I have recently shared a few AFR headed combinations with you guys in a different thread....just got the results (independent) of another I recently had my hands in.

The owner of the car is Fred Fogarty of San Diedo CA, and I was approached by him some time ago after his disappointment with one of our competitor's 325 cc head and a hydraulic roller. It was a 540 at 10 to 1 CR and it generated 645 HP with a ported Vic Jr and a 950 HP carb (on an engine dyno....these are flywheel numbers). Not bad but I was confident we could make alot more with our 315 full CNC piece and even more if he allowed me to install a solid roller. Honestly I went so conservative on the cam (he was VERY concerned with perfect street manners and I could tell he was a very conservative) the new combination peaked at 6000 RPM's where it would have still had "OK" valvetrain control with a hydraulic roller if everything was set up properly and optimized valvetrain related. It would not have carried the power as well though after peaking and I am not a fan of an engine that rolls over hard upstairs.

The gameplan....switch heads, cam, bump the CR, and port another intake as his original was already larger (at the outlet) than the inlet of our 315's. Note the new combination actually idles a little smoother than his original because the duration of both was in the 250's but a solid roller acts some 8 degrees smaller due to having to take up the valve lash.

Fred dropped off his engine personally and I actually built the top half which included doing some touch up work optimizing the 315 heads, installing them with an .040 Felpro gasket, porting a new Vic Jr (nice gasket match and plenum clean up), degreeing the cam obviously and optimizing valvetrain geometry with the proper length pushrods.
I also opted to install the higher flowing tulip valve in the exhaust (AFR upgrade PN 7632 which retails for $40) which allowed me to run a cam with even less overlap between the intake and exhaust due to how efficient the exhaust port was and the fact we had an 81% exhaust to intake ratio. I designed a custom cam with a single pattern 256' lobe on both intake and exhaust, ground it on a 112 LSA and installed it at 109 ICL (three degrees advanced). The choice of a single pattern cam enhanced (smoothed) the idle quality and helped the engine produce better low speed TQ but due to how strong the exhaust port now flowed (with the optional tulip valve) still make good peak numbers as well (the have your cake and eat it to scenario).

The laundry list of the build is as follows:

540 CID Shortblock (Eagle rotating assy w/ JE/SRP pistons).
315 AFR heads (I did some light porting) w/ tulip valve angle milled to provide 11.0 to 1 CR
Vic Jr. Intake with a good gasket match and clean-up in the plenum
Holley 950 HP carb (4150 style)
Custom Comp cam (solid roller) 256/256 @ .050, .680 lift 112 LSA installed at a 109 ICL
ATI Harmonic Balancer
2.125 Headers....(not sure about the other exhaust components).

As soon as the new engine was in the car Fred was about as excited as it gets....shared with me that the car felt exposive and blew his 335 mm tires off the road at almost any RPM in the lower gears. I urged him to get to a chassis dyno at the least to quantify and optimize the conbination (I was hoping he would put it back on the engine dyno).

The first call I got today from JBA racing, a shop in San Diego local to Fred, had the new combo a tick under 600 RWHP and almost the same RWTQ (586). I would like to add that Freds car is not exactly an optimized chassis dyno hero with lightweight components. He has big heavy 12' billet rims with 335 series rubber and a heavy 12" clutch with a billet steel flywheel (I encouraged him to go with an aluminum flywheel....LOL). The trans is a Richmond 5 speed and a power robbing 9" Ford rear. A lighter clutch/flywheel assembly, lighter wheels, and a 12 bolt would have dyno'ed easily 25 RWHP stronger.

I was encouraged by the initial results but was hoping for the low 600's. With a couple more degrees of timing (36 versus 34) and a bump of four jet sizes the final tally came in at 644 RWHP and 620 RWTQ! I estimate the driveline in Freds car to eat up about 125 RWHP which puts this combo at around 770 HP flywheel.....over a 120 HP gain from his former combo. In fact this generated the same HP at the wheel, and slightly more TQ than his former combo generated at the flywheel. And the best part is it idles like a warmed over LS6 at 900 RPM's and drives like a stocker.

