's currently 105 degrees here, probably high 80's/90's in the garage. Not sure how that affects things.

I've installed the crank dry with the King and Clevite bearings, but have only measured the empty torqued caps with the SpeedPros. Good call to install the crank to get things to crush appropriately.

I've been using plastigage as a "second opinion" with the crank installed.

[HWYSTR455]

You nailed it then, carry on!

.

[Jason67]

Apologize up front, I'm not trying to hijack, but wanted to share. I'm doing a similar build; RA II SR heads(Jan 69 dated), but with an NOS Sept 67 dated SR 428 block. Using a Nodular .010/.010 turned 428 crank, the block came with fitted cast pistons, IIRC they CC'd at 14, have the 4 valve reliefs with the center circle taken out. Going with 1.5 Harland Sharp rockers. I want this to go in my 67, but still waiting on roundport adapter manifolds to fit the 67 A body. Using a nitrided voodoo 704 cam with NOS GM lifters. Pretty cool to find a 55 year old brand new 4 bolt main block, in the GM box with the red SR tag. Basically I'm making a 428 HO with RAII heads. Your build is going to be awesome, congrats and have some fun with it!

[Verdoro 68]

Sounds like an awesome build! Would love to hear how it turns out. I assume you'll have to run race gas with those pistons and heads.

[Jason67]

Thank you Ken! I'm not sure yet on the gas, I have to get my build book for compression, but I think it will be 9.8 : 1, standard deck so they should be around .020" in the hole. I'm not going to cut this thing anywhere Probably just assemble set on the dolly like the others, eye candy. I have a lot of fun making them look correct too, seems better on the pocket book than doing a car... I just finished a 428 4 bolt with 62 heads and put a 66 tripower I've had for 26 years. Again, I apologize, I know its on topic, not intending to hijack, Unless its about your build Ken, I will stay out!

[Jason67]

Sorry Ken, meant to say I know its "off topic" Thank you, Jason

[Verdoro 68]

All good! It's nice to see other RAII folks chime in. Hopefully you had better luck with main bearings than I have!

[Jason67]

I found some old .010 under bearings NOS federal Mogul "P" bearings because its Nodular and not forged (I'm going to do the thrust bearing mod too), if they are .003 clr, I'm going with it. I need to get the block tanked/cleaned. Even though its NOS, I'm still going to mag it, scuff the main line, change the cam bearings, replace freeze plugs, drill/tap the front galleys to 3/8 NPT, install the .030" hole dist. gear oiler galley plug, and hone the cyls for .005 clr. for those cast pistons. I will be using eagle H beams, press fit.

[Verdoro 68]

Test fit the rear main while I'm messing with bearings. I think a little bit of a bunch at the seam is ok, but this looks like too much. I assume some trimming is in order.

[HWYSTR455]

Yeah, that's a little puckered, probably want to trim that a touch.

.

[Verdoro 68]

Spent some more time futzing with the bearings last night. I've had this crank in and out more times that I can remember already and I've gotten proficient at torquing main caps.

I think the path I'm going to take is to use the King undersize bearings on #1-4 and the Speed Pro on #5. Maybe it would be fine, but I just didn't feel great about leaving #5 at .0035. It messes with my OCD a little bit to have on odd duck bearing, but this combo gives me a perfect .0024-.0025 across all the journals.

I also carefully trimmed the BOP seal trying to get it lay down a bit better. I'm being super cautious as to not take too much off. I think it's pretty close, but I'm not sure what's considered acceptable in terms of making sure things will seal. If any one has old thread with pics of examples handy, that would be helpful.

[HWYSTR455]

Yeah, pretty sure that's going to leak. There should be zero 'bump' in it, it needs to be the same circumference as the rest of the seal.

.