[Formulabruce]

Originally Posted by Hesster1977

I get that concern. Although I run Coil overs that allow ride height adjustment, before that iI simply cut a coil off of the front springs. Stance is everything, but so is a balanced power approach.

Stance is NOT ride....... Lots of people beat up their bones over "stance"
some are are better looked AT, then Out of, no?

[jhein]

Originally Posted by Formulabruce

Stance is NOT ride....... Lots of people beat up their bones over "stance"
some are are better looked AT, then Out of, no?

Thank you! Yes, it's true that I want it to "look" correct. BUT, the suspension wasn't designed to operate in these altered geometries. So it's really a functional thing.

[i82much]

i say you search old threads on here until you find a guy that is disappointed because his engine makes too much power, and ask that guy!

[R 70 Judge]

I think you are over thinking it a bit. Cam duration doesn’t seem crazy or anything. If it was mine it would have much more lift, plus head work and intake work. Make it as efficient as you can.

[ta man]

Originally Posted by 694.1

I would want no part of a 10:1 engine unless I only trailer it to the track. That fuel will only get more expensive.

Op engine should easily run on 87 octane.

[Hesster1977]

OK - don't want to piss off anyone or make any enemies here, but -

"Stance is NOT ride....... Lots of people beat up their bones over "stance"
some are are better looked AT, then Out of, no?"
"Yes, it's true that I want it to "look" correct. BUT, the suspension wasn't designed to operate in these altered geometries. "

SO - If we watch the TV show pros like Foose, Count Customs, Bitching Rides, etc, - they always work the suspension to adjust ride height. Generally, it's the "2 Finger" approach, where that is the targeted distance from the top of the tire to the fender well. But - of course they don't do stock restorations, and focus on high end mods. So this is not for the stock look crowd.

And admittedly, lowered and adjusted stance was NOT the way the cars were back in the 60's and 70's , as they have a ton of space from the tire to the fender well. I know, as my T/A had that lookl. So - this is simply a matter of preference - stock look, or make changes to the suspension. If done correctly, it does NOT impact suspension geometry, nor ride quality. In fact, it IMPROVES the ride and handling.

This is accomplished in a number of ways. The simple way way back when Herb Adams built his cars and sold parts was to install shorter, and stiffer sub frame bushings, and cut spring coils, or use lowering springs. Then after that along came drop spindles, and then the greatest suspension invention - the adjustable Coil Over Shock.

I did all of this on my T/A, and it looks good and handles WAY WAY better than stock. First I put in shorter solid Frame Bushings, cut a coil off the front spring, reworked the rear leaf spring front mount eye bracket, and made a revised rear spring shackle bracket with multiple holes to allow rear height adjustment. Then went to front Coil Overs and ditched the big springs.

Again - this is just one's preference!

[Formulajones]

Looks like a nice engine build. Should make 500hp and 550+ torque and run easily on pump gas without a problem at 10:1 compression with those aluminum heads.

The last 455 I did was 10:1 with iron heads and it's running on 91 octane fine. It dyno'd with 507hp and 571tq on the same pump gas we bought at the quicky mart around the corner. Stock intake, stock Q-jet carb, and through RA exhaust manifolds. Very fun engine to drive and works the power brakes and AC just fine. The cam was slightly bigger at 239/243 @ .050 and on a 112 LSA, something that Paul C came up with, but it idled with barely a lope and drove very nice. Made 13" of vacuum.

I think you'll like that setup and enjoy the very flat torque curve that thing should make. Will be very fun to drive.

[jhein]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

Looks like a nice engine build. Should make 500hp and 550+ torque and run easily on pump gas without a problem at 10:1 compression with those aluminum heads.

The last 455 I did was 10:1 with iron heads and it's running on 91 octane fine. It dyno'd with 507hp and 571tq on the same pump gas we bought at the quicky mart around the corner. Stock intake, stock Q-jet carb, and through RA exhaust manifolds. Very fun engine to drive and works the power brakes and AC just fine. The cam was slightly bigger at 239/243 @ .050 and on a 112 LSA, something that Paul C came up with, but it idled with barely a lope and drove very nice. Made 13" of vacuum.

I think you'll like that setup and enjoy the very flat torque curve that thing should make. Will be very fun to drive.

Other than the iron heads, that sounds very similar to what I'm doing and what you say about it is reassuring. Thanks very much.

[jhein]

Thanks for all the replies and advice. This is kind of a repeat since I posted about this in the 70-73 tech section before I had everything finalized. Anyway, it seems like I'm not doing anything unreasonable so I'm going ahead with it as is. I can always do an AL intake and headers later if I want.

