MonteCarloSS.com
MonteCarloSS.com

CELEBRATING 20 YEARS!

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 20 of 22 1 2 18 19 20 21 22
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 2
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 2
The dished 16cc piston is a bit of a compromise because as Brent said he's considering the possibility of moving to a different set of 64cc heads at a later date. Running this particular piston puts the compression a little on the high side with the small chamber heads and a little on the low side of what I'd consider "optimal" with a set of 64cc heads.  However, the differences between the two compression ratios and “optimal” is minimal when using 93-octane gas.

Yep, Bob, I understand your concern about the oil rings on the long stroke, long rod combos.  I had serious reservations at one time myself and did my best to stay away from support rails when possible until relatively recently.  In fact the 406 engine before last I built for my SS used 5.7 rods due in part to my apprehension on using support rails and to get a thick top and second ring land for the amount of nitrous I planned on using.

I’ve seen comments from well-known engine builders that have said they’ve had no issues regarding support rails – as long as they’re the right ones (you have to check to make sure they put the right rails in the right box). Also, the last few engines I’ve built used rail supports and no one has reported any oil consumption issues.  So, I suspect that if you’re seeing a little higher than normal oil consumption that it probably has little if anything to do with the support rails.

Now, I’ve always been partial to the Napier second rings for their improved oil control over other type second rings (whether using support rails or not). They are a required build criteria for me as opposed to using a different type 2nd ring, so that may be a factor as nothing I've built ever had any oil control issues.

The two ring sets I recommended to Brent both utilize a barrel faced Moly top ring and a Napier second ring.  I’ve used the same series Mahle rings in builds before, but the other set, Hasting rings, look to be better on paper.  I’ve never used Hasting rings, but from what I understand they supply rings to Wiseco and JE for them to put in their boxes. So I asked Brent to consult with his machinist (who is a well known engine builder in his area) to see if he had used and could recommend the Hasting rings over the Mahle.

Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,750
Likes: 4
M
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,750
Likes: 4
Never gave the 2.00" verses 2.100" crank journal a thought, but a good idea. That would reduced clearancing .050" on each side of the block. There was only one crank available at 4" back in the day, Eagle. at 2.1" Clearancing for that swing is one of the reasons i have a Dart block. Even then one or two of the oil pan bolt holes are very close to the clearancing.
As with any longer stroke SBC rod to cam clearance also becomes a problem. The base circle of the cam usually is effected. With the 2.00" and 3.875 stroke what base circle are you stuck with? The cam from the 305 is that base circle reduced? My 4" stroke requires a toothpick cam, .850" base, good thing it's billet. Had a hard time getting a cam ground that small, only Comp would do it.

So you will be sacrificing quench for compression with the 56 heads?
Do you use this compression calculator or is there one better?
http://www.wallaceracing.com/cr_test2.php

Bob

Last edited by mmc427ss; 09/30/21 04:29 AM.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 2
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 2
Below is a chart from Comp Cams that show the differences in the standard/theoretical base circle based on differences in lift and the base circle if you request a small base circle. Now you can get them to cut just about anything on a .900 base circle, but these CompStar rods even in the 2.100 journals have a lot more clearance than most "stroker rods". This is especially so at the block (bottom of the rod bolt pad) - even more when going with the CompStar 2.000 journals.

Cam lobe for the 396 will be in the .360 range - one reason because it will keep the typical "small base circle" at 1.020, which should give ample clearance with the CompStar 2.000 rods
[Linked Image]

Here's the write up that contains the chart.
https://www.cpgnation.com/all-about-that-base-circle/

When I model an engine, the simulation calculates the static compression ratio, which uses the typical entry data. However, if I'm unable to use the simulation, I use the calculator at Diamond Racing. It gives more data and generates a little more precise ratio if you know the top ring land height - if not the Wallace calculator is just as good
https://diamondracing.net/p-10-compression-calculator.html

I know people can get excited over "squish". However, while I typically like to get it in the .040" - 045" range with steel rods and run as thin a gasket as possible, a .051" compressed gasket and anything under .060" will not be problematic - especially when naturally aspirated. Plus, I'd rather have a little too much than not enough - lol.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,550
M
MAP Offline
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
M
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,550
The only thing I wonder about regarding a small base circle stems from the fact that the cam is basically a cylindrical (+/-) torsional spring. Think of it as a lumpy sway bar that's driven at one end. The smaller the base circle diameter, the more compliant the spring, and the lower its fundamental torsional resonant frequency. Should this frequency enter the cam's rotational speed at or near top engine rpm, it could wreak havoc with valve events. Below this frequency, high torsional compliance would tend to manifest as a slight shortening of duration, especially for lobes near the back end of the block, farthest the cam gear. Ditto all this for the distributor, btw - in fact, timing jitter at high rpm may be a good sign that the cam is misbehaving.

