I am going to put the 66 on the Chassis Dyno Thursday. I am looking for some input on any major changes I need to make before hand so I can cut down on my time there. I am renting it for 3 hours. I am also calibrating my speedometer so that will eat atleast an hour or so up. Her is what the combo is:

540ci
8.5 compression
early model Chevy Aluminum rectangular port heads worked by Sonny Leonards ( I can give more details but these heads have a proven track record)
2.25 intakes, team g weiand dominator intake (both of these have a fair amount of epoxy work) 114 c.c.
Jesel valvetrain
.700 lift int.and exh./ 262 int.and 272exh. dur. at .050 (lash at .026 both)
Cam installed at 110 degreed.
msd ignition and locked distributor (28 degrees currently)
1050 dominator 81's front, 87's back


Now for the part that leaves heads scratching:
1 7/8 sanderson street rod shortie headers
2.5 exhaust to the bumper with 70 series flowmasters
I did this to tame the motor and not have clearance problems. I will upgrade this if the power is way down. With no exhaust the motor sounds completely different. Every cylinder is leaking less than 10 percent so its good and sealed.

Richmond 4+1
3:42 gears

Luckily my neighbor runs the Chassis Dyno and he will be of great help but he thinks the power will be way down. I wil drop the exhaust on the last pull and he says it will pick up a minimum of 60hp. I am just looking for some heads up from you guys that have made some pulls on a Dyno with bigger inch motors though our combinations may vary by quite a bit. I really have no expectation. The intent of this drivetrain was to leave soft and run it on top and run consistent mid 11.00's. No bar and the car will never see one. Any all all replys are appreciated as always.

Thanks,

How did you go about selecting the carb Jetting?

Thx
Milan

Why only 8.5:1? Thats a pretty big cam for such low compression.

i agree the jetting does seem off, but thats easy to fix.

Why only 8.5 compression? are you going to put some boost to it? NA that would run on 86 no problem.

havent been on a dyno but my car picked up 3 mph changing to bigger headers from my 1.75 but did lose some low end grunt. I say it would be much happier with more exaust

The jetting will be the first thing I change after the first pull but I also have fairly large air bleeds in it and thats helps to compensate with that. As for the low compression, there is always a method to the madness. I am not sure the motor will stay in the car. It may end up in a boat with a blower on it at one point. Time will tell. But I felt like I could get away with it. This is why my dyno man says the motor is gonna be down on power. Who knows exactly but if everything is a go and we keep the motor in the car long term, raising the compression is not a problem. As for the camshaft, it has some size but it is not huge by any means. One advantage I feel I have is not dealing with an automatic transmission so I have a little give for a slightly larger stick. Or that's the idea anyways.

i also stopped reading at 8.5:1 and rectangular port heads. that's almost too low for power adders!

John,
I dont want to hurt your feelings, but i think its going to disappoint you.

I would think about increasing the compression to at least 10:1, picking out a much smaller duration cam, 4150 style carb, and full length headers with 3.5" exhaust.

I am going to put the 66 on the Chassis Dyno Thursday. I am looking for some input on any major changes I need to make before hand so I can cut down on my time there. I am renting it for 3 hours. I am also calibrating my speedometer so that will eat atleast an hour or so up. Her is what the combo is:

540ci
8.5 compression
early model Chevy Aluminum rectangular port heads worked by Sonny Leonards ( I can give more details but these heads have a proven track record)
2.25 intakes, team g weiand dominator intake (both of these have a fair amount of epoxy work) 114 c.c.
Jesel valvetrain
.700 lift int.and exh./ 272 int.and 280exh. dur. at .050 (lash at .026 both)
Cam installed at 110 degreed.
msd ignition and locked distributor (28 degrees currently)
1050 dominator 81's front, 87's back


Now for the part that leaves heads scratching:
1 7/8 sanderson street rod shortie headers
2.5 exhaust to the bumper with 70 series flowmasters
I did this to tame the motor and not have clearance problems. I will upgrade this if the power is way down. With no exhaust the motor sounds completely different. Every cylinder is leaking less than 10 percent so its good and sealed.

Richmond 4+1
3:42 gears

Luckily my neighbor runs the Chassis Dyno and he will be of great help but he thinks the power will be way down. I wil drop the exhaust on the last pull and he says it will pick up a minimum of 60hp. I am just looking for some heads up from you guys that have made some pulls on a Dyno with bigger inch motors though our combinations may vary by quite a bit. I really have no expectation. The intent of this drivetrain was to leave soft and run it on top and run consistent mid 11.00's. No bar and the car will never see one. Any all all replys are appreicated as always.

