Designing an engine-block coffee table for my construction documents class and I need to find detailed, dimensioned drawings or CAD files for a bare block Chevy 350. I've found some things so far but they all are for a fully dressed engine. One of the sites mentioned a "Chevy Power" book with very detailed drawings dimensioning out almost every bolt hole. If anyone knows about this/owns this or knows about another good resources that can get me this information, it would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks in advance,

Joe

Found this on V-8.com.

http://www.v-eight.com/tech_forum/download/file.php?id=144&mode=view

wow thats cool! hard to believe that the tolerances are so loose on everything.

^how can you tell that?

Designing an engine-block coffee table for my construction documents class and I need to find detailed, dimensioned drawings or CAD files for a bare block Chevy 350. I've found some things so far but they all are for a fully dressed engine. One of the sites mentioned a "Chevy Power" book with very detailed drawings dimensioning out almost every bolt hole. If anyone knows about this/owns this or knows about another good resources that can get me this information, it would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks in advance,

Joe

As I understand it - Chevy Power Books contain (amongst other things) engineering drawings of Chevy engine components - Found this: http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Product.jhtmlPRODID=1277&CATID=1274.html

And this:
http://www.gmtechbooks.com/power.html

^how can you tell that?

By the number places after the decimal.

For instance

4.0 would be 4" +/- .080

4.00 would be 4" +/- .040

4.000 would be 4" +/- .010

4.0000 would be 4" +/- .001

Oh. Haha yeah I'm a mech e but college curriculum never had us doing real drafting. During one of my internships I did some cad drawings of parts and had an in house shop where I was working, make the parts, and when they found out I had used 2 or 3 decimal places on dimensions that were not at all critical, the machinists were pissed they spent that much time holding everything to those tolerances.

Significant figures means somethin huh! Whoulda thought. Apparently I already forgot that

As I understand it - Chevy Power Books contain (amongst other things) engineering drawings of Chevy engine components - Found this: http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Product.jhtmlPRODID=1277&CATID=1274.html

And this:
http://www.gmtechbooks.com/power.html

Yeah, when the OP mentioned "Chevy Power" I thought I remembered seeing that in there. I think my book is the 1st or 2nd edition :crazy:
Gary

Oh. Haha yeah I'm a mech e but college curriculum never had us doing real drafting. During one of my internships I did some cad drawings of parts and had an in house shop where I was working, make the parts, and when they found out I had used 2 or 3 decimal places on dimensions that were not at all critical, the machinists were pissed they spent that much time holding everything to those tolerances.

Significant figures means somethin huh! Whoulda thought. Apparently I already forgot that


Lol

It happens where I work all the time. They release a new part with tight tolerances.

We cant make it to print.

After scrapping part after part, they decide to take a look at mating parts and see if the tight tolerance is really needed. most of the time the answer is no and the only reason that the tolerance was ever there in the 1st place is that it either just looked good on paper, or was an error.

wow thanks guys that's really helpful! I still need to find drawings looking straight down on top of the engine into the lifter valley and one looking straight up into the crankcase. Other than that i'm set. If anyone knows where i can find these, by all means speak up!


Thanks again,

Joe

Yeah, when the OP mentioned "Chevy Power" I thought I remembered seeing that in there. I think my book is the 1st or 2nd edition :crazy:
GaryHey, would your edition have drawings for the '69 & '70 the 3947041 (casting number) head? Or possibly the 3927186? I could really use a copy.

Hey, would your edition have drawings for the '69 & '70 the 3947041 (casting number) head? Or possibly the 3927186? I could really use a copy.

Well,
I dug out my book & it's a later edition than I thought. It seems now I lost (or loaned) my first one & replaced it. The one I have is a 5th edition (1984), it has the 492 (turbo head) & the 034 (bowtie head) but not the ones you need.
Gary

Significant figures means somethin huh! Whoulda thought. Apparently I already forgot that
ASME Y14.5M standard allows both inch and metric. If using inch you include the trailing zeros, so you can use significant digits to imply tolerance. With metric you must exclude trailing zeros so you can't use this technique.

Well,
I dug out my book & it's a later edition than I thought. It seems now I lost (or loaned) my first one & replaced it. The one I have is a 5th edition (1984), it has the 492 (turbo head) & the 034 (bowtie head) but not the ones you need.
Gary

Thanks for looking anyway...guess I need to find a pre-5th edition:bowtie: copy.

By the number places after the decimal.

