You need to measure the block's deck height before you order pistons. It would be more idea to measure the deck height after it has been square decked to the mains if you plan on having the deck cleaned up. If you do, it only needs minimal cleanup and made the same as the other side so all the rest of your parts can be ordered the same and the compression will be equalized on both sides. If you want to save a few bucks and skip having the deck milled, you can measure the 4 corners of the deck height and add them together and divide by 4 for your deck height number. When you have your deck height number say it ends up at the factory blueprint spec after milled(most blocks are taller than the factory blueprint spec so it is possible to end up here with a sbb 350) of 10.187", you take that dimension and subtract the rod length of say 6.380", that would give you 3.807". Then take that 3.807" and subtract half of the stroke, only half because the rod throw is revolving around the mains so when it is at bottom dead center it is only half the distance of the full stroke from the center of the mains. When the rod journal rotates from the bottom to the top that is 2 halves of the full stroke. So this means that for a 4" stroke the rod journal's centerline is only 2" offset from the main journals and when it spins from top to bottom that gives the full stroke.(over explanation for readers that aren't quite sure what I'm writing if I under explained it) If you have the crank stroked to 3.990" for the 1.850" rod journal size(that extra .010" is sacrificed to make sure the crank cleans up when it is indexed ground), half of 3.990" = 1.995". So 3.807" - 1.995" = 1.812" for the piston to be at zero deck, which means level with the deck's surface. I like to stay about .005" in the hole to have a .045" quench distance, the extra .005" in the hole I like for a bit more safety margin to make sure the stack up of dimensions don't make the pistons stick up out of the hole because of machining tolerances and or mis-read measuring or what not. Deck height - rod length - half the stroke = piston zero deck compression height.
Thank you for your in-depth explanation. I tried to search for the rods with the sizes mentioned and was unlucky to find any. The issue I'm having is finding the crank size needed. All I have found new or used have smaller crank sizes. Since I would need the rods it's going to be tough and maybe long search I guess. I'd like to find the 6.450" long with the crank size range mentioned to keep the piston weight low and rod stronger? I'll keep searching. Thanks guys.
Vary your search terms and keep looking, there's always some out there. I wouldn't place any importance on the exact length, a bit shorter would be fine too. I would take the benefit of a slightly shorter rod drawing the induction harder long before saving a few grams of piston.
Well thus far I've searched 6.350-6.450 and saved searches for each to my email with hopes of something showing up one day. I'll keep searching.
The best way I have found to search eBay for nascar take out rods is to just put "nascar connecting rods in the search" and look until I find the length I like. Probably only around 50 to 100 sets to scroll down and look at, they have the length in the description so you don't have to open the link until you find what you like. "nascar connecting rods" in the search function; https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...rod.TRS0&_nkw=nascar+connecting+rods&_sacat=0 The last set in the list would be perfect; https://www.ebay.com/itm/NASCAR-CAR...ash=item5b3a824cb4:g:ZwUAAOSwrfVZTB-p&vxp=mtr The above in the link are 6.400" long and have the 1.976" housing bore size for the 1.850" rod bearing journal size. There is a make an offer option there, you only have 3 chances when using that option so don't try to start to low. I would probably start out @ $175, anything lower would probably be instantly rejected, the $175 might even be but dealers choice however you want to do it? Ivan used 6.450" rods for his stroker and ran into some cam clearance problems that he cured by clearancing the rods. Here is his thread; http://www.v8buick.com/index.php?threads/starting-the-build-mods.303301/ If he knew in advance he could of ordered a smaller base circle cam, but it still worked out just fine. Rod clearancing is done on other engine platform stroker builds so nothing new here. If you read through the above thread I have referenced that issue, I even posted a video showing how rod clearance can be done. The shorter the rod is the more it actuates away from the cam as it travels up and down. This means at the half way point level with the main's parting line the shorter rod will be pushed farther away from the cam than a longer rod would be. The sbc 400 for example from the factory it is the longest stroke production small block and the only sbc with a different rod length. All sbc rods are 5.7" long except the sbc 400 which has a rod length of 5.565" long. With cam lobe lifts over .335" which is over .500" at the valve with 1.5:1 rockers using 5.7" rods with the sbc 400's 3.75" stroke there usually is cam clearance issues that's why the factory shortened the sbc 400 rods because they like a lot more clearance for a production engine so it doesn't have to be checked like a performance engine builder would do. That should be enough info for now, let me know if you have any other questions.
Here is another choice that I have in my watch list that didn't show up with the search; https://www.ebay.com/itm/6-450-Carr...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649 The above are 6.450" long. The above are identical to what Ivan used for his 370 stroker build that needed cam clearancing. In the boosted stroker build thread I linked in a previous post IIRC they used a set of rods that were 6.300" long with no reported cam clearance issues.
Thanks allot man. Still reading...This thread has been an eye opener to the SBB 350. Having said that the heads are still the mitigating factor in the hp/tq range I'm looking for. Since I have 4 heads to work with I wouldn't mind testing their port and bowl limits. Sure would be nice to have a set date and price for the new heads to aid in my decision making.