I am trying to get a copy of the gragh to post up....the TQ curve is a thing of beauty. It makes 600 RWTQ by 3200 RPM's....that's freakin retarded for a combo this mild N/A. It makes peak TQ at 4600-4800 and peak HP comes in at 6000 rpm's, carrying the power well and still making 615 to the ground at 6500 RPM where the test was terminated. That's impressive considering the conservative bumpstick and cross section of the cylinder heads.

Guys, this combination you could live with every day. If you dont mind adjusting valves from time to time and freshening valve springs at 15,000 miles or two years (whichever comes first), you could literally install this in your daily driver. I bet if you babied it you could knock down reasonable fuel economy (12-13 around town and 18 freeway).

Sorry for the long winded post....but was genuinely excited about a combination alot of you could appreciate and get some ideas from. If it were mine I would have given up some of that loooow speed tire shredding TQ for some additional HP. With a little larger cam the peak TQ would remain the same, just happen later and carry farther. I bet a 266/266 would have still driven perfectly (just sounded a little meaner at a 1050 idle or so) and kissed the 800 RWHP mark with a 4150 small carb.

Good stuff....Catch you guys later

Tony

Edit...

Here is a copy of the chassis dyno gragh

http://picsorban.com/upload/fred%20fogarty%20dyno%20curve.jpg

What does the combo ET?

nice but why not go with the 335s? and you work for AFR cause i got some questions about a future head buy?

nice but why not go with the 335s? and you work for AFR cause i got some questions about a future head buy?
I assure you a 335 would not have made a stitch more horsepower (with a .680 gross lift) and would have given up some TQ on the bottom and middle of the curve. Fuel economy and throttle response would have suffered also. I think you may have missed the focus of this build as it was clearly meant to enhance the actual driving portion of his powerband. This combination was tailor made for the 315's and this particular customers needs.....the fact it made big power was purely a bonus....LOL

I doubt Fred will ever go to a dragstrip....he's very conservative and just enjoys a Sunday cruise in his classis Camaro. Of course everyone likes to brag about horsepower so now he has something to brag about. Honestly without a set of ET street radials (or the like), he will never utilize this package to its full potential.

In the event he does get to a track I will relay back to you guys with his results.

Tony

so take a zz502 bottom end for example... which afr head would make the best power on it? a 315 or a 335?

Great looking combo with nice numbers, particularly with a mild roller - congrats to you and Mr. Fogarty.

I've been mulling over details of a big-inch combo but didn't figure a 950hp could handle that much engine at any kind of revs - they only flow around 830. I'd think a 1000hp 4150 would be a better fit - your thoughts, Tony?

I'm sure Jim will drop in before too long with a comment about the weenie cam :D

Thanks Tony...good stuff.


So you figure a 266* cam would put it at 800 RWHP?????


JIM

Tony

Did you put in a spacer? If so, how thick? If not, why not?

Any thoughts on how important a spacer really is in this sort of a set-up (99.9% street use)?

Thanks again!

Andy

Thanks Tony...good stuff.


So you figure a 266* cam would put it at 800 RWHP?????


JIM

No, not a chance..............unless the dyno is extremely friendly.....or he buys a Fogger.

Tony,

Ol' pdq67 here.

What would happen if you up rocker arm ratio'd the cam so that it had the same lift at the valve as the hy jobber such that you didn't lose lash lift/duration??

pdq67

I'm assuming that is 700 RWHP.....just curious.


After the post the other night on the 305's/315's.....I was speaking to some buddies about my suggestion of a 540 test with 315/335/357's run back to back. The general consensus is they would love to see it...but with a twist.....we all want to see 3 cams tested with each head too!

Hey. we do it with small blocks all the time right? Time to do some big motors. Let's use a .650 solid roller, a .750 solid roller and a 800+ solid roller. Ought to be fun!


JIM

nice build but it seems like the guy would have been better off with a hy roller.

Incredible.
Shocking actually.
Congrats.

nice build but it seems like the guy would have been better off with a hy roller.

Did you miss what he said below?

the new combination peaked at 6000 RPM's where it would have still had "OK" valvetrain control with a hydraulic roller if everything was set up properly and optimized valvetrain related. It would not have carried the power as well though after peaking and I am not a fan of an engine that rolls over hard upstairs.

