Inliners International Forums General Discussion Engines Help me assess my craigslist score

I picked up this Offy 3x1 intake with 3 Holleys and a linkage right around the corner from my house today from craigslist. I was so taken by the carbs and linkage I didn't look at the bottom of the intake to notice the heat boxes had gaping holes until I got home.

3x1 Offy with Holleys

Holes in the bottom

I guess it could be run like that without heat assuming there weren't other holes in the intake that I can't see. I can't figure there is any way to repair holes like that.

I haven't done much research on multi-carb setups because I've read how difficult they are to set up plus I already have an Offy four barrel intake for my project. But it would look killer if I could figure it out.

The intake is also plumbed for nitrous (which I don't really care about, but it gives it more character!)

Nitrous

I got it for $100 which I thought was a steal before I knew the intake was toast. Oh well, if nothing else, it will be some cool eye candy in my garage. And maybe I can start with the single four barrel and then work my way into the 3 carb setup.

The guy also had a "hot" 250 that I could get for another $100. I am intrigued, but I tried not to get caught up in the deal (which I often do) and give it more thought. Plus some of his details didn't add up and I couldn't verify the details visually.

He claims it is a 194 head with $1500 of head work around 1980. But it still has intake bosses and I couldn't see any obvious shaping of the bosses or porting. He says 1 7/8" intake valves and 1 5/8 exhaust. He says it has .030 over 307 pistons (potentially useful) but has been de-stroked with 283 rods? I hadn't ever heard of de-stroking a 250. Claims it has a "reground" cam and may be able to find some paperwork. Despite being outside under a moldy old blanket, the head looked very clean under the valve cover. But there were mouse nests in the intake ports.

Is it worth $100 to see if there are any goodies in there? I already have a totally stock 250 pretty much torn down. If I could just bolt on a 194 head with oversize valves that would save money on my build, but I have doubts after it has been sitting like that.

Any thoughts are welcome.

Thanks.

The head work is by "Ladds of MD." Anyone heard of it?

To fix the intake, get a piece of aluminum of the same thickness as the manifold is in that area, then notch out the bad area and weld in the new piece.
I just did this last year to the intake on my truck. Exhaust heat can ruin an aluminum intake over time, usually at the rear.

If it's too good to be true, it usually is...

tell the guy you will give him half now, half later once you verify its what he really says it is. Worth a try, if he made no mention of the holes in the intake, he may be making it up about the motor.

I'd say give him $50 & see what he says.

Or like what drummin52: said "tell the guy you will give him half now, half later once you verify its what he really says it is:


MBHD

For a hundred bucks, I'd be tempted to just buy it for the core...worst case. That's about scrap price and surely it's got some goodies in it that are worth a hundred bucks.

The carbs and linkage are worth what you paid. The manifold appears to be repairable. I think you did OK. The guy is not honest or he would have made a point of showing the holes. So, as for the engine I can't see how how there could be 1,500 1980 dollars in a head with no lumps and bosses still in place. Roller rockers, screw in studs? I'd check casting #s for head and block.

This wouldn't be a guy named Kuhn would it??? In thinking about it, this is a REALLY similar story to what I heard about my 250 which came from the same part of VA...

The manifold was a good deal.

To weld it, should be bolted to a head to prevent the flange from distorting. Remember it only needs to be vacuum-tight, so don't kill yourself to get a clean bead - any good heat-proof sealer on the exterior will work.

"de-stroked with 283 rods"?
Perhaps he's just repeating what he "was told" (the prefix for most lies), but if he means reground to a smaller journal size to reduce the stroke it won't work because both engines have the same rod journal: 2.00".
Only a 292 would benefit from this by being reduced from 2.10" to 2.00", making the new stroke 4.02" (less some safety clean-up).
This might allow it to be used in some strange weight or weight per inch class which the full-size 292 would be too big. New size at std. bore 284".
Good luck finding a 2.00" rod that length...