Thanks, The extra small exhaust is going to choke that motor to death. I put a big bore kit in a Honda CBX one time and it wouldn't even run with the stock exhaust on it. It was much better after the exhaust was opened up but was only a little easier to ride with the extra torque. Frankly i don't think you'll have to worry about it exceeding the 11.50 rule which mandates a rollbar, probably won't hit 12.0s with that exhaust.

i agree the jetting does seem off, but thats easy to fix.

Why only 8.5 compression? are you going to put some boost to it? NA that would run on 86 no problem.

havent been on a dyno but my car picked up 3 mph changing to bigger headers from my 1.75 but did lose some low end grunt. I say it would be much happier with more exaust

You lost torque with bigger headers on a BBC? I picked up 47 ft lbs of torque by switching to a 2" primary. I also had to switch to a 3" exhaust. I am running a 408.


That is alot of cam for that compression, I don't think you will get the RPM's to get full use of the cam. What RPM are you thinking it will turn?

Interesting responses for sure. I was just looking for some heads up information when you guys put your cars on the dynos. I didn't build this motor for optimum performance. I decided to go with an aftermarket block because whatever I do in the future it won't entail spending money in a production block. Raising the compression is potentially something I will look at. One reason the car has less than adequate exhaust on it is this motor was not intended to go in it when I purchased all of it. And quite frankly, people have problems making production headers fit in a car like mine that is a 136 chevelle. But Lemons now makes a header in case anyone is interested that will fit. I don't think I will be disappointed in the power it makes. This thing is like a painters canvas and most of the pieces are there to make some good power. I have a nice 850 to try at the dyno also. As for RPM, it goes up to 7 fine and it won't see need to see that. And as far as what the car will ultimately run, well I have to run it to find out. I have built budget 400's for people and put them in the high 11 range and this car has way more power than what those motors made. I will post the number when I get back from there Thursday.

Thanks everyone,

like others have said that low of compression w/ rect. heads and that big of a cam, wont work well together and you need a bigger exhaust system, but good luck w/ the run and getting it dialed in

try some more advance, that motor should like 38 degrees total, dont worry about iginitial.

good luck

John, if you didn't build the motor for performance like you say, then why bother puting it on the dyno? I'm not trying to be sarcastic about this. I share your enthusiasm for big motors. But I have to tell you that it's probably gonna run like a real dog with a camshaft with a 262/272 duration @ 050 and only 8.5:1 compression ratio. That compression ratio would work a lot better with a camshaft with an "advertised duration" of 262/272 (ie. a 215/220 duration @ .050). The power is gonna be waaaaay down with that combo, especially on the low end and midrange of the RPM scale. With the camshaft you have, a 10.5:1 or 11.0:1 CR would be in order. No offense.

With a camshaft that has those specs like yours does, it will have the valve timing which will leave the intake valves open for a long time and w/out being fully closed until the pistons get over 30% of the way up the cylinder bores on the compression strokes. So because of that, you'll be losing cylinder pressures during the whole entire bottom third of the compression stroke. That's why you need a higher static compression ratio with longer duration cams. W/out the higher CR's the motor will not be able to develop significant cylinder pressures. And power levels will suffer.

No one is offending me. I have not questioned that the cam is gonna kill a ton of the cylinder pressure. In fact, I don't expect this motor to make the power of a very stout 540. This was never the intent. But I am sorry to who may get offended, but the car will run an 11.50 with this combo. One of the resons for the dyno is to calibrate the speedometer. I don't have a handheld GPS and this takes the guess work out of this project. Past that, a dyno just eases the tuning of the motor. No beating up on the car either. It stays in one place and it fits what I want to accomplish. The motor has to come out to resolve my pesky little rear main seal leak and if the motor is truly the pig people think it will be, then I whack the heads, order my lemons and I am sure that will put it well beyond where it needs to be. But if the motor makes enough power to support a mid 11, then it's a done deal. My machinest past away last year and he had the same reservations about the problem areas. We were going to put it on his engine dyno and try this out before the motor went in the car. But he is gone and I just decided to go this route. It's all good and Lynda is tickled pink. Opinions vary. People can look at this and say what a waste. I look at people making tremendous horsepower and inadequate chassis and say the same. The only difference is some et and the fact that a crap chassis with big horsepower poses a huge safety threat to themselves and the others that race with them. As far as the timing, I am hoping for a done deal between 34 and 38 degrees. Thanks for the replys everyone.

