Bench Racing: Highest horsepower N/A 10.3" deck engine combo's

BOSS 429 wrote:MAX for it to live in a 10.300 is about 4.635 or so arm, a 4.750 will fit but the piston will come out of the bottom of the bore way to far,and you will be changin them often,rod lenght,and pin hight,and the oil ring is another problem

-rich

I've Seen quite a few 4.75 arms in 10.3 Block with no problems, Plus we are talking MAX effort not 300+ run sportsman motors here. Plus the aftermarket stuff has the longer bores.

Don't know that the 4.700 bore has long to live in any 10.3 deck. I got 1208 w/ 604 in bracket racing trim. 638 goin together.

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:MAX for it to live in a 10.300 is about 4.635 or so arm, a 4.750 will fit but the piston will come out of the bottom of the bore way to far,and you will be changin them often,rod lenght,and pin hight,and the oil ring is another problem

-rich

I've Seen quite a few 4.75 arms in 10.3 Block with no problems, Plus we are talking MAX effort not 300+ run sportsman motors here. Plus the aftermarket stuff has the longer bores.

where are they? .where did i say sportsman? what compression?

max power is what im talking about

BOSS 429 wrote:

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:MAX for it to live in a 10.300 is about 4.635 or so arm, a 4.750 will fit but the piston will come out of the bottom of the bore way to far,and you will be changin them often,rod lenght,and pin hight,and the oil ring is another problem

-rich

I've Seen quite a few 4.75 arms in 10.3 Block with no problems, Plus we are talking MAX effort not 300+ run sportsman motors here. Plus the aftermarket stuff has the longer bores.

where are they? .where did i say sportsman? what compression?

max power is what im talking about

First one that comes to mind with a 4.75 is Phillip Oakley.... Second one is Darrin from Washington C460 headed motor. The 5" deal may be a problem with ring packs on a hemi head but IMO would work with a wedge and thats probably it max limit as your at a 1" pin height.

I'd be willing to bet Kaase has done a few in the past 30 Years with a 5" arm in a 10.3 block........

BOSS 429 wrote:MAX for it to live in a 10.300 is about 4.635 or so arm, a 4.750 will fit but the piston will come out of the bottom of the bore way to far,and you will be changin them often,rod lenght,and pin hight,and the oil ring is another problem

-rich

For the guy that can afford a 4.750" stroke billet crank, I doubt he's going to worry about changing pistons once a season or whatever. I think that's the whole point of it. To suggest that the 4.750" stroke isn't a viable choice is bad advise in my opinion. While not for everyone, it will work.

The Chevy Camp is sure Keen on 4.600 Bores and 5" Strokes in 10.400 deck Blocks

http://www.steveschmidtracing.com/engines/665-aluminum-12-degree.html

Nevs wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:MAX for it to live in a 10.300 is about 4.635 or so arm, a 4.750 will fit but the piston will come out of the bottom of the bore way to far,and you will be changin them often,rod lenght,and pin hight,and the oil ring is another problem

-rich

For the guy that can afford a 4.750" stroke billet crank, I doubt he's going to worry about changing pistons once a season or whatever. I think that's the whole point of it. To suggest that the 4.750" stroke isn't a viable choice is bad advise in my opinion. While not for everyone, it will work.

AS I ment its not for everyone, 4.750 is a great choice,but not in a 10.300 was all i was saying

[

I'd be willing to bet Kaase has done a few in the past 30 Years with a 5" arm in a 10.3 block........[/quote]


yes john has, with deck plates,

this is why i said i wouldnt run a 4.750 in a 10.300,well enought a 5.000 arm, im sure the guy who started this thread wouldnt want to start out with a high maintance engine, i was trying to help,but i guess i shouldnt, ive done the 4.750 route in 10.300 a few times, and i would not suggest anyone to do this, pan rail mods,oil pan mods,etc..


im not even sure why i do help in this place anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BOSS 429 wrote:this is why i said i wouldnt run a 4.750 in a 10.300,well enought a 5.000 arm, im sure the guy who started this thread wouldnt want to start out with a high maintance engine, i was trying to help,but i guess i shouldnt, ive done the 4.750 route in 10.300 a few times, and i would not suggest anyone to do this, pan rail mods,oil pan mods,etc..


im not even sure why i do help in this place anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

innovation is why things get done, if every one had a negitive attitude and never stepped out of the preconcieved box all we have is flat heads with a stromberg.......

