[Cliff R]

"Cliff, who's car is this ? Curious if your speaking about Ray Klemm's '69 Firebird recently featured in HPP Pavement Pounders. At that time he was struggling with 11.80 runs and using 110-octane fuel with his '68 #62 iron heads ported by Dave Bischop."

Steve, very POOR choice of words since you weren't there on the cars first outing, don't have all the information, and I haven't filled you in on the latest improvements with the car...we should talk more.

Basically, we did a cam/head swap, no other changes. We had no time or opportunity to do anything with the engine prior to the "shoot-out". It got a set of heads and a cam from Dave at SD Performance, and put the engine in the car and took it to the track. The engine was missing really bad under heavy load, which we didn't get corrected that day. Turned out to be a problem with the HEI distributor. Yes, we did keep it on race fuel since the engine wasn't running correctly, no sense trying to find out how octane sensitive it really is?

Jump ahead to this season. With the HEI fixed the car went 11.70's @ 117mph in the heat, with less than perfect traction. We went after the suspension and made some great improvments, but the engine makes a LOT of low end power and it's got a 4200rpm converter in it, so we still aren't quite there yet.

Next on the list is to play with pump fuel and timing/fuel curves to see what it likes. So we don't have anything really to report as of yet, other than the car runs 11.70's in hot/humid weather with so-so traction and little if any tuning other than suspension/tire pressure(s), launch technique.

"So let us know how that 11:1 iron head motor likes the 89 octane pump gas (when you get around to putting some pump gas in it and driving it "daily") and I will eat my words."

The only thing keeping me from driving it to St Louis today and outrunning your low compression set-up would or could be the "C" clip eliminators. It still might make it, had pretty good luck with the last set.

The car is a true daily driver otherwise. My workload and location just doesn't allow for a lot of street driving with the car, and it's just plain stupid to burn up $400 worth of DOT's going back and forth to po-dunk Mount Vernon Ohio. About all I'll see between here and there are a couple of Amish buggies!

I managed one local outing this year, may make it out once more, not sure? I do NOT have a spare set of mounted street radials, or I'd drive it quite a bit more than I do. Just because I choose not to drive the car many thousands of miles every year, doesn't mean it isn't 100 percent dead solid reliable on pump fuel.

The only real problem I have with this engine is that it runs too cool/cold for my liking. Even in the hottest weather, it takes a solid half hour to get up to temps, and I have to let it run in staging lanes 5-10 minutes before I make a run with it, if the outside temps fall below about 60 degrees.

Back to the original thread/question. I know for sure, you can run a solid 10 to 1 SCR on 89 octane pump gas with 6X-4 heads. We have the recipe for that, and the bearings in that engine were in mint shape when it was torn down for inspection after nearly 6 years of street/strip use. At that time, I live in Pittsburgh Pa, and drove the car several thousand miles each year, weekly car shows/cruises, and race it at least once, if not twice a week, weather permitting. I continued to run that engine for a couple more years with the 85cc KRE heads on it, and even swapped in a HR cam the last two years it was in service. It was happier with 93 octane with the HR camshaft, as it has shorter seat timing and slightly better cylinder filling abilities.....Cliff

[screamingchief]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

Interesting, I didn't see anyone yanking your chain, and didn't see you start a post with a big disclaimer before we had to read a page and a half of vague information barely even related to the original thread right to start with.

Page and a half of vague info,Ha,ha,ha,yeeeaaahhh right.

Go back and re-read my first post,and then go ahead and re-read your longer first post Cliff.

You started your first post off with a thinly veiled insult @ my expense,then you went off on a tangent about cams being the definitive answer to the CR situation (despite the fact that advice contradicts the reallity of your own combo),and then you went on about your experience,and then you went ahead and threw in a few more insults and useless anecdots,blah,blah,blah.

Now who was more on topic @ the begining of this thread???

All I talked about here at first was the CR problem/situation,and I stated my opinion on such,and absolutely nothing else.

