|
Post by tom400cfi on Dec 8, 2008 14:21:41 GMT -7
...and it has to be a raised port intake, right? "Vortec" style? Yeah, the pistons in that thing sucked. I had kind of forgotten about that. I'd have gone turbo though. Alttitude compensating! I was definitely more proud of the engine in the T/A, because I got so far w/it, reletive to how far other CFI owners have gotten. I was about as fast as any CFI owner I know of except for Jonas Bylund (sp?)...AND I got there for almost no money; my entire powertrain cost me around what Dominic spent on his heads. I also liked the character and demeanor of the CFI/400 combo; very agressive, tons of tq, and wicked throttle response, compared to the relatively lazy, but high reving engine in the Camaro. I liked both cars b/c I could beat on them and I wasn't afraid of them breaking. I liked the Camaro b/c it was in such good shape, w/NO rust at all, and so much potential; I could have taken that car in so many directions, and done so cheaply. Also, that I MADE $1500 on owning that car, doesn't hurt! I liked them both the same amount, but for different reasons. Mostly though, b/c they were MINE, and I wasn't "afraid" of them (hurting them).
|
|
|
Post by warship on Dec 8, 2008 16:33:21 GMT -7
the cam in mine was a comp cam, i dont remember the overlap or durration but it was a 401/423 lift small cam with 1.6-1 rockers and like i said it put out 300hp. it had a lot of internalstuff done i got the compsesion up to about 9.8 from the 9.5, and more than my fingers can type, i had it for over 10 years and had the time. but 300 hp from a 305 was good for me. and yes mine did have dead spots in the powerband but i too payed 4k for it and 10 years later sold it for 4k, all i lost was money put in to it but that was the fun part and i have no problem paying for that
|
|
|
Post by Crossfire84 on Dec 8, 2008 18:33:48 GMT -7
...and it has to be a raised port intake, right? "Vortec" style? No. A manifold with conventional Chevy ports that fit a Fel Pro 1206 intake manifold gasket ought to work.
|
|
|
Post by Crossfire84 on Dec 8, 2008 18:57:46 GMT -7
but it was a 401/423 lift small cam with 1.6-1 rockers and like i said it put out 300hp. Curious. Where did the 300 HP number come from? Did you have it on a dyno? Did it come from a calculation based on 1/4 mile mph? Small is right! The spec on my stock 1984 L83 cam is .2733" intake, and .2820" exhaust, lobe lift. With 1.5 rockers that equals .410" lift at the intake valve and .423" at the exhaust. With 1.6 rockers that would come out to .437" intake and .451" exhaust. I always thought the stock Chevy cams, especially for the L83, were crap. Even for a towing application, I'm surprised anyone ground something smaller. The L83 does have a rep for strong torque at low, low, rpms, however. But since HP = tq X rpms (roughly) the tq at low Rs don't make much HP, 205 in my case.
|
|
|
Post by warship on Dec 9, 2008 8:54:22 GMT -7
its almost the same cam as the recommended by edelbrock 3702 cam for the intake and heads. yes i had it dynod and even the guy running it was very surprised at the numbers. i payed for an hour of wide band tuning and he was so in to it that he worked longer for free until the next customer came in( a few hours) we had people coming out of other buildings to See it run,then he took a pic. of it to post on the wall because he was so impressed.it may be slightly different due to not knowing the exact loss to the wheels but its close ,and thats not at the wheels thats the motor. yes 401/423 was small but i had an isky cam in it at first and it was a lot bigger and made less power on that set up. i did get more with 1.6 rockers than a 1.5, its not imposable to get the numbers, i did it, it made a lot of people scatch there heads. but even edelbrock says that size cam made the most power with the lg4. i didnt get the edlbrock cam due to them being out of stock at the time of my build but the comp one was almost the same ,also recomended to me for that motor and my set up. i use the tech lines when i order parts all the time. most companies know there parts these days.and can give good advice on what they have that will work for you.
|
|
|
Post by warship on Dec 9, 2008 9:06:33 GMT -7
pics. of mine are on the post pics area on page 5.
|
|
|
Post by tom400cfi on Dec 9, 2008 11:35:29 GMT -7
Nice pics Warship, of some nice cars. You '86 looks real basic and clean. Must have been a barrel of fun! ...and it has to be a raised port intake, right? "Vortec" style? No. A manifold with conventional Chevy ports that fit a Fel Pro 1206 intake manifold gasket ought to work. Huh. I thought we talked about this. So then why won't your CFI intake work to at least get you started?
|
|
|
Post by warship on Dec 9, 2008 12:11:44 GMT -7
it was real fun, and until i got the rims it was a real sleeper! no one thought a base sport coupe could be that fast. i raced my friends 95 z28 alot and beat him when my car was done. i wanted to turn it into an iroc type with all the goodies but when i got the wheels it just looked too good the way it sat. it didnt look 80s anymore it looked like a muscle car camaro from years past and it stuck. and that was my first vette i got for 2k from a little old lady in pasadena,(i really did). blown motor and torn up int. built a new 350,(the 79 calif vette came with a 305 for smog) a few parts from ecklers and some seat stiching and i sold it for 8k.at the pamona swap meet and car show, then spent the money on the camaro.
