Building a 500hp 454

[sweetk30]

friend has a jasper engine in his shop now with a welded up cylinder bore thats broken out and let coolant get in the chamber . he said no more jasper engines for him .

my question was why the hell did they not just sleeve it in the first place ? ? ?

 

[trukman1]

Lifter valley pics:

View attachment 306884

View attachment 306885

Notice how far off the lifter holes are from the center of the casting bosses? That's why your lifters are riding on half the cam lobe. When picking a block to build you should find one that has the lifter bores as centered in the casting bosses as possible. Not much you can do with a block bored that far off, in my opinion.

 

[79rustyk10]

Is it in the box of your truck yet?

 

[diesel4me]

I thought the lifter bores were offset slightly on purpose so the lifters would rotate ,otherwise they would get worn down rapidly and eat the cam lobe..

 

[beags86]

I thought the lifter bores were offset slightly on purpose so the lifters would rotate ,otherwise they would get worn down rapidly and eat the cam lobe..

Yep, hence why you use a link bar in a roller setup to keep them from rotating.

 

[folkenheath]

The lifter face of a tappet lifter is not flat, it has a very slight convex on it, to help the lifter rotate. And the lobe is not perfectly flat either, this is to keep the cam from walking around in the block. The ever so slight taper is there to keep the cam back against the block face. It also rides off center on the convex shape of the lifter face and further helps it spin.

Once you go roller cam, the lobes are flat for the follower wheel, and then you have to add a cam button or some way to set endplay like in the newer blocks, without it, the roller cam and move front/back freely. Also, the roller wheel is narrower than the lobe so it always stays on the lobe if the endplay is set right.

If everything gets all out of whack then the timing set won't line up right and the lifter body could collide with an adjacent lobe, but this is usually do to another issue preceding it and not very common.

 

[mrk5]

If I go look at that Gen VI engine with a bottom end knock, what should I look for that would make it unusable. Bearing in mind that if I buy that block I'm doing a stroker kit, rebuilding the heads, and installing a new cam. Wouldn't a cracked block pretty much be the only deal killer on that engine for a rebuild?

 

[folkenheath]

If I go look at that Gen VI engine with a bottom end knock, what should I look for that would make it unusable. Bearing in mind that if I buy that block I'm doing a stroker kit, rebuilding the heads, and installing a new cam. Wouldn't a cracked block pretty much be the only deal killer on that engine for a rebuild?

A cracked block (from impact or freezing), deep damage to a cylinder wall(could be repaired with a sleeve but is costly). Check all the machined surfaces for damage and check to make sure all the connecting rods are still in one piece. If they are, the crank might be junk but the block should be fine.

 

[folkenheath]

If the engine is still complete then I would just turn it over by hand to check it, before and after you take out the plugs and look at them for any signs of mechanical damage that would coincide with the inside of a cylinder. And check or dump the oil to make sure there isn't any water or antifreeze in it...

 

[mrk5]

We hauled the camper up to the Black Hills this past weekend and I had some more thoughts about this.

1. I need more power from 2200 to 2800 RPM.

I was talking with the wife about building a motor for more power and her question was if it would increase fuel consumption. I told her I didn't think it would because it would go the same speed with less throttle. Got to thinking about later and I was wondering if my thinking is flawed?

 

[Bent77]

One you’re in big block camp, not really that much difference

100% volumetric efficiency on 496” is way better than 75% of a 454

 

[mrk5]

As it isn't worse at least

 

[Hogback Fabrication]

More power being used = more fuel consumption, all things being equal. Proportional.

Unless you're fixing problems (i.e. carbs that don't fuel right, distributors that don't spark right, etc. that you're past), the only ways around it are:

Higher compression - Takes expensive high octane fuel and in gasoline world doesn't pay for itself. You get better performance and better mileage but not by much in gasoline world (i.e. going from ~9:1 to ~10:1), a few percent in power/mileage and lately 91 octane (in CO) costs ~15% more than 85.

Fuel with more energy in it, diesel. Numbers are a bit fuzzy due to ethanol in gas (less energy) and what's actually in the diesel but it has ~15-20% more energy per gallon, that directly translates to power/mileage. Of course, lately it costs more than premium gas so that factors in.

