588" short deck bbc. - Chevelle Tech
Chevelle Tech join team chevelle as a supporting member  
Chevelle Parts at SS396.com      
GROUND UP & SS396.com         
Official Sponsor of Team Chevelle
     

Auto Insurance

Chevelles.com is the premier Chevrolet Chevelle Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Performance Our High Performance area

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 18th, 10, 5:51 AM
Bizzquick Bizzquick is offline
Tech Team
Josh
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 102
Default 588" short deck bbc.

I was almost set on building a 540, but i read a forum that said a 4.5" stroke in a 9.8" deck is easy.

i have a dart big m and would like to get callies compstar 6.385" rods, and a callies compstar 4.5" stroke crank. with off the shelf 1.120 CH wiseco pistons, i get a 9.755 stack.

for a really hot street deal, n/a, maybe a smidgen on nitrous, does this sound ok? the reason for wanting more cubes it to bring my shift RPM down and still make the same power. and also by making my combo slightly more streetable... when i say streetable i mean pump gas and license plates! that is all that matters!

what say you to this? i did some research, but most people say NO (in stock blocks), but no info on aftermarket blocks....

main concerns are excessive oil usage and rapid cylinder wear.

thanks for the help!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old May 18th, 10, 7:38 AM
Lilracr Lilracr is offline
Senior Tech Team
Bobby
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Va.
Posts: 1,694
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

What cylinder heads you plan to use? You will want to make sure you are not too big or small for the cylinder head.

I really like adding inches for a street/race motor to keep RPM down, it actually works decent as a race motor also to save on valvetrain cost.
__________________
-Bobby-
1965 SS 331 Muncie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old May 18th, 10, 7:16 PM
brngrhd brngrhd is offline
Senior Tech Team
steve
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 1,078
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

4.5 stroke is too long for a short deck combo IMHO. build a 582.... 4.375 stroke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old May 18th, 10, 7:43 PM
steelcomp steelcomp is online now
Senior Tech Team
Scott Foxwell
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/E Tennessee
Posts: 2,373
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

Rod ratio is just too short IMO.
__________________
FOXWELL MOTORSPORTS
STRAUB TECHNOLOGIES
Performance Cylinder Head Specialties
Custom Engines and Camshafts
Retail/Wholesale Parts Sales


New CANFIELD BB CHEVY cylinder heads now available.

http://www.chevelles.com/forums/member.php?u=46633
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old May 18th, 10, 8:03 PM
BillyGman BillyGman is offline
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CT,USA
Posts: 11,255
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brngrhd View Post
4.5 stroke is too long for a short deck combo IMHO. build a 582.... 4.375 stroke.
If I was considering a build with a displacement well over 540 CID using a standard deck height, I would likely be swayed by the comments above^ since I've heard a number of people say the same. Perhaps some of our resident professional engine builders will chime-in and comment on that.
__________________
70 Chevelle SS clone (632 CI powered).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old May 18th, 10, 9:38 PM
Busted Knuckles Busted Knuckles is online now
Senior Tech Team
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Lubbock, TX
Posts: 3,438
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

Pump gas and license plates, eh? I take it this rig isn't going to put in much street time, mostly as a race machine that's street legal.
Dart Big M block - hard as hell, wear isn't an issue. Maybe on the pistons, but not really on the block, and you could probably address that issue with good performance coatings. You also have plenty of room to clearance the block, shouldn't be an issue with steel rods.
Most builders are building 'em now for racers wanting max cubes in a short deck applications. There are conventional heads that'll feed 'em fine, even in full tilt race trim.
Knock yourself out, sounds like a plan to me!
__________________
Gary Adrian
FCS Harmony Racing

'Cause if they catch you in the back seat trying to pick her locks,
They're gonna send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
You better run!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old May 18th, 10, 9:44 PM
Wolfplace Wolfplace is offline
Lifetime Premium Member
Mike
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Mendocino County, Northern CA
Posts: 11,889
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brngrhd View Post
4.5 stroke is too long for a short deck combo IMHO. build a 582.... 4.375 stroke.
X2
Much better combo
And most 4.5" cranks are designed for a 6.535 or longer rod so you can balance the things
__________________
Mike (Wolfplace)
VISIT US AT
+4axis CNC block machining+
================================
Welcome to the internet,,, "Experts" made daily
===
"Life is tough.,, Life is even tougher if you're stupid."
----John Wayne----

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8  
Old May 19th, 10, 1:31 AM
Bizzquick Bizzquick is offline
Tech Team
Josh
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 102
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

i will be using brodix bb-2 xtra's. i wouldn't mind doing the 4.375 stroke, but what off the shelf piston will work? i haven't had luck finding one with the right CH. I need about a 15cc dome to get my required compression.

the rod:stroke ratio is better (by .01) than a 4.75 stroke, 6.7" rod 632.