No disclaimer was given,I simply stated a fact right off the bat,and it's clear now that I was 100% right about that,as the answer does depend largely on who you ask that question.

Originally Posted by Cliff R

Each time I've upgraded my engine combo, we've also increased the static compression ratio. We went from 9.98, to 10.48, to 10.99, and still use whatever octane fuel we feel like topping it off with. Each time we have been rewarded with smooth idle qualities, and no loss anyplace of off idle or low end power, even though we kicked the cams specs up some. (there is a hidden message in that statement for those who look close enough) It appears that the increased CR is complimented nicely by a few more degrees of camshaft, or visa versa, depending on how you are looking at it.

I've been waiting for this.

You wanna keep bringing cams into this topic...

You say this,but the truth is every single time you've upped the compression ratio some,you've also typically gone to cams with earlier and earlier intake closing events,often with less and less seat duration,and as a result of that you have also been taking some total overlap outta the combo,and then with the latest cam,adding just a tiny bit more of that back in.

Ask me,,,that's not "kicking the cam up some" at all...

It's more like knocking it back some.

The only thing that's been "kicked up" in your cams is just a tiny bit of .050" duration,some added lift,and thus as a result of both of those,some more .050" overlap.

Now I know exactly what is going on there,but by all means please feel free to explain to these good folks what is going on.

And then explain to them why that completely contradicts these statements from you:

Originally Posted by Cliff R

Anyhow, choose the cam carefully. Avoid lobes with short seat timing events, early intake valve closing points, and tight LSA's.

The best cam out there would be the no longer available Wolverine 5059 cam. A real RAIV cam, or Crower 60919 is a very good choice. I've seen a few other recent offerings that look good as well. Ace has a flat cam that's not too far off the old 5059 grind that looks pretty attractive, if you are looking at flat hydraulic grinds?

Hmmmm.

Honestly,I gotta wonder if your just not being completely honest with these people,or if you dont even grasp all this cam "stuff" yourself.

Again,in case some missed this: (added info in red)
An 041/RAIV style hydraulic is gonna close the intake @ like 81° ABDC.
(304°/316° ~ 231°/240° ~ 81° total OL ~ 113° LSA)
A cam like the SD ol' faithful is gonna close the intake @ like 72° ABDC.
(289°/306° ~ 236°/245° ~ 73° total OL ~ 112° LSA)
A cam like the Crower #60243 is gonna close the intake @ like 70° ABDC.
(284°/290° ~ 228°/235° ~ 63° total OL ~ 112° LSA)
And a cam like the XE274 is gonna close the intake @ like 63° ABDC.
(274°/286° ~ 230°/236° ~ 60° total OL ~ 110° LSA)

Now refresh the crowds memory,which of those cams are you running right now???

And was'nt your previous HR cam an XFI item from the Kauffman's?

IIRC that one closed the intake @ like 68° ABDC,and had like 280°/292° ~ 230°/242°,and like 64° total OL on a 112° LSA.

Please feel free to correct any of that if it's wrong.

Anyhow,your 10.48:1 and 10.99:1 combos were/are using aluminum KRE-D heads,so that would be a completely different situation,now is'nt it,and that info would mostly be "off topic" here if were talking about the OP's iron head combo.

So were down to what,that one iron head 455 engine right @ 10:1 with that #60919 cam.

Ahhhh,there you go,now you can go ahead and make your usual comment about the crows picking the corn outta the cow poop,as we cant call this thread complete till you say that.

But at least I aint misleading these good folks with conflicting information.

Bret P.

[screamingchief]

Now for the personal stuff.

Originally Posted by Cliff R

I think most folks have figured out by now that I do this for a living,

Oooohhhh,wow,really?

BTW,as a professional auto mechanic (kinda like yourself) of some 20 or so years (and overlap like 10 years or so before that in the automotive field),understand that just because I've been kinda broke for a while,and yeah maybe my own stuff is'nt running at this very second,that does'nt exactly mean that I've stopped working on cars completely,and it certainly does'nt mean that I've suddenly forgotten everything that I have learned in the previous 25-30 years either.

