[slowbird]

Originally Posted by i82much

The only cams allowed for discussion in the street section are the 041 and Old Faithful. Moderator - please lock this thread.

Lol!!

But the OF cam might work pretty darn good in this case

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Brian,
This is not an engine simulation package so things look cfm and port volume are calculated outputs. I will look at the calculation for port volume as the calculated volume is a little low. The listed duration for a solid and hyd are at different lifter raise.

Stan

This is with the different valve sizes.

T M C -- David Vizard's -- Torque Master Cams
Pontiac Hydraulic Roller Lifter Cam and Engine Component Selector

Bore = 4.155
Stroke = 4.25
Cubic Inches = 461
Rod Center to Center Length = 6.7
Intake Valve Diameter = 2.25
Exhaust Valve Diameter = 1.74
Compression Ratio = 11.0
Peak Power RPM = 6750
Peak HP Piston Speed = 4781
Intake Rocker Arm Ratio = 1.65
Exhaust Rocker Arm Ratio = 1.65
Single or Dual Pattern = 1
LCA = 109
0.006 Duration Intake = 296
0.006 Duration Exhaust = 300
Overlap @ 0.006 = 80.0
Advance = 3.5
Intake Centerline = 105.5
Recommended Minimum Intake Valve Lift = 0.765
Recommended Minimum Exhaust Valve Lift = 0.742
Vacuum at Idle = 11.3
Dynamic Compression Ratio = 8.2
Cranking Cylinder Pressure - PSI = 211
Estimated Torque Potential Lbs-Ft = 663
Estimated Power Potential HP = 763
Required Minimum CFM Head Port Flow = 365
Target Intake Port cc's = 254

The only issues i see (and maybe they're not issues) is the runner cc is based on what? Are you entering in the port length? Not sure what it's based on.
The other is duration at .006 or .020 just doesn't give much info. Two cams can have the same .006 duration but be wildly different. If .006/.020 and .050 was giving it would be more useful imo (adding .200 duration would be even better).
Thanks for sharing

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

There are some LS engines with less than 461 ci which have heads that flow that much, puny cams. And they are no dogs, very efficient.

Your engine, do you have a flow sheet for the heads you are using you can post. How can you ask people to cam it if you are just giving out max cfm ? If it takes .900 lift to get your 370cfm who cares, means nothing.
Need to have the complete flow sheet to find out where it falls off. Where its done at. Keep it in its happy place then shift.

I can attest to that as I used to run a bunch of LS engines. Speaking of old iron, I run a 461 (BBC) with AFR 305cc intake runner heads. They flow 370 cfm at peak lift, and hover in the 330-350 range at mid lift numbers. These intake runners are still much bigger than the wide port Edelbrocks in question (Butler reports these as having about 275cc intake runners). So technically, in my case, in theory, the port velocity should be absolutely horrendous and have terrible part throttle drivability on my little 461 compared to a Pontiac with wide ports.
I can tell you that's absolutely not the case at all. Cracks me up when Pontiac people think even out of the box Edelbrock runner size is too big, lol.
Everyone back in the day when I bought those heads (nearly 20 years ago) told me they were way too big for my engine. I bought them anyway knowing I was going to build something bigger in the future. Here I am today still driving this combo.
I put a very small hydraulic roller 242/248 @ .050 cam in it with about .640 lift, on a 110 lsa. I installed it at 106. 10.2:1 compression. Runs 91 pump.
Makes just a smidge over 600hp and almost right at 600 tq. The throttle response is ridiculously quick, there is no lack of power anywhere in the curve. I drive it on the street 99% of the time, and it sees the track maybe once a year for fun. It's an excellent combo that can be daily driven easily, makes excellent vacuum at idle, works the power brakes, and MPG really isn't that bad either.

If it were more race than street I would have certainly put more cam in it and looked for bigger HP numbers. The heads will certainly support it. My plan now is to put these heads on the 509 with a little more cam, pump gas compression and make close to 700hp. Of course even today people say that's the biggest head they would recommend on a 509. I just laugh, that's utterly ridiculous.

In a nut shell, I prefer to build with an excellent head and then use a smallish cam rather than the other way around.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by i82much

The only cams allowed for discussion in the street section are the 041 and Old Faithful. Moderator - please lock this thread.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by slowbird

The only issues i see (and maybe they're not issues) is the runner cc is based on what? Are you entering in the port length? Not sure what it's based on.
The other is duration at .006 or .020 just doesn't give much info. Two cams can have the same .006 duration but be wildly different. If .006/.020 and .050 was giving it would be more useful imo (adding .200 duration would be even better).
Thanks for sharing

Brian
The program does include a database of cams. I just have not added all that should be there. This is the only one that somewhat fits. But it does need some big rocker arm ratios to meet the recommended valve lift.

Stan

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Brian
The program does include a database of cams. I just have not added all that should be there. This is the only one that somewhat fits. But it does need some big rocker arm ratios to meet the recommended valve lift.

Stan

Cool! But ya that's a serious ratio

[slowbird]

Maybe SD cams Road Paver with 1.8 rockers is the ticket?