Guys, this combination you could live with every day. If you dont mind adjusting valves from time to time and freshening valve springs at 15,000 miles or two years (whichever comes first), you could literally install this in your daily driver. I bet if you babied it you could knock down reasonable fuel economy (12-13 around town and 18 freeway).

Andy, not sure a spacer would fit under the hood of a Camaro, esp 1st gen. Just like Chevelles. Assuming a conservative guy has a stock hood.

Tony, that ROCKs for a street combo! :thumbsup:

( btw, if he harnessed that power , I think it'd eat that Richmond! )

You figure a manual tranny takes 125HP to run? Whats that 17-18%? What do you figure an auto(th400) would take to run?

Big, its not that a manual trans takes 17-18% of the power. Tony noted that the Ford 9" is less efficient than a 12 bolt. To my knowledge the 9" is ~ 2-3% less efficient than a 12 bolt, I.E., with a 12 bolt it would show higher rwhp.

Tony, that is one of those great matched combos. Of course you know what will happen now: someone will build the "same" engine, but with some "minor" variation - and the power will be way off and they will say you were full of it!

Tell Fred that I am available for driving duties :)

Thomas

The devil is in the details.
Tony said he tweaked the 315's a bit. And ported the intake. And had a custom cam ground.
It all adds up.
A buddy added 315's to his 540. went with a World Merlin X intake. Dominator, and some sort of old huge Crane cam. And he lost CR due to the larger chamber heads. I think it's 9:1 now.
Bottom line, and it's in a Nova, that weighs less than mine, he went slower. 10.12 @ 133 to be exact. Which means he is right around 690hp....a bit short of where it should or could be.
In fact, he ran his best with a Comp XR292R....the bigger cam his genious engine builder recommended....ran slower. After he took more weight out of the car. Go figure.

Again, the parts are different than what Tony built.
I'd tell him about this Tony combo, but he wouldn't listen anyway.

Ron

i like it. well thought out combo. i want one just like it in my 71 chevelle. i know it would have idled worse and used a little more fuel but i would like to see what kind of power it would make with the lsa tightened to 108 not that i would change it

You figure a manual tranny takes 125HP to run? Whats that 17-18%? What do you figure an auto(th400) would take to run? Not even. I think it would loose about 15% but that still puts the total at about 757 H.P. for flywheel power. I to think if he hooked it up the standard transmission would have the lifespan of an ant at a picnic. An automatic would have 4-5% more drivetrain loss but might be quicker with slicks.

I'm new to all of this and I know this is stating the obvious to you guys, but once again, as I'm learning, it's all about combos. By 540 standards, this is a weenie cam matched up with weenie heads (Sorry Tony! as compared to the normal 335's), with a weenie intake and weenie carb all working together for an outstanding package that makes incredible power - but at a lower rpm range. I'd bet, that just like switching the heads noted above, if you started trying to beef up one of the parts without beefing up the others, the whole package suffers and doesn't perform as well as you would expect by spending more for that beefy part.

Conversely, take a beefy package and start inserting a weenie part somewhere in the chain and you likely shoot yourself in the foot performance wise and have spent more $$ to do it.

Porting is always an option, no matter which combo you have, so it really seems to come down to the specifics of the parts package and how well the parts work together.

Thanks for sharing Tony! :thumbsup: This is a very timely thread for us here!!

You've helped me alot. :beers:

Andy

Nice :thumbsup:
I have been wanting to do one of these with 315's for a while now but have been a little gun-shy to recommend the smaller head on someone else's dime even though I have no doubt they would generate 750 on an honest dyno with obscene torque,,,,

I have three 540's in the works & maybe one will end up with the "baby heads" after folks see this combo,,,,

The first question that comes to mind is how much tweaking was done on an already great head & what was the final size?
The second of course is the intake,,,,
I would normally consider a Vic Jr as too damn small for a 540 so how much plenum work & how much spacer if any
My own feeling along with the input of some pretty sharp induction guys (including a guy named Tony something or other,,, :D ) says this intake needs some plunum on a 540,,,,,,

