The rods won't clear the pan cause your not using stroker rods those are a stock replacement rod not a stroker rod!!!!!

Who ever bought and specked those parts didn't have a clue what they were doing!!!!!

 

No clearance issue with the rods at all. Again, these rods were installed when it was an N/A motor. The interference is with the rear COUNTERWEIGHT on the CRANKSHAFT…

I JUST got off the phone with "Bob" from Canton….I just sent him pics of the issue. Same ones I posted here earlier.

 

Try canton 13-080. Its clearanced for 3.875 according to canton.

I run the 13-080M in my car. Fits great. But ypipe needs to come behind pan under trans converter to work.

 

Yes - That's the exact one I had that I sent back…I didn't even take it out of the box. I found out that the 15-244 was one of the only other pans (aside from stock) that my y pipe might fit, so I tried it and…well you know.

The guy at Canton was surprised that the 15-244 I have didn't fit, that's why he wanted pics.

What kills me about a lot of these aftermarket "parts" is they're designed around stock configuration….who's gonna bother with 1-3/4" primary tube shorty headers or a road race pan on a stock 305?

Sure - there were 350's later…but those aren't even built to handle high RPM road racing duties…

So good chance most of those rotating assemblies won't be "stock"…

Guess my expectations are too high, or I'm just a crazy….

 

Post 185 says crank and rods

 

Yes - it does. That was a general statement for what stroker pans are supposed to clear…crank and rods. I only have an issue with the crank part of it. Rear counterweight to be exact. But - that's all I've found so far….and it prevents me from turning the crank to find anything else…

But I might turn it (crank) so the rear weight is inside the pan and reinstall it, to make sure nothing else is hitting...

 

Also surprised no one really makes a good shorty and y pipe for these cars that doesnt follow stock pan route. The idea is dumb imo. Alot of other cars do have choices for parts

 

As much as I hate to do it....revision II ......

 

Why stuck on canton pans? Put in a big moroso and call it a day

 

No, not stuck on Canton pans at all really. I've actually been working with their Tech Dept. to come up with some kind of resolution due to the rear counterweight scraping the sidewall of the pan near the rail.

They have the pictures and everything..now I'm just waiting for them to decide whether they want me to send them the pan for them to clearance, or do they want me to do it. Either way, I want assurance from them I can send it back for a refund either way….

Only advantage with the Canton….it you want to call it an advantage, is that it's designed for 82-92 F Body chassis. Plus, it has a crank scraper, screen, trap doors etc for great oil control. Not to mention I already bought and installed the proper oil pickup tube and plug for it. Ironically, Canton says the 15-244 pan is SUPPOSED to clear a 3.875 crank…

But I've passed the frustration stage with the pan/Y-pipe thing…I'll do what I need to in order to make it work. Neither has anything to do with revision II however..

 

OK. I'll bite. Revision II?

 

Well, revision 1 was grinding the center cooling ports to match the gasket.

-Revision 2 is more dramatic…I'm back down to a block and a crank shaft. I pulled all the rods and pistons and ditching the Eagle SIR rods.

I still think they most likely would have worked out OK, but as you can see from my earlier post….one already broke in half on me….well, not me literally -but the idiots at the body shop broke my engine.

So…I decided to do some internet searches….I know, I know…

But if to be believed, it appears this incident I had with breaking an Eagle SIR rod isn't the only one out there.

I found several others that broke them pretty similar to the way mine broke in about the same area. And a couple of them were running heavier forged pistons similar to my setup. They weren't as lucky as I was when mine broke. I only had to replace a piston and one rod….the others I read about damaged their blocks beyond repair along with nice heads…..

I don't want to risk a 250 dollar set of rods possibly wrecking my Dart block and AFR heads. Would it have happened?? Who really knows…but it was eating at me…enough to make me stop the build and take a pause and think about it…

So now I have a new set of 4340 forged Scat ProComp I beams, and in the process of installing them….spiral locks suck bad…so the shop is cutting their fingers and installing the pistons with new locks.

 

New crank too?

 

No, The crank is a Scat 4340 as is......