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Lol no need for flow sheet, this is just for run as title says. Plus no one else has asked for one. And ive never used cfm to cam an engine before and think i've done pretty well.

Ok, it matters but whatever. "pretty well", not for the money you spent IMO.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

Ok, it matters but whatever. "pretty well", not for the money you spent IMO.

Why does it matter (again no one else in this thread has asked, maybe they should?)? Instead of just telling us how smart you are why not enlighten us? Educate us. Or is it top secret and you can't share this info?
Also just what happens when the port stalls and you run more lift? The heads on our 400 stall at .500 but we're running .600 lift. Would it be faster if we ran less lift? Leech's heads stalled/backed up also maybe he would've gone faster if he didn't run .950lift??
How much did i spend? Any na pump gas car faster? Im sure you'll open eyes with your amazing pump gas build (assuming you don't window it again).

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

I can attest to that as I used to run a bunch of LS engines. Speaking of old iron, I run a 461 (BBC) with AFR 305cc intake runner heads. They flow 370 cfm at peak lift, and hover in the 330-350 range at mid lift numbers. These intake runners are still much bigger than the wide port Edelbrocks in question (Butler reports these as having about 275cc intake runners). So technically, in my case, in theory, the port velocity should be absolutely horrendous and have terrible part throttle drivability on my little 461 compared to a Pontiac with wide ports.
I can tell you that's absolutely not the case at all. Cracks me up when Pontiac people think even out of the box Edelbrock runner size is too big, lol.
Everyone back in the day when I bought those heads (nearly 20 years ago) told me they were way too big for my engine. I bought them anyway knowing I was going to build something bigger in the future. Here I am today still driving this combo.
I put a very small hydraulic roller 242/248 @ .050 cam in it with about .640 lift, on a 110 lsa. I installed it at 106. 10.2:1 compression. Runs 91 pump.
Makes just a smidge over 600hp and almost right at 600 tq. The throttle response is ridiculously quick, there is no lack of power anywhere in the curve. I drive it on the street 99% of the time, and it sees the track maybe once a year for fun. It's an excellent combo that can be daily driven easily, makes excellent vacuum at idle, works the power brakes, and MPG really isn't that bad either.

If it were more race than street I would have certainly put more cam in it and looked for bigger HP numbers. The heads will certainly support it. My plan now is to put these heads on the 509 with a little more cam, pump gas compression and make close to 700hp. Of course even today people say that's the biggest head they would recommend on a 509. I just laugh, that's utterly ridiculous.

In a nut shell, I prefer to build with an excellent head and then use a smallish cam rather than the other way around.

Nice post, you get it. The LS is a fantastic engine with some similarities to our Pontiacs. We need to learn from them and use it where we can in our old engines.
Your BBC makes great power for a 242/ 248 cam. I do not know of any Pontiacs getting that (600-600) done with such small a cam.
Cam-ing a engine is about keeping the air accelerating so you can accelerate the car. And that does not mean max lift-max cfm.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Why does it matter (again no one else in this thread has asked, maybe they should?)? Instead of just telling us how smart you are why not enlighten us? Educate us. Or is it top secret and you can't share this info?
Also just what happens when the port stalls and you run more lift? The heads on our 400 stall at .500 but we're running .600 lift. Would it be faster if we ran less lift? Leech's heads stalled/backed up also maybe he would've gone faster if he didn't run .950lift??
How much did i spend? Any na pump gas car faster? Im sure you'll open eyes with your amazing pump gas build (assuming you don't window it again).

Lets not start any BS on this thread, keep it civil or you know what Stuart will do.
Not sure what Mikes engine has to do with this, it was 18 to freaking ONE. Changes things right ?
What I am saying, for the average guy who is building a engine like this do not ask the head to do what it does not do best. Need the flow sheet. We are not running crazy CR, crazy RPM and all that entails making it live there. And you need a intake that can keep up with the head or all is for nothing.
And yeah, you could have gotten 95% of your pump gas power with 60% the money spent on heads by runing Daves E heads and SS valves vs your High Ports and double Ti valves. Do not need the Ti valves unless turning high RPM so do not cam it to make power way up there. Get it done at a RPM most can afford. Its a LOT more $ to run more RPM to make a little more power.
This is the street section.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

I run a 461 (BBC) with AFR 305cc intake runner heads. They flow 370 cfm at peak lift, and hover in the 330-350 range at mid lift numbers. These intake runners are still much bigger than the wide port Edelbrocks in question (Butler reports these as having about 275cc intake runners). So technically, in my case, in theory, the port velocity should be absolutely horrendous and have terrible part throttle drivability on my little 461 compared to a Pontiac with wide ports.

Don't look at CC volume, BBC have longer ports.

The AFR 305 has a small throat, a min CSA of 2.993 sq. in. The mean CSA is just a bit larger, close to 3.
This said, For a 461 engine the AFR 265 will kill an AFR 305 on the dyno up to 5000 RPM. All things the same. Peak power not much different if correctly cam'd.
The AFR 290 is the beast I'd want to make BBC power up to 7000 RPM. minCSA 2.895 sq. in. An explosive head.

