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.

I agree with both of above statements.

There is some bad math in there on the CI or bore.

Huge lift, tiny exhaust valve, weird intake manifold.

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:

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

Id guess it’s a 665, 4.6x5.0.

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

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.

Those two long runners that bend pretty sharp at head entrance. Looks like a hunk of schit me :) but who knows till you hit the dyno with correct data equipment.

This is an interesting build for sure.

That Dart aluminum intake is the only aftermarket carbed intake that was built for a gen 7, so that was his only option there.

I see the crankshaft is keyed, unlike a gen 7 crankshaft that doesn't have a key. The block is a Dart. Could it be he is using a gen 6 Dart block and gen 6 crank? The main cap bolts are SAE also, pointing towards a gen 6?? Also the timing cover, not a gen 7 piece?? He would then drill the extra holes in the deck for the gen 7 heads to bolt up????

Good eye on both.
The Dart Gen VII block is available in SAE or Metric threads and uses the Gen VI timing cover and oil pan.

Maybe, but then why stay with 10.2 deck? Or a Gen VII head at all?
Other than the manifold?
And how far off is the Gen VII head bolt pattern compared to the Gen VI?
Is it just more bolts or is it a completely different pattern?

It's my understanding it's just a few more bolts on the gen 7. I have a head gasket from both at my shop. I'll compare them this weekend, I'm curious now.

often an intake or combo that does not set the dyno on fire ends up being the best in drivability. when we used to run a supermodified we ran 4 very short stacks and 4 long stacks later we had sets of 2 short, medium, long and super long. the reason was to keep the power to the ground smoother rather that all 8 hitting peak at the same time breaking the tires loose. the engine is 468ci 16-1 comp with hilborn injection straight methanol

In response to bolting a gen 7 head onto an older block:

The gen 7 gasket is on the top, and lower gasket is from a bowtie block. I think I have these layed out correctly. Anyways, you can see a few holes would need to be drilled, but there are others "slightly off". I bet it could be done but man that's a lot of work. Especially plugging holes and redrilling them as they have slight overlap. Probably not worth it.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.off...4800dc2fe6.jpg