[vertigto]

Interesting cam specs on the Lunati compared to the Ultradyne. The Lunati has more lift (L: .468/.489 vs. U: .454/.454) and a little less duration (L: 219/227 vs. U: 221/230 @ 0.50 and advertised/seat L: 262/268 vs. U: 276/286).

Looks like you had the RARE manifolds installed and O2 sensors to optimize the tune. Gotta love how the EFI does all the tuning/hard work.

Wondering if the old 3 tubes used on mine were at all restricting (of course not 22hp)? Similar torque numbers though (480 vs. 482).

[Jay S]

Very fun. Is today Christmas? I get to see dyno runs from very similar 400s with the UD276/286 and the Lunati 702 in the same day??

Great numbers on both engines. Past 400 hp and 480 tq with those engines is impressive. I think what may be even more impressive is I think you both have your compressions figure a touch high. If I understand correctly Vertigto is running a icon 14cc piston and roger1 is running a 17 cc dish. Most 62s and 13s run 75-78 cc. Assuming both have had valve jobs, and the heads are trued up (likely close to 75cc head final volume) and both engines have cylinder notches I come up with 9.2-9.3:1 on vertigto and about 8.8-8.9 on Rogers. That is using the diamond racing compression calculator, it adds in ring land volume. That is assuming .042” gaskets and zero deck. I wouldn’t be surprise if both have .045” gaskets and the pistons are down in the deck some. Usually those heads need the head surface down some to be at 72 cc, especially after a valve job. Pontiacs oem rating was well above actual. I posted the compression screen shots of Rogers.

For comparing these two cams. They are both quite a bit different in there ratings and the design ramps. Much more going on behind the scene’s there. The UD276/286 is rated at .0045 tappet. And the advertise rating on that Lunati is closer to .007 tappet. Converting them both over to .006 it looks more like this:
UD276/286
270/280. @.006” tappet, it runs about a 3* span(longer on closing than opening ramp from .006 to .050.
.050” 221/230
.2” 132*,141*

The Lunati 702 is advertise at 262/268
At .006” tappet it is close to 267/273
.050” 219/227,
.2” 132*/140*, irc, it about 5* span from .006 to .050, and still has some after .050”. That 5* extends the power band some and has a little broader power band, ends up acting like it has a little less overlap. They are almost dead even at .2” lift. Both are great cams in 400 pontiacs.

Goes to show you do not need a ton of extra compression on the engines to make good power. At the track those two engines would be a close to a dead even match. Great job on your combo’s!

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by vertigto

Wondering if the old 3 tubes used on mine were at all restricting (of course not 22hp)? Similar torque numbers though (480 vs. 482).

389 .030 over - Voodoo 702 - 230 CFM heads.

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=836191

[OCMDGTO]

VERY impressed with both of these. Great numbers for 400s/iron heads/very mild cams. I'm also wondering why they didn't go to 5500. Great info here!

[roger1]

Originally Posted by RH68

Interesting that he stopped the pull at only 5000rpm. It was still pulling.

So when I went back down this afternoon, I asked him that question. Although I would have never thought to ask and was happy with what he did.
He said he made that decision because of what I told him I wanted the car for (just cruising) and the fact that I had previously asked him if he thought it would make 400HP and it was doing that on a couple previous pulls he did. He figured right. I don't intend to run it over 5K and probably will seldom get to that.

He does still think the engine will do better in the car after the computer has more time to learn.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by vertigto

I only have a low resolution/grainy video on my cell phone right now for the second to last run. Looks like 398.64 @ 5000 and 480.52 @ 3600. The builder is going to give the cam card/dyno sheets to the restoration shop when the engine is picked up. When I get a copy, I'll post them up.

That is a nice street engine. What does the torque curve look like? BSFC?

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Jay S

Very fun. Is today Christmas? I get to see dyno runs from very similar 400s with the UD276/286 and the Lunati 702 in the same day??



For comparing these two cams. They are both quite a bit different in there ratings and the design ramps. Much more going on behind the scene’s there. The UD276/286 is rated at .0045 tappet. And the advertise rating on that Lunati is closer to .007 tappet. Converting them both over to .006 it looks more like this:
UD276/286
270/280. @.006” tappet, it runs about a 3* span(longer on closing than opening ramp from .006 to .050.
.050” 221/230
.2” 132*,141*

The Lunati 702 is advertise at 262/268
At .006” tappet it is close to 267/273
.050” 219/227,
.2” 132*/140*, irc, it about 5* span from .006 to .050, and still has some after .050”. That 5* extends the power band some and has a little broader power band, ends up acting like it has a little less overlap. They are almost dead even at .2” lift. Both are great cams in 400 pontiacs.

Goes to show you do not need a ton of extra compression on the engines to make good power. At the track those two engines would be a close to a dead even match. Great job on your combo’s!

Not too surprising they both perform nearly identical. Pretty sure Harold Brookshire had a hand in designing both of those camshafts. I know the Lunati Voodoo was one of his later designs and pretty sure he was behind the Ultradyne stuff many years ago. Much older design but they still work very well today.