For instance

4.0 would be 4" +/- .080

4.00 would be 4" +/- .040

4.000 would be 4" +/- .010

4.0000 would be 4" +/- .001

I am a machinist by trade and all of the prints we get from many
different shops( auto industry and food industry) have inch tolerances
like this.

fractions = +/- 1/16
x.x = +/- .030
x.xx = +/-.010
x.xxx = +/-.005
x.xxxx = +/-.0005

^ interesting.

Ive been doing what I do for 13 years and never known that there was a different way of reading a print. I was under the impression that everything made in the U.S. used the ANSI guidelines.

I use all the tolerances I posted every day, with the exception of the .0000 which is usually written out as +.001/-.001 (just an example)

I will post a couple of pics of a print in the morning to show you what im talking about. I wont be able to post a pic of the whole print, but I can zoom in and show you the areas I'm talking about.

I was under the impression that everything made in the U.S. used the ANSI guidelines.

ASME/ANSI Y14.5M is the national standard for dimensioning drawings. The latest is Y14.5M-2009, but the older ones are actually not obsolete. Most everyone still uses Y14.5M-1994 for new designs. I don't believe all the major CAD packages are compliant with '2009 yet. I'm pretty sure Pro/E is not.

http://catalog.asme.org/Codes/PrintBook/Y145M_1994_Dimensioning.cfm

Each driving dimension must have a tolerance associated with it. This can be right next to the dimension, or implied by an associated geometric tolerance, or special cases like stock size (sheet metal, e.g.)

The title block may contain default tolerances that depend on significant figures, but this only works if you are using inch. Either way, somewhere on the print you must be able to figure out the tolerance or else it doesn't conform to the standard.

If using metric, sheet tolerance using significant digits is not directly disallowed, but it doesn't work because you have to truncate trailing zeros. In that case one option for sheet tolerances is to base them on size of the dimension.

L <= 1 mm: ±0.03 mm
1mm < L <= 5 mm: ±0.1 mm
or whatever.

Federal Mogul uses this technique, for example. My company does too, but we're a small company.

^ interesting.

Ive been doing what I do for 13 years and never known that there was a different way of reading a print. I was under the impression that everything made in the U.S. used the ANSI guidelines.

I use all the tolerances I posted every day, with the exception of the .0000 which is usually written out as +.001/-.001 (just an example)

I will post a couple of pics of a print in the morning to show you what im talking about. I wont be able to post a pic of the whole print, but I can zoom in and show you the areas I'm talking about.


What field do you work in?
I found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance_(engineering) about half way down the page.
The same as what I usually see except the first one.
Note 3 explains the 1 dec. place difference.

The title block may contain default tolerances that depend on significant figures, but this only works if you are using inch.


^Thats exactly how our inch prints are laid out.

Our metric prints do have a default tolerance, +/- 1mm, but that is as far as it goes without a callout just like you were saying.

What field do you work in?



We build trenching/underground boring equipment.

This is what I look at every day. BTW it is ASME Y 14.5M-1994

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/soonerjay/TOL.jpg

Thats interesting. It must have some thing to do with the type of work
being done.:confused:
I have even made parts from prints that were drawn in 1956 and they
were the same as we use now.

My guess is the block prints here http://www.veight.com/tech_forum/download/file.php?id=144&mode=view would be toleranced like we do them.
+/-.040 on bolt and dowel locations wouldn't be good.

+/-.040 on bolt and dowel locations wouldn't be good.

you might get away with the bolt holes, but the dowel holes would pose a problem:eek: we generally hold +/- .001 diameter and anywhere from .001-.004 on position of dowels depending on the part.

The link in your post above did not work, but I would agree that there [I]has[I] to be some kind of difference in the default tolerances from my industry to yours. Thats why I was so shocked when I first saw the print which in my shop would be .040 on everything except the deck height, cam location, and bore diameter.

Thats interesting. It must have some thing to do with the type of work
being done.:confused:
I have even made parts from prints that were drawn in 1956 and they
were the same as we use now.

You've got to be right about it being based on type of work because I've been a automotive machinist for 30yrs and done a bunch of work [mainly honing and grinding stuff to extra close tolerences] and both seem to use the x.xxxx being =/- 0.0005 other than the Japanese who seem to put an extra 0 in everything [may have something to do with the conversion from metric to imperial with them wanting to show if itcould be rounded up] They seem to use up all the tolerance [and then some ] on some of there parts .
I did a Nissan 350z last year and in the manual there were 8 different main brg shells and a chart that looked like those distance between cities charts on the corner of a road map so that you could see what individual brg shells you needed to give you the right clearance , pretty easy to make the part when you don't have to worry about making any of the journals the same size