just want some reassurance on combo choices

were all glad to help, and as you read through most of the builds listed and discussed on this web site,
youll eventually see a strong trend, towards what I and many other knowledgeable engine builders have been forced over time into recognizing.
the trend is simply that only engines built for max long term durability and max torque in the useful rpm range are making any financial sense.
as Ive stated many times, you have to finish a race to win it! and your never going to build a client base ,
if the engines you build make killer power on a dyno but need rebuilding in a couple months time.
theres several threads on builds here on this web site, and a great deal of time and research is devoted to extended durability, cooling and lubrication ,
and carefully selecting components, and machine work done, designed for max strength, for the dollars spent!
I used to ask guys
"would you prefer to build an engine that if you keep it well tuned and change the oil regularly,
will most likely still be running in 10-12 years, without changing major components, or
would you rather have an additional 25-30 hp,and need a rebuild every 3-6 years,
but have a much better chance it won,t last half that time span....
especially in a muscle car driven on the street,
where either engine choice will destroy street tires effortlessly,
and get you a ticket effortlessly for speeding any time you get stupid?"
 
Last edited:
Christopher Williams said:
I have noticed that the custom cam guys are cutting way back on the exhaust lift. I have a Mike Jones cam the same way in a 496. The specs of that Smith cam are the same concept. I have also noticed Chris Straub is grinding this way also. What gives? Is it that the exhaust ports on these newer heads are more efficient? I really appreciate all you guys times and value your opinion. I have enjoyed reading through Rick's massive forum. Awesome photos and the level of attention and detail are immpecable. I have never been part of a discussion to this level and had as many respectful disagreements and encouraging dialog. It's a breathe of fresh air. Kudos to you all. I look forward to seeing some more graphs and responses. Thank you kindly for the time you have all taken, much appreciated.
Click to expand...
THE PISTON IS ALLWAYS CHASING THE EXHAUST VALVE.
They must figure few check P.T.V.O.C.
Or Piston to Valve Opening Clearances.
Also Radial clearances.

Going Safe Zone they are.
 
Grumpy said:
were all glad to help, and as you read through most of the builds listed and discussed on this web site,
youll eventually see a strong trend, towards what I and many other knowledgeable engine builders have been forced over time into recognizing.
the trend is simply that only engines built for max long term durability and max torque in the useful rpm range are making any financial sense.
as Ive stated many times, you have to finish a race to win it! and your never going to build a client base ,
if the engines you build make killer power on a dyno but need rebuilding in a couple months time.
theres several threads on builds here on this web site, and a great deal of time and research is devoted to extended durability, cooling and lubrication ,
and carefully selecting components, and machine work done, designed for max strength, for the dollars spent!
I used to ask guys
"would you prefer to build an engine that if you keep it well tuned and change the oil regularly,
will most likely still be running in 10-12 years, without changing major components, or
would you rather have an additional 25-30 hp,and need a rebuild every 3-6 years,
but have a much better chance it won,t last half that time span....
especially in a muscle car driven on the street,
where either engine choice will destroy street tires effortlessly,
and get you a ticket effortlessly for speeding any time you get stupid?"
Click to expand...
Agree 100% on those concepts. That's why I'm here educating from these awesome threads
 
Christopher Williams said: ↑
I have noticed that the custom cam guys are cutting way back on the exhaust lift. I have a Mike Jones cam the same way in a 496. The specs of that Smith cam are the same concept. I have also noticed Chris Straub is grinding this way also. What gives? Is it that the exhaust ports on these newer heads are more efficient? I really appreciate all you guys times and value your opinion. I have enjoyed reading through Rick's massive forum. Awesome photos and the level of attention and detail are impeccable. I have never been part of a discussion to this level and had as many respectful disagreements and encouraging dialog. It's a breathe of fresh air. Kudos to you all. I look forward to seeing some more graphs and responses. Thank you kindly for the time you have all taken, much appreciated.
Click to expand...

brians correct, exhaust gasses are physically forced out the exhaust port by both piston movement,
and if the cam timing and exhaust headers are properly matched exhaust scavenging on the cylinders,
plus the understanding of both exhaust port design and the physics of exhaust scavenging and cam timing that helps its efficiency,
have improved a great deal during the last 30 years,
exhaust gases used to be though of as something you needed to expel to make room for the following fresh intake charge,
now engineers understand that atmospheric pressure may fill a cylinder at lower rpms but inertial ram tuning,
and properly timed exhaust scavenging go a lot further to promote effective cylinder fill efficiency

volumetric.gif
pistonposition2a.jpg

exhaustpressure.jpg
compression.jpg

EXFLOWZ4.jpg
 
Last edited:
why would the air cleaner cfm not be selected to easily exceed the carb flow rate, by at least 35%-50%?
 
I generally install cams strait up, in that cam, install,
try 4 degrees retarded as the first location index
 
Looks Good John.
Except Grumpys Crane HR306 Prefers a Single plane intake.

My Isky 272/282 Prefers a Single plane intake too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top