[vertigto]

Similarly...once a dyno run made the 400hp goal, I think additional tuning/optimization was deferred by my builder. I believe the curve on my DUI was also set for a max 5500rpm and taking into account the 3.23 gearing (as well as cam specs).

[Jay S]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

Not too surprising they both perform nearly identical. Pretty sure Harold Brookshire had a hand in designing both of those camshafts. I know the Lunati Voodoo was one of his later designs and pretty sure he was behind the Ultradyne stuff many years ago. Much older design but they still work very well today.

Yep, your correct, Brookshire design both cams. Tim at Bullet has used those earlier designs on some of the exhaust on some of the hft cams I have had ground. The ones I have seen were quite a bit different than the older advertise numbers, I think they received some changes when Bullet changed them over to cnc files. I have never seen a dyno run from the H3/H9 in Vertigto’s build. What I thought was of particular note was the peak tq on the cam from Bullet was 500-600 rpm lower than the Lunati on both the 702 combos of the 389 build from Pastries link and and other 400. I wasn’t expecting the tq peak move that much lower on the Bullet. On the street that lower tq peak is going to be pretty noticable. I would like to see the avg power from those two engines between 3000-4000 just to compare. The other thing I would think would be interesting is a 1.65 rockers and 4 tube headers on the vertigto engine and pull it again, just to see how much more is left in it. Lol

[vertigto]

I took another look at the low resolution video of the second to last dyno run, and it might be that the peak torque is at 3800 instead of 3600. It's so difficulty to see in the video clip to be absolutely sure.

I will post a pic of the best dyno run sheet when I get a copy. Still would be @ 300rpm lower than the Lunati.

[roger1]

Originally Posted by vertigto

Similarly...once a dyno run made the 400hp goal, I think additional tuning/optimization was deferred by my builder. I believe the curve on my DUI was also set for a max 5500rpm and taking into account the 3.23 gearing (as well as cam specs).

We are getting some really cool information here. Thank you for asking me to tag along on your thread here. Sounds like it made it more fun and helpful to others too.
Btw, I don't remember what transmission you are going to be running. It seems to me you might be better off with your peak torque lower than mine.

[vertigto]

Originally Posted by roger1

We are getting some really cool information here. Thank you for asking me to tag along on your thread here. Sounds like it made it more fun and helpful to others too.
Btw, I don't remember what transmission you are going to be running. It seems to me you might be better off with your peak torque lower than mine.

TH400 with a a shift kit, GM25 (2500) stall, 3.23 gears with Auburn Pro limited slip differential.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Jay S

Yep, your correct, Brookshire design both cams. Tim at Bullet has used those earlier designs on some of the exhaust on some of the hft cams I have had ground. The ones I have seen were quite a bit different than the older advertise numbers, I think they received some changes when Bullet changed them over to cnc files. I have never seen a dyno run from the H3/H9 in Vertigto’s build. What I thought was of particular note was the peak tq on the cam from Bullet was 500-600 rpm lower than the Lunati on both the 702 combos of the 389 build from Pastries link and and other 400. I wasn’t expecting the tq peak move that much lower on the Bullet. On the street that lower tq peak is going to be pretty noticable. I would like to see the avg power from those two engines between 3000-4000 just to compare. The other thing I would think would be interesting is a 1.65 rockers and 4 tube headers on the vertigto engine and pull it again, just to see how much more is left in it. Lol

Agree, I'd like to see more pulls with some tweaks to see what's in it. I can't leave well enough alone

On those Lunati's, Paul C likes to use those lobes and from what he has said and the many dyno pulls he's been so kind to post, those Voodoo lobes do tend to carry the power up a little further than one would expect, even when he has put them on a 110 LSA, they act like a much wider lobe sep. I think he said it had a little something to do with the asymmetric lobe profile.

[Formulajones]

Either way, not to steer in another direction, But very nicely done with just 400 cubes and what are basically stock factory D-port heads. 400hp with those setups is getting it done pretty good. Good cam choices make a difference

[vertigto]

I have the dyno sheets (thanks Steve)...it was 3800 for peak torque. I guess there were only 2 runs, so perhaps there may be a little more with tweaking.

Here's the story...

[Formulajones]

Even though that peaked at 5000, it still carries the HP out pretty well to 5600, only down to 393 from 403.

It'll make a good runner.

[roger1]

Originally Posted by vertigto

TH400 with a a shift kit, GM25 (2500) stall, 3.23 gears with Auburn Pro limited slip differential.

Your cam is better for you and mine better for me, I'm pretty sure. Are you going to quarter mile yours? I wont but I agree with the opinion our cars would run neck and neck and be interested to know.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by vertigto

I have the dyno sheets (thanks Steve)...it was 3800 for peak torque. I guess there were only 2 runs, so perhaps there may be a little more with tweaking.

Here's the story...

Nice, flat torque; good BSFC numbers and fuel burn. This 400 ought to be fun to drive on the street.

[RH68]

Well now I’m tempted to get my 400 dyno’d too when it’s done in a few weeks. My builder has a dyno so we will see if the budget allows. Spoke to him about it today and he charges $750 to do it.

[tom s]

tell you its worth it,find any leaks or issues BEFORE you get it in the car.Tom