Re: [Amc-list] AMC 304 Stroker build (some thoughts)

[Jim Blair <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

While the bore didn't change, the 4.0L pistons did in '97. So did the rings.

Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
Subject: Re: [Amc-list] AMC 304 Stroker build (some thoughts)
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <200802181613.m1IGDha25543@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 
" From: russ hathaway <russh97309@xxxxxxxxx>
" 
" Andrew; read the thing about the 290 with 242 slugs.
" What year 242 works best, any mods needed to the 290
" block and what size did it end up as......Russ 
 
i recall him saying 309, so that would be std bore 242s.  i don't
recall asking him if they were oem or aftermkt slugs or which brand,
or if i did he didn't know.  that aside, i'm under the impression all
242s are alike, though not all brands.  the block was sonic checked to
ensure adequate wall thickness [plenty] and other mods but none
related to the slugs.
 
+0.060" 242s would net 319 cubes on a 290 crank.
 
i wonder if you could use a 290 crank and narrowed 4.0 rods [6.125"]
in a 304 block?
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
 

_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://splatter.wps.com/pipermail/amc-list/attachments/20080218/b7e677f7/attachment.htm 
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list