 

Good move on changing the rods, Make sure you get the crank balanced unless those rods weigh the same. Even though those are new rods the pin end and big end may need to be sized and check for bend and twist and you should be fine.

Spiral locks are not that bad!! After you have done few hundred of them its not that bad.

Good luck with your build.

 

I read this entire thread, why is it that all I seemed to have read was complaints of this and that this block and coolant passages don't line up with the head gasket coolant holes, oil pan isn't clearance right Y pipes don't fit right, fellas I am in no way the smartest guy on this sight, I am one that has been around the block with a lot of engine builds. Wen your dealing with wait for it........... after market parts, there not always going to be a perfect fit. I was totally amazed at the talk about dart and there blocks, if they didn't know what the was doing they would not be in business. Im sure there blocks are made to fit multiple style after market heads as well as there own.

I have an aluminum pan from stephs. When I bought it it came with a paper that says if there is any issues with this pans fit, contact us and mark the area that needs altered and they would fix it. now with that being said, I have a hamburger pan, a milodon pan, none of these had anything like this in the box. when I ran into this problem, I just took the old hammer out and altered it myself to FIT or I took it to my engine builder and had him alter the crank like knife edge it so it cuts the oil faster and easier less drag on the crank.

guys remember its not a factory build by any means, its aftermarket parts!

Nice build though.

 

The least intrusive way is, buildup weld on the outside of the pan then grind clearance on the inside, that way you don't grind thru.

 

Nope...disagree...spiral locks suck!! But if installed right, they definitely lock it in, so they work great. I'm not the guy that's taken a few hundred of them off, so they're at the shop being taken apart by someone that has.

I already thought about the weight being different. The old and new ones are being weight compared (big/little ends) and checked over. If the difference is big enough to worry at all about, I'll pull the crank and have the whole assembly re-balanced.

 

That's a great idea! But - the pan is being shipped back to Canton. They're going to alter it since their warranty says if I alter it and it doesn't work for some reason...it's mine....no returns.

 

That's very nice of them. Post up pictures of the modification when you can. (And the cost if there's any)
PS. Don't forget the small head fasteners for the pan.

http://www.summitracing.com/int/part...0750/overview/

(If you don't have them already.)

 

There probably going to do what was suggested build weld up on the back side and grind it out.

 

Yes, As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've done this mod before myself. I used an Allen head bolt and a washer.

When I spoke to them, I told them I was willing to mod this one...I offered, but they'd still need to honor the warranty. That's when they told me to send it to them. So "nice of them" ....sure...

But Bob from their Tech Dept was great. He was willing to let me do what I needed to in order for it to fit and let me return it if needed if for any reason it didn't work out....I think it would have...but his GM didn't agree.

Maybe.

 

The pan is probably OK its the profile of the crank counter weight, cranks for 5.7 rods are some times a PIA.

That's why I stay with Callies cranks every thing seems to fit fine.

 

That's probably why I've heard little if any complaints about things like this from people that use Callies, Crower and companies like that...the higher-end ones.

It could definitely be the crankshaft that's to blame for the pan not fitting. I realize that, and so does Canton. They were kinda surprised I had any interference issues.

A lot of the issues with this build was that fact that it was originally built to be NA...in a .040 over GM 400 block....and the parts inside were chosen with that in mind.

Then I decided I wanted a blower...in hind site, it may have been just as easy if not easier and probably cost about the same in the end if I just started over from scratch...which is basically the way it's ending up. About the only things that are carrying over from previous are the retro roller setup with cam, the pistons, and the external stuff....except for the oil pan...

 

Question about these AFR adjustable guide plates….

I had guide plates on my Dart heads, but not two piece like these are.

I'm still waiting on my rods and pistons to come back from the shop, so I'm seeing how these 2 piece things go on….totally different from what I'm used to.

I'm assuming that since these AFR's come with 2.05" intake valves, the rocker arm roller would tend to be offset and not want to ride squarely on the valve tip…probably off to one side..

So correct me if I'm wrong…the idea is to adjust these plates against the pushrods so the rocker roller tip is somewhat aligned with the valve tip with as minimal binding between the plate and pushrod as get and still stay somewhat aligned correct?

Then I'm supposed to carefully tighten down the rocker stud the rest of the way and spot weld the guide plate?