Keep in mind you would now be working with a much stouter short block than a stock LS, and depending on what you decide the heads need to do...the supposed advantages slip away.
Ehhhh,...stock 5.3's go 1.20 60ft's pretty regularly in Fox bodies I would venture to say NO Buick 350 has gone a 1.20 60ft ever....I like the 350 Buick as much as the next guy but come on now Don't hear what I'm not saying , im all for keeping the 350 where it's at but the LS platform is hard to beat
Anyone do a comparable build of a sbb to any of those 5.3's, including fox body? It just comes down to the decision to do it. If any of those 5.3's are using more than the 270-293 cfm heads discussed here, then they aren't comparable. I'm saying few have decided to be serious with these is all. The OP was talking about a 420 hp LS, then it changed to a 460-480 hp version, now we are trying to compare a 1.20 sixty capable car against the typical 12 second musclecar here.
My reference to the 60ft is in direct correlation to bottom end strength that you said would be on par with a LS, to which I strongly disagree hence the mention of the LS doing what it does and what a 350 has never done. Stock 5.3 "706" heads flow around 260 iirc, This is with heavy hits if spray of course I've built several LS cars and that was I eat, slept and breathed for several years No built Buick 350 runs with a cam only LS As far as comparable build I promise you with all that is holy you take a 5.7 LS and a 350sbb or a 364cid 6.0 vs a 370stroker SBB with stock heads on the LS and whatever heads you can find for the SBB and the LS will run off and hide and send a post card from the finish line. I had a 99 TA with a 234/238 with 175kmi trap 95mph to the 1/8 in a 3780lb car Someone show me a NA SBB that goes 90mph to the 1/8 and I'll shut up ha, my junk was far from fast just an average cam only LS car Now I very much agree NO-ONE that I have heard about has built a purpose built full effort 350, everyone whined and cried for a single plane intake only to put it on a 9.1 bottom end with a 212cam and those terrible stock heads, no pointing fingers at anyone in particular but you can't compromise with such a small cid if you want it to run its gotta have big compression, big cam, and lots of rpm OR just be more advanced and refined like LS platform I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should scrap the SBB and stab a LS in there I despise mongrelization of cars more than most,...I just also have a sweet spot for the LS as I've owned so many,..have a Bolton 2010 SS now that made 404rwhp
Good info. I think the point of this was that it if you are using sbb heads flowing in the same range as the mentioned 5.3 heads, nascar rods and similar cam events...the supposed advantages from the stock starting point would even out. The OP intends EFI. Obviously the engines were intended for different things, nobody is saying a bone stock sbb is comparable, even with the Federal Mogul cam (sorry, lol). We aren't comparing head to head with unrealistic expectations, of course I can port an LS head to blow away anything currently out there for sbb. If the new alum. head under-performs, I'm still not going to say the LS is a much better platform out of Buick's reach. The Buick head hasn't had as much development yet. Still not the machine's fault, it will be wherever it gets taken to. (I'm not inferring any poor results, the team is more than capable) It isn't out of the realm to get sbb heads to the 240-290 cfm range and an inexpensive girdle was assumed to even the slate. That should have no problems making 420 hp NA and handling a Nitrous hit or more cam. I think the girdled versions have shown the potential to handle serious loads, even if unintended and quite brief. My other point is that the sbb Buick will be made as capable as anyone wants it to be or projects an ROI for new products. I haven't released any parts for this platform because I don't see it being profitable for me. I don't have a niche business with Buick. If you want to buy a pile of roller cam blanks or pallet of billet heads and can write a check, I'll send them to you, any specifications you'd want. I think it's great to see some more things out there for people to buy, even if only a couple dozen might be sold for now. It's not that the machine can't be made to do things, it's the fact that there aren't a million waiting to be abused or built up. The aftermarket heads I worked with had over 2 million currently in service. That makes better sense for me.
