Found this in my oil pan

[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".

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by dcdoug

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

You guys have to remember Doug will be reusing his stock iron medium risers heads. I'm not an engine builder, but with 482 cubic inches and a bigger cam, those heads will be a huge constriction in this puzzle.

[blykins]

Typing this out on my phone since CC won't open for me on any PC or any browser....so bear with me.

It's not necesarily a "bigger" cam; think of it as proportionately bigger.

Those MR heads do quite well for what they are, prob on par with an out of the box Edelbrock head. A 482 with similar head flow will easily hit 500-525 hp with a ton of torque.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by blykins

Typing this out on my phone since CC won't open for me on any PC or any browser....so bear with me.

If you are getting the one line "Memory Allocation Error...." when you try and hit the forum, it can be tricky to fix. I'll skip the explanations as to why it occurs and just give you the steps that usually work:

1) Using the browser that can't get to Club Cobra, go directly to a post instead of the forums list, new post lists, etc. for example, go here: Found this in my oil pan

2) Assuming you got through to that page, immediately Log Out using the drop down menu at the top of the page.

3) Using your browser's drop down menus, clean both your cache and your cookies. Make sure you don't have "preserve for favorites" checked while doing that as it will prevent cleaning the Club Cobra cache and cookie stuff.

4) After doing that, go to www.clubcobra.com and you should be able to get through. Try logging in now. If you see an unusual alert from, say, FireFox that tells you that there is an error in the redirection, and that it "will never complete," then you must repeat this process. It will generally work on the second time if it didn't work on the first.

Anyway, that's how you fix it. And yes, it's a forum software issue.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by blykins

Typing this out on my phone since CC won't open for me on any PC or any browser....so bear with me.

It's not necesarily a "bigger" cam; think of it as proportionately bigger.

Those MR heads do quite well for what they are, prob on par with an out of the box Edelbrock head. A 482 with similar head flow will easily hit 500-525 hp with a ton of torque.

I'm just asking, but even though the cam is proportionately bigger for the 482, isn't the whole enchilada about air and gas flow. I'd think those stock heads would be limiting with Doug's new stroker package.

[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?

[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.

[blykins]

The key is when he says, comparable performance. That cam in a 427 would be fairly rowdy. In a 482 it would be an RV cam.

[patrickt]

Well then you might just ease that stroke back to 4.125". That's what I did and, remember, there are some really smart engine builders on this forum that swear shortening the stroke makes an FE "revvier." Brent ain't one of them, but they're out there....

[blykins]

I don't know of anyone that would pass a 4.250" to go for a 4.125" unless they were out of 4.250" cranks and Scat was backordered. Then they try to pass it off to the mass as a positive by saying, "Oh your engine will rev faster...."

Nonsense.

[blykins]

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