Honestly,having been in this business for a very long time,I understand that pretty much anyone who wants to can open up shop and call themselves a "pro",so dont think that deal impresses me too much.

I've said it a thousand times here,I'll say it again,you have absolutely no clue about me Cliff,nor do you have any idea about what I know,or what my past experience has taught me,you could'nt possibly know such,anything that you may know is almost certainly third/fourth hand at best,and likely the sources of said info did'nt have a clue either,as those on this forum that do know me,really dont know me all that well either,and they certainly dont know me well enough to presume to be qualified to judge the limits of my knowledge or experience either.

See,I dont go around these forums claiming to be the greatest thing since sliced bread,to me bragging about past accomplishments and such serves me absolutely no purpose,I'm not trying to "drum up" business (actually I turn away a lot of that),and I'm not trying to inflate my ego either,so I just dont waste my time with childish nonsense like that,but you continually insist on bringing that sorta crap up in some sorta lame attempt to discredit me or something of that sort,and it's utterly laughable to me,as I got no dog in that fight,and try as you may,you cant discredit someone who is'nt trying to take any credit in the first place.

And FYI it has'nt been 10 years since I've had a running car,,,so again your info is wrong...

That's what happens when you get your info thru second & third (or fourth) hand sources.

BTW,,,at least I own a car that has a roll bar,,,and it is legal to run quicker than an 11.50...

Now my two current cars were bought as rollers,so I knew good and well that it would be a while till they were both up & running,had both the engines together since before I got them,it's all the other crap that's holding them back right now,me,I'm in no major hurry,so I dont really see what the big deal is there anyways,and how is that even remotely relevant to this topic,is that gonna suddenly make me some sorta automotive super-genius simply to have a running hot-rod or something???

A lotta really smart automotive engine builders & machinist,head porters,common mechanics,etc.,etc. dont even own a single hot rod right now,are they all somehow to be considered idiots just because they dont meet your almost impossibly high standards to be taken seriously right at this very moment?

See,I'm just here for the casual car talk,just like 99.9% of the members here,so understand that I dont take any of this cr@p seriously at all,so go ahead and flame away all you want Cliff,it's only gonna hurt yourself likely,as I'm sure that it's not gonna hurt me even the slightest bit.

Honestly it's beyond me why guys like you even bother with such melodramas as this?

And just what difference is it to you what compression ratio anyone else chooses to run???

You easily could've stated your case here without all the added drama & constant insults Cliff.



Bret P.

[Cliff R]

No drama/insults required. You need to put disclaimers in your posts because you don't have actual street, dyno and track results from your own efforts to back them up. Makes it even worse when you start all that "black bird picking corn out of cow poop stuff". That's just a "smoke screen" to throw folks off the trail.

About I got out of all of that is that you might have a car that moves, and vaguely it has potential to run sub-11's, but no clarification as to whether it's at 10 to 1 compression on currently available pump fuel or not? I really like to know the last time you had it down the track, the engine/drivetrain/vehicles specs, and all the numbers from the timeslip(s)? At least if it was within the last 3 years, and you put pump gas in it, the results might actually mean something in relation to this particular thread?

I didn't read all the response anyhow, no time for it, but I would highly recomend at some point that you "connect the dots" with this stuff. You can spend countless hours digging up all sort of tech stuff to debate the issues, but can't find the time to finish any projects and see how these things actual work in the real world? Don't blame FUNDS, that's a bunch of horse-crap.

Some words of advice here.....Life is too short to sit around waiting for things to happen. I have 7 incomes last time I counted and working on another one. Retirement, disability, carb business, parts business, tree service, Chief Investigator for the Coroners Office, two book deals and a 3rd in the works. Unless some relative dumps a bunch of coin in your lap, which is NOT going to happen here, you've got to pick your ars up and go out and work hard for the things that you want.

