Yes - I should have taken a photo, but I bolted the ally plate to the damper using the three ³/8 pulley holes and ran a large bolt down the centre to press on the (loosened) damper mounting bolt. Came off very easily.It's not a good idea to pull on the OD of the damper if you plan on reusing it. You should pull on the pully mount holes !!!!!
EddyJust a suggestion
Before you head down the track of overhauling your heads, price a complete set of new ones in cast or alloy depending on your preference.
Sometimes by the time you have machined the seats, machined the heads for new guides and replaced valves and spring etc, then new heads can be cheaper and they flow better right out of the box
Yes, there is/are heaps of options out there now for 289-302-351w. One Ive got a guy interested in at moment is a 351w, but with 6.58'' rods , 1,18" pin height pistons from the 331 stroker and the 351 crank. ( 272 Y-block se bush's push straight in for floated pin, all done. Interesting thing is his current engine is a plain jane 351w with the 6.03" rods from a 302 Aussie Cleveland as we have discussed before. He had it on a rolling Dyno locally & the Dyno operater asked how big it was, told him 351 and got into a bit of an argument, Dyno guy reckoned it was strongest 351w had ever had on board and that included all the 400 plus strokers he had seen.JacMac rather than using 289 rods, aftermarket 400 Chev rods (5.565") are the go with 3.25" SBF stroker pistons (1.175) (also KB 276 Hypereutectic ) with .927 pin
A bit of mucking around to make the big ends work with two choices available
First option narrow the big end of the rod and use Chev V6 bearing (crank ground to Chev Diameter)
Second option is resize the Chev big end to SBF bearing dimension.
Base issue is the Chev rod is too wide
Another option is to use 5.4' rods with a 1.3" pin height pistons. I think the piston to use is one of the 351 Stroker pistons
I should add...of course I'm going to remove / check crank and have it ground & replace all bearings. Just out of academic interest I thought I'd see how worn-out it is beforehand.Didn't have much time at the weekend for the workshop, but I did get a dial gauge on the crank...
and measured 0.30mm (about 0.011") end-float, which seems encouraging for a 50-year-old engine.
To put it somewhat bluntly, If your machine shop seems unwilling to think along those terms and wants to take the stroker route instead you need another machine shop, what Kevin & I have suggested is not 'new', Ford-Shelby et all were thinking along these lines 50 years ago, the ~380 horse engines back then were using 289 & 302 cranks with 5.315 rods ( these are still available from scat etc ) Yes they or Gurney ventured down the stroker route, but the GT40 results tend to show more DNF's with those experiments. We are spoilt for choice now . Mike Huddart is/was in the UK somewhere, seemed to know his way around SBF stuff, must be others. Ive built a few strokers, only one I feel comfortable is the 3.25" version, the longer 3.4" one is more suited to drag racers etc. Short duration running.I should add...of course I'm going to remove / check crank and have it ground & replace all bearings. Just out of academic interest I thought I'd see how worn-out it is beforehand.