Original Posted By: "dpaul"
Ron wrote (a while back)->Oscar, Correct me if I'm wrong>there should virtually be no difference between the 95 block>and the 110 block.I hope that the post that followed yours that day cleared up the issue. I reserve the right to be wrong occasionally, and I used one of those rights after I posted a wrong ;op>It's my understanding that the difference in horsepower comes from the cam>and carbs and both of these are replaced during the conversion.And the heads. But your point was that a 95 HP should make a dandy core, and you're right... provided you don't have the wrong heads. Right? There is a picture of the chambers of the heads that you want, on Mark Langford's valve job page at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/valvejob.html for example. If your 95 HP has heads with that chamber configuration, you're doing great. If not, you just need the right heads... everything else is good to go. The retarded cam gear can be replaced with the proper timed gear when you get your new/rebuilt cam (if your cam gear is retarded). Shoot, I've thrown in everything I can think of that might be wrong, confusing, or contentious here- but the bottom line is that a 95 HP should make a perfectly good starting engine.>There may be some minor variations in the combustion chamber design>but nothing to alter the final horsepower output.I believe the combustion chamber design ("open" as opposed to "squish") and the smog controls were what resulted in the factory rating of 95 HP instead of the 110 HP that the non-smoggers were enjoying. But I reserve the right to be wrong again!>I don't see where relieving the case is an issue.You're correct. The cases should be identical; factory-relieved to clear the 8409 crank throws and the increased stroke.>Are you confusing the 95 hp engine with the 80/102/150 hp engines,>or did I miss something?Yes, I'm confusing them and no, you're not missing anything. I mean no, I'm not confused- you're right and missing nothing. I'm not confused about your being right nor missing anything. I'm not confused... this is New Year's Eve 2003, the third year of the 21st century... or is it really only the 2nd year since the century ends on the even-numbered year? I'm confused... but I may be wrong, too. Pass me some more champagne to help with all this *hic* confusion and let's all get ready to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Pietenpol in 2004! Here's to a grand old design; may she fly on into the 22nd century!!!Oscar ZunigaSan Antonio, TXmailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.comwebsite at http://www.flysquirrel.netMake your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.ar ... __________