I would have loved to see this on the same engine dyno as the old combo
Now that would have been an interesting test ;)

Nice :thumbsup:

The second of course is the intake,,,,
I would normally consider a Vic Jr as too damn small for a 540 so how much plenum work & how much spacer if any
My own feeling along with the input of some pretty sharp induction guys (including a guy named Tony something or other,,, :D ) says this intake needs some plunum on a 540,,,,,,
;)

I wonder if "someone" could do some "work" on one of those Vic Jr's and make it think its a "Super Victor" ;)

I wonder if "someone" could do some "work" on one of those Vic Jr's and make it think its a "Super Victor" ;)
=
Hmmm a Vic Jr with an identity crisis,,, :D :D
I guess this will be answered in a couple of months,,,
At least I hope it will only be a couple of months ,, can't hurry them damn artists,,,,,

HI guys,

I am new to the site; a buddy just emailed me this 540 thread. I have a 67 Cutlass with a 540 in it. I have been experimenting with it for the last 10 years as money and time allow. These numbers are impressive and believeable if you've played on a dyno. My particular combo is close to what Tony built. A basic 540 with Dart CNC OVAL port aluminum heads 2.25/1.88. CR about 10.5. Comp cams solid roller 262/267 715 lift on a 112CL, installed at 109. Carb is 1050 from BLP. Intake was a brodix and it made 703hp at 5900 and 680tq at 4300-4700.

We changed manifold to an Edlebrock (I have to go get the number) and picked up 25hp....If I had not been there I wouldn't believe it either. So now we're up to 727 at 6000 with same torque. Engine dyno, open headers, electric water pump, no alt, etc....basically no other parasite losses.

This same 727 FLYWHEEL hp came out to 540 REAR wheel on our 248 DynoJet Chassis dyno. This was with full exhaust, 2" primary headedrs to 3" full mufflers to full tailpipe. Turbo 400 with a 3200 stall and a GM 12 bolt. I don't know how much loss though converter, but I assume this is where most of it went.

****Someone mentioned "if this guy hookd up, he'll eat that Richmond." I have the turbo 400 because I HAD a 5 speed Richmond and basically "machined" second gear off two times, from a roll. I called richmond to explain the problem I was having with the "bullet proof" tranny. First question the guy asked was "How much weight and how much torque?"
I told him 3900 and 690. he said "It was never designed for that and it won;t work". Hey, at least he was honest, so I went to the auto.

Anyway, back to the thread. I am rebuilding this engine and loosing sleep over the cam....I have spent a lot of mnaey trying to keep a solid roller on the street. Either it's too much spring pressure, or not enough. Either way, the roller lifters have caused money problems when they come apart.

I have to run, but I will be bcak for some advice.

Oh yeah, car had 3.36 gears and ran a 10:90 at 126 on Goodrich drag radials. I'm no threat to Warren Johnson, but it's a ball to drive.

Bob

HI guys,

I am new to the site; a buddy just emailed me this 540 thread. I have a 67 Cutlass with a 540 in it. I have been experimenting with it for the last 10 years as money and time allow. These numbers are impressive and believeable if you've played on a dyno. My particular combo is close to what Tony built. A basic 540 with Dart CNC OVAL port aluminum heads 2.25/1.88. CR about 10.5. Comp cams solid roller 262/267 715 lift on a 112CL, installed at 109. Carb is 1050 from BLP. Intake was a brodix and it made 703hp at 5900 and 680tq at 4300-4700.

We changed manifold to an Edlebrock (I have to go get the number) and picked up 25hp....If I had not been there I wouldn't believe it either. So now we're up to 727 at 6000 with same torque. Engine dyno, open headers, electric water pump, no alt, etc....basically no other parasite losses.

This same 727 FLYWHEEL hp came out to 540 REAR wheel on our 248 DynoJet Chassis dyno. This was with full exhaust, 2" primary headedrs to 3" full mufflers to full tailpipe. Turbo 400 with a 3200 stall and a GM 12 bolt. I don't know how much loss though converter, but I assume this is where most of it went.