I was thinking of using Langdon's split manifolds so to heat the intake I would need to use water. Which means it has to be water tight. I can't do it anyway, but I know a guy near me who might be able to give it a shot.

I couldn't figure out the destroked thing either. Still need to look up a 283 rod to see what the deal is.

Still need to look up a 283 rod to see what the deal is.

The deal is there's no such thing. The 283 rod is a direct swap (except for width), same length, no offset, no stroke.

Which means it has to be water tight.

That's the tough part. The manifold itself only sees perhaps 12 psi vacuum (so sealer can be added to the exterior), but the water box may see 15-18 psi pressure depending on your cap pressure.
All sorts of gypsy/redneck/shadetree methods have been used, including wrapping the port runners with copper tubing, but to be really effective you have to have very strong intimate contact between the heat source and the manifold casting.
This means that bolts, epoxy, etc. aren't all that good.
They may reach the same temperature eventually, but the time lag to warm up will always be longer (which is what's wrong with water heat, and good about exhaust heat).

I have also found that sometimes there are partial specks of truth in things people say, they just may be wrong as to why it was done. A 283 SBC rod will bolt up to and fit onto a 194,230 and 250 crankshaft and the piston will also fit, it just will have way too much side clearance or side-to-side movement on the crankshaft,causing a miriad of problems! Just make sure some Einstein didn't actually try to do that, thinking it would destroke the engine somehow.

You'll just never know till you look inside. Who knows maybe they welded up the crank to fit some rod/piston combo thought to be an improvement, or because they had 'em.

...bet you $1.00 it ain't.

Yes, the perception that rod length is affects stroke length is a snake that will not be scotched.
I first read this ("can I stroke my 292 with 312 rods?") in 1962.
Apparently, there is no more cumulative knowledge in rodding than there is in politics - they keep making the same mistakes every generation.
I used to have a list of "100 worst", but it just got too long.

You don't change the stroke of an engine by changing rods. the crankshaft must be changed or welded and reground. The guy sounds to me like he's trying to pull the wool over your eyes.....

Why am I not surprised..99 percent of the people playing with cars don't know a damn thing about the technical side of cars. They just repeat what they hear from a buddy and never take the time to learn how things work.

Ron

If you decide to run water heat, I would remove the steel plugs as well, and make the patch cover that area as well. Sometimes those plugs can leak coolant.
It takes awhile for exhaust to affect the intake. If you want to run exhaust, go ahead. I personally have no intention of switching to water. The purpose of heating the intake is to help the fuel mixture when the engine is cold, not after it is all warmed up, which is what you get with water heat. I've heard all the arguments, and I don't need to hear them again.
If you want to use exhaust heat, you just run some lines from the exhaust to the heat box plate. it's not difficult...

The 283 rod is a 5.7 but the big end width is narrower...they used to be used in circle track engines by silver soldering a stainless ring to the big end and machining to the 6cyl width & resizing....the 283 rod has a noticeable width difference through the beam of the rod(wider,some more than others); it was a heck of a lot of work and I'm not sure it was an improvement over hand prepared stock rods....the only thing a change in rod length changes is the rod ratio ......fats

There's a method of using much narrower rods, both as a convenience and a way to save a tiny bit of weight & power.
It's referred to as "overhead guided rods", where the pin eye is positioned in the pin bosses with aluminum washers (6061T6, etc.) to limit end float to perhaps .010", and the big end simply tracks this alignment vertically and never touches either cheek (or the other rod on that journal).
The advantage: end play is needed for oil flush from the bearing, but also to prevent the rod from binding when (not if) the crank bends in service, which effectively shortens the journal and the rod quickly overheats at the thrust surfaces - this can be detected by blue/purple color; if caught quickly enough the crank survives, if not the bearing spins, etc.
The OH washers prevent any contact with the cheeks, and since they only oscillate the rubbing contact is harmless.
This works very well, but as you can see quite a bit of engineering and dimensional changes are needed.

Things work? I don't get it! If hot Rods were music it wouldn't take long to hand out the Grammies!!