882 or 993? which is better - Page 2 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans Advertise
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Hotrodding Basics
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 03-26-2015, 08:25 AM
kso's Avatar
kso kso is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 486
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 5
Thanked 99 Times in 87 Posts
I know I'm kinda "evolving" this old-but-interesting thread along...

Along w/ using an early-'90s LT1 head, would come using the rest of the reverse-flow package, yep. It would be a screwy idea to try to adapt around, especially considering what else is available for a standard-flow block. For background, my reason for considering the LT1 is, I wish to put together a late-seventies car as a driver with an emissions-compliant (CA) newer drivetrain, cheap. I think anyone would just say, use an LS- motor then, but it has been my observation that most people doing that wind up with lots more into it than they expected in regards of cost and trouble. If we just go with the LS package deal available from GM, it's what...approaching ten grand? For fifteen-hundred bucks I can get a 94-95 F-body w/ good LT1 350 and a Borg-Warner-version six-speed as a donor (and I have...), and get relatively simple OBD-I electronics and single-cat system to work with (in CA the vehicle has to meet motor year of manufacture standards if it's newer than the body). Picture a '78 El Camino w/ 275 hp, six gears, decent mpg and air conditioning, for jetting around the state when I have to for work etc., for under five grand total. (I don't really mind messing with all the wiring and integration details, in fact it's kinda fun sometimes.)

But, and this is an important "but":

I do think of the cylinder heads as the basis of the performance package whether it be power or efficiency. One reason I look at the lineup of old cast-iron 882 etc. heads on my storage-barn shelves and go, "meh...do I really want to build with this stuff?" I could likely use Edelbrock or other aftermarket heads to build to '78-emissions-legality (and use the old Q-jet etc.) and get good power, but then what kind of fuel efficiency can I expect?

When I found I could get a whole LT1 engine/trans/everything package w/ included car body (which I don't really want) for not much more than the Edelbrock heads, I bit...knowing that for the most part, that-type "LT" is considered weird and obsolete by now, and realizing what all would be involved in the swap but sort-of looking forward to it. But it would be nice to think that those heads at the heart of things could be considered up-to-date enough to make them worth dealing with, and this is certainly an area where I ain't the expert in.

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-26-2015, 08:35 AM
techinspector1's Avatar
Member
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Zephyrhills, Florida, USA
Age: 78
Posts: 17,430
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 2,083
Thanked 3,048 Times in 2,272 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kso View Post
I know I'm kinda "evolving" this old-but-interesting thread along...

Along w/ using an early-'90s LT1 head, would come using the rest of the reverse-flow package, yep. It would be a screwy idea to try to adapt around, especially considering what else is available for a standard-flow block. For background, my reason for considering the LT1 is, I wish to put together a late-seventies car as a driver with an emissions-compliant (CA) newer drivetrain, cheap. I think anyone would just say, use an LS- motor then, but it has been my observation that most people doing that wind up with lots more into it than they expected in regards of cost and trouble. If we just go with the LS package deal available from GM, it's what...approaching ten grand? For fifteen-hundred bucks I can get a 94-95 F-body w/ good LT1 350 and a Borg-Warner-version six-speed as a donor (and I have...), and get relatively simple OBD-I electronics and single-cat system to work with (in CA the vehicle has to meet motor year of manufacture standards if it's newer than the body). Picture a '78 El Camino w/ 275 hp, six gears, decent mpg and air conditioning, for jetting around the state when I have to for work etc., for under five grand total. (I don't really mind messing with all the wiring and integration details, in fact it's kinda fun sometimes.)

But, and this is an important "but":

I do think of the cylinder heads as the basis of the performance package whether it be power or efficiency. One reason I look at the lineup of old cast-iron 882 etc. heads on my storage-barn shelves and go, "meh...do I really want to build with this stuff?" I could likely use Edelbrock or other aftermarket heads to build to '78-emissions-legality (and use the old Q-jet etc.) and get good power, but then what kind of fuel efficiency can I expect?

