Notices
General Boating Discussion

702CI Gen VII

Thread Tools
 
Old 01-11-2023 | 01:48 PM
  #1  
Thread Starter
Registered
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,384
Likes: 565
Default 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.
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?

Last edited by cheech; 01-11-2023 at 01:54 PM.
cheech is offline  
Reply
Old 01-11-2023 | 04:49 PM
  #2  
Registered
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 734
Likes: 61
From: joliet, il
Default

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.
ttuton is offline  
Reply
Old 01-11-2023 | 06:30 PM
  #3  
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,854
Likes: 786
From: St. Pete Beach, FL
Default

Originally Posted by ttuton
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.
hogie roll is offline  
Reply
Old 01-12-2023 | 10:32 AM
  #4  
Thread Starter
Registered
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,384
Likes: 565
Default

Originally Posted by hogie roll
There is some bad math in there on the CI or bore.
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.
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.
cheech is offline  
Reply
Old 01-12-2023 | 11:33 AM
  #5  
RSCHAP1's Avatar
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 816
Likes: 278
From: Murray Lake Lowell MI
Default

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
RSCHAP1 is offline  
Reply
Old 01-12-2023 | 02:11 PM
  #6  
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,854
Likes: 786
From: St. Pete Beach, FL
Default

Originally Posted by cheech
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.
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?
hogie roll is offline  
Reply
Old 01-12-2023 | 03:07 PM
  #7  
SB
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,068
Likes: 3,668
From: On A Dirt Floor
Default

All that work, dual plane on a 700cid experiment, and no dyno. Seems odd.
SB is offline  
Reply
Old 01-12-2023 | 04:15 PM
  #8  
Registered
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,064
Likes: 1,172
From: Murrayville Georgia
Default

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
compedgemarine is offline  
Reply
Old 01-12-2023 | 04:40 PM
  #9  
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,854
Likes: 786
From: St. Pete Beach, FL
Default

Originally Posted by SB
All that work, dual plane on a 700cid experiment, and no dyno. Seems odd.
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.
hogie roll is offline  
Reply
Old 01-12-2023 | 04:49 PM
  #10  
SB
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,068
Likes: 3,668
From: On A Dirt Floor
Default

Originally Posted by hogie roll
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.

Last edited by SB; 01-12-2023 at 04:56 PM.
SB is offline  
Reply


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.