One can always assume that Comp Cams wouldn't sell a cam with this kind of behavior, but from past experience with many hotrodding vendors, the vast majority of whom tend to be avid technicians rather than engineers, I wouldn't make that assumption. - HTH.

Last edited by MAP; 10/02/21 07:49 PM.
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,750
Likes: 4
M
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,750
Likes: 4
Unfortunately 15 years ago rods with offset big end, cranks with small rod journal and a 4" stroke into an engine design for a 3" stroke were not readily available. To get .050" rod to cam clearance that toothpick of a cam was required. An option would have been to use the tall deck Dart block but that need a lot of very specific parts to put it together. The price and complication of a tall deck 427 SBC made my second choice for a build an LS7 at that time. The crate price of a dry sump LS7 back then forced the building of an old school SBC 427" truck engine. Tons of low end torque and lower rpm limits. And you are right, the VERY small cam base circle was the scary part. Even a 383 with a large cam normally needs a very small base cam.

Fortunately due to a large cubic inch, 427, a mild cam could be used, only .570" and 240 at .050", E and I are different but close enough to those numbers. That cam falls on it's face at just shy of 6K and the engine never really need to buzz that high. Good for it, the cam.

Valve springs and retainer were changed out a few years to beehive and tool steel which reduced weight drastically. Springs are PSI LS1511 which are a good match for the cam and AFR heads.
Sure would be cool to put that engine's cam/valvetrain on a Smokey's "Smoketron", but that will never happen.

Believe me if, when, that cam comes out will be curious to see how it held up. Just over 25k on the build of not easy miles.
Bob

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 2
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 2
I ran a solid roller .940 base circle with 212lb seat pressure (565lb over the nose) in my last 406 for about 5 years of daily driver use and then an addition 5 years or so of weekend use. Ran 1.6 rockers with 0.640 net lift and I had over 200 grudge races with it shifting at 6800 rpm - many more test and tunes and lots of street play. I would go months before checking the lash and can't remember a single time when I HAD to make an adjustment. Built a number of engines with .900 cams just to be sure there would be no clearance problems and no one has had issues.

The late, great Joe Sherman said in one of his posts about .900 base circle cams - " I run 285 on the seat, and 810 open (at 875 lift on the intake) In five years, the springs have not lost any pressure- lash never changes , and we rev it 8500 twice on every run- NO PROBLEMS at all."

Now, I don't think anyone would argue best practice is to go with the largest base circle that will clear (that's what I did with my last and current build). However, if drag racers running big spring pressures and running high RPMs aren't having issues and based on my own experiences, I wouldn't sweat running something as small as Bob is when using hydraulic roller spring pressures.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,550
M
MAP Offline
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
M
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,550
Hi BadSS,

Great news! I didn't say a small base-circle cam would necessarily cause problems, but simply that it was more prone to do so than its larger-base-circle cousin.

All's well that ends well.

Best,
MAP

MAP #1072216 10/09/21 04:05 AM
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 2
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by MAP
Hi BadSS,

Great news! I didn't say a small base-circle cam would necessarily cause problems, but simply that it was more prone to do so than its larger-base-circle cousin.

All's well that ends well.

Best,
MAP


No, you brought up a valid point about the small base circle cam and I certainly do not disagree with any of the points you made. In this case, bigger is better - or at least the biggest you can run the better - lol

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,550
M
MAP Offline
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
M
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,550
Hi BadSS - Just thinking that a roller cam may behave very differently from flat-tappet cam. A roller side-loads the cam lobe (= exerts a disruptive torque) as the roller rides up and down the side ramps. A flat tappet only loads the cam as a function of changing friction. Somewhere I'm sure I've got a book (Blevins?) that I can look up to quickly calculate the torsional resonance... 8,500 rpm = 4,250 cam rpm, and with 16 lobes (17 counting the fuel pump lobe,) with 34 total side ramps, we are exciting the cam at roughly 1.3kHz. I need to see how close that is to torsional resonance.

