[Will]

I don't see how those two statements are exclusive or contradictory to each other at all....????

A smooth, quiet engine with super torque output would be a great daily driver engine as well as towing engine.

Any controversy in this thread comes from the typical "cubic inches are king" mindset. Which, in reality, can't be argued but shouldn't really be a factor. The question was not whether a 350 or some larger engine should be run but how best to set up a 350 for the desired goals. Whether the 350 is the best possible choice isn't the issue.

I'd think a 350 should work good if you can overcome the compression ratio and valve size issues. How much lift can you run with big valve heads before valve-block interference becomes a problem? If you can get up to .450" or greater lift then it's a non-issue and I'd run the 670s on it. If you're limited to less than .450" then I'd try to find a set of small valve heads that will give a good CR and do some port work on them.

I'd also try to maximize torque in the lower-mid RPMs, say from 2500-5000 RPM. I bet with the right cam, exhaust, and head choice you could get 400 ft-lbs. Work it like a diesel engine - shoot for a narrow powerband that makes as much torque as possible then gear the vehicle to take advantage of that. A little lope at idle would be okay as long as it's pulling enough vacuum.

I bet that Comp HE260 would be a good choice.

[Sirrotica]

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hppp-...-engine-build/

Putting a 4 inch stroke crank into a 350 block to make 383 cubic inches, and 460 HP. It isn't the optimum for a race engine, but for a tow vehicle I'm sure it would pull about anything you'd need to pull on an open trailer.

By the time you invest in the 4 inch rotating assembly you might as well build a 421/428 though.

Although I have used a stock bore stroke 350 in my jeep wrecker, if I had a choice like the OP does, I would probably opt for a 389/400 just because the other blocks have the exact same stroke, but a larger bore. In my JEEPS I've had a 350,389,400 and a 455. The 350 did okay but the 389 and the 400 were better towing engines. The 455 was overkill because of all the torque I was breaking transfer cases etc, that just weren't designed for that much torque. I also trashed a stock T400 with the 455. If I hadn't of been so lead footed, the driveline would have lasted longer. The 455 never even knew there was a car hanging on the wrecker sling no matter how heavy it was.

[maxumtorq]

I think it depends also on how much he has to spend on this project. Not everyone has 3 or 4 grand laying around to rebuild a Pontiac, I say drop it in and hammer down. You can always pull it back out. Nobody is talking me out of putting p350 in my truck in October. Financialy I cant afford nothing else and have all the parts I need for the p350. But I don't pull anything bigger than a ten ft trailer I use for firewood. I would do what you can afford brother. Just my 2$ worth. I would love to race you in it now but we would probably fall asleep before the finish line.

[p4msi1]

QuickSilver = Low comprehension level. It is a truck capable of towing, how often or how many times is irrelevant. I want to use these 350's because I have them and want to save the 400's and 455's for maybe the next generation of Pontiacers. I built 535's for my other 2 Firebirds. I guess some people need elementary explanation. I thought I was clear at the very start, I was asking about the Summit 2800 as suitable cam selection! Listen to me, I am building and installing a P350 for my 84 Chevy Truck (s) to replace the POS 383 and that is the end of that story.

Will / Formulabruce= High comprehension level. Offered constructive advise.

Steve

[Formulas]

Like i said in a earlier post 2800 cam is a nice all around P350 camshaft torque and RPM range is what you would expect in a 60's base 4bbl engine

You could go with a smaller cam in search of more torque but almost every truck will spend some time in lower gears pulling and you will want some top end and a strong mid range

Im half way moved from CA. To WV where i dont have to dick around with smog and i have a tight 1977 chevy 3/4 ton long bed and if i end up taking the truck with me i will be dropping a Poncho in it

[PunchT37]

I'm startin to think that this cam with the 670's would still be torquey and get you closer to 320 hp.

http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=1774&gid=287

[72LuxuryLeMansLa.]

Originally Posted by PunchT37

I'm startin to think that this cam with the 670's would still be torquey and get you closer to 320 hp.

http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=1774&gid=287

I ran this combo through my engine analyzer. I set the scr at 9.5 because I don't know the chamber size. The cranking compression would be 205psi with that cam at 9.50scr.