[Dragncar]

OP is going to get what he gets.
Might not be what he wanted to get.

[Scubasteve95]

Ok I'm back with some real world data not the ramblings of the computer Einstein's like trollcar and the rest of the minion's here. you did get one thing right trollcar " i got what i was going to get not what i wanted".
i wanted some back and forth from guys who knew what they were talking about ,what i got was a bunch of ego tripping nonsense from most of you just wanting to tell some long drawn out story which most likely wasn't even yours
and how you know better then the 2 big pontiac guys, comp cams, motortrend and the people who designed the engine calcs all of which you people said couldn't be right for one dumb reason or another .motortrend was spot on with the artical they wrote you should read it .
there were a few people who were actually normal and had some questions.
YES the engine calcs are correct .
calc said 193 cranking PSI ( actual average was 195)
pump gas works just fine 93 octane . (was real happy about that)
motor runs great just like my engine guy and the rest said it would,1st to 2nd gear is smoother . she kicks like a mule up around 75 / 80 mph almost feels like a down shift it gets up and hauls.
so in conclusion all your BS corrections which most of them you should have known what i was saying but felt the need to put your 2cents there and all the parts i used you had issues with are just fine 2000 miles later and still going just like the old man said .
now that i told you the motors runs great gave you some info let your inflated egos tell me it wont work.! i never ask for your permission just what you thought of the compression and you went all out to tell me how this was overkill ( Chevy has been using 3/8 rods for decades) but I'm sure you know more then them too and how that wont last ETC. WRONG.
and 1 more thing the black strip is from a autocross i did placed 7 out of 13
with the motor you said wouldn't be fun to drive and have no power. Wrong
oh yeah 1 more thing no grown man should have as many post as you people ( thats right I said you people) get off this site and stop trolling these fine people trollcar hit this thread the second I posted it an was so eager to be the first kept posting in the wrong thread.. SMH.......have at it chuckle heads I'm going for a drive.

[Dragncar]

You mad bro ?
195 psi huh ?
I have to say, you gots me beat.
I was only able to pump 174 psi on my 11.5-1 461.
BTW, car looks nice.

[ta man]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

You mad bro ?
195 psi huh ?
I have to say, you gots me beat.
I was only able to pump 174 psi on my 11.5-1 461.
BTW, car looks nice.

My build is 190 and is fine.

[Jay S]

Thanks for the update. Glad it worked out like planned.

An aluminum headed 455 can often run 200-215 cranking compression on 93 octane (hot), depends on the cam though too.

Was 193 with the engine cold?

[chuckies76ta]

The word Condescending comes to mind. lol, But ya nice looking Firebird.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by ta man

My build is 190 and is fine.

I am sure it is, you know what you are doing.
My test was done before the engine was ever ran, could be a tad more now.
This guy talks down to the best Pontiac board on earth when some very accomplished folks were trying to help him.
Far more than myself. You had a engine builder I would take over both the big Pontiac shops. A fellow who daily drives his Pontiac and Chevy muscle cars like we did in the 80s. Very NICE cars BTW. A real RAV guru, who does not mind cast rods either. And the rest of us.
Same advice I give all newbie Pontiac guys. Good rods and better than TRW pistons. Oil system mods ect.
Hey, cast rods run just as good as billet, until they don't. I knew a guy who ran 10s with stock rods, TRWs and 48s. Until he blew a rod out so hard it dented his frame.
Just trying to avoid that.

[Gach]

Originally Posted by Jay S

Thanks for the update. Glad it worked out like planned.

An aluminum headed 455 can often run 200-215 cranking compression on 93 octane (hot), depends on the cam though too.

Was 193 with the engine cold?

Mine 210 across the board, on 93. Yep its definitely the cam.

[Gach]

Trollcar…oh my god I can’t stop laughing! Thats a good one. Someone just got a new name…LOL

[Gach]

And the funniest part is it went right over his head. Trollcar

[slowbird]

Nice build, nice car. Thanks for sharing

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by Gach

Trollcar…oh my god I can’t stop laughing! Thats a good one. Someone just got a new name…LOL

Good deal, I did not know you could stop coughing long enough for a good laugh. Careful though, you don,t want to chip a lung.
Its OK, I have been called worse by better.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Scubasteve95