It can be done, has been done, and works fine. But like we all agree may not be the best for an average Joe, but then again 30 years ago a 4.5 arm was high end top shelf full boogie.........

it doesnt work fine,but you know everything

BOSS 429 wrote:it doesnt work fine,but you know everything

your attitude sucks, you shouldn't bother debating anything if you can't take some heat......Or Cant take be proven wrong........

IS THAT ALL YOU GOT? you havent proved anything????????? lol wheres your max effort 4.750 stroke 10.300 engine, and max effort i dont mean a 11. to 1 , i mean max .as you stated, mine were 15.to1 to 16 to 1, as im stating is a 4.750 is not a good idea ,ya it can be done,and it works,ive done it!

if you do a wedge and move the pin way up,and dont run a lot of dome it will live longer,but a 4.600 or 4.500 in a 10.300 is better, heck even back in the 1970s animal jims first 600 inch 4.750 had deck plates, cly's are really too short to suport piston skirt, even in the motorsport cat for blocks they even tell you max stroke to be used in a 10.300 should be 4.500!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

with a c head or e head with little to no dome, maybe, but im sure the guy who started this thread doesnt want all the problems( work ) associated with this either,ever install one in a 10.300? i bet not. someone on a bugget,or starting out with bb 429/460 should not be doing this, AS I SAID I WOULD NEVER SUGGEST A 4.750 WELL ENOUGHT A 5.000 IN A 10.300 BLOCK.

-RICH

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:it doesnt work fine,but you know everything

your attitude sucks, you shouldn't bother debating anything if you can't take some heat......Or Cant take be proven wrong........

PROVED WRONG,THAT WOULD BE OK BECAUSE THEN I WOULD LEARN FROM IT,

ATTITUDE? LOL NO. I KNOW ITS NOT A GOOD IDEA.

DEBATING? CALL SOME ENGINE BUILDERS,

SUCKS, I THINK WE KNOW WHAT SUCKS

schmitty wrote:4.7" bore and 5" arm will get you there, and it can be fit into a 10.3 Eliminator block I believe.

I know the Thor's will go over 1300 hp properly set up, and that is the top of the line in wedge heads for the BBF.

I was trying to help this thread out sorry ,schmitty

-rich

fox331 wrote:Just studying some cylinder head potential, and got to dreaming. I was wondering what is the highest horsepower anyone has gotten out of a 10.3" deck motor?

What about the highest horsepower with a Hemi layout?

Details please, if you are willing to share.

--------------------------------------------------------

didnt mean for your thread to get hijacked,-rich

BOSS 429 wrote:

schmitty wrote:4.7" bore and 5" arm will get you there, and it can be fit into a 10.3 Eliminator block I believe.

I know the Thor's will go over 1300 hp properly set up, and that is the top of the line in wedge heads for the BBF.

I was trying to help this thread out sorry ,schmitty

-rich

I'm . I simply stated what could be done, not what should be done there. Yes a 5" arm is possible, but definately not practical as such. As far as a 4.75" arm, there are several that are using them with little to no issues in a 10.3 deck with a 4.6" bore and having very good luck.

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:it doesnt work fine,but you know everything

your attitude sucks, you shouldn't bother debating anything if you can't take some heat......Or Cant take be proven wrong........

Your attitude kinda sucks. Everything you post is smart ass, you seem like a know it all big mouth to me. I love running over guys like you at the track with stock junk. His point was that it wasnt worth the effort since he has done it, he was offering his input not seeking your opinion or approval all mighty one.

Barney wrote:

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:it doesnt work fine,but you know everything

your attitude sucks, you shouldn't bother debating anything if you can't take some heat......Or Cant take be proven wrong........

Your attitude kinda sucks. Everything you post is smart ass, you seem like a know it all big mouth to me. I love running over guys like you at the track with stock junk. His point was that it wasnt worth the effort since he has done it, he was offering his input not seeking your opinion or approval all mighty one.