When I found I could get a whole LT1 engine/trans/everything package w/ included car body (which I don't really want) for not much more than the Edelbrock heads, I bit...knowing that for the most part, that-type "LT" is considered weird and obsolete by now, and realizing what all would be involved in the swap but sort-of looking forward to it. But it would be nice to think that those heads at the heart of things could be considered up-to-date enough to make them worth dealing with, and this is certainly an area where I ain't the expert in.
This is the approach I have taken for many years and it has worked out well for me. Particularly when you're young and married with children, you don't have a lot of money to buy fancy aftermarket parts, so the donor approach makes perfect sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-26-2015, 09:21 AM
kso's Avatar
kso kso is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 486
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 5
Thanked 99 Times in 87 Posts
I'm actually gettin' kinda up-there (54) but for me...yes that was and is still the way to enjoy the hobby.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-26-2015, 08:18 PM
BuzzLOL's Avatar
Cars, Trucks, Boats
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Toledo, N.W.Ohio, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 7,077
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 18
Thanked 891 Times in 832 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kso View Post
use the old Q-jet etc. and get good power, but then what kind of fuel efficiency can I expect?
. I consider 98% of MPG improvements from early 1970's engines till now to be from improvements inside the engine... with EFI adding maybe 0 - 2% more... of course, Direct Gasoline Injection (like the diesel system) adds a quantum leap in MPG, but that is still rare and expensive technology... and waiting to see how reliable such extremely high pressure injectors are...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-26-2015, 10:56 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Member
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Zephyrhills, Florida, USA
Age: 78
Posts: 17,430
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 2,083
Thanked 3,048 Times in 2,272 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kso View Post
I'm actually gettin' kinda up-there (54) but for me...yes that was and is still the way to enjoy the hobby.
Yeah, I'm kinda up there already, but if I were going to do another project, it would be with a donor. I've been eyeballin' the Miata roadster and the '93-'97 Lincoln Mark VIII. I can visualize adding length to the body by moving the front fenders forward and filling in the gap with glass. It would take some hellacious fender flares though, to run the stock Mark VIII track front and rear. I'm just totally in love with that 4.6 all-aluminum DOHC V8 and I'd like to do another roadster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-27-2015, 08:54 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,259
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 365
Thanked 1,435 Times in 1,131 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kso View Post
I know I'm kinda "evolving" this old-but-interesting thread along...

Along w/ using an early-'90s LT1 head, would come using the rest of the reverse-flow package, yep. It would be a screwy idea to try to adapt around, especially considering what else is available for a standard-flow block. For background, my reason for considering the LT1 is, I wish to put together a late-seventies car as a driver with an emissions-compliant (CA) newer drivetrain, cheap. I think anyone would just say, use an LS- motor then, but it has been my observation that most people doing that wind up with lots more into it than they expected in regards of cost and trouble. If we just go with the LS package deal available from GM, it's what...approaching ten grand? For fifteen-hundred bucks I can get a 94-95 F-body w/ good LT1 350 and a Borg-Warner-version six-speed as a donor (and I have...), and get relatively simple OBD-I electronics and single-cat system to work with (in CA the vehicle has to meet motor year of manufacture standards if it's newer than the body). Picture a '78 El Camino w/ 275 hp, six gears, decent mpg and air conditioning, for jetting around the state when I have to for work etc., for under five grand total. (I don't really mind messing with all the wiring and integration details, in fact it's kinda fun sometimes.)

But, and this is an important "but":

I do think of the cylinder heads as the basis of the performance package whether it be power or efficiency. One reason I look at the lineup of old cast-iron 882 etc. heads on my storage-barn shelves and go, "meh...do I really want to build with this stuff?" I could likely use Edelbrock or other aftermarket heads to build to '78-emissions-legality (and use the old Q-jet etc.) and get good power, but then what kind of fuel efficiency can I expect?

When I found I could get a whole LT1 engine/trans/everything package w/ included car body (which I don't really want) for not much more than the Edelbrock heads, I bit...knowing that for the most part, that-type "LT" is considered weird and obsolete by now, and realizing what all would be involved in the swap but sort-of looking forward to it. But it would be nice to think that those heads at the heart of things could be considered up-to-date enough to make them worth dealing with, and this is certainly an area where I ain't the expert in.
You'll probably find that the key to better gas mileage is the overdrive transmisison. In the case of the T56 you have two overdrives, this allows the use of a pretty deep rear axle to get launched without much throttle when driving in town and the choice of two overdrives to get the cruising revs down around 2000 RPM out on the interstate.

There is no argument that EFI is much better at mid RPM with constant throttle changes drivability than a carb. However, a sharp carb guy can get dang close for a lot less money.