6.385/4.5=1.42
6.7/4.75=1.41


but i guess balancing and clearancing will add up and be a real pain...

i would like 2618 forged pistons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old May 19th, 10, 2:08 AM
Bizzquick Bizzquick is offline
Tech Team
Josh
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 102
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

it seams like the only 4.375 cranks are eagle and callies dragonslayer. i won't run eagle, and the dragonslayer is out of my pricerange.

i think ill just stick to a 540.... BUT

would it be better to run a 6.385 or a 6.535 rod? i know this whole rod/stroke ratio thing is old news, but what would YOU do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old May 19th, 10, 2:45 AM
BillyGman BillyGman is offline
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CT,USA
Posts: 11,255
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizzquick View Post
it seams like the only 4.375 cranks are eagle and callies dragonslayer. i won't run eagle, and the dragonslayer is out of my pricerange.

i think ill just stick to a 540.... BUT

would it be better to run a 6.385 or a 6.535 rod? i know this whole rod/stroke ratio thing is old news, but what would YOU do?
I like the idea of more cubes, and if you cannot find off the shelf pistons with a pin height that can be used with the 4.375" stroke 582" combo, then I wouldn't be too quick to scrap the 4.5" stroke 588" combo idea if I were you.

It seemed that Todd (aka "10secBU" ) on this board did his homework when he was building his 582" maximum effort engine for his 8 second car. Maybe you should try shooting a PM over to him about it. I have the same pin height that you had mentioned (1.120") on the Mahle pistons in my 632" engine. But I looked in the mahla catalog as well as the Diamond piston catalog too, and didn't see any pistons with a 1.245" or 1.250" pin height (which is what I believe that you would need with the 4.375" stroke crankshaft.
__________________
70 Chevelle SS clone (632 CI powered).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11  
Old May 19th, 10, 2:57 AM
berserker berserker is offline
Tech Team
Håkan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: sweden
Posts: 80
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

Wiseco has of the shelf pistons for 4,375 stroke in a std deck bbc. 4,375 cranks are available from several manufacturers to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old May 19th, 10, 8:09 AM
10secBu 10secBu is offline
Senior Tech Team
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Westminster, MD
Posts: 3,494
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

My 582 is far from max effort, just a basic higher output bracket style engine. Almost all the parts are off the shelf, non-custom pieces.

Most all the parts came from Sunset and they stock the Diamond pistons which have the domes cnc profiled/matched to the Brodix chambers...I'm running the 377 MC Head Hunters.

I'm using the Callies Magnum II crank and a 6.385 Lunati Pro billet rod. The crank counterweights had to be trimmed down to clear the 6.385 rod combination, but it allows for a better ring package.

I'd say the Draginslayer should be considered the furthest I'd go down in the rankings of crank quality/cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old May 19th, 10, 2:22 PM
BillyGman BillyGman is offline
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CT,USA
Posts: 11,255
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10secBu View Post
My 582 is far from max effort, just a basic higher output bracket style engine. Almost all the parts are off the shelf, non-custom pieces.

Most all the parts came from Sunset and they stock the Diamond pistons which have the domes cnc profiled/matched to the Brodix chambers...I'm running the 377 MC Head Hunters.

I'm using the Callies Magnum II crank and a 6.385 Lunati Pro billet rod. The crank counterweights had to be trimmed down to clear the 6.385 rod combination, but it allows for a better ring package.

I'd say the Draginslayer should be considered the furthest I'd go down in the rankings of crank quality/cost.
I kinda figured you would know many of the details and therefore have alot of answers for the original poster Todd.