Ok I'm back with some real world data not the ramblings of the computer Einstein's like trollcar and the rest of the minion's here. you did get one thing right trollcar " i got what i was going to get not what i wanted".
i wanted some back and forth from guys who knew what they were talking about ,what i got was a bunch of ego tripping nonsense from most of you just wanting to tell some long drawn out story which most likely wasn't even yours
and how you know better then the 2 big pontiac guys, comp cams, motortrend and the people who designed the engine calcs all of which you people said couldn't be right for one dumb reason or another .motortrend was spot on with the artical they wrote you should read it .
there were a few people who were actually normal and had some questions.
YES the engine calcs are correct .
calc said 193 cranking PSI ( actual average was 195)
pump gas works just fine 93 octane . (was real happy about that)
motor runs great just like my engine guy and the rest said it would,1st to 2nd gear is smoother . she kicks like a mule up around 75 / 80 mph almost feels like a down shift it gets up and hauls.
so in conclusion all your BS corrections which most of them you should have known what i was saying but felt the need to put your 2cents there and all the parts i used you had issues with are just fine 2000 miles later and still going just like the old man said .
now that i told you the motors runs great gave you some info let your inflated egos tell me it wont work.! i never ask for your permission just what you thought of the compression and you went all out to tell me how this was overkill ( Chevy has been using 3/8 rods for decades) but I'm sure you know more then them too and how that wont last ETC. WRONG.
and 1 more thing the black strip is from a autocross i did placed 7 out of 13
with the motor you said wouldn't be fun to drive and have no power. Wrong
oh yeah 1 more thing no grown man should have as many post as you people ( thats right I said you people) get off this site and stop trolling these fine people trollcar hit this thread the second I posted it an was so eager to be the first kept posting in the wrong thread.. SMH.......have at it chuckle heads I'm going for a drive.

What happened to the 91 octane in the 1st post?

So you have a 51-602-11 cam and 11.4:1 CR and cranking compression of 195 psi. At what ICL are you?

Stan

[Gach]

Takes a while for it to sink in, but eventually I knew you’d get it. LOL sure is a gorgeous car

[Gach]

Originally Posted by Scubasteve95

Ok I'm back with some real world data not the ramblings of the computer Einstein's like trollcar and the rest of the minion's here. you did get one thing right trollcar " i got what i was going to get not what i wanted".
i wanted some back and forth from guys who knew what they were talking about ,what i got was a bunch of ego tripping nonsense from most of you just wanting to tell some long drawn out story which most likely wasn't even yours
and how you know better then the 2 big pontiac guys, comp cams, motortrend and the people who designed the engine calcs all of which you people said couldn't be right for one dumb reason or another .motortrend was spot on with the artical they wrote you should read it .
there were a few people who were actually normal and had some questions.
YES the engine calcs are correct .
calc said 193 cranking PSI ( actual average was 195)
pump gas works just fine 93 octane . (was real happy about that)
motor runs great just like my engine guy and the rest said it would,1st to 2nd gear is smoother . she kicks like a mule up around 75 / 80 mph almost feels like a down shift it gets up and hauls.
so in conclusion all your BS corrections which most of them you should have known what i was saying but felt the need to put your 2cents there and all the parts i used you had issues with are just fine 2000 miles later and still going just like the old man said .
now that i told you the motors runs great gave you some info let your inflated egos tell me it wont work.! i never ask for your permission just what you thought of the compression and you went all out to tell me how this was overkill ( Chevy has been using 3/8 rods for decades) but I'm sure you know more then them too and how that wont last ETC. WRONG.
and 1 more thing the black strip is from a autocross i did placed 7 out of 13
with the motor you said wouldn't be fun to drive and have no power. Wrong
oh yeah 1 more thing no grown man should have as many post as you people ( thats right I said you people) get off this site and stop trolling these fine people trollcar hit this thread the second I posted it an was so eager to be the first kept posting in the wrong thread.. SMH.......have at it chuckle heads I'm going for a drive.

My take on running stock rods, most of the GTO’s and early Firebirds made probably 350 hp some advertising rated at 360-370 hp. But those motors were all done at 5000 rpms. So stock rods lived but of course when raise the horsepower there was trick things like shot peening the rods good or better rod bolts. One of the killers of cast rods was rising the rpm level. Once you started rising compression better flowing heads which of course would rise rpm level, Beyond what rods could handle then they couldn’t handle that. So yeah I ran them long before steel rods were available but always keep rpm level in the 5500 range. Its when you got into the 6200-6500 range they wouldn’t last. Just something to keep in mind. So a motor making 625 hp at 5500, would live with a stock rod. But its how often you go over that rpm, plus making sure there wasn’t any donation. Was the trick like missing a shift and having motor going to the moon. The combination of both of those factors is what kill them. Just something for you to keep in mind.

[Cliff R]

I'm really late to the party, been throwing sticks for the dogs and taking long walks with the grand kids.

The last 455 in the Ventura ran fine for 14 years on pump gas at 11.3 to 1 compression. Cranking pressure was right at 198-200 in all cylinders. Never heard it ping once even on 87 octane but it would occasionally "run-on" at shut-down if it were really hot outside and the engine was well heat soaked so I stuck with 92-93 octane in it.