You are starting to remind me of a guy who used to be on here that posted TONS of neat stuff, all based on theory, Google searches, and the accomplishments of others. They kicked him off (and I agree with their decision) at some point for going "against the grain" too often.

Anyhow, read and remember this, we are defined by our actions, not our words.

I go out there and do this stuff, every single day, we don't get too comfortable at any level, and continue to try to improve the product(s). The only way this happens is by getting off the sofa and getting dirty. Countless long hours and hard work, not sitting around wishing I had the funds, time, ambition, etc.

In closing, your cam eval stuff is HIGHLY flawed, but I don't have time to put on a class about it, as it would take many pages. Like so many others, you look at camshaft events in terms of numbers on a piece of paper, fixed distances, measurements, etc. Start thinking "dyanamic", and in real time, milliseconds, etc. Some food for thought here: For example, why does a rocker arm ratio change have the engine respond like you just made a cam change? Did the precise moments the events started and stopped change? Or is it something else?.......Cliff

[PONTIAC DUDE]

I have found in my experiences tied to track results that higher compression and then having to go to longer LSA to kill the compression/bleedoff has resulted in lower ET's at the track.

Just from my experience.

I would rather run less compression and the slightly tighter LSAnad more cam profile, then up compression with a wider LSA. Dyno numbers will look better but track ET's won't show it. Been there and done that. And not knowing what is in the pump from Summer to winter. Better safe then sorry. Make up compression hp loss elsewhere. There is a point of too low an LSA for the bore/stroke and rod ratio deals too. And we aren't talking aftermarket super high flowing heads in this post. Just basic Pontiac iron head technology. Peak HP doesn't win races.

[screamingchief]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

You need to put disclaimers in your posts because you don't have actual street, dyno and track results from your own efforts to back them up.

You know this how?

Hey folks,Cliff says your not allowed to contribute here unless you post in a manner that suits him,and you absolutely gotta have the proper "cred" to back that up,so ya'll can just pack it in and call it a day.

I'll post what I choose,and I dont answer to you.

Originally Posted by Cliff R

In closing, your cam eval stuff is HIGHLY flawed, but I don't have time to put on a class about it, as it would take many pages. Like so many others, you look at camshaft events in terms of numbers on a piece of paper, fixed distances, measurements, etc. Start thinking "dyanamic", and in real time, milliseconds, etc.

Ha,ha,yeah ok,sure whatever you say.

Your "pop quiz" below took me what,two minutes max to type out that answer.

No google search need either...

I'm not the one that has problems understanding that deal.

If my cam eval stuff is as highly flawed as you say,it should be simple as hell to shoot down,should'nt take hardly any time at all.

What are you now,the cam whisperer.

Hell,you just bought the last couple of HR cams your running from other outfits (KRE/SD),I guess after your solid flat tappet cam fiasco,that's probably for the best.

And you want me to believe I dont have a clue about cams.

Originally Posted by Cliff R

For example, why does a rocker arm ratio change have the engine respond like you just made a cam change? Did the precise moments the events started and stopped change?

Rocker ratio wont change the opening or closing points,only what happens between those two points.

A rocker arm cant change the physical shape of a cams lobe,it can only change what the valve sees of that lobe shape.

So adding rocker ratio will only change the valve timing further up the lobe (say .050",and .200" and so on).

That is much the same as what you have done with your cam choices as of late.

You've added lift and some .050" timing,and inturn some .200" timing,thus creating more "area" on the lobe,ie:it's that "milliseconds" thing your refering to,I just choose to call it the lobe area when I refer to such,those are just two ways of looking at the same exact thing.

That situation will also typically add overlap area at all those same points as well.

That's how almost all higher lift and/or roller cams work,it's not remotely complicated at all Cliff.

Like I said,I completely understand the dynamics here,so your not teaching me anything new,I've known this stuff for at least 20 years now.