****Someone mentioned "if this guy hookd up, he'll eat that Richmond." I have the turbo 400 because I HAD a 5 speed Richmond and basically "machined" second gear off two times, from a roll. I called richmond to explain the problem I was having with the "bullet proof" tranny. First question the guy asked was "How much weight and how much torque?"
I told him 3900 and 690. he said "It was never designed for that and it won;t work". Hey, at least he was honest, so I went to the auto.

Anyway, back to the thread. I am rebuilding this engine and loosing sleep over the cam....I have spent a lot of mnaey trying to keep a solid roller on the street. Either it's too much spring pressure, or not enough. Either way, the roller lifters have caused money problems when they come apart.

I have to run, but I will be bcak for some advice.

Oh yeah, car had 3.36 gears and ran a 10:90 at 126 on Goodrich drag radials. I'm no threat to Warren Johnson, but it's a ball to drive.

Bob If you do go back to a hydraulic roller do yourself a favor and add some gear. Something along the lines of a 3.73 or 4.10 would work well. How much slippage does your converter have? That's another overlooked area. A 126 MPH trap speed can produce 10.50 E.T.s with the right tires and a good converter. Mickey Thompson E.T. Street Radials with about 18-20 lbs. of air are much quicker than the BFGs.

If you do go back to a hydraulic roller do yourself a favor and add some gear. Something along the lines of a 3.73 or 4.10 would work well. How much slippage does your converter have? That's another overlooked area. A 126 MPH trap speed can produce 10.50 E.T.s with the right tires and a good converter. Mickey Thompson E.T. Street Radials with about 18-20 lbs. of air are much quicker than the BFGs.


Hi Harold,

Thanks for the input. Since the motor has been out getting freshened up, I have changed to 3:73 rear. A friend in MD has a 540 from Shafiroff with a hyd roller and he loves it. Over the years I tried different things, but the solid roller seems to be a trick to keep alive on the street. My best luck was running K-Motion K-1000 springs. They lasted almost 8000 driving miles. I know the hyd roller is only good for about 6-6500, but I really don't need to spin it above 6100, so maybe I should save myself some maintainence problems abd give in.

As for converter slippage, I wish I could tell; all I know is when I nail it in 2nd gear at about 30mph, the tach goes to 5100 and sits there a while.

My main question is about cam lobe sep on a motor this size. I have been running 112's and I tried a 114, but the 112 felt better. I have been staying around the 250-260 intake duration; I was told with 10.5 CR that I need to look for power peaks at about 6K as the lower compression will not make big power numbers much above 6K, and more duration will just bleed off power/torque below that. A guy named Denny Wycoff, in Arizona ran a computer program for my engine. I sent all the specs and he came up with some numbers. His program looks at engine size versus head flow capability to determine LCA. My Dart oval ports heads flow 380 CFM at 28" / 700 lift.
He came up with the following numbers.

Duration at .050, 255 int/ 260 ex, as much lift as I was comfortable with and for LCA....are you sitting down.....102 installed at 98...YIKES !!!!

I have never experimented with that tight separation and I wondered if anyone here has. Denny came highly recommended, and says these numbers will bring power out, but all of my big block buddies scream like little girls when I say "102 lobe sep". So I am open to advice and opinions on what anyone has tried. I though about going to maybe a 108 or 106.

Oh..my Edlebrock manifold is a "454 O Victor". It looks very plain when sitting next to the Brodix, but it did make the 25hp increase, back to back, on the dyno.

Thanks for any ideas....this is a great site.

Bob

A basic 540 with Dart CNC OVAL port aluminum heads

Bob, welcome to the board!

Which Dart oval did you use? The 18° or 24°? What port size? CNC'd by Dart? Thanks.

Bob, welcome to the board!

Which Dart oval did you use? The 18° or 24°? What port size? CNC'd by Dart? Thanks.

Collecting ideas for the new BBC build, John ;) If so, why buck the trend? Sounds like the AFRs are the next best thing to sliced bread :) I'm running RFE's heads because I want to be different (and slower) than everyone else :D

Collecting ideas for the new BBC build, John ;) If so, why buck the trend? Sounds like the AFRs are the next best thing to sliced bread :) I'm running RFE's heads because I want to be different (and slower) than everyone else :D

I'm always kickin ideas around, Ken. :D

Personally, I think the AFR BBC head is a good head. I remember a dyno comparison/testimonial on Brodix.com done by SunsetRacecraft about 1-1.5 years ago that compared the same bbc build with AFR 357's and the 3-Xtra's. The pk was about 20hp higher with the Brodix head, but it didn't take a genius to see the AFR's made more average power over the pull.