 

[6872xtc]

I don't believe that you would notice much difference. There should be situations where you aren't at a higher throttle percentage for the same amount of time with a bigger engine, or even possibly a lower percentage of throttle to do the same thing.

Years ago I drove a heavy wrecker that had a 430hp Cat in it. When it got turned up to 550hp, my overall fuel economy improved, even though it would use more gallons per hour at full throttle. The lifetime MPG average and checking it at the pump both proved this.

 

[folkenheath]

More power uses more fuel all things being equal, volumetric efficiency measures how much air you fit on the cylinder vs how big the cylinder is, however, this is only at full throttle, and you won't achieve 100% with a mild street/towing build. Also, this doesn't account for fuel consumption.

However, you can create a more efficient engine that uses less lb/hr/HP with the correct components. Many engines use .5 lb/hr/HP, and a really well race tuned engine can go under .40, well into the .3s for lb/hr/HP. When I went from a 355 SBC to a stroker 489 BBC I dropped only 1 MPG despite the fact that all the friction had increased do to the larger bores, increased stroke, higher rod angle, etc. Then I put efi on it and gained more than that back and I was doing better than the old SBC. Then I put a 3000 stall converter in it and killed it because it slips 400 RPM driving that wall down the freeway.

I guess my point is, it's possible to make more power with less fuel, but that completely depends on the components and tuning. So it could go either way. Many things effect the lb/hr/HP, including the combustion chamber, piston shape, compression ratio, camshaft, piston rings, bearing speed, intake manifold, cylinder head ports, induction (EFI?), ignition timing, etc.

 

[beags86]

I was unaware big block owners thought about MPGs

 

[76zimmer]

If they think about it long enough they go diesel!

 

[beags86]

If they think about it long enough they go diesel!

Meh, I have thought about it and ran the numbers over and over and over. Everytime the numbers don't compute. The high purchase price of a diesel doesn't pay for ME with the amount that I need a diesel. Now with that my next "new" truck will be a Duramax. Because it's what I want. Not what I need. But pen to paper the cost of a conversion or the buying a new one for the average guy like me. Doesn't work. I can buy lot of 4 dollar gas for the extra money to buy a dmax.

 

[folkenheath]

I thought that if you drove a big block truck, you weren't supposed to keep track of fuel mileage? Kinda like the old saying, "if you have to ask, you can't afford it".

We hauled the camper up to the Black Hills this past weekend and I had some more thoughts about this.

1. I need more power from 2200 to 2800 RPM.

I was talking with the wife about building a motor for more power and her question was if it would increase fuel consumption. I told her I didn't think it would because it would go the same speed with less throttle. Got to thinking about later and I was wondering if my thinking is flawed?

I was unaware big block owners thought about MPGs

I think this is one of those things where his wife will be good with the upgrade if it doesn't "increase" fuel consumption.

If they think about it long enough they go diesel!

These days that seems to be dwindling with the DI gas motors and the added DEF, etc.

On the way to the dunes a year or so ago when I pulled a 32 ft enclosed trailer weighing ~10k lbs with my 2016 L86 6.2L DI motor I got 9.5 MPG. My friend with his 2016 2500HD duramax pulling a 28 ft enclosed weighing about ~9k lbs got....... 9.5 mpg. Total rig weight was similar and both trailers had extra height for taller vehicles. So how much fuel did that ~$10k upgrade save him? I know I used zero DEF fluid which is probably negligible.

Granted that wasn't an old big block (nor was it an old cummins) and if you start towing over ~12-13k you kind of need the diesel. But for most of us the diesel will never pay for itself (especially at zero fuel savings) and you don't have to deal with the sticky smelly fuel pump every time you fuel up.

 

[beags86]

Meh, I have thought about it and ran the numbers over and over and over. Everytime the numbers don't compute. The high purchase price of a diesel doesn't pay for ME with the amount that I need a diesel. Now with that my next "new" truck will be a Duramax. Because it's what I want. Not what I need. But pen to paper the cost of a conversion or the buying a new one for the average guy like me. Doesn't work. I can buy lot of 4 dollar gas for the extra money to buy a dmax.

I'll also note my thought to buy a dmax is because they don't make a 8.1 anymore. And finding a lower milage one has been less productive then looking for hens teeth.