See,if you cant add to the lobes seat numbers to get more flow thru the heads,you gotta add to it somewhere else to make up for that loss.

And the better the heads flow qualities at higher lifts,the more it'll typically respond to adding cam timing at higher lifts (.050"/.200"),as the valves are further off the seats,and thus they typically are flowing better.

You go ahead and live your life however you want to,and I'll live my life how I see fit.

I dont feel remotely compelled to justify my life choices to anyone,not here,not anywhere.

FWIW

Bret P.

[Steve C.]

Cliff, your right I haven't kept up with Ray's adventures except for tid bits on Bill's board. I had it in my mindset as a pump gas car. I knew he had improved on it's performance some. The note on race gas didn't register untill I again looked at the bio in HPP today for the discription on the heads in use. The compression ratio numbers listed down within the "Bottom End" specs was previously over looked. When at the strip I've added a bit of race gas mixed in for insurance even if it's able to run on 93 octane.

In repect to Ray's car, I've run a spool and 3.73 gears on the street with iron heads.... and sometimes needed, a tad bit of race gas mixed in, its still a street car.

[Cliff R]

More power to ya, your sarcasm doesn't downplay the FACT that you really don't have any experience with this stuff thru practical application (at least in the last decade or so). If it makes you feel better to find fault and critisize those that do, then more power to ya.

When you get done trying to kick me off the porch, help the guy out who started the thread by telling us in detail how your high compression iron headed 455 manages currently available pump fuel, a true "daily driver", runs nearly into the 10's in full street trim, has 13.5 vacuum at 750rpm's, and no louder than a stock 68 HO car?

Or you can just sit back and continue to find fault with those who are actually doing it, as you seem to be making a habit of today! See if you can find some more "corn" in that batch of cow poop? I'm getting bored and this thread is going no place....LOL....Cliff

PS: yep Steve, I had Ray put it back on mostly race gas till we get time to get to a test and tune session and work with it some more. It ran equally as well on pump gas, but we really had to throw a lot more of it at the engine, then lean it back up some on race gas. We also were running in the heat, worst time to try to find out the full potential of any combination when the air is pea-soup, and your at an event where you can't change anything due to only getting at most two time runs before eliminations.

On a sad note, just talked to Ray a few minutes ago, he had a BAD house fire this morning, no one hurt, other than he lost one of his cats, but the house is probably a total loss.

PSS: Ray's engine is about as "basic" as one can get, and it's a project under construction. Stock "N" crank, stock cast iron rods, TRW forged pistons, zero deck height, ported #62's and a HR camshaft from Dave at SD Performance. An identical q-jet as I'm using feeds it thru a port matched/stock otherwise RPM intake. He's loosing .2-.3 having a very restrictive 2.5" non mandrel bent head pipe set-up and poor flowing mufflers behind it. Next year it will have a 3" X pipe deal, and straight thru mufflers, etc.

[69Goat1]

This is good stuff

FWIW I do have a running car WITH a roll bar that allows me to run under 11.50 and I run on 91 octane pump gas and COULD run on 89 if I chose too. I finally lost oil pressure in my GOOD 9 second engine that I have been running the last 4 yrs most every weekend at some track somewhere and lots of cruise nights and such and put my LITTLE engine in that I had built for my black GTO to run back and forth to the parts store, to work, and just for driving around in general (I live 12 miles from any town and 1 1/2 mile of that is dirt). ON 91 OCTANE PUMP GAS I ran a 6.44 @ 107.73 the other night.

Cam Specs
Ultradyne
254/262 @ .050
Lobe Lift .3883 x 1.65 = .640 minus .026 lash for .614 lift.
LS is 110 degreed at 104
duration @ .020 is 287/295

87 CC E-heads, 462 CI.

Purrs like a kitten

Gonna take it back out of my Green Car and put it back in the Black GTO this winter after my 8-71 Blower engine is done...

I am a tight LS fan and absolutely loved an old Comp 290B-6 cam I had...