BUT anyway before I go off the deep end - Brent, given BadSS's good experience, I see no cause for alarm, thankfully.

Last edited by MAP; 10/13/21 06:33 AM.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,914
15+ Year
Member
Offline
15+ Year
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,914
Originally Posted by MAP
A roller side-loads the cam lobe (= exerts a disruptive torque) as the roller rides up and down the side ramps. A flat tappet only loads the cam as a function of changing friction.


I'm sorry I don't agree with your assertion here. First a flat tappet rides up and down side ramps just like a roller does, if it doesn't it will trash the lifter. The difference is that the roller lifter uses only the roller to spin, where as the body of the flat tappet lifter rotates because of the offset convex surface ground into the lifter and angle of the lobe on the camshaft.

The force load on the cam is directly proportional to the weight of the valvetrain components and spring pressures and RPM... F=MA, but with a flat tappet amplifying frictional losses when spun by the crankshaft. Both have to act as lever and fulcrum is in the same spot. For a cam with the same ramp profile and valvetrain component weights, the forces exerted by the valvetrain are the same, but the torque to turn would be higher because of the higher friction flat tappet actuation resulting in higher torsional stress within the camshaft.


86 SS 6.2l LS3, Ilmor intake, Summit Stage 4 Cam, Stainless long tube headers, Stainless 3in exhaust, Tremec T-56 Magnum 6 speed, Eaton Truetrac 8.8 LSD, UMI Cornermax Front Suspension, 3-link Rear suspension w/ UMI Control Arms, UMI Front & Rear Braces, Brembo Brakes
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,550
M
MAP Offline
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
M
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,550
Hi Travis,

The physics you cite is incomplete and partially wrong. Please see my forum profile for my background.

The very short description I gave two posts back was even more incomplete - sorry about that, but I hit just the two very top points for the sake of brevity.

Pictures would help immensely here, and even better if the pictures could evolve in real-time along with a verbal explanation, but I don't do Youtube.

Bottom line is that some forces, and therefore some moments, are not the same. Do a FBD for the lobe with the roller and the flat tappet and compare. Don't forget to apply appropriate boundary conditions. Also, don't forget that for the same valve lift profile, the cam lobes for a roller and a flat tappet are completely different. The roller has steeper ramps and a rounder, broader nose; these alone would indicate different forcing functions acting on the cam, but the differences between the two cam types continue.
________________________

Brent, I take full responsibility for the rabbit trail here - I apologize - feel safe to ignore it and just go by BadSS's posts.

Best,
MAP


Last edited by MAP; 10/18/21 01:20 AM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Member
OP Online Content
Member
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Still on here everyday but due to heavy workload not had much spare time, when I do have time I try to squeeze an hour or 2 here and there working on the car. I pulled the plug on the new engine build for the time being, need to find another machinist and was having trouble getting pistons. Machinist pretty much retired on me but it is what it is, once I find another trustworthy machine shop I'll get back on it.

I wanted to pull the intake to take a look at a few things on the 305 when I did I noticed some fuel had gathered in the exhaust crossover passages. When porting the intake I ported off the rails that direct fuel away from the holes so the fuel was coming down sidewall. I already had the plugs in coming from the exhaust ports in the heads and I don't run an egr. If ever needed I can drill the holes back out with a 3/4" bit. While the intake was off I went from black to cast aluminum color, I'm doing a few things with the engine bay. Here's a few pictures of the intake, the holes were on both sides and i can say without a doubt that its not the cleanest cast aluminum but the weld turned out decent.

