Cam removal in an ERA/FE

[lippy]

TKO-600 with 0.82 OD and 3.54 rear.

[blykins]

Originally Posted by lippy

TKO-600 with 0.82 OD and 3.54 rear.

Hmm....thought for sure you opted for the lower rearend gear.

If not, you would greatly benefit from moving the power band down.

5800 sounds like a perfect scenario, but remember that there's *nobody* on this forum that could tell the difference between whether an engine peaked at 5700 or 5800 (or probably +/- 200-300 rpm for that matter) in a 2500 lb car accelerating as hard as they do.

Keep in mind that engines just don't fall off when they pass peak horsepower rpm. They may lose 5, 10, or 15 horsepower, or maybe even hang on without losing. Again, that kind of loss in this kind of car is negligible.

My point is, it may be best to err on the side of being conservative.

[DanEC]

The stroked 427 test mule in his book was a 492 engine with worked Edelbrock heads, 11.3 compression, 266/272 cam @.05 with .700/,711 lift. Made 675 hp in it's optimum fit out but he called it a 650 HP mule. Trying to attach a few pages but my scanner is acting up.

[blykins]

That would probably be a fairly close representation then. Bore and stroke differences could make up a little bit. Little bigger cam on that engine and a little more compression...

[DanEC]

My skills at scanning and attaching a document to a post are seriously lacking. Finally saved these as a photo so hope they will work. I noticed it looks like he used a bit smaller carb on the RPM dyno runs versus the Victor.







That Victor intake does sound like a really good intake.

Dan

[blykins]

There is a category for both manifolds with the same carb.

So with the Performer RPM, 632 hp and 592 tq. With the Victor, 650 and 594 with the same 1000 cfm carburetor.

However, look at the average horsepower and torque.

Performer RPM - 521 hp and 552 torque.

Victor - 513 hp and 538 torque.

Now, which do you think would pose a better situation in a car that spends most of its time around 2500-3000 rpm?

At 3000 rpm, the Victor is making 284 hp and 497 lb-ft, where the Performer is making 305 hp and 533 lb-ft.

Another thing that the dyno does not show is throttle response....

[lippy]

Thanks Dan! The Performer RPM peaks at far lower revs. 3000 or so. The Victor is in the 5000's, which is what I want. It just doesn't need to be 6600, which is what I have now.

Edit: Brent corrected me. The Performer appears to be better up to about 6k

[DanEC]

Originally Posted by blykins

There is a category for both manifolds with the same carb.

So with the Performer RPM, 632 hp and 592 tq. With the Victor, 650 and 594 with the same 1000 cfm carburetor.

However, look at the average horsepower and torque.

Performer RPM - 521 hp and 552 torque.

Victor - 513 hp and 538 torque.

Now, which do you think would pose a better situation in a car that spends most of its time around 2500-3000 rpm?

At 3000 rpm, the Victor is making 284 hp and 497 lb-ft, where the Performer is making 305 hp and 533 lb-ft.

Another thing that the dyno does not show is throttle response....

Brent - what's your opinion from your experience, of which manifold would work best based on what Lippy is trying to accomplish? I don't have a dog in this hunt but it's an interesting subject. Most people are looking for more power, more rpm, etc instead of trying to pull it back a little.

[blykins]

I think Lippy is wanting a "hybrid": a mixture of something that is agile down low and still makes some higher rpm hp.

In all reality, I think a Performer RPM with a 1" Super Sucker would probably meet his needs fully.

His intake has been ported every way from Sunday and is designed for a 490 inch engine that will make hp to 7000 rpm. It's big. In my mind, a Performer RPM would at least match (if not excel) the current Victor's performance up through the rpms he has in mind, but have much better throttle response while driving at cruising speed.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by blykins

I think Lippy is wanting a "hybrid": a mixture of something that is agile down low and still makes some higher rpm hp.

And what are you doing to his heads, that were, presumably, pretty robust to begin with.

[blykins]

Maintenance.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by blykins

Maintenance.

... and what would that entail?

[blykins]

As I mentioned earlier in the post, we were experiencing accelerated guide wear.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by blykins

As I mentioned earlier in the post, we were experiencing accelerated guide wear.

...yes, and you plan to do what?

[blykins]

Change the alternator belt.

[DanEC]

Originally Posted by blykins

change the alternator belt.

:lol::lol:

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by blykins

Change the alternator belt.

Hmmm, you must have cabin fever.

[blykins]

No, I just don't know what you're getting at.

The valve guides are worn, so I'm replacing the valve guides and seals. What else would I do?

Since he's changing cams, I'll be changing valve springs now too.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by blykins

No, I just don't know what you're getting at.

Naaah, you're seeing shadows.

[blykins]

Waxing philosophically now?

I truly don't know what you're getting at. You presumed I was doing head work but I said that we were fighting valve guide wear, so you asked what I was going to do next. I thought it was very self-explanatory.