Small Blocks

-
Heads with no two exhaust valves together like a Foooord.

I would seperate the exhaust ports to be like on a SB Ford

Interesting that the SB2 NASCAR engine did this to the intake ports but left the exhaust ports side by side in the center. That would lead me to believe that a symmetrical intake port had more benefit than a symmetrical exhaust port.
 
In regards to moving the distributor to the front, I think it would be better to drop it all together and add a cam and crank position sensor.

I find it somewhat humorous that in many ways, you can look at the G3 and see the evolution of the SBM. Same bore spacing and the 5.7 uses the 318 bore and 360 stroke, and even the same bellhousing bolt pattern (minus one hole). Not suggesting they did everything right, just pointing out they are sure similar.
 
Interesting that the SB2 NASCAR engine did this to the intake ports but left the exhaust ports side by side in the center. That would lead me to believe that a symmetrical intake port had more benefit than a symmetrical exhaust port.
Back before Allen Johnson stopped racing prostock, he tested both heads on his genIII race Hemi. He found about 1.5 hp difference favoring the IEIEIEIE head so the argument for hot spot of 2 exhaust valves together is debatable, but unlike a hemi, the small block is small and if you went to a canted valve head, it may make a difference in ports missing head bolt and pushrod holes. Its a debatable topic and who knows why nascar does the things they do. For instance car of tomorrow. I don’t follow nascar, no dodges, I’m out. No stock bodies, I’m out.

The ford canted small block head makes stupid high horsepower.
 
A 4 cylinder based on half a big block would be interesting, don't know how/why it's a 318 replacement.
Problem with 4/6 cylinders less intake/exhaust ports, less overall flow. But a TF/B1 headed 4 cylinder be kool :)
 
Talking about 4 cylinder mopar

Screenshot_20240422_223835_Chrome.jpg
 
In regards to moving the distributor to the front, I think it would be better to drop it all together and add a cam and crank position sensor.

I find it somewhat humorous that in many ways, you can look at the G3 and see the evolution of the SBM. Same bore spacing and the 5.7 uses the 318 bore and 360 stroke, and even the same bellhousing bolt pattern (minus one hole). Not suggesting they did everything right, just pointing out they are sure similar.
And that brings us to our present point. There are some things about the third gens I've gotten my hands into that I liked. I see enough potential in that platform for the aftermarket to develop a set of DOHC heads and front gear drive arrangement for it.
 
Last edited:
Many good ideas posted so far, but here's one nobody has yet mentioned...

Design a 2-piece water pump similar to a big block for easier and quicker replacement
Design the intake like the big blocks so you don't have to drain the coolant when you change intakes.
 
it’s simple

more heads bolt so we wouldnt have that much difilculty sealing those heads under pressure , nitrous , etc you name it
 
How so on the rod to stroke ratio. You take up the difference of say 0.5" in the piston compression height. Stroke and rods stay the same.
I believe that a 9.200" deck height was mentioned, the only way that the 360 could be is to have a shorter connecting rod, otherwise the compression height would be really short. Also the 360 couldn't be stroked to a 408 as the compression height would be less than 1.300". Either way I totally disagree with a shorter deck height especially by .400.
 
I believe that a 9.200" deck height was mentioned, the only way that the 360 could be is to have a shorter connecting rod, otherwise the compression height would be really short. Also the 360 couldn't be stroked to a 408 as the compression height would be less than 1.300". Either way I totally disagree with a shorter deck height especially by .400.
With a 360 crank and rod you'd have a piston pin height of 1.287", it's not meant for stroker V8's I meant to give shorter strokes a shorter pistons. Why ford has 2 deck heights 289/302 vs 351. Same as our B vs RB and even /6.
 
I believe that a 9.200" deck height was mentioned, the only way that the 360 could be is to have a shorter connecting rod, otherwise the compression height would be really short. Also the 360 couldn't be stroked to a 408 as the compression height would be less than 1.300". Either way I totally disagree with a shorter deck height especially by .400.
Not true at all. 9.2-6.125-2=1.075. Plenty of room for a metric ring pack in a stroker with a less expensive 6-1/8 Chevy rod and a lighter .927 piston pin. Look at some of your SBC race and even production LS “hockey puck” slipper skirt pistons that don’t even have an inch of compression height. Just because these engines came from the past doesn’t mean we have to keep superseded technology in them to try to go fast… however, I’d also like to state that the simplest reality of why we do have a lot of things we’d like to see changed in the LA design is because the retrofit and modification to the LA design was done with the least amount of tooling changes necessary to keep the short term profitability in check. I’m sure that the engineers (William Weertman especially!) who worked on the project never imagined the design would be around long enough for it to be developed into the later update of the V6 and magnum variants. If engineering had known beforehand how long the LA was going to be produced for, it’s probable that engineering would have implemented some of these improvements in the original redux of the A platform. A shorter deck height would have paid for a lot of tooling changes over time with the reduction in iron use.
 
Last edited:
here are a few;
A better rod-oiling system, and more oil to the top-end.
Longer lasting bores.
No pushrod pinches.
Just say no to nylon-tipped sprockets, and single-row chains.
NO open chamber heads ever!
Variable valve timing, or at least an automatic cam retarder

Also rans;
More screws to hold the valve covers down with.
Umbrella oil seals banned forever.
A deeper sump.
A better rear main seal

Dreams;
DOHC with adjustable bucket followers
Long-rams
an Engine driven PTO
All cranks same main-journal sizes, thus the 273 transforms to a 301 with a 30 over, and suddenly a billion 273 blocks become gold, lol; I mean, with a longram, she'd be a 3.66 x 3.58 torque monster, easily capable of 30 mpg on a bad tune. yes I'm kidding, lol.
Cranks running in adjustable eccentric saddles, that you can adjust how high up the piston goes. ie, variable compression. No I'm not kidding. You want more pressure? just raise the crank up a couple of turns. Can't get rid of detonation? just drop the crank a few turns.
Oil pans are deeper in the trucks and vans, by one qt. They just don't fit in the cars that are stock.
 
Not true at all. 9.2-6.125-2=1.075. Plenty of room for a metric ring pack in a stroker with a less expensive 6-1/8 Chevy rod and a lighter .927 piston pin. Look at some of your SBC race and even production LS “hockey puck” slipper skirt pistons that don’t even have an inch of compression height. Just because these engines came from the past doesn’t mean we have to keep superseded technology in them to try to go fast… however, I’d also that the simplest reality of why we do have a lot of things we’d like to see changed in the LA design is because the retrofit and modification to the LA design was done with the least amount of tooling changes necessary to keep the short term profitability in check. I’m sure that the engineers (William Weertman especially!) who worked on the project never imagined the design would be around long enough for it to be developed into the later update of the v6 and magnum variants. If engineering had known beforehand how long the LA was going to be produced for, it’s probable that engineering would have implemented some of these improvements in the original redux of the A platform. A shorter deck height would have paid for a lot of tooling changes over time with the reduction in iron use.
I understand what you're saying
 
-
Back
Top