With that said, I can say with 100% certainty my new BBC will have Dart heads. ;)

Hi Harold,

Thanks for the input. Since the motor has been out getting freshened up, I have changed to 3:73 rear. A friend in MD has a 540 from Shafiroff with a hyd roller and he loves it. Over the years I tried different things, but the solid roller seems to be a trick to keep alive on the street. My best luck was running K-Motion K-1000 springs. They lasted almost 8000 driving miles. I know the hyd roller is only good for about 6-6500, but I really don't need to spin it above 6100, so maybe I should save myself some maintainence problems abd give in.

As for converter slippage, I wish I could tell; all I know is when I nail it in 2nd gear at about 30mph, the tach goes to 5100 and sits there a while.

My main question is about cam lobe sep on a motor this size. I have been running 112's and I tried a 114, but the 112 felt better. I have been staying around the 250-260 intake duration; I was told with 10.5 CR that I need to look for power peaks at about 6K as the lower compression will not make big power numbers much above 6K, and more duration will just bleed off power/torque below that. A guy named Denny Wycoff, in Arizona ran a computer program for my engine. I sent all the specs and he came up with some numbers. His program looks at engine size versus head flow capability to determine LCA. My Dart oval ports heads flow 380 CFM at 28" / 700 lift.
He came up with the following numbers.

Duration at .050, 255 int/ 260 ex, as much lift as I was comfortable with and for LCA....are you sitting down.....102 installed at 98...YIKES !!!!

I have never experimented with that tight separation and I wondered if anyone here has. Denny came highly recommended, and says these numbers will bring power out, but all of my big block buddies scream like little girls when I say "102 lobe sep". So I am open to advice and opinions on what anyone has tried. I though about going to maybe a 108 or 106.

Oh..my Edlebrock manifold is a "454 O Victor". It looks very plain when sitting next to the Brodix, but it did make the 25hp increase, back to back, on the dyno.

Thanks for any ideas....this is a great site.

Bob

LSA is NOT what you should be deciding on. You should decide on the desired duration and overlap (reference the chart below, which is a good fit for decent sized big blocks) you want, and let the LSA fall where it may. Don't let the tail wag the dog here, the LSA is merely a byproduct of the duration and the associated overlap being used.


Here is tech author David Vizard's advertised overlap reference chart:

10* - 40* towing
30* - 60* ordinary street
50* - 75* street performance
70* - 90* street/strip
85* - 100* race
95* - 115* Pro race

Here's how to calculate your advertised overlap:

Add your intake and exhaust advertised duration (duration at .050 will not give you the correct overlap)
Divide that answer by 4
Subtract the lobe seperation angle (LSA) from that answer
Multiply that answer by 2, and you have it!

This should help you make a much more informed decision on the cam to run. And don't worry about your buddies who scream like little girls. After considering the above, you may well know more than they do.:thumbsup:

Hey Guys...

I quickly scanned over the posts you guys made and I will try and hit on what I think the more important topics of discussion are. I'm taking a quick break from designing a 235 cc LS catherdral port (aimed at some of the larger Gen III strokers).

Someone brought up the 950 versus the 1000 plus 4150 carb. With a killer set of heads and a well optimized combo the 1000 HP would be worth some ponies upstairs....and still be very crisp on the bottom. BUT, the 950 would be a little better around town (simply more crisp and immediate) and provide better MPG. If it were mine I would have opted for the larger carb which would have been worth some power on this build. He already owned the 950 plus and this customer was more interested in a killer street performer than chasing the last 5-10 on dyno. Had he not owned the 950, I would have put him in the larger 4150 style carb. A very aggressive street car should consider a 1050 Dominator with the soft progressive linkage and power valves installed in the front metering block only. Works great on the street....not quite as "clean" as the 4150 stuff but completely drivable and it wont foul plugs or load up on you if set up properly.