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

Last edited by 88ssBrent; 02/25/22 12:51 AM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Member
OP Online Content
Member
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Another project I have worked on recently is building a driveshaft loop for my car. I was able to come across all the materials for free so that's always a plus, just the cost of time and spray paint. Probably not the most sleek design but it works. Everything is 2" wide and 1/4" thick.
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Member
OP Online Content
Member
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
I'm also adding a gm serpentine using a sanden compressor and upgrading the ac system, here is the thread for that.

http://www.montecarloss.com/community/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1073272#Post1073272

Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Member
OP Online Content
Member
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Along with the up grades on the ac and serpentine one of the things I did this winter was add a 36mm front sway bar. Wasn't hard at all but luckily I had Bob to point me the right way on a few pieces, he also helped me out on getting me a bar. I ordered the 36mm bushings from Top Down solutions and drilled and tapped the original brackets for zerk fittings. I can definitely feel a difference with the new bar. Here is the link for the bushings. http://www.top-downsolutions.com/greasable-front-sway-bar-bushing-kit-for-1982-camaro-or-firebird Couple of pics to follow and one of many thanks I owe Bob for help on this.

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Member
OP Online Content
Member
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
As everyone knows I've yet to get my car on the dyno but with the new distributor and carb it's got me back to wanting to do it, the car is a whole new beast. I can honestly say that I felt the car was a little down on power but I always wrote it off as maybe a little disappointment with building the 305 but I still didn't regret it and I learned a lot. I spent a lot of time messing with the ccc but I feel something was missing but not sure what.

I'm not here too talk about the ccc/non ccc debate and all the things that go on with that conversation. The reason I switched is the same reason I like the small block, nostalgia. When I was 5 I watched my dad tune on a carb on a big red 70 something monte carlo and I always thought that was neat. If you go back too the first page a small block with a non ccc quadrajet its what I wanted too do. My car use at this point is a weekend cruiser, cruise ins, and occasional wot run on a back road. More on the carb and distributor later.

As mentioned above since I built the motor with technical assistance from Kevin (BadSS) I've wanted to know true dyno numbers. Between me and Kevin we have dug up a couple dyno pulls that give numbers. First is the numbers Kevin simulated for my build on engine analyzer program, as is already posted in this thread here is my build.


305 sbc v8
Ported & polished original intake
Trick flow 123 75 aluminum heads
9.8:1 compression
Duration @0.050" 210 int./218 exh.
Lift .560 int./ .555 exh.
113 Lsa
1.6 roller rockers
750 quadrajet

[Linked Image]


This was a stock tpi 305 vs modified carbed 305 with different intakes. This is the components.

Stock roller 305 short block
Trick Flow 123 75 aluminum heads
224/230 110 lsa
502/510 lift
650 holley xp
Two different intakes noted in graph

[Linked Image]


This is a 334 that a guy built over on thirdgen.org He was running it with a tpi in the car, california smog legal, but for dyno purposes he used a dual plane and a carb. Here is the specs and links to his build if anyone is curious.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/mem...-89-iroc-build.html#&gid=1&pid=4

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tech-general-engine/760863-dynoed-my-334-stroker.html


334
Trick Flow 123 75 heads
Crane 214-220 112
482/496 lift
1.6 rockers
Holley 750xp
Dual plane intake

[Linked Image]






Last edited by 88ssBrent; 04/27/22 03:52 PM.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,270
10+ Year
Member
Online Content
10+ Year
Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,270
For the record, I think most of the "opposition" to ditching the CCC system is geared towards the folks who think that they can throw a holley on it over the weekend and it will gain 30 hp and get rid of the sluggishness that they have now that they haven't bothered to figure out. They will be less happy with the result than they would just paying a few bucks to tune up the stock system and letting it do what it was designed to do. For someone who has the ability to plan, diagnose, modify, and tune, putting aftermarket non-CCC stuff will easily be subjectively better, and I think everyone would agree that you are the kind of guy to do the conversion well.

I think it's one of those things things where the folks who are asking are the folks who shouldn't do it. The guys who can make it work better on their car are aware enough to not ask if anything needs to be done with the distributor, and know that some tuning time will be required to get it right etc. I see it pretty similar to building a harness for an LS swap, which gets a fair amount of argument in general. You can do it yourself for a lot less money than buying one, or you can pay more and have it done. And if you have to ask too many questions, you should buy one. If you can take a wiring diagram, a pair of snippers, and a roll of tape (and a few beers) and do it, you will be happier with your own results.


