thinking topfuel machining on 226

Aluminum blocks if known are going to be used for top fuel get the mains machined and a replaceable steel insert goes in to hold upper main bearing. I was pondering the same thing but solely to move cranks centerline down away from cam to fit 7 inch stroke. Heres the question how much do you recon it can be moved before having major bellhousing issues with starter to flywheel ring cam gear to crank gear etc.

Gary in da UP wrote:   I say go for it,  build it , dyno it, put it in a tractor and pull it !   Here is a great chance to show everyone what you can do.   Good Luck Mitch !

garry your vote of confidence will make all the diference.

Curious, when you lower the crank, how do you keep the cam gear and timing the same?  Interesting idea, but seems to me the bellhousing is the least of the problems.  The trouble would all be at the front.  Love this forum, no one is afraid to think outside the box.

mlpankey wrote: Aluminum blocks if known are going to be used for top fuel get the mains machined and a replaceable steel insert goes in to hold upper main bearing. I was pondering the same thing but solely to move cranks centerline down away from cam to fit 7 inch stroke. Heres the question how much do you recon it can be moved before having major bellhousing issues with starter to flywheel ring cam gear to crank gear etc.

Your mechanical disability never ceases to amuse us. As long as you're worried about moveing it so little that cam gear train isn't effected. It'd be easier to move the cam by offset boreing and sleveing the bores up in the block and turning the main cam diameters down as far as possiable. Or offset bore the cam bore and make a billet cam with large mains. Just think of the ramp geometry if starting with a clean slate.

Edited by Rod B - 12 Dec 2012 at 8:26pm

Who's attackin pank?

I'm only telling him how to do it and the easiest way to do it. He was asking for advice how to do it and keep the stock timeing gears so I gave him a better idea. Moveing the cam keeps the ring gear and starter problem he had out of the equation.

We looked at moving the cam but that means lifterbores move pushrods rockers etc . overhead cam is a diffeferent story playing with that idea as well .  You guys are right I aint the only one working on it word is hayden is attempting the same . yes butch starter bell housing issues include input shaft.   rob if you remember i posted when wi showed his bottom end 15 years ago that andy needed to do something like that for that 6.5 stroke crank laying under his bed . Wi used aluminum bars to girdle . This would be steel inserts to fit upper main bores to move crank down away from cam .  its not as hard to hide as the cylinder head will be.    A belt drive for the cam means a new cam . Cam will turn clockwise instead of counter clockwise like it does by paired gears. 500 cubes on 4 cylinders is a challenge fo the likes of me but over 400 cubes isnt and no one to my knowledge that has 400 plus inches on this site calls me a keyboard commando as well .

Edited by mlpankey - 13 Dec 2012 at 7:16am

Well Pank, you have not realy shared any secrete or top level knowledge here. You asked if moving the crank will cause problems eslewhere and the obvious question is yes. It is also obvious that taking one gear out of a gear train or adding one reverses the direction of the driven gear, again all emementary.  If you want to talk inteligently I am willing to participate. If your going to build it, just do it. If you just want to beat your chest and talk stupid I am done here.

Edited by Butch(OH) - 13 Dec 2012 at 9:20am

mgburchard wrote: well looks like most have passed the man pankeys test as to what you have to do to makes this work YOUR THE MAN PANKEY

I don't see any test and no one has gotten an A+ yet sept Butch. The question was: "Heres the question how much do you recon it can be moved before having major bellhousing issues with starter to flywheel ring cam gear to crank gear etc."
The answer is another question, why move it a few thousands of an in? Yes thousandths of an inch would be the limit before you have trouble with the cam and crank gears. There would be no advantage to it and it will only add problems to a build.

envey will get you no where lol i would never dress in red checks lol orange maybe but not red lol

Butch(OH) wrote: mgburchard wrote: envey will get you no where l Please add pic so your posts have value

I'm giddy with anticipation.

mg = mitch's gal ?????

I have seen engines set up and run where there would be at least a half inch interference between the cam and the rod cap. They just notch the cam to clear the special built rod. Lighten up the valve springs and run for 3 or 4 years without many problems. These aren't top fuel make believe engines. They are stock appearing, stock rpm engines that develop 150 hp on the dyno.

Mitch your OHC idea would make it easier to eliminate cam clearance,  conflict. And  Think of the kinda flow you could get..... Might as well make it a crossflow semi-hemi , eh?

rod kinda right and kinda wrong . boring the cam bores and using a larger cam journal doesnt move the centerline. one would have to reduce cam journal size and make some eccentric bushings or bearings to move centerline.  a billet cam shaft could have the base circle smaller than the hollow factory cams . wi we have aoy of cams with .330 lift on cam that hasnt had any lifter rail work so that .300 number is off a tad. we know how much you can line bore one before you have to cut the gear down.  turning the cam the opposite way wqith a belt drive takes a totally redesigned cam also.   buisness is good on the strokers . wi must have figured out a away to feed cfm to one theres a post by him thats says theres no waya cylinder head could possibly feed a 6,5 stroke and thats why he built small inch motors.  Its not hypocrisy its just a different combination.

Edited by mlpankey - 15 Dec 2012 at 5:11pm