I guess the reason I refered to your build as a "maximum effort" one is simply that whenever I see or hear of an engine making very close to a horsepower number that is double what the cubic inches are, and on all motor naturally aspirated at that, I tend to consider that the "maximum effort" stuff whether it's built with custom pieces or not. Maybe others who are deeper into this sport than I am don't. The fact that you're making so much horspower without custom pieces is just plain cool.

BTW, with those rods, stroke, and deck height you have, my calculations indicate that you would be left with exactly 1.2275" for the pin height (aka "comp" height) on the pistons assuming that the block decks weren't shaved down at all. Do you remember what pin height those Diamond pistons have that you used? I'm asking you this since it was the pin height that the original poster had questions about earlier in the thread once the 4.375" stroke topic was brought up.
__________________
70 Chevelle SS clone (632 CI powered).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old May 19th, 10, 3:50 PM
10secBu 10secBu is offline
Senior Tech Team
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Westminster, MD
Posts: 3,494
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyGman View Post
I kinda figured you would know many of the details and therefore have alot of answers for the original poster Todd.

I guess the reason I refered to your build as a "maximum effort" one is simply that whenever I see or hear of an engine making very close to a horsepower number that is double what the cubic inches are, and on all motor naturally aspirated at that, I tend to consider that the "maximum effort" stuff whether it's built with custom pieces or not. Maybe others who are deeper into this sport than I am don't. The fact that you're making so much horspower without custom pieces is just plain cool.

BTW, with those rods, stroke, and deck height you have, my calculations indicate that you would be left with exactly 1.2275" for the pin height (aka "comp" height) on the pistons assuming that the block decks weren't shaved down at all. Do you remember what pin height those Diamond pistons have that you used? I'm asking you this since it was the pin height that the original poster had questions about earlier in the thread once the 4.375" stroke topic was brought up.
The spec sheet for the compression height is 1.228, so your almost dead on.

To me, max effort means nothing inside the engine is left without some sort of massaging i.e. hand porting of the heads (even if cnc'd) sometimes to the tune of $10k+ just for the porting, cam lift approaching or breaking 1", larger cam tunnel, roller cam bearings, smaller rod & main bearing diameters, etc, etc...these type of conventional headed BBC's usually start around $35k and go up from there. Friend of mine had a BES 525, NMCA Pro Stock legal that made 1140 hp as delivered and cost somewhere between $34-36k.

Max effort is something that's a product of an engine builder with a great deal of knowledge and experience in wringing every last bit out of a specific engine combination. My deal on the other hand is a collection of off the shelf parts assembled in a home garage by a life long performance enthusiast.

Sorry for going off topic.

Todd
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15  
Old May 19th, 10, 4:54 PM
Harold Sutton Harold Sutton is offline
Senior Tech Team
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oologah, Ok.
Posts: 6,247
Default Re: 588" short deck bbc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizzquick View Post
I was almost set on building a 540, but i read a forum that said a 4.5" stroke in a 9.8" deck is easy.

i have a dart big m and would like to get callies compstar 6.385" rods, and a callies compstar 4.5" stroke crank. with off the shelf 1.120 CH wiseco pistons, i get a 9.755 stack.

for a really hot street deal, n/a, maybe a smidgen on nitrous, does this sound ok? the reason for wanting more cubes it to bring my shift RPM down and still make the same power. and also by making my combo slightly more streetable... when i say streetable i mean pump gas and license plates! that is all that matters!

what say you to this? i did some research, but most people say NO (in stock blocks), but no info on aftermarket blocks....

main concerns are excessive oil usage and rapid cylinder wear.

thanks for the help!
Any time you get over 540" the head determines how much power they will make. The BB2-Xtra is a somewhat dated head these days. They will generally make between 780-850 h.p. @ 7200 rpm with some compression. Putting a 4.5" crank in a short deck makes things pretty tight. The 540" with 6.535 rods is a good way to go. Boring that block out another .060 to 4.56" will get you a few more h.p. but going to a better cylinder head would get you a lot more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply
Chevelle Tech > General Tech Area > Performance      Current Topic: 588" short deck bbc.
Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Chevelle Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address. Note, you will be sent a confirmation request to this address.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:04 PM.


Is there a site like this for?    El Caminos Camaros Novas Impalas GTO Chevy Punch All Chevys

© 2009 Team Chevelle - AutoForums