Here is a pic of my 87cc head 462 launching...



For Iron heads I would run 9.5 - 1 or less and a cam with 108-110 LS...

[Nicks67GTO]

Holy can of worms...

[screamingchief]

Sorry it turned out like that,but it's largely outta my hands to stop/prevent/avoid that sorta thing,as all I can do is react to another fellas actions here,I cant exactly predict when and where these things will flare up,as I'm not psychic either.

Sure I can stand up and take responsibility for my part in that deal,and I'm doing so right now,but understand that I was'nt the only player in all that nonsense.

Just know that I did'nt draw first blood here,I took the sucker-punch to the jaw,but I'm not about to stand around and let someone beat me senseless after that either.

Though I'm also not above appologizing for my part in trashing your thread either.

So sorry about the drama.

Bret P.

[troy_barker]

man I was going to post another thread about my combination but I am scared now!

[Cliff R]

I quoted my first response, and it ruffled enough feathers that we had to fill two pages up here with a bunch of mud-slinging.

"Some of us base our "opinions" on FACTS, by actually doing things, others on information they come up with reading stuff on Websites."

Once again, my "opinion", based on running a nearly identical engine combo as to what this thread is about, is that it is quite possible to effectively manage modern pump gas at 10 to 1 compression.

I didn't see any others doing exactly the same thing, but several others are making great power and running quite well with pump fuel, street and at the track.

Dude posted above that he prefers less compression and tighter LSA cams, and has done well with them. That comment is based on direct experience, so I consider it valid information.

Certainly more than one way to skin this cat.

We have also went further the other direction with very good results, moving the cam out to 114LSA. One engine in particular that we got involved with a few years ago was a pretty basic 455, KRE 85cc "D" ports, 230/236/114 HR cam. It made 502hp and 599tq! Nothing exotic about it anyplace, iron intake, Q-jet, MSD ready to run, etc.

We were able to "connect the dots" with that engine as we were also hired to install it. To be quite honest, it was one of the most "docile" engines I've worked with. Idled dead smooth with no lope. Even clear down to 500rpm's it was just starting to think about loping just a tad. Very smooth right off idle, and drove like a stock 455 in a 1974 Grandville. By far and above one of the biggest "sleeping giants" of an engine I've seen.

After some break-in time and an oil change, we went out for some full throttle runs. That engine was a BEAST! It pulled like a freight train in every gear, and never did quit pulling. You could short shift it, and the accelleration rate never changed, it had "locomotive" power clear across the load/speed range, very impressive.

Anyhow, when I started rounding things up for my new engine several years ago, we asked for 76cc chambers and used SD's 290cfm KRE heads. The target was 11 to 1.

We moved up from 10.48 to 1 with the last engine, and increased the cam lobes from .361" to .380", and added 6 degrees duration to the intake (.050"), and 3 degrees to the exhaust. The advertised specs went from around 282/287 to 292/308, both were 112LSA. It was a guess on my part to some extent on how well the larger cam would compliment the additional .5 worth of compression. The old engine ran fine on pump gas, but preferred 93 octane. Dot to Dot on the timing set the new cam was 109ICL, so I left it there, figuring slightly later intake closing could work for us as well.

We hit a home-run with that build, it manages pump gas just fine. I even ran 87 in it most of the summer, as my son was filling the fuel cans and failed to follow my instructions to get 89 octane. I didn't find this out till we were loading for Norwalk and I had him make a quick fuel run. When I specified 93 octane, not the 89 he'd been getting all summer, he says "I've been getting 87 octane, you never said to get 89 octane", etc, etc, same crap many parents put up with from their youngsters who spend more time with their face in a cell phone that paying attention to what you are saying to them!

Anyhow, after learning that news, I sort of smiled to myself as my 11 to 1 compression engine had been in service all summer on LOW octane 87, and gave no indications of not being happy with it.