Is that how they work? I'm used to the plates not actually touching the pushrods, but I'm guessing there's no way it's not gonna happen, correct?

Sorry - I'm a real rookie with this style of plates..

 

You'll have to put them on in pairs. They lock together in a way that prevents them twisting under the stud but still allow the two parts to slide relative to one another.

Just about any Gen1SBC head I've worked on has a couple of the rockers twisted slightly relative to the valve tip. The one piece guide plate can get you close but in extreme cases a two piece plate is needed so the guides can be set individually. Whether the AFRs are offset I can't say.

The pushrod rides along in the guide plate. There's always contact regardless if it's a two piece or one piece guide plate. The witness marks you'll see on an a black oxide pushrod are proof of that. The concern for binding, and this recently happened to me, is when one guide is adjusted it pushes the pushrod into the pushrod guide that's in the head. I had to have the head guides clearenced. I doubt that your AFRs will have any issue there.

Spot welding isn't necessary but I've heard of a few that do it. The two parts fit together like a puzzle and once the studs are tight, they're not moving. There is a little movement when things get torqued down although you can compensate for that.

 

Thanks Skinny....

I figured out how they went together and see how they'd work already...but when you search and see posts from a few others, you see that some guys are saying the guide plates should be set close, but shouldn't touch the push rods...that didn't even make sense. Then what are the plates "guiding" then? haha...

And I saw others spot weld the plates together. I'd suppose it wouldn't be needed so long as I can keep them in the same adjustment and get them torqued down.

I assume AFR recommends the use of their plates for one of two reasons...more than normal misalignment if you don't use them...or they want to sell their plates.

 

If you think about it, it's not even possible for the guide plates not to touch the pushrods. The sizing is such that there is probably a couple of thousandths clearance. That's the point of the "guide" plate as you say. Using the adjustable plates, you'll physically move the pushrod using the plate to the desired location.

That's correct. Welding isn't necessary. Just keep on eye on your adjustment as your torque them down. Don't forget to seal the threads. I use a teflon based sealer but others like blue Loctite.





Or just good practice on AFRs part. They're trying to ensure you don't ruin their heads but running a rocker that's half off the valve tip.

 

Exactly my thinking…I were a part of those forums, I would have replied to that by saying…WHAT?!?
Normally I seal the threads on a SBC, but not needed on these since all the holes are blind tapped on this Dart block…and the AFR heads. Nothing goes into the water jackets. And since they're aluminum heads, I'm only using a dab of anti-seize on the stud threads to prevent them from galling.
I saw quite a few people went with Isky guide plates…but I suspect they were older posts and AFR actually changed their design since then to match the Isky plates….they look the same...

 

Well, I have the Scat Pro Comp rods….but they ain't gonna work due to the difference in weight between the big ends on the old SIR rods….over 30 gram difference.

So one of two things need to happen. Pull the crankshaft out and have the whole thing rebalanced, and they'll need to add weight to the crank to compensate….or get a different set of rods that match up closer…

…not good. If I have everything rebalanced, I could see a bill over 600 bucks…maybe more including the price of the new set of rods….

Called Eagle, and their SIR rods are only meant for NA motors…along with their lightweight H beams. I have the big/little end weights of the SIR rods that came out, so either I find a strong replacement rod that'll work with this engine, or I need to rebalance the whole assy….

 

This wk I'm adding Mallory metal of 180 grams to the front and 200 grams to the rear on my Howards track smart 383 crank using Scat stroker clearanced ARP rods.To me it's worth it to have a internal balanced rotating assemble using neutral H/B and neutral balanced f/plate or f-wheel.Most of the cost is set-up and spinning it up.$250 minimum around here + Mallory.

 

Yes - mine was already internally balanced. Now I get to pay for it again. And since I already had to remove the pistons/rods for the machine shop to change those out…and now the crank to get rebalanced with the new rods, the 300 bucks I spent to have them assemble the short block in the first place is pretty much down the drain.

After balancing, I'm putting it together myself this time around….all because I didn't think of what the actual rating was on these SIR rods..no one to blame but myself…I must be

EDIT: Don't lose your sig! True in so many ways…BTW, I first had it internal balanced in 2008…it cost 265 then - without mallory.