|
|
|
Post by Crossfire84 on Dec 9, 2008 12:54:45 GMT -7
its almost the same cam as the recommended by edelbrock 3702 cam for the intake and heads. yes i had it dynod it may be slightly different due to not knowing the exact loss to the wheels but its close ,and thats not at the wheels thats the motor. yes 401/423 was small but i had an isky cam in it at first and it was a lot bigger and made less power on that set up. i didnt get the edlbrock cam due to them being out of stock at the time of my build but the comp one was almost the same ,also recomended to me for that motor and my set up. This cam? #3702 ENGINE: CHEVY 305-350 V8 T.B.I. & LG-4 RPM RANGE: 1500-5500 Duration at 0.006" Lift: Intake: 268° Exhaust: 288° Duration at 0.050" Lift: Intake: 194° Exhaust: 214° Lift at Cam: Intake: 0.265" Exhaust: 0.294" Lift at Valve: Intake: 0.398" Exhaust: 0.442" Timing at 0.050" lift: Open Close Intake: 10° ATDC 24° ABDC Exhaust: 44° BBDC 10° BTDC Centerlines: Lobe Separation - 112° Intake Centerline - 107° That is pretty small. I didn't see anything that small in my Comp Cams book. But if you had one, obviously they made it. You figure you were getting ~1 hp per in.³? That must have been approx 260 rwhp on the dyno. That is about 100 HP more than I'd expect to see from my L83.
|
|
|
Post by Crossfire84 on Dec 9, 2008 13:00:53 GMT -7
No. A manifold with conventional Chevy ports that fit a Fel Pro 1206 intake manifold gasket ought to work. Huh. I thought we talked about this. So then why won't your CFI intake work to at least get you started? With the manifold installed the top of the Crossfire casting doesn't cover the top of the port opening in the head. Talk about a massive vacuum leak!
|
|
|
Post by warship on Dec 9, 2008 13:32:01 GMT -7
they re named it it was called a compucam. and 250-260 sounds about right. i threw out the dyno print out after i sold the car. the guy didnt want it go figure? yea it can be done but the build took 3 years and alot of research to get every part to work that well together.
|
|
|
Post by tom400cfi on Dec 9, 2008 14:00:02 GMT -7
Huh. I thought we talked about this. So then why won't your CFI intake work to at least get you started? With the manifold installed the top of the Crossfire casting doesn't cover the top of the port opening in the head. Talk about a massive vacuum leak! I don't get it. How can the CFI casting not even cover the port if it's in the standard location? The CFI casting (at least) covers the intake ports on all other conventional SBC heads that I know of. We could always weld up your roofs and gring up higher from the inside!
|
|
|
Post by Crossfire84 on Dec 9, 2008 18:04:17 GMT -7
the cam in mine was a comp cam, i dont remember the overlap or durration but it was a 401/423 lift That is pretty small. I didn't see anything that small in my Comp Cams book. But if you had one, obviously they made it. they re named it it was called a compucam. and 250-260 sounds about right. Well that explains why I couldn't find your cam in my Comp Cams book. CompuCam is a trade name used by Crane. The cam you are describing sounds like the CompuCam 2020. Main > Camshafts Part Number: 114112 Grind Number: POWERMAX 2020 (FORMERLY COM Engine Identification: Start Yr. End Yr. Make Cyl 1981 1987 CHEVROLET 8 Description GREAT FOR 305 AND 350 ENGINES IN CARS, LIGHT AND INTERMEDIATE TRUCKS WITH OPTIONAL GEARING. GOOD LOW AND MID-RANGE TORQUE AND HP. (50 STATE LEGAL IN 81-87 CAR AND 81-92 TRUCK, 267-350 APPLICATIONS ONLY. C.A.R.B. E.O. D-225-19) BASIC RPM 1000-4000 Engine Size Configuration 267-350 C.I. V Valve Setting: Intake .000 Exhaust .000 HOT Lift: Intake @cam 267 @valve 401 All Lifts are based on zero lash and theoretical rocker arm ratios. Exhaust @ Cam 282 @valve 423 Rocker Arm Ratio 1.5 Cam Timing: -- @-- Lift: Opens Closes ADV Duration Intake -- -- 254 ° Exhaust -- -- 264 ° Spring Requirements: Triple Dual Outer Inner Part Number 99848 Loads Closed 114 LBS @ 1.700 or 1 45/64 Open 287 LBS @ 1.300 Recommended RPM range with matching components Minimum RPM 800 Maximum RPM 4400Valve Float 5000 Cam Timing: TAPPET @.050 Lift: Opens Closes Max Lift Duration Intake (7) ATDC 21 ABDC 104 194 ° Exhaust 26 BBDC (2) BTDC 104 204 ° Even at 4400, maximum, usable rpms, It would take 358 ft. lbs of torque @ 4400 rpms to equal 300 HP. That is a ton of torque from a mild 305.
|
|
|
Post by Crossfire84 on Dec 9, 2008 18:21:10 GMT -7
I don't get it. How can the CFI casting not even cover the port if it's in the standard location? The CFI casting (at least) covers the intake ports on all other conventional SBC heads that I know of. We could always weld up your roofs and gring up higher from the inside! I can understand why you don't get it. If I hadn't have seen it, I wouldn't let someone else tell me, either. The stock port (FP # 1204 gasket) is 1.99" tall. The 1206 gasket is for a port 2.21" tall. Most (maybe all) of the difference is above the center line of the port. There isn't enough meat at the top of the Crossfire manifold to seal the top of the intake port at the head. With the manifold installed, you can see into the head port. Welding a 1/4" onto the top of the gasket area fot the manifold could solve the seal problem. There would still be a major mismatch in the port sizes. I have to admit, you have my rusty old cogs turning. Do you know someone that can do such welding on aluminum?
|
|
|
Post by 500hp406 on Dec 10, 2008 8:22:10 GMT -7
I you are talking about those heads you brought up to my place, the ports are huge, 1206 at least, maybe larger. They were 1/4" taller than the 1205,s we used on my intake
|
|