Bogie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2015, 12:36 AM
BuzzLOL's Avatar
Cars, Trucks, Boats
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Toledo, N.W.Ohio, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 7,077
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 18
Thanked 891 Times in 832 Posts
. Some of the 'Vette 6-speeds are 100% overdrive in 6th... meaning an ideal 4.56 rear end for 1/4 cruises like a 2.28... (and in 1's for a stock 'Vette which has light weight and a very flexible engine)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-31-2015, 11:39 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 289
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 22
Thanked 29 Times in 27 Posts
All this info is fine and dandy, but how about answering the original question? I admit there are a lot better heads out there,but he asked which ones to use. Not recommend me a head. I'm not posting this to start a fight, but just to answer the man's question. The 993 casting is a better casting then the 882. They are both 76cc smog heads, but the 993 casting is a little thicker casting and less prone to cracking. The 993 ports are better then the 882 port and they clean up nice. 350hp on a 350 cubic inch small block is easy to do with these heads. A good 3 angle valve job and some pocket porting is all you need. Have .030 cut off the heads and with flat top pistons, zero deck height, and .038 head gaskets should get you in the 9.25,9.5-1 compression range, but you must check your deck height, head cc, and the kind of valve reliefs in your pistons. Don't quote me on it, but I built one years ago and it worked out for me. 375hp can be had, but it takes a lot more work on the heads and a camshaft with an rpm range that might be higher then your after.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-31-2015, 12:45 PM
vinniekq2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: BC,Canada
Age: 62
Posts: 12,338
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 874
Thanked 1,464 Times in 1,354 Posts
the original question is 4 years old,Im sure its been determined
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-31-2015, 01:42 PM
BuzzLOL's Avatar
Cars, Trucks, Boats
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Toledo, N.W.Ohio, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 7,077
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 18
Thanked 891 Times in 832 Posts
. Yeah, old thread, we're just chitchatting in here... for anyone who wants to follow along... reminiscing... mention their 993 build... etc... if I use 76cc heads, I just go domed pistons and a cam and shim head gasket... no block or head milling costs/bother... or port/hog some 461X heads out to 500 HP...
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-31-2015, 05:22 PM
kso's Avatar
kso kso is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 486
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 5
Thanked 99 Times in 87 Posts
I actually have one more question...in fitting with the chit chatting and while I sit here pondering where a DOHC Ford cam sprocket could fit under the hood of a Miata...

The late-'80s Corvette aluminum head? I once came across a pair in trade...I have heard they're "nothing special" and they've sat on my shelf for years but at 64cc (I believe) at-least they could go right on top of flat pistons and give a good C.R. Only thing is, no EGR port so for the purposes of building to 1978 CA smog regs, they're out...although I'm not sure how anybody would know the difference.

These chambers look to me about like the rest of the pre-'96-or-so type heads discussed earlier, and have a look at the coolant passage under the spark plug. Right on the edge of the gasket...I'm not sure I'd even use them without welding that area up a little. The one shown is the worst but all of 'em (corroded or not) are real close.

I have never made up my mind as to whether they should go on something, or not.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 03-31-2015, 09:22 PM
BuzzLOL's Avatar
Cars, Trucks, Boats
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Toledo, N.W.Ohio, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 7,077
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 18
Thanked 891 Times in 832 Posts
. Yeah, a fresh engine would prolly pass smog with the EGR in place but not working... paint 'em engine color and prolly no one would notice...

. Are they '86 -128 casting square exhaust port or '87 & up -113 casting D-shape exhaust port? They have 58cc chambers, 1.94/1.5 valves, semi-fast burn chambers, max out about 385 HP... takes extensive work by a knowledgable porter to get above that... especially in hogging out the exhaust port much bigger...

. I bought a new pair... used to be all over the swaps for $599 complete before the GM bankruptcy... now like $1200 and obviously not worth that... they were used on ZZX - ZZ4 350 crate engines... those were $2595 before GM banko... now like $5995... nutso... I think the current ZZ5's use bigger heads, but still same 208/221 roller cam (first ZZX had way too big 235/235 cam)... I was replacing an Iron Duke 4-banger in Astre Formula wagon with a V8 and to get the weight down went -113 alum. heads, alum. intake, alum. water pump...


. Vettes ran those with shallow dish pistons for 9.8:1 and 245 netHP till 1990 when they went flat tops for 10:1 and 250 netHP... at 4000 RPMs... of course, the small roller cam and TPI EFI built torque and held HP down... slap a 4 bbl. intake and carb. on those engines and over 325 gross HP @ 5200 RPMs... still, they ran 150+ MPH stock... 13.9 @ 99 MPH 1/4...


Quote:
Originally Posted by kso View Post
while I sit here pondering where a DOHC Ford cam sprocket could fit under the hood of a Miata
. We're chitchatting that over here:


https://www.hotrodders.com/forum/1973...ns-363730.html
.

Last edited by BuzzLOL; 03-31-2015 at 09:41 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Hotrodding Basics posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.