I can understand what you are saying but i can't understand why one would spend that much money for a lazy inefficient engine. You would be happier with less head, less cam, and more compression. No trade offs - it would be more driveable too. You will have so little signal to the carb that it will have a weak idle and hard to tune. It's like buiding an engine and then taking off two plug wires on purpose.

I'm confused. What does the first 3 digits of your VIN have to do with header fitment?

Its okay to fly in the face of convention, your car, your money.

If your dyno has a wide band a/f available, then you should have a couple of bungs welded into the exhaust at the collectors so that you can get a/f ratio data to really dial in the carb.

With that cam and a true 8.5:1 compression ratio I think your best power will be found with ~ 41 degrees total advance.

How much less than 10% leakdown? Half that would be within my expectations, I've seen many fresh motors at 0-2%, above 8% and then I'm thinking about tearing it apart for a redo.

Slo buddy, what is all this talk about other car's with crap chassis and big horsepower posing a huge safety threat? To pull off an 11.50 e.t. in a street Chevelle with a manual trans and 3.42 gears actually will require 600+ horsepower....and there you are with no rollbar.

Best wishes, and I'm looking forward to your dyno results.

Thomas

You would be happier with less head, less cam, and more compression. No trade offs - it would be more driveable too. You will have so little signal to the carb that it will have a weak idle and hard to tune. It's like buiding an engine and then taking off two plug wires on purpose.John, "66283" and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I must give credit where it is due, and say that the man is very knowledgeable (if you didn't already know that) and his words in the above quote put this whole thing into perspective very well.

I'm not trying to gang up on your by saying that. it sounded like you became a little bit defensive earlier in this thread. I didn't mean to put you on the defense like that. Sorry. But this thread is about engines, right? yes, there are people who run skinny tires, a less than ideal chassis, and lacking suspension with high HP engines, but sometimes it's a matter of lack of funds, the timing of their project, or other factors that is the cause of that.

However, correct me if I'm overlooking something here, but I can't see how your camshaft and compression ratio choices could have anything to do with finances or the lack thereof. Because choosing another camshaft or having the cylinder head chambers machined smaller while the engine was still at the machine shop anyway wouldn't have really cost you anything more to speak of. So your comparison to the guys with chassis that might not support the engine power is apples to oranges.

But I'll try to end this post of mine on a positive and peacefull note, because I'm really not looking to bicker with you here. If after you get the engine on the dyno, and you don't like the power curve, I'd suggest to pull the heads off to shave them down in order to make the chambers smaller, and changing the camshaft too. But I wish you the best with your project. ;)

I am not here to bicker. I just posted trying to get some heads up on what to look for when I put it on the dyno. Never been to a dyno and can't wait. The combo is not optimum. If anyone wants to argue about efficency, that would be my dad. He use to run super stockers and held some records back in the day. Some things posted here so far have been interesting to say the least. And yes, 66 283 and a few others could no doubt take this, stuff compression and change cams and make a difference. I would not say financing limits what I am doing. I said all along I would not be faced with replacing the rotating assembly in the motor and that is the core of why I put this motor together. Shaving heads and replacing camshafts is peanuts when I look at the big investment. As for the idle, 750rpm and will sit there and just pluck them off. I have someone that knows way too much about carburetors and he helped with the crap signal. And when the exhaust is uncapped, it does sounds like there is a big motor in it. But here is what most people don't understand. My wife put this motor together with me helping her. This thing could run a 15 and she would be tickled. How many people can say their spouse has done this? Not many. And if she pursues wanting to go fast, then I will purchase a rolling chassis be it a rail or whatever she wants and then I will take this motor to the next level. She was riding with me the other day and when I stood on it in 3rd gear and it blew the tires off it scared her so she has to ease into this deal. She likes the way it looks, drives, and sounds and that's all that matters to me. Since the majority of you think it will not make any power, take a stab at some numbers. I am curious.