Camshaft....this engine with all the airflow potential it had (killer heads, ported well matched induction, etc.) was starving for more of it. A 266 or 268 single pattern would easily have added 25 - 30 more HP. Peak TQ would have remained the same....just occurred a few hundred RPM later and hung on longer (bringing with it the additional HP as a mathmatical function of RPM and TQ). On the engine dyno with more cam (high 260's single pattern), this combination would have knocked down 800...give or take ten in either direction. The head flowed 388 CFM at .650 lift (with huge low/midlift flow) and big exhaust numbers to exhale it all.....an optimized package like this is easily capable of 2 - 2.1 HP per CFM if you hold the valves open long enough. The early TQ and HP peak give a clue that the engine was starving for a little more valve timing (but was exactly what this particular customer's needs called for). A guy not so conservative should look for a cam that would peak some 3-400 RPM later (at 63-6400) and look for a shift point in the 68-7000 range, a very safe number for most aftermarket rotating assemblies....even some of the less expensive ones.

Spacer....it certainly would have liked one but I dont think Fred had the room to install it. Next time I speak with him I will verify yes or no.

Hydraulic roller....I personally would never install one unless I was building a low RPM (5500 and less) boat or tow engine. They limit power output due to their low RPM cieling and dont have the area under the curve a similar solid roller would have because the manufacturer isnt worried about opening the valve or closing it too quickly for the hydraulic mechanism in the lifter. The power curve of a solid roller engine is always wider and hangs on noticably longer, especially past 6000 with a BBC engine (due to their heavy valves, springs, and related hardware).

Devil is in the details....Good comment by Ron and very true. The few questioning the power output were discounting the fact it was built and optimized by a Pro. While Im sure many of you can do what you do better than I, this is what I do and Im very methodical and meticulous when it comes to engine prep and assembly. The fact I also design cylinder heads and intakes gives me another clear advantage here. Camshaft was degreed and installed dead nuts....valvetrain dialed in for a very narrow and centered wipe across the tip, stud girdle installed to make sure every bit of that lift made it to the valve (not flexing the stud), intake manifold was ported and optimized to perfectly fit the entrance to his heads, the heads were lightly ported and optimized....no real metal removing here....just blending and some touch up work in all the key areas of flow (transitions into and out of the valvejob into the CNC ports and chambers, some romancing where the CNC files meet, etc. etc.).....What I did more than anything is turn a really good CNC piece into an exact copy of the higher flowing prototype it was design from (we do our best to advertise legit production numbers....not prototype numbers that are unrealistic in a Production environment). In fact sometimes we will reduce the numbers in our catalog and website if we see the average piece usually falling short at a certain liftpoint etc.


In fact I pulled the flow sheet from when I was done working on them which was was very early this year (1/3/07). I have included advertised numbers next to it. Dont forget that besides the light porting, this head also had the tulip valve upgrade and know you can better understand why I choose to run a single pattern cam.

Intake

Lift....Adv....Actual
.200...169....169
.300...241....243
.400...309....309
.500...353....356
.600...380....385
.650...N/A....388
.700...387....391

To be honest, the BBC 315 catalog numbers are a smidge strong....what I mean by that is a production piece with a fresh cutter would go there but an average piece may fall a few CFM shy. In the last few years we have really made a push to advertising very "average" numbers so as not to disappoint. In fact alot of our new Elimiantor SBC and LS Gen III head go more than we advertise. I hope you can appreciate my candor here. We guarantee our advertised and published flow figures to be within 2.5% of advertised btw.

Check out the exhaust flow

Lift....Adv....Actual
.200...146....148
.300...184....197
.400...238....245
.500...271....279
.600...296....307
.700...310....328

The intake/exhaust ratio is 80% and higher thru most of the curve.

Mike Lewis (Wolfeplace) flows our stuff all the time and he can vouch for the accuracy of our flow data....our bench's (the one I built and the SF600 we have) and Mike's bench are very close.