Barney..... Lick me where I PEE........... and my point is, It Has Been Done, Is Being Done and Does work fine for the right application. So what are you trying to contribute to this? Other than stirring Shit??????

Barney wrote:

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:it doesnt work fine,but you know everything

your attitude sucks, you shouldn't bother debating anything if you can't take some heat......Or Cant take be proven wrong........

Your attitude kinda sucks. Everything you post is smart ass, you seem like a know it all big mouth to me. I love running over guys like you at the track with stock junk. His point was that it wasnt worth the effort since he has done it, he was offering his input not seeking your opinion or approval all mighty one.

(dfree) Dave has a very intimate knowlege of engines in many ways. How many EMC engines have you done Barney? Let's pull out underwear out of a bunch here guys and learn instead of preach. Like was also said 15 or so years ago, many said a 4.5" arm would never fit in a BBF. Look at the strides that have been made and quit saying so much "can't" and get back the old "can" attitude.

schmitty wrote:

Barney wrote:

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:it doesnt work fine,but you know everything

your attitude sucks, you shouldn't bother debating anything if you can't take some heat......Or Cant take be proven wrong........

Your attitude kinda sucks. Everything you post is smart ass, you seem like a know it all big mouth to me. I love running over guys like you at the track with stock junk. His point was that it wasnt worth the effort since he has done it, he was offering his input not seeking your opinion or approval all mighty one.

(dfree) Dave has a very intimate knowlege of engines in many ways. How many EMC engines have you done Barney? Let's pull out underwear out of a bunch here guys and learn instead of preach. Like was also said 15 or so years ago, many said a 4.5" arm would never fit in a BBF. Look at the strides that have been made and quit saying so much "can't" and get back the old "can" attitude.

I dont care how many emc hes done, how many RACES has he won? Im sure Boss 429 can post pictures of pistons from similar setups. Just because it can be done doesnt mean it should or is the best route to go. Its one thing to disagree, but to have to be a smart ass to make a point just makes him look like any other big mouth clown. My guess hes one of those guys with a ton of knowledge and theory that thinks that hes better than everyone else so how dare someone disagree with him. and Im sure his TALK impresses alot of people. However unless that skill wins races WGAF what a dyno says, or how shiny his tools are. Boss 429 not only builds killer stuff, but also wins races and doesnt have to look down his nose at everyone. He is right though it can be , and is being done with deck plates, pan rail mods, a assload of piston instability, wear, and bore wear. you guys are right that sound great sign me up, Ill take 2.

dfree383 wrote:

Barney wrote:

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:it doesnt work fine,but you know everything

your attitude sucks, you shouldn't bother debating anything if you can't take some heat......Or Cant take be proven wrong........

Your attitude kinda sucks. Everything you post is smart ass, you seem like a know it all big mouth to me. I love running over guys like you at the track with stock junk. His point was that it wasnt worth the effort since he has done it, he was offering his input not seeking your opinion or approval all mighty one.

Barney..... Lick me where I PEE........... and my point is, It Has Been Done, Is Being Done and Does work fine for the right application. So what are you trying to contribute to this? Other than stirring Shit??????

My point is given similar max effort apps with a 4.6 bore x 4.5 stroke vs. a 4.6 bore x 5 inch stroke in similar vehicles ran for 30 passes the only noticeable increases would be in work and wear in the 5 inch stroke app not ET, but your the expert.

So Barney, when are you going to add something constructive to this debate other than reiterating 30+ year old bs?? Deck plates???? Please........

So now give us a physics lesson on why a 4.75 arm will go faster down the track than a 4.5 arm in the same well set-up application?

The argument here is a 4.75 arm.... I would agree the 5" arm in a hemi would not allow sufficient room for any kind of ring pack

The 2 amigos at it again.
Please if you guys could learn that there is stuff that happens away from the track
this is about "highest horsepower" and what "could" be done in a 10.3, not whether its financially responsible or whether you ET would increase.

Diggindeeper wrote:The 2 amigos at it again.
Please if you guys could learn that there is stuff that happens away from the track
this is about "highest horsepower" and what "could" be done in a 10.3, not whether its financially responsible or whether you ET would increase.

actually I think they should line it up at the track. what better way to prove it?

it IS all about ET but not increase..... decrease my friend decrease.... lol