Shawn

'85 MC with budget 5.3L swap, TH350 with stock 2.14 rear end
It ain't much off the line, but it's nice on the highway
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,750
Likes: 4
M
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,750
Likes: 4
Is there a reputable chassis dyno near you? I say reputable because that is a hard thing to find these days. Fifteen years ago the guy i went to wouldn't touch the engine because it was a carb, Qjet, only did FI cars. Not really a problem as I had all my tools and gauges with me and did the tune myself. managed to get 9 pulls and a tune base.
Several years ago took my friends 67 F to a different dyno guy and same thing, clueless on that old school SBC with a Qjet. Again i did the tune, the dyno owner just pushed a couple buttons. Never really got that engine dialed in as the dyno was having a hard tome giving accurate rpm.
Oh, both of those guys were Ford (Mustang) guys, we should have known better.

Before driving onto a dyno be aware of the guy running the dyno and be sure to know what you are getting before he hooks it up. Your first time on a dyno is a learning experience, second time you are a lot more in control of the results. Preparation and a plan for changing a tune is important as allotted time you get for the money goes pretty fast.The short list is timing and sec tuning usually all that can be done easily and quickly.
Bob

Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Member
OP Online Content
Member
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Shawn, I just put that in the above post in hopes of not having to go through the wringer of the ccc/non ccc debate. I agree that lots of people go non ccc with just hopes of curing problems and that's not the answer. Thank you for the compliments.

Bob, Two chassis dynos within 30 minutes and when I talked to both in the past the tuning would be on me. Not sure that I will ever get to the dyno but my goal for the 305 was 350 h.p. at the crank. I think it's a little over that and Kevin has his thoughts on it too. I hate to spend the money to dyno but I need too know. Lol.

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 960
A
10+ Year
Member
Offline
10+ Year
Member
A
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 960
Brent... "but I need to know...."
I feel your pain - Hahaha!
Gordon


1987 Aerocoupe. Frame-off, notched/mini-tub, 383 with AFRs @ 535HP/487TQ, March Serpentine, 304 SS headers (Jet-Hot) & 304 3" dual exhaust w/ Borlas, Janis 200-4R, TrueTrac w/ girdle and Moser 28, Hydroboost, computer delete, lowered, every part replaced or messed with (several times).
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Member
OP Online Content
Member
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Pictured is the carb and distributor I went with. The carb already has some history on this forum. It's a Bob (mmc427ss) built carb that he tweaked around on for Lance to use for a little while, I'm pretty sure when I got it that it was in the same form as when last used on Lance's 383. Carb number is 17057204, it's original home was on a 77 corvette 350 with ac and automatic transmission. Bob helped me out on getting a good carb and helped me with his knowledge and tons of literature he's gathered over the years on tuning quadrajets. As with others on this forum I hope one day to repay Bob for all the help on numerous projects and thanks a million.

Bob helped me understand how the different parts worked and what I would see during tuning the carb and answered the phone when i had questions. Another great resource was Lars Grimslund, he is well know over on the corvette forum and does a lot of tuning on quadrajets, if you email him he will send you his tuning papers. Also has very informative papers on setting up distributors which I used, his email is v8fastcars@msn.com . He does ask that you not share or post his papers. Another resource I used was Cliff Ruggles, it's where I bought my tuning parts and picked his brain on where to start on primary rods and jets, he has lots of time on a dyno with different engine combos and quadrajets he was able to get me really close. I also referenced Doug Roe and Cliffs book.

Over the next day or so I'll dig into the details more.

[Linked Image]

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,143
Likes: 1
15+ Year
Member
Offline
15+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,143
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Hunter79764
For the record, I think most of the "opposition" to ditching the CCC system is geared towards the folks who think that they can throw a holley on it over the weekend and it will gain 30 hp and get rid of the sluggishness that they have now that they haven't bothered to figure out. They will be less happy with the result than they would just paying a few bucks to tune up the stock system and letting it do what it was designed to do. For someone who has the ability to plan, diagnose, modify, and tune, putting aftermarket non-CCC stuff will easily be subjectively better, and I think everyone would agree that you are the kind of guy to do the conversion well.

I think it's one of those things things where the folks who are asking are the folks who shouldn't do it. The guys who can make it work better on their car are aware enough to not ask if anything needs to be done with the distributor, and know that some tuning time will be required to get it right etc. I see it pretty similar to building a harness for an LS swap, which gets a fair amount of argument in general. You can do it yourself for a lot less money than buying one, or you can pay more and have it done. And if you have to ask too many questions, you should buy one. If you can take a wiring diagram, a pair of snippers, and a roll of tape (and a few beers) and do it, you will be happier with your own results.