[76TA462]

I have about 550 plus, each hp and tq from a 455/462. I run an aluminum intake and have 10.4:1. Pump gas no issues. Street driven and not track. For me, the OEM was no fun, but the plus 500 hp tq range is great. It is a sweet spot. For me, more would be pushing other things to far and would not add to the thrill of driving it. Less, not fpor me now that I am at this point. I made some changes for the tranny and drive shaft, but for other reasons than fear of breakage. I still have the same 3:23 rear I have been using over 40 years now. IF and when it goes, I will replace it. Don't let fear limit you or deprive you.

[Sirrotica]

I liken this to building a deck on 6x6 posts as opposed to 4x4 posts, yes the 4x4 is sufficient, but a 6x6 will last, and you never have to fear having a party on the deck, and it giving way. How often will you have a party, probably not very often, but you'll have piece of mind that if you do you have no fear of something failing.

When I worked in a shop in a maintenance capacity we used to have a say when building something, or repairing something that had failed. Figure how tough the piece needs to be, then build it 3 times stronger. You'll never have to worry about it breaking again......

[76TA462]

LOL. Great analogy. PS - on the 10.4:1 cr I meant to say aluminum heads.

[OCMDGTO]

Looks like a great build! I am 10-1 & have zero issues with 89/90 octane non ethanol. I would only run regular street tires unless you want to upgrade Trans, driveshaft, & rear. You will have a LOT of fun with this

[jhein]

Originally Posted by 76TA462

I have about 550 plus, each hp and tq from a 455/462. I run an aluminum intake and have 10.4:1. Pump gas no issues. Street driven and not track. For me, the OEM was no fun, but the plus 500 hp tq range is great. It is a sweet spot. For me, more would be pushing other things to far and would not add to the thrill of driving it. Less, not fpor me now that I am at this point. I made some changes for the tranny and drive shaft, but for other reasons than fear of breakage. I still have the same 3:23 rear I have been using over 40 years now. IF and when it goes, I will replace it. Don't let fear limit you or deprive you.

That's pretty much where my head is at with this. Factory power not enough, but just want to make sure I'm not turning it into something that I won't enjoy driving.

After all the discussion, I think what I'm doing is going to get me what I want.

[Gary H]

Originally Posted by jhein

Thanks. Why the Johnsons over the Morels? I thought about the 1.65 rockers but I'm trying to tone it down a bit because I'm not really looking to extract every last bit out of it. Is there any other reason for more lift or just more power?

If you're wanting to tone it down a little bit as you say above, don't go with the 110 LSA. I'd use the same cam on a 114, especially with the ram air manifolds you're going to use. It will idle much better, and will have better vacuum with the 114. I've used that cam on multiple builds, and it has a real wide torque band on a 114

[mgarblik]

I think your parts list looks fine with just a couple minor tweaks. Like others have stated, I would have the cam LSA of 110 opened to 112 minimum, 114 preferred. This will greatly help the idle quality, power brake operation and AC function. (if the car has AC) I assume since this is a 70 TA it has a 12 bolt rear axle? If it does, then I agree the Muncie trans will be the weak link, along with U-joints. But with street tires it will probably live for awhile. You didn't mention type of rocker arms in your parts list. I always recommend and spec. STEEL rocker arms for street applications. Crower has some nice stuff. Aluminum rocker arms have a cycle life. So it depends on how much you plan to drive it and other factors, how long they will last. Steel is one less thing to worry about. Love those cars. Enjoy it!

[81TATurbo]

I think it will be a lot of fun. There's no such thing as too much power. Build it how you want and enjoy.
I just built a Butler stroker 467. I'm not running stock carb or intake but instead an Edelbrock Performer intake and Edlbrock 750 carb. I'm also running Ram Air III manifolds. I am however running stock heads rebuilt with new retainers, valves and guides. My compression is somewhere around 9.2-9.3. I also went with flat top forged pistons, Eagle rods, Eagle cast crank and a custom ground carb from butler. It's the HR 112, 282/288. It measures 230/236 with lift at .510/.521. The cam was degreed at 109. It's also a full roller set up. I'm running the stock rear with 3:08 gearing, TH 350 trans with a 2200 stall, and 255/60/15 BF Goodrich tires. I haven't had a chance to test it on the road yet as winter is here but I'll tell you, it idles nice. Not too lumpy and with the exhaust set up it's actually quieter than I thought it would be.

Build it your way and enjoy. I'm curious how it comes out.

[Cliff R]

"I realize I will likely sacrifice some power with the stock intake, carb and exhaust manifolds but I can live with that if it helps the engine look more stock and keeps the proper stance."

We were on the dyno with a pretty stout 455 about 15 years ago and asked to remove the Quadrajet and install Holley "dyno mule" carb the shop had to "see how much power your engine will really make". It LOST a couple of HP on the very next pull. The dyno room was silent after we shut it down and no one asked for any more of that sort of testing!