Thanks all

In response to your question John, if I had to take a guess, I'd say 600-650 HP. Maybe a little more. Just a wild guess on my part. A number of the guys who have participated in this thread have more experience with engines and dyno tests than I do though. I think that with the restrictive exhaust that you have you'll be losing a little bit of power above 5,000 RPM, but I also think that you will be sacrificing even more power from 2,500-3,500 RPM with the CR being low.

That's pretty cool about your Mrs. being that involved with the project. It must be fun having the project being a family thing. :thumbsup:

Slopar

I'll try and be a dissenting voice. Let me caviat this first: I agree with what most people are saying here in regards to heads, cam and compression. Changes in these areas would certainly make your combo optimum.

But, here's a rhetorical question. If the rec ports are "too big" and the compression too low...why is it ok for other engines to run stock 990's and 8.75 compression? Look at the current batch of GM crate motors. They are 454's and 502's(HO's) that run 8.75:1 compression, non-decked blocks, untouched cast iron recports and tiny cams. Yet they still make 450 plus horse power and torque in the 500's.

Sure, these combos aren't the greatest..but they still make plenty of power to run in the 12's. So what's to say a bigger engine (by 40 cubes) with a similar head and similar compression won't at least make an "OK" street engine. Looking at other low compression marine engines like yours...I'm guessing your combo will peak at about 525 HP.

Like I said before though, I agree with the above posters on many of their points. Especially the cam....it's gotta go :)

Bill

<<I'm confused. What does the first 3 digits of your VIN have to do with header fitment?>>

The car was not an original big block car. How the motor is sitting in it as compared to what it would be if this was an original big block car I am not sure. Header manufacturers fit their pipes up based on an original big block car. If you read through the archives, there are too many post about fitment problems and I was not interested in fighting that battle. Lemons makes a set that should work on my car but I would still give them measurements to make sure they fit the first time. On the plus side for those people looking for a shorty type header, these Sandersons street rod headers fit like a glove and sealed up beautifully.

I am not here to bicker. I just posted trying to get some heads up on what to look for when I put it on the dyno. Never been to a dyno and can't wait. The combo is not optimum. If anyone wants to argue about efficency, that would be my dad. He use to run super stockers and held some records back in the day. Some things posted here so far have been interesting to say the least. And yes, 66 283 and a few others could no doubt take this, stuff compression and change cams and make a difference. I would not say financing limits what I am doing. I said all along I would not be faced with replacing the rotating assembly in the motor and that is the core of why I put this motor together. Shaving heads and replacing camshafts is peanuts when I look at the big investment. As for the idle, 750rpm and will sit there and just pluck them off. I have someone that knows way too much about carburetors and he helped with the crap signal. And when the exhaust is uncapped, it does sounds like there is a big motor in it. But here is what most people don't understand. My wife put this motor together with me helping her. This thing could run a 15 and she would be tickled. How many people can say their spouse has done this? Not many. And if she pursues wanting to go fast, then I will purchase a rolling chassis be it a rail or whatever she wants and then I will take this motor to the next level. She was riding with me the other day and when I stood on it in 3rd gear and it blew the tires off it scared her so she has to ease into this deal. She likes the way it looks, drives, and sounds and that's all that matters to me. Since the majority of you think it will not make any power, take a stab at some numbers. I am curious.

Thanks all The regular Chevelle chassis vs. a real SS won't change anything. All the same year Chevelles, GTOs, Olds 442s and Buicks Skylarks have the same chassis. I have a friend who capped up a 502 crate motor with small exhaust and it gets thumped on the street by late model mustangs. He too has plenty of experience building high powered engines but this one is somewhat slow by comparison. On the other hand it will run on most any gas and does run low 12s when uncapped, has a 700-R4 overdrive for trips and gets reasonable gas mileage. It would be very economical if he had changed it over to Fuel Injection.

Look at the current batch of GM crate motors. They are 454's and 502's(HO's) that run 8.75:1 compression, non-decked blocks, untouched cast iron recports and tiny cams. Yet they still make 450 plus horse power and torque in the 500's.

Sure, these combos aren't the greatest..but they still make plenty of power to run in the 12's.

Bill An 8.75:1 compression ratio isn't too bad if it's being used with iron cylinder heads and a short duration camshaft (such as 220 or 225 degrees @ .050 ). But with aluminum heads and a 262/272 degree @ .050 cam, that's another story. I've learned through my own trial and error on one of my own engines that an engine will actually make LESS power with a bigger camshaft than it will with a smaller cam with a shorter duration IF the compression ratio is too low.