Anyhow, I'd encourage folks to post their questions. There will always be differences of opinion, and some head butting going on. It's always the choice of the person reading the information to consider the source, validity of the information, and pick out what they see fit. You do have choices here, and I don't think anyone has figured this deal out completely. I've done quite well, and will continue to push the envelope, and put up the results as they come in.

The iron headed build is on hold for a while, late in the season and personal tragedy will side line the car for the rest of the year. We'll come out with it next season and do some test and tunes, in good air, to find out how well it works on corn fuel.....Cliff

[screamingchief]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

The iron headed build is on hold for a while, late in the season and personal tragedy will side line the car for the rest of the year.

So,you can understand that life often throws a big curve into a fellas plans.

BTDT,house got struck by lightning and caught fire,did'nt level the house completely,but it sure as hell took out my room (master BR),total loss there,lost all my personal stuff,and it was 5-6 mos. to repair all the damage before I could move back in.

BTW,that fire happened like two weeks after my father passed away.

And all that happened while I was still kinda recovering from major surgery as well.

That also was not too long after declaring bankruptcy,which was due to that same injury that forced the surgery.

Still dealing with the fallout of all that crap.

So consider yourself really lucky if things like that have'nt knocked you off track,but go ahead and just ask anyone that has had those sorta set-backs in life,ask them how that process often seriously re-arranges one's priorities.

Please excuse me if I dont feel remotely compelled to justify why my stuff is sitting idle,or why money is still kinda tight for me right now.

Yeah,sure you respect Pdude's comments,but not mine,OK fine by me,your entitled to your opinion,I'm cool with that I guess,no skin off my back.

Though understand that I too base my comments on my direct experiences as well,but you have chosen to completely ignore & dispute that fact here whenever it suits your whims,and you choose to do so simply because I dont feel the need to obsessively document any of that experience just to suit the oversight of others.

That's my right to choose to do such.

Others can decide for themselves if they wanna trust my input,they dont need you as some sorta defacto fact checker,is there something wrong with just letting folks judge for themselves if my input has any merit?

Regardless myself,along with all the other members of this forum,should be entitled to express our opinions & such freely,and to do so without the fear of being constantly insulted for doing so.

Face it Cliff,it's obvious that you must not like me much,nor my comments/input on this forum,so all this drama was really just a straight up personal attack on me.

Which is kinda odd because I thought there were rules against that sorta thing here...

I guess the rules dont apply to you though,they must just be for us common folk.

If I behaved the way you have here,I'd fully expect to get suspended and possbly banned for good,but because I'm obviously not the one starting these little tiffs,I guess it's kinda hard for the mods to throw the entire blame in my lap.

BTW,the SD old faithful cam cards I've seen show different advertised specs from those you quoted,my info says that cam is 289°/306° advertised.

I can post a pic of the cam card and all the rest of the related specs if you want.

In closing:
Now I already appologized to this guy for my part in this,so here's a novel idea,why dont you go ahead and appologize to him (and to the other members of this forum) for your part in all this,and then we all can walk away from this acting like men,instead of acting like a couples of kids fighting in the schoolyard.

I was hoping you would stop the mudslinging after my appology,guess I was wrong.

My only point here (from my very first post) is that I choose NOT to build high compression "street" engines.

I thought that was a simple enough concept to digest,guess I was wrong again.

Shame on me.

Bret P.

[Cliff R]

"Please excuse me if I dont feel remotely compelled to justify why my stuff is sitting idle,or why money is still kinda tight for me right now."


I am truely sorry life has thrown a curve ball at you, and contrary to what you may believe, I have no ill feelings toward anyone as a direct results of Forum discussions/debates, even if they involve some "mud-slinging". We still make our path in this life, and a positive attitude goes a LONG way to overcoming tragedy, and the other difficult times we encounter in life......Cliff

[Gach]

Originally Posted by Nicks67GTO

Holy can of worms...

LOL...yeah I know. Nick here's a one with a 400 CI that we own and ran.