A couple of years later we were on the same dyno making pulls on a Pontiac 428 (434 cid) with 10.6 to 1 compression, KRE aluminum heads and a 236/242/110LSA HR cam with Crower 1.6 ratio rockers on it. I was asked to remove my factory iron (modified) intake and install an Edelbrock RPM to "see how much power the engine will really make". The last pull with the factory intake was 497hp/540tq. The very next pull with the RPM intake was 491hp/535tq. Makes me wonder how many folks install the smaller Performer intake on these engines at big power levels and think they are outrunning the stock intake?

The Performer intake is a "turd" on a 455 build out past 1hp per CID or so. On a 455 right at the 1hp/CID level we lost 15.5 hp replacing a stock iron intake with one. I tried to track test one on my last 455 making a little over 500hp and it did NOT like it at all. Installing the smaller Performer intake with no other changes induced a "stumble" when going quickly to full throttle that would not tune out. I also heard some pinging (first and last time that every happened) at WOT once it got past the huge stumble/hesitation/bog it induced into the engine. I put the factory intake back in place and all the problems went away. It's probably OK for a smaller 350 or 400 build but I would not use one on a 455 out past 425hp or so as they start to become pretty restrictive.

Over the past 20 years or so I've back to back tested dozens of carburetors against my 1977 Pontiac Q-jet. It is completely "stock" aside for a slight recalibration and outfitted with the high performance Q-jet parts I offer for them, never once has a grinder or sanding roll touched it. On the dyno or at the track it's never once been outran by anything else back to back testing........and believe me the dyno facilty I use HATES that carburetor and pulls out everything in their arsenal to outrun at every possible opportunity!

IF you are wondering how this happens it's really pretty simple. My Q-jet is dead nuts on the money in every area for my set-up. Transition is seamless to full throttle and they have told me on more than one occasion to NEVER touch it when it was on the dyno as the fuel curve was spot on the money. It is also much better suited to the spread bore intake as it lines up EXACTLY with the plenum areas compared to any square flange carburetor. Even with that said I could put pretty much use any carb I want up there other than one of those POS Edelbrock AFB clones with the non-adjustable air door (hopeless for secondary tuning IMHO) and tune it with a couple thousand street miles and hundreds of drag strip runs and do equally as well........but then I wouldn't have to hand out diapers in the staging lanes when folks look at the stock intake and q-jet, the dial in on the window and crap their pants!..........Cliff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zVdoLR-VzM

[Cliff R]

Moving on to exhaust manifolds it's a different story, at least with the testing I've done with them. Pontiac heads are somewhat deficient on the exhaust side with a pretty hard turn in the ports and not much runner volume or cross section. They absolutely LOVE a very well designed set of headers and I've observed some pretty significant improvements replacing them. You also save a lot of weight.

Down sides are additional heat to the starter and floorboards so plan accordingly. I've "cooked" so many starters on these vehicles going to headers that I don't even use the big stock ones and go right to a much smaller aftermarket gear reduction starter when headers are going to be used.

I'd also recommend large head pipes with an "H" or an "X" pipe. No sense putting a really nice set of headers in place behind your stout engine build with a stroker crank, high compression, roller cam and aluminum heads then corking it up with a restrictive exhaust system. Minimum would be mandrel bent 2.5" head pipes, 3" are even better (IMHO) and modern straight thru mufflers. After the mufflers things have condensed and cooled down enough that it has little if any impact on power output to quiet things down a bit with a nice set of mandrel bent 2.5" full length tail pipes, and they are a LOT easily to fit than larger pipes routing them up over the axle and beside the fuel tank.......

[Hesster1977]

Man - I like this:
"Over the past 20 years or so I've back to back tested dozens of carburetors against my 1977 Pontiac Q-jet. It is completely "stock" aside for a slight recalibration and outfitted with the high performance Q-jet parts I offer for them, never once has a grinder or sanding roll touched it. On the dyno or at the track it's never once been outran by anything else back to back testing........and believe me the dyno facilty I use HATES that carburetor and pulls out everything in their arsenal to outrun at every possible opportunity!

IF you are wondering how this happens it's really pretty simple. My Q-jet is dead nuts on the money in every area for my set-up. Transition is seamless to full throttle and they have told me on more than one occasion to NEVER touch it when it was on the dyno as the fuel curve was spot on the money. It is also much better suited to the spread bore intake as it lines up EXACTLY with the plenum areas compared to any square flange carburetor. "

Lots of guys and racers swear by the Q-Jet - IF tuned properly. I have rebuilt and tweaked my fair share of them, and found the hotter the engine, the bigger the pump shot needed so it does not bog down when you nail the throttle. It really depends on what the set up is that a Q-Jet is sitting on - in my case I run a old ported Holly Single Plane Manifold (back in the day that is what Herb Adams used), Race Ported RA3 heads (Nunzi), and a HO HC-03 Cam with 1.65 rollers, and could never get the Q-Jet to like that set-up. Prob cause I could not get the pump shot and tip in tuned correctly, and found a good old Demon Double Pumper worked much better. Just my experience, but who knows after hearing your Dyno tales.