Therefore, having a smaller cam with a shorter duration will actually allow the motor to make more power if the static CR is low. So not only is there nothing to gain by sticking a long duration camshaft in an engine that has a low compression ratio, but there's actually something to lose....... Power.

OK....I agree with all the folks here that say combo is a little less than ideal....but I'm going to try to give you info that might be closer to what you were originally asking.

A buddy built a 540 flat top motor for his literal daily driver. He followed all the magazines to *build for TQ*...or at least somewhat.

He *thought* block was decked to .005 when builder assembled it..was closer to .020 when we checked it later. He used GM/Edelbrock aluminum rectangular ports with a GM 427/425 style hi-rise aluminum intake, 850 vac Demon, 1-7/8" full length headers, 2.5" exhaust along with a hyd roller in the 236*@.050 area on a 114 LSA with right around .600 lift.

Compression is probably just a hair higher than you have...but not much. Heads flowed around 295-305 cfm out of the box when tested. Cam was a lot smaller than yours. But it drove well and was very reliable. He ran some mid-hi 12's with a Temec and 3.08's and lots of tire smoke as well as some fuel starvation issues.

Chassis Dyno tested with the POS Demon.... Curves were a little weird even after fixing fuel issues. But it made around 410RWHP capped up. Power peaked around 4900 rpm and was down to 325 or so by 5500 rpm. He had some exhaust dumps about 3-4 ft back from headers that still routed exhaust through 2.5" pipes, but eliminated mufflers. It picked up 15-20 RWHP opened up. So call it 425RWHP with 4 ft 2.5" collectors on it!

Later added a Holley 850 DP....did much better as far as driveability, mileage etc. But didn't dyno test it.

Next installed a Holley Strip Dominator single plane because it would fit under hood (Vette). Picked up 30 RWHP with intake change alone..some might have been the 850 DP..but I doubt much on WOT pulls.

Next installed a 1000 HP Holley. Picked up another 17 RWHP..drove even better...even managed 18.9 MPG on 2000 mile roadtrip.

Pulled heads to have ported professionally and milled. Flowed mid 330's on intake and exhaust went up dramatically. Compression was up to almost 10.5 with thin gaskets. Also added a low 240's hyd roller again on a 114 LSA with a little over .600 lift. The reason he was staying with 114 LSA's was he was toying with going EFI later on.

Power was up in the 490's RWHP.....and was hanging on better. It still fell off rapidly after 5400-5500 or so.

His plan was to eventually build a 632..so he bought some CNC AFR 357's. Of course these flow incredibly....and he installed them without milling, so he lost compression back into the mid-hi 9's it seems like. Same cam etc. Contrary to popular belief...low end power with the 357's was up over the smaller ported rectangular ports. Peak was only up about 10 RWHP..put him right around 505 RWHP capped up..still using the 2.5" exhaust and 1-7/8" headers. The best part was that the power stayed in the game even past 5500...it didn't fall off at high RPM...but the exhaust was obviously choking it. Low speed driveabilty was just fine...he reported no issues even while lugging with O/D and 3.08's. In fact he took me for a ride to show the *buttometer* tests showed it to be much stronger from a low speed roll.

He never got around to installing the 3" exhaust and larger headers he planned before he sold it all and started on the 632..which we will be dynoing in a couple of weeks. For sure it would have liked more breathing.

He wanted to stay milder hyd roller for daily driver stuff...so I never got him to stick a solid roller in it. Plus exhaust. I know there was a lot of power left in it..just never got there. He did run it a few times at the track. Using plain street radials, capped up and literally driving in off the 175 mile Hwy trip to the track...he ran some high 11's@121 or so. Pretty much babied it until 3rd gear......fishtailed with tires spinning and showing tracks almost all the way down the track. Checked gas mileage on return trip and still managed over 15 mpg including a few trips down the track!


Ok....here's info on mine. The first version of my 540 used 10.5 compression, out of the box as-cast Brodix 2Xtra's, old style short Team G (Vette hood clearance again), 1050 Dominator, no spacers, a street roller type 262/273 on a 112 LSA .672/.673 cam. On the engine dyno it made 732 Hp at 6200 rpm with belt drivien water pump. That was with 2-1/8" headers. In the car it made 565 RWHP in pure street trim with 2" headers, 3" exhaust and 2-chamber Flowmasters. Spent the day playing on dyno, but biggest change was uncapping headers. It literally jumped to 615 RWHP!! We back to back tested it and found out just how much those Flowmasters were killing it!