[Navy Horn 16]

I've got a similar setup, just a little lower CR...this is the cam I've got:

https://butlerperformance.com/i-3164...D3317%252F3318

BP/COMP Custom Cam- 3317-3318-HR112
(HR) (Std Firing Order/ Std Journals) 294/300, 242/248, .540/.563, 112 +4LS

No issues with brakes. The biggest problem I've got is overpowering my tires off the line.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

Your BBC makes great power for a 242/ 248 cam. I do not know of any Pontiacs getting that (600-600) done with such small a cam.

Already been done with a 242/248 HR 462 using 87 cc E-heads and a Performer RPM.... Many years ago

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

Lets not start any BS on this thread, keep it civil or you know what Stuart will do.
Not sure what Mikes engine has to do with this, it was 18 to freaking ONE. Changes things right ?
What I am saying, for the average guy who is building a engine like this do not ask the head to do what it does not do best. Need the flow sheet. We are not running crazy CR, crazy RPM and all that entails making it live there. And you need a intake that can keep up with the head or all is for nothing.
And yeah, you could have gotten 95% of your pump gas power with 60% the money spent on heads by runing Daves E heads and SS valves vs your High Ports and double Ti valves. Do not need the Ti valves unless turning high RPM so do not cam it to make power way up there. Get it done at a RPM most can afford. Its a LOT more $ to run more RPM to make a little more power.
This is the street section.

I never ran ti valves! Your so full of misinformation and fake news its just stupid now.
Please show me a 496-505 that has made 850+hp with wilcox heads and backed it up with track results. And DON'T say Gach!!
I have saw a text from wilcox where he says he had bench issues and never had a 400cfm port his bench was wrong.
Not even sure why you're posting in this thread, you have offered now useful info.

[johnta1]

Agree with the port volume comparison.
But I think the port length of the exhaust has a lot to do with this also?
(like 3.5" length for BBC to like 5.6" for Pontiac)
Also takes getting all that 'stuff' out to make power.


The port speed would help on discussion probably.

[Steve C.]

"Maybe SD cams Road Paver with 1.8 rockers is the ticket?"

Regarding that comment, Comp lobe 3123 would be a better fit on the intake side. More aggressive than the RP and closer to what Stan posted on the intake side.

3123
.006 300
.050 246
.200 169
.4000" lobe lift


.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by slowbird

I never ran ti valves! Your so full of misinformation and fake news its just stupid now.
Please show me a 496-505 that has made 850+hp with wilcox heads and backed it up with track results. And DON'T say Gach!!
I have saw a text from wilcox where he says he had bench issues and never had a 400cfm port his bench was wrong.
Not even sure why you're posting in this thread, you have offered now useful info.

I'll pay money to see a previously done Wilcox 400 cfm E-head.... It's easy to say you can do it...a lot harder to actually do it.

[pastry_chef]

Many years ago the other wideport fellow provided these flow numbers:

Intake:
.200=140.3 corrected cfm
.300=222.1
.400=285.4
.500=330.7
.600=340.4
.700=359.4
.750=360.6
Exhaust:
.200=114.4 corrected cfm
.300=168.4
.400=207.6
.500=240.6
.600=251.1
.700=255.7
.750=258.3

-----------------

I asked Dynomation 6 what it thought. Started with the Road Paver cam and 1.65 rockers. Asked it for best average power from 4500 to 6500.

Results for 1.65 rocker - .400 lobe HYDRAULIC ROLLER.
Average power is pretty much a wash for all of these.


259 / 264 @ .050
110 LSA - 111 IC
.006 valve duration 334 / 338
--------------------------------------------------
261 / 268 @ .050
112 LSA - 112 IC
.006 valve duration 336 / 342
----------------------------------------------------
261 / 264 @ .050
111 LSA - 112 IC
.006 valve duration 336 / 338
-------------------------------------------------------
259 / 268 @ .050
111 LSA - 111 IC
.006 valve duration 334 / 342
------------------------------------------------------
261 / 266 @ .050
111 LSA - 112 IC
.006 valve duration 336 / 340
-------------------------------------------------------
261 / 264 @ .050
112 LSA - 112 IC
.006 valve duration 336 / 338

[AG]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Why does it matter (again no one else in this thread has asked, maybe they should?)? Instead of just telling us how smart you are why not enlighten us? Educate us. Or is it top secret and you can't share this info?
Also just what happens when the port stalls and you run more lift? The heads on our 400 stall at .500 but we're running .600 lift. Would it be faster if we ran less lift? Leech's heads stalled/backed up also maybe he would've gone faster if he didn't run .950lift??
How much did i spend? Any na pump gas car faster? Im sure you'll open eyes with your amazing pump gas build (assuming you don't window it again).

What you are calling "stall" is when you have reached a choked flow situation, that is when the ratio of the downstream pressure to the upstream pressure is greater than or equal to 0.528. It is a condition when you have reached sonic velocity (mach 1) and the velocity will not increase any further. The mass flow rate on the other hand can increase if the upstream pressure increases, increase the density of the airflow.