Its not just the uneducated people who think slapping a Holley on a engine folk, its also for persons who think its impossible to achieve high performance with CCC. Lots of people have made high HP with CCC, but sadly this knowledge is becoming lost in time. Unlike pure mechanical carbs, E4MEs can change fuel ratios, 14.7 at idle and cruise and goes fuel rich during power mode at WOT. Plus the benefits of electronic non linear ignition advance which is half the advantage of EFI. Hot PROM chips like the ZZ4 chip Bitflipper sells can really hop up a Chevy CCC car. The biggest hurdle with CCC is obtaining and burning outdated PROM chips. They may be outdated but are still quite effective like everything else with G bodies. The only other real issues are the number of G bodies with hacked up wiring performed by uneducated POs and the learning curve to properly work on CCC systems. Not that its really all that difficult to learn, just that many don't want yo take the time to study a repair manual. They only want quick fixes and instant gratification, a growing issue in many areas of life.

Last edited by Buick Runner; 04/28/22 02:47 AM.

SBC powered 1987 Regal with TES headers, ZZ4 intake, ZZ4 PROM chip, mini starter, THM2004R, 2500 stall converter, 2040 cam, CCC system, and 3.73 posi rear.

2008 ex NPS P71 Crown Victoria, cop motor, cop shocks, cop brakes, and Jmod.

Never argue with an idiot.
They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Member
OP Online Content
Member
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 782
Likes: 1
Moved the non ccc quadrajet and distributor tuning discussion to its own thread.

http://www.montecarloss.com/community/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1073755#Post1073755

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 2
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by 88ssBrent
As mentioned above since I built the motor with technical assistance from Kevin (BadSS) I've wanted to know true dyno numbers. Between me and Kevin we have dug up a couple dyno pulls that give numbers. First is the numbers Kevin simulated for my build on engine analyzer program, as is already posted in this thread here is my build.

305 sbc v8
Ported & polished original intake
Trick flow 175cc aluminum heads
9.8:1 compression
Duration @0.050" 210 int./218 exh.
Lift .560 int./ .555 exh.
113 LSA
1.6 roller rockers
750 quadrajet

[Linked Image]

This was a stock tpi 305 vs modified carbed 305 with different intakes. This is the components.

Stock roller 305 short block
Trick Flow 175cc aluminum heads
Duration @0.050" 224/230 110 lsa
502/510 lift
110 LSA
650 holley xp
Two different intakes noted in graph

[Linked Image]



Yep, after seeing some dyno results of those TFS175 heads, I felt a lot more confident that the real results would match up closely to the estimated simulation. In fact, I had padded the results a little and now believe Brent could make closer to 370HP than 350HP.

Should be a fun ride for sure. Sounds like it's running like it should be running now!! I'd love to know what was going on with the CCC though - something had to be amiss to make that kind of difference.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,914
15+ Year
Member
Offline
15+ Year
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,914
Originally Posted by BadSS
Yep, after seeing some dyno results of those TFS175 heads, I felt a lot more confident that the real results would match up closely to the estimated simulation. In fact, I had padded the results a little and now believe Brent could make closer to 370HP than 350HP.

Should be a fun ride for sure. Sounds like it's running like it should be running now!! I'd love to know what was going on with the CCC though - something had to be amiss to make that kind of difference.


I think the 113 LSA its going to peak pretty high, the 170's should carry the RPM though.

I ran it through Dyno 2000 - 440hp out at 7500, 387 ft/lbs
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

Not sure if I believe this, but its fun to hope a little 305 can do it.


86 SS 6.2l LS3, Ilmor intake, Summit Stage 4 Cam, Stainless long tube headers, Stainless 3in exhaust, Tremec T-56 Magnum 6 speed, Eaton Truetrac 8.8 LSD, UMI Cornermax Front Suspension, 3-link Rear suspension w/ UMI Control Arms, UMI Front & Rear Braces, Brembo Brakes
Page 20 of 22 1 2 18 19 20 21 22

Link Copied to Clipboard
Help MonteCarloSS.com


Recent Contributors
86BlackSuperSport
Authorized Vendors
Tell them you saw it
on MonteCarloSS.com!


Dixie Monte Carlo Depot
Mikes Montes
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5