Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingchief
LOL,,,try asking Jay about his FAST car...
Those FAST cars run big compression,very carefully selected solid roller cams,max ported heads,intakes,and exhaust manifolds,max bore size blocks that are filled to strengthen the cylinder walls,light weight R/A's and stuff like aluminum rods and forged/billet stroker cranks,and the bulk of them use very sophosticated driveline hardware,including high stall converters and lots of different trans/rear gearing variations,often with non-stock low numerical first gear trans ratios with higher numerical rear gear ratios to allow them to hook on those skinny bias ply tires,and dont forget the "special" hidden fuel systems and hardware,or the "special" ignition systems,you name it,trick suspension hardware,the list goes on and on,they are anything but simple or basic cars,underneath all the subterfuge,they are state of the art drag cars,and nothing less.
They just look stock.
And they sure dont run them on 87 octane.
They are'nt anything close to being what you described here upfront.
And they aint cheap to build either.
So that's a really,really bad comparison in my book.
We understand for more than your giving us credit for,my '72 bird closely adheres to what you described in many ways,but I have'nt put the undue restrictions on that car as you gave us in the begining of this thread.
Sleepers come in all sorts & variations,the only real requirement to be a "sleeper" is that the car run quicker/faster than it looks like it would run,so they too can be worlds apart from what you said you were after.
Sorry,but what you described upfront was more akin to the "pure stock" drag cars.
Stock idle
87 octane a must
Stock 2.73 rear gearing
Stock stall converter
No obvious external give-aways
OE log manifolds
Strict 4500 max upper RPM limit
200,000 mile lifespan
Must maintain excellent gas mileage
Must I go on???
And you want a magic HR cam/valvespring package to turn it into a fire breather.
It just does'nt work that way.
The cam needs to match the rest of the hardware being used or the end results will suffer negatively as a result of the mismatched components.
Especially in a big heavy car like yours.
Just ask guys like Darby or Jim what it takes to get those boats moving out.
At times what your saying is completely rational and on target for the most part,but then at other times the context slips outta focus,and you seem to expect more than you really should be in other areas of this.
I had dug up that crane HR cam info,and was gonna post it soon,but I guess that would just be a waste of effort here seeing as the build guidelines seem to have changed.
Good luck with this.
Bret P. |
Yes, I realize the FAST cars are dedicated race cars that are purpose built for the task. I understand that I won't be making the 600+ hp at the wheels that Dave Dudek does. I never claimed otherwise.
I also never claimed that simply putting a new cam in would turn my engine into some fire-breathing monster.
Perhaps you don't understand just how mild my engine was from the factory. 7.8:1 compression with small valve heads, 2 bbl carb, camshaft about as mild as could be, single exhaust. Do you mean to tell me that I don't stand to gain ANY power by upping the compression a point to 8.8:1, going from 1.92 intake valves to 2.11, ported heads, 4bbl intake and carb, dual exhaust and the
right cam for what I am doing? Come on. I never claimed or expressed in any way that I expected 450hp out of this combo. I made it clear SEVERAL times that I am hoping to make noticably more than I did before, and I will be happy with whatever it ends up being. You even stated in your first reply that my expectations were not necessarily unrealistic. Now somehow that has changed.
Think about this for a second.. How much power would you estimate that my combo will make with a good camshaft in the 220° @ .050 / 112 LSA range? More than the 280hp/380tq it made stock, right? That's all I ask. It will be a very noticable improvement, I don't think anyone here could possibly deny that. No, it won't be a barnstormer, but it will move better than it did from the factory. Period. The fact that it isn't making as much power as some of you would like to see me make is irrelevant and beside the point.
Now, can we get back to discussing what would be the best cam for this combination, considering what I want to do? Is it really that hard? Several of you have posted your thoughts on it and I appreciate it. Let's not derail my idea just because you don't agree with what I want to do.
If I came in here telling you that I was hoping to make 500hp and run 12's with this combo in my 4600 pound car, yeah, you'd be perfectly in line to give me **** about it. But I haven't done that - quite the contrary, in fact.
Edit: And I never claimed that I wanted to get excellent fuel mileage either, I even acknowledged that I am sure it will go down a bit, but I won't be happy if it drops into single digit territory. I've built similar cars like this before, in particular a 383 equipped '66 Chevelle dressed exactly as a stock 327 car for one of my customers, and that worked beautifully, but I've built Chevrolets before and have more experience with how to liven them up while still keeping it believable. This is my first Pontiac build of this type, and with the huge difference between engine designs, I know that what works for a Chevrolet small block isn't likely going to be the same as for a large cube Pontiac.
Let me put it this way: If someone were to get in my car and drive it, the only indication I want them to have that the car isn't bone stock original is the extra power on tap. The difference between before and after with the Chevelle was simply amazing - We aren't talking about 200 horses, we're talking probably 40-50, and the same for torque, which is a BIG increase when you're talking about a car that can still quite easily pass for bone stock. I'm hoping for the same thing here, and I have every reason to believe I'll get it.
Part of the reason I've asked here as well is that this will also be my first build with a roller cam - The Chevelle got a regular flat tappet, and at $300 or so for a kit vs. $900+ for a roller kit, I want to be a little bit more careful with my cam choice now, since that will be a costly mistake if I don't end up liking it. Make sense?