My current version of motor made 825 HP on engine dyno with same shortblock except compression is now 11.06 due to head milling. I used a 272/278 on a 110 LSA cam with .731/.731 lift and with seriously porting on the same Brodix heads. Only other change was the addition of a Super Victor intake. Same carb etc...plus I've tested larger/tricker carbs..no difference.

I can tell you that the cam was too large for my combo...it was peaking in the 7400 rpm range...just never wanted to stop climbing. No chassis dyno tests with this combo.

In the car, it runs LOTS faster with the current 266/272 on a 112 LSA cam, plus drives better. I played with the 272/278 for a while, but decided to drop back..good move for my car.


ML67 has done several versions of his 540. With around 10.5 compression, professionally ported Brodix -2's along with ported Holley Strip Dominator, 1020 4150 carb and a 255-260's SR cam on a 112 with .650 or so lift..he made 566 RWHP capped up with good sidepipe exhaust on his Vette.

His current version with 11.2 compression and AFR 335's makes 702 RWHP (!) with a 266/272 SR and a little over .700 lift and a ported/milled Vic Jr (hood clearance).

So hopefully all of this gives you some ideas to play with.

Let us know how it does. No doubt it can run deep 11's.....but a few changes would put it in the 10's easily.

Good luck!

JIM

Original BBC car vs. SBC vs. L6 they're all the same, I'm not sure about motor mounts and frame stands on a 66 but that would be all you needed to change to make it just like a BBC car.

If you're picky the steering shaft is different too, but not hard to change either.

Thanks to all the replys especially 540hotrod. Your 540 is making some nice power for sure.These heads I have were flowed and I need to find out how much but it seemed to me it was in the 330 range at best. The dyno man figures low 500's at best but since he has never had a big inch, N/A low compression car on it, he is curious and has nothing to compare it to. He also thinks the manual transmission is gonna really help this combo. And he will back up the statement about Flowmasters robbing power. He likes the results of cars that run Borlas for the most part. He thinks this motor will produce better results with a nice 950 and I have access to one if I want to ante up for an adapter. Past that, it will give me the number it gives me. As for the headers, it's not the chassis but the stands. Even Lemon asked if the car was originally a big block. For some people, things just fit anyways. In my world, it just ain't so and I have not yet been pressed to make a decision on this. A search of header post speaks for the problems of fitment. And for my remark of people putting big hp in inadequate chassis cars, well that theme fits just like some of the remarks said in this post. This is a good group of people here and constructive criticism is fine. And for the most part I got what I wanted out of this and hopefully someone else will too. If I wanted to make 2 hp per cubic inch, I would have called Reher Morrison and had it delivered to the door. But after reading 540hotrod's post and the others that have spoke of the combination, it won't be a huge effort or expense to bring the power level up if it really turns out to be a pig.

Once again, thanks everyone

The only difference is the small blocks use a different frame mount. Shouldn't be hard to put in the car though. The Lemon's headers fit much better than the Hookers and can be tailored to the particular combination. Old L-88 cammed motors in the early Corvettes reported an increase of about 80 H.P. from uncapping the exhausts. Newer Borla mufflers and 3" exhausts are reasonably quiet and make nearly the same power as open headers.

I have seen a few sets of Lemons on cars and they are nice. The guy I talked to there was real nice and he assured me if I went this route I would check some measurements before he built them. I really don't want to tamper with the way the motor is sitting in the car since everything has clearance and the clutchlinkage is working good. Lemons new style is inside the frame and they can either come as one piece or slip joint. I like the way the Borlas sound. Lynda likes the sound of Flowmasters and so she got her way on this one. But if we upgrade the exhaust, it will be Borlas.

I can understand what you are saying but i can't understand why one would spend that much money for a lazy inefficient engine. You would be happier with less head, less cam, and more compression. No trade offs - it would be more driveable too. You will have so little signal to the carb that it will have a weak idle and hard to tune. It's like buiding an engine and then taking off two plug wires on purpose.

BINGO! As expensive as parts are, there's no reason not to use the ones that will get you the best return on your investment. Maybe a lot of the parts were free and you decided to put 'em together to see what it would do???

any numbers on this yet ? i've been waiting to see the results.

Yep. And it was a good day for sure.



http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177569&goto=newpost