-And for those that think there's a lot of "complaining" in this thread…sure there is. The alternative is to not say anything, have it re-balanced and go about my way. Sure, I could save a little pride…no one knows I spent 300 bucks for nothing if I don't mention the need to re-balance.

Then this thread is kinda useless and just another magazine build...

 

That engine was never speced out properly to begin with, The parts should have been speced out better more so a for a forced induction build.

Installing tungsten is not cheep but they should be able to weld in some holes on the counter weights which might be a little cheaper and its only 30 grams or so.

 

Again, it was originally built N/A…the parts were fine for that. The blower was added several years later.

I would hope with a Little M block, Scat Forged crank, Scat Pro Comp rods, SRP forged aluminum pistons and AFR heads that it'll be built barely enough for 6-8 pounds of boost on the street....

 

I just can't express how much I appreciate your handling of this thread.Some like I would like to believe like me,is only as good as what you leave behind for others to learn from and you have and should continue to do so.

Thank You Sir.

 

If that is the worst mistake you make on this build then you are doing ok. Sometimes you don't figure out what you need until you have already spent money going another direction, we've all done it. It would have been much worse to leave the original rods in there and have one fail this spring and take out the crank, block and piston.(My main goal in building any engine is to minimize the chances of that happening). Any part can fail but your odds of failure are decreased dramatically when you get the right parts for your application. Its well worth the effort/money to get the correct rods in your engine and get it re-balanced.

 

No....thank you!

I really do appreciate the vote of confidence in my decision to yank this thing apart again.

Feels kinda funny yanking out I beam rods just to replace them with different ones. -But one is rated at 500HP and the new ones rated at 750....quite a difference in material there.

Back when I had it dynoed with the Iron Eagles, I made around 390 RWHP....and one of those rods broke. So I know I was close to the 500 mark the Eagle rods were rated at. Shop now has the crank and rods for balancing...not gonna be cheap, but I'll hopefully have a little more peace of mind, since I'm not gonna be anywhere near 750 HP!....

 

Soooo…

Now that I'm back to a bare block again, I've just been cleaning everything back up. Cleaned up the cylinder walls real well using the instructions on the Quick Seat box, and coated all the cylinders. This is something I asked the shop to do when they assembled it the first time…and of course they forgot..

I know some think it's snake oil, but it's actually a DRY lube that helps the rings seat up quicker supposedly. I've used it on previous other engines and had zero issues. One tiny container has lasted me for three engines so far…and I still have enough to do one more!

-Anyone else used it?

 

I Tried it years ago and saw no difference with what I do.

If the block is plate honed and the block was honed with a good honing machined not a make believe hone LOL and good abrasives are used the rings should be seated on start up!!!

 

Maybe there is no difference, but if nothing else it forces you to ensure the cylinders are very clean if you follow their instructions!

 

I wouldn't know about dirty cylinders as they have always been very clean before assembly.

 

Odd…I totally predicted your reply….

 

LOL!!

 

Why because your engine builder didn't use quick seat his cylinders were dirty???

 

just so you know..if they do any mods..they do not refinish the pans they use spray paint over the zink plate. some times getting overspray on the canton logs...just so ya know... ask for nick at canton... he will fill you in.

 

Sounds like you've been down this road?....

Not a big issue if they don't re-coat the modded area in zinc...I was considering painting the pan anyway. The most important thing is that it fits and clears everything.

What's a Canton log? You mean logo?...the stickers? There were two more in the pan...I have what seems to be thousands of stickers anyway!!

 

I came across this article while I researching back-set trunion roller rockers for my own build.

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...ide_plate.html

 

Thanks Skinny!

That was exactly how I plan to adjust the guide plates. Just got a call from the machine shop, and crankshaft and new rods are all balanced out and pistons installed!

Should pick them up Monday and the build should commence!

 

Keep that phrase in mind when you're into setting up the valvetrain geometry. You may need it.

 

I don't follow..."back-set trunnions"? Are you referring to the 1/2 turn adjustment to set the lifter preload prior to adjusting the guide plates?