1964 GTO Pump Gas

400 ci...with #96 iron heads..flow 260 cfm
Turbo 400 trans
HO-03 cam
10.50 compression
4.88 gear....might be to much for what you want
4500 stall converter

No problems with detonation what so ever.

Nothing special TRW pistons...SD Pontiac steel rods
..stock 400 3.75 stroke crank
balanced. 750 cfm Q-jet carb.

Ran 11.60-11.70's all day long.

Have done a couple of 455 for friends with pertty much the same
combintion...expect 3500 stall converter...4:10 gears. 9.50 compression.
Same cam HO-03 which was designed for pump gas and the right dynamic compression

The right cam and 9.30 or 9.50 compression is and easy pump gas 11.60-11.70
car all day long with no problems street driving in the heat as well. It's a no brainer
combo to built simple and cheap.

[Gach]

Nick...260cfm ported 6x-4 heads with 93cc...that's a good head...even better then
the #96 heads...which came on 400 GP motors.

You just need to pick the right cam...just keep the compression at 9.30 -9.50
with that 4.250 stroke. I wouldn't try and go for every ounce of compression, when you look at it this way...rule of thumb every one point in compression is worth 1 tenth or 20 hp. Easy 11 second street car.

[mechanic17]

I'd like to add that some of the friction here is due to plain old differing philosophical assumptions by the posters. When I ordered my KRE 290s from SD, they recommended a certain chamber size which, now that the engine is running, I'm convinced could have been smaller (they have me at 10.2 and I think 11-to-1 SCR would be fine. The motor was painstakingly planned and assembled over 2 years). I can't blame Dave--he doesn't know me and he has to assume I'm not real careful/knowledgeable to protect me from myself. Seems like the Edelbrock/OEM philosophy of making products "Fool-proof." You lose some optimal performance and gain some reliability.

Now, if I had Cliff's or David Vizard's knowledge of carbs/cams (these two favor different brands and very different build philosophies) and other kinds of tuning, I'd sure as hell run on the ragged edge on my quest for even more knowledge.

I may have misinterpreted a few phrases, but nowadays when I read the guys I mentioned I ASSUME they're giving advice and sharing experience--generously--to guys who are CAREFUL, not to hacks. And to be perfectly honest about my own limitations, as someone who is a non-pro and ocassionally pulls a boner, I keep myself real conservative and so I'll probably stick with 10.2 and relax about the power left on the table.

[Steve C.]

Good point....

"The motor was painstakingly planned and assembled over 2 years. I can't blame Dave--he doesn't know me and he has to assume I'm not real careful/knowledgeable to protect me from myself. Seems like the Edelbrock/OEM philosophy of making products "Fool-proof." You lose some optimal performance and gain some reliability."

This is exactly why Dave and other engine builders are often more conservative on pushing the static compression ratio. Not all of us are engine experts or do mechanics for a living. Years ago I communicated with Dave Bischop ( and others) about his views on running Edelbrock heads. Alum d-port chamber design wasn't in the picture. At the time I was putting together my first pump gas combo with Edelbrock heads. Based on his testing for the general street build and for the general customer he migrated towards 10.5 for the 72cc chamber and 10.25 for the 87cc chamber. Sure it can go higher.

Similar reason George Hanks as I stated wouldn't push it past 9.5 with iron heads for hard, all weather street driving, including stop-and-go traffic. Never know what the tune-up is going to be for John Doe.

[azbirds]

FWIW I drive 42 miles every day with my 68 400 Bird. Does anyone here do this in 115 degree weather? I lower the comp on my cars or they will not last long. By the way, I keep finding 93 octane mentioned but the best we have is 91. I'm running the Performer heads with 10.1 compression, Comp XR276HR with 1.65 rockers. In the winter 87 octane works, but if I don't go to 91 in the summer this thing pings. I would like to see one of these high compression engines last, the way I drive them, under my hood for one summer in Phoenix. I tend to agree with SC, P -Dude, and Tom S on this one.