"My reference to the 60ft is in direct correlation to bottom end strength that you said would be on par with a LS, to which I strongly disagree hence the mention of the LS doing what it does and what a 350 has never done." Well to be fair, that's only because no one that we know of has tried to with a sbb 350. "Stock 5.3 "706" heads flow around 260 iirc, This is with heavy hits if spray of course" With good rods, pistons and the right roller cam with factory ported heads that flow 260 like you mention above I would think the sbb 350 would do very well. The sbb 350 responds very well to artificial aspiration, the boosted 370 build made 50% more HP with a mere 6 PSI of boost! Fox's Den's little sbb 355 stock rod engine with a small amount of "spray" like a 125 shot took his 13.31 @ 100 mph car to 11.81@114 mph with a 125 shot nitrous where a different engine platform running close to the same HP would need a 150 shot or more to run the same time improvement. He's going to need a cage with the SP3 and a bigger shot! "No built Buick 350 runs with a cam only LS" The above is only because no one has "built" a serious sbb 350 that we know of that would "run with a cam only LS". I personally don't think it would be very hard to do. But certainly won't be able to do it with just sticking a cam in a sbb 350 to run with an LS platform engine. The LS platform comes with a roller cam from the factory and heads that already flows some serious air for factory heads, something they didn't do back when the sbb 350 was designed, apples/oranges. Equip the sbb with the advantages the LS has from the factory and there isn't any reason it can't keep up with one. But hey, that's why the LS platform is so popular, all the good stuff came on them from the factory. You have the EPA to thank for that because the bean counters would never of okayed a roller cam for a truck engine if in they didn't have to but they did so they would pass emissions! "As far as comparable build I promise you with all that is holy you take a 5.7 LS and a 350sbb or a 364cid 6.0 vs a 370stroker SBB with stock heads on the LS and whatever heads you can find for the SBB and the LS will run off and hide and send a post card from the finish line." So yeah, I have read here from Dan Jones has a guy that can get 300 + CFM out of a set of TA Rover heads and with a custom cam and a couple of offset lifters those heads can bolt right on a sbb 350, but would need a custom intake. Or, cut the heads in 4 sections, swap the 2 center sections, weld back together and those would bolt right on. Top it off with an SP3 and the sbb 350 would be very competitive! The new TA heads if they are a home run will be a total game changer when(if) they come out, no dicking around, just bolt on and go. But before then there are options, very expensive options, but options all the same. "Now I very much agree NO-ONE that I have heard about has built a purpose built full effort 350, everyone whined and cried for a single plane intake only to put it on a 9.1 bottom end with a 212cam and those terrible stock heads, no pointing fingers at anyone in particular but you can't compromise with such a small cid if you want it to run its gotta have big compression, big cam, and lots of rpm OR just be more advanced and refined like LS platform" LOL! I can't agree more with the above! I wish I wasn't in the crap storm my personal life is right now, I would love to test the crap out of that SP3 how it should be used! Spin to win, it don't pay if you don't play!
I just ran a dyno simulation on a stroked 373 Buick 350 using 260 CFM heads and 1.92/1.55 valves, 12.5:1 static, single plane intake, 1000 CFM carb, and large tube open headers to show an average of 416 hp @5500 and 460 ft. lbs. @3750. Guess which cam I used? lol
What about the car the first sp3 went on that was built by Gary hershe. Supposedly a 9 to 1 engine with .015 offset crank that ran in the 11s with unported heads? Superstock I think? 79 regal?
212, no wait the FederalMogal stock cam lol I agree with some other statements, where are the max effort 350's at, now that we have the SP3 it should be a no brainer, Yeah, put it on with a 212 cam and 9.05 comp. We even have good rods now, something I could not get. The new heads and this intake are going to let the engine spin to 7 grand might as well build it that way if you all want to use the SP3. Mine was spun to 6400 on the dyno and that was with the DP intake so there should be no reason for the new parts to take the engine to 7 grand.
Yea the silver car is a good runner for what it is , watched it run at the Nats 2 maybe even 3 yrs ago can't remember and I know Zane in the Apollo runs well , but there again there not full tilt builds they conform to class rules. I would love to see someone step up and build a serious 350 if for nothing else just so we knoe, I guess Sonny with Tweety was the closest, that fella put the time in on that thing. I plan to build a nasty small block for my Skyhawk but it's very low on my list of priorities. It will have the best and nastiest of what's available I promise. Btw has anyone looked at trying to get the "Buick" race heads that go on the SBC's to fit, what about the Stage2 V6 heads I know a fella has like literly 40 pair of those things wonder if 4 could used to make 2 ? Those things move ALOT of air
Doing a cam swap to the TA 290-94H using same stuff showed 503 hp @6250 and 473 ft. lbs. @4750, and that's still not enough cam. This would be an increase of 13 ft. lbs. and 87 hp, showing that the more air you're trying to move, the bigger the other parts have to be to accommodate it. Point being that there is a ton of potential when you bump the squeeze and move the air. More difficult to achieve N/A than force feeding it, but the results are similar. Rhetorically speaking, of course. We already know this stuff. On another side-note, I read an article about someone trying to spruce up their '77 El Camino with the factory 305-2 low comp engine with plenty of miles on it. First thing they did was removed the restrictive chevy exhaust manifolds and the 2" press/crimp bent single exhaust pushing through the original pancake oval bead substrate converter, and replaced it with 1 5/8" primary 3" collector full length headers with a mandrel bent 2 1/2" exhaust. They did some dyno runs and averaged them, before and after. Results were the new exhaust gained 6 hp and 2 ft. lbs. over the factory crap. lol They then later did other things to boost power, which worked great, but here's the point: everything is relative. If you don't move much air, you don't need much exhaust, and vice-versa.
I updated the above post because Fox's Den posted and I got to correct the reference that's in his signature that I was trying to go by CRS memory. Don't worry though because it was even more impressive than I remembered it to be! Either read the correction above or go back to post # 73 to read the correction there.
Looking to go with a hydraulic roller cam with this build. While looking at the options for roller lifters i didn't notice any for the 350. Are there any?