The build was a 428 four bolt main block, light weight 455 crank, light weight "I" beam forged rods, ultra light weight JE SS pistons/pins and topped with KRE 74cc heads CNC ported by Dave at SD to 290cfm. I used his OF cam, the early version with 289/308 @ .006", 236/245 @ .050" on a 112LSA with the ICL at 109.5.

I'm probably just a fuzz nut better at tuning than the average guy so timing and fuel curves were spot on the money which probably helped a bit. I topped that engine with several different intake manifold and carburetor set-ups including the RPM at one point but didn't like the "cobbling" it required to get it all under the Shaker parts. Ended up with a 1971 HO intake CNC ported by Dave at SD. That outran the RPM and everything fit under the hood perfectly.

Best runs with that configuration were bottom 7's at 97mph in the 1/8th mile, in full street trim on DOT tires thru a full quiet exhaust system. Going WAY too quick for 1/4 mile testing without a roll bar so stayed on 1/8 mile tracks for the most part the last few years I raced the car before selling it.

The only issue I ever had with that engine was putting the ill fated PRW full roller stainless rockers in it. From day one they started grinding up the roller tips where the pins went thru them putting ZILLIONS of tiny particles of ground up metal into the assembly. I kept getting a teaspoon or so of metal "toothpaste" on the magnetic drain plug at every oil change but couldn't figure out where it was coming from. Good thing I was running Crower HIPPO solid roller lifters on the HR or it would have destroyed the engine before I figured it out. The PRW's were replaced with Crower Enduro rockers and good to go.

Somewhat off topic but IF you are using PRW stainless steel full roller rockers I'd keep a very close watch on them, 100 percent failure rate with them here as we had them in a couple other engines and they did exactly the same thing.

So for 14 years I flogged that engine really hard and never cracked a ring, busted out a ring land, or pounded any rod bearings down to the copper. It still had over 80psi oil pressure at start-up and 60psi over 1500rpms' fully warmed up and about 20-25 psi at 700 rpm's idle speed. So it withstood the test of time running pretty high compression on a steady diet of pump gas.....FWIW.....

[grivera]

Congrats on getting what you wanted.

Curious about the Comp Cams Evolution lifters - are they quiet? Any tickers.

Also, was engine dyno’d and if so what are results?

[Scubasteve95]

Damn, can't believe its been 3 months, time is going fast.
lets see where we left off.
fuel is 93 not 91, Dont know why I said that . not that it would have made a difference .
comp cams evolution lifters are super quite not a ticker in the bunch.
what else has been going on other then me diving the car with my kids and having a blast in it...She's a beast now!
4th gear feel like 3rd. I'm glad I didn't listen the the Naysayer's and kept the faith in my builder , KRE, Butler and the guys over at Motortrend
I didn't come on here looking for anyone's approval ,speculation or Non-Real world knowledge or to have the parts I have been using Critiqued,
just wanted to see what other people were using and a few did that, its sad It turned out to be the **** show it was in the beginning but the internet will be the internet .

[Cliff R]

I've been pushing the limits of high compression and pump gas for decades now, been successful with it, and still haven't found the limits.

What I have found is that squish distance and squish area are HUGE players in that game, and the camshaft MUST bleed off a lot of cylinder pressure plus "push" peak VE up high in the RPM range.

All that followed by very close control of timing/fuel curves and you are on your way to having a strong running high compression pump gas friendly street/strip engine. No big secrets with that sort of thing. Several others on here have done it for quite a few years now W/O issue.

Whether you asked for opinions or not you got them. As usually some of the input came from folks who aren't doing it, haven't done it, or really never plan on doing it. I'm pretty used to **** shows on here, folks getting all butt-hurt and panties all wadded up, etc. It's actually better now than it has been in recent years. The moderators chit canned some of the leading "competitors".

I wouldn't take all that happened to you and your thread too hard. Drama is always alive and well on any Forum you will belong to. Be glad you aren't on a chainsaw Forum asking if Stihl makes better chainsaws that Husqvarna or Echo, etc. Or even worse asking about Dodge vs Chevy vs Ford diesel trucks.

In any case I'm glad it worked out for you and not surprised it's doing OK.

[steve25]

Just for the record and not to russle any feathers, in terms of the comment in post 67 about cast rods running as good as aftermarket rods all you need to do is look at the weight difference.

In terms of the reciprocating weight a reduction in that has anywhere from 4 to 10 times the performance difference as that weight taken out of anywhere else on the car.

The improvement in the acceleration rate of a motor with even a 300 gram reduction in the motors rotating mass is substantial.