![]() |
702CI Gen VII
Seen this awhile ago then just recently in their Nov./Dec. print edition again.
Didn't read much into it until seen it in the print. 702CI Anyone familiar with this builder? Does this make anyone else scratch their heads? It's clearly on a Gen VII block as he's using Raylar heads. To get 702CI with a 5" stroke it would need a 4.727" bore in a 4.840" bore space block. :eek: 6.7" rods with 10.2" deck, so that's a 1" compression height piston. Says he wanted to shed some weight from the reciprocating assembly over a blown 632. Most of those are 4.75" stroke. Obviously could of used aluminum rods and lighter pistons and whatnot over the 632. No blower he gets rid of the load of driving it and the inertia of all the drive components. But typically doesn't increasing stroke go the other way? Increase reciprocating weight Those heads enough? Time bomb or not? |
Seems to me that a more efficient head with bigger valves and a smaller cam would be more reliable. I can’t imagine a .825 lift cam not wreaking havoc on the valve train.
|
Originally Posted by ttuton
(Post 4855633)
Seems to me that a more efficient head with bigger valves and a smaller cam would be more reliable. I can’t imagine a .825 lift cam not wreaking havoc on the valve train.
There is some bad math in there on the CI or bore. Huge lift, tiny exhaust valve, weird intake manifold. |
Originally Posted by hogie roll
(Post 4855638)
There is some bad math in there on the CI or bore.
I think a lot of these builds and the corresponding write up are self submitted so that's that. Funny about the .825 lift also because these are 2 quotes out of the article. :picard1: The mechanical roller camshaft features a 310/334 duration and .846/.800 lift with lobe separation of 114. “The Raylars I set up myself for .825 lift with 14+2 LS 4/7 firing order swap,” he says. |
Different than what used to seeing.
And in these days of HUGE HP, even the 1,000 estimate doesn't seem earthshaking with that many cubes. But, just my .02 which after inflation now is only .004 |
Originally Posted by cheech
(Post 4855732)
That's my thought also. They didn't spec the bore in the article. On purpose? I dunno.
I think a lot of these builds and the corresponding write up are self submitted so that's that. Funny about the .825 lift also because these are 2 quotes out of the article. :picard1: 5” stroke fits, I’ve heard the pistons start coming out bottom of the bore at 4.75. Maybe these blocks have longer bores than Big Ms? |
All that work, dual plane on a 700cid experiment, and no dyno. Seems odd.
|
why do you need a dyno? just take the base motor and the ad's say the headers are good for 150hp, the intake adds 50hp, etc. add it all up and you have a 700hp 327 sbc. dynos are just an added expense. throw in a 3/4 cam and you may make 750hp.
and yes I am kidding |
Originally Posted by SB
(Post 4855764)
All that work, dual plane on a 700cid experiment, and no dyno. Seems odd.
|
Originally Posted by hogie roll
(Post 4855777)
That intake looks cool but I’m extremely suspect after seeing Dyno results from all of the old school cross over type manifolds like that.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.