Chassis Dyno's.....I have spent the last couple of years almost exclusively testing on them with the LS product I have designed and run in my C5. Sure I always flog a combo on the engine dyno, but then alot of tweaking usually finds its way to be tested after the fact on a chassis dyno set-up which is very convenient and really tells the story about the entire combination and your driveline. Engine dyno testing can let you down at times....testing on a chassis dyno can ruin your day....LOL I suggest all of you get to one so you can share your experiences....I think my guesstimate of approximately a 125 HP loss thru Fred's driveline is very accurate. Delete the 9" Ford from the equation (and big heavy aftermarket axles) and swap a 30 spline 12 bolt in there....add at least 10-12 to the tire. Install a lighter aluminum flywheel or better yet a smaller diameter dual disc design (lower inertia) and lighter flywheel and add another 10 to the tire. Swap his current billet 12's and steel belted radial for a 10" Weldwheel (or the equivalent) and a lighter performance tire and there is another 8 - 10. This isnt speculation or BS....its the way it is....ask anyone thats operated or spent enough time on an inertia style chassis dyno. Some of your engines flywheel power is being robbed to accelerate the heavier parts I just mentioned....not accelerate the drum that the HP figures are being derived from. Lets look at Freds combo with the changes I suggested in place. Even if you want to discount my numbers and add only say 26 to the end results (now the total would be 670 RWHP), my 770 flywheel guesstimate looks more in line (670 representing only a 13% loss). Whats changed?....nothing....we just freed up some power to the tire that was already there at the flywheel. Do I wish Fred took this engine back to the flywheel dyno he initially tested this engine with the hyd roller and other aluminum heads? Hell yeah....of course I do, and thats exactly how I would have done it, but it wasn't mine and this info is the best I can provide you guys with. If it were mine I would have provided you guys with flywheel and rear wheel numbers for that matter.

Last but not least, dont install a 102 LSA cam in a large BBC....the torque curve will be heading south quickly past peak TQ. Peak HP will come quick (narrow spread between TQ and HP peaks) and the curve will roll over HARD after peak. A small BBC can get away with a 108 because it needs help in the TQ department....110 works well in the mid fours to low 500's CID, and once you start getting into the mid 500's plus a 112 usually works pretty well although a 110 might be a better choice on a roadrace car having to come off a corner. If any of you decide to try it (a really narrow LSA), make sure you share!

That's it for now...

Regards,
Tony

Here is tech author David Vizard's advertised overlap reference chart:

10* - 40* towing
30* - 60* ordinary street
50* - 75* street performance
70* - 90* street/strip
85* - 100* race
95* - 115* Pro race

Here's how to calculate your advertised overlap:

Add your intake and exhaust advertised duration (duration at .050 will not give you the correct overlap)
Divide that answer by 4
Subtract the lobe seperation angle (LSA) from that answer
Multiply that answer by 2, and you have it!

Hi Rat,

Dave Vizard is the guy who rec'd Denny for the cam program. I read your equation and tried it , but not sure if I got the correct answer. I was told to look for advertised duration of 295 In/ 300 Ex. (.050 of approx 255/260) Considering a street/strip cam, would I use the numbers 70-90 as the LSA to subtract then multiply times 2??? I was a little confused as to what to use for the LSA number.

Thanks,

Bob

mine is 101 I guess
316-326 at 110?

Here is tech author David Vizard's advertised overlap reference chart:

10* - 40* towing
30* - 60* ordinary street
50* - 75* street performance
70* - 90* street/strip
85* - 100* race
95* - 115* Pro race

Here's how to calculate your advertised overlap:

Add your intake and exhaust advertised duration (duration at .050 will not give you the correct overlap)
Divide that answer by 4
Subtract the lobe seperation angle (LSA) from that answer
Multiply that answer by 2, and you have it!

Hi Rat,

Dave Vizard is the guy who rec'd Denny for the cam program. I read your equation and tried it , but not sure if I got the correct answer. I was told to look for advertised duration of 295 In/ 300 Ex. (.050 of approx 255/260) Considering a street/strip cam, would I use the numbers 70-90 as the LSA to subtract then multiply times 2??? I was a little confused as to what to use for the LSA number.

Thanks,

Bob

Bob,

No, you don't use the 70*-90* to subtract. That 70*-90* is from the chart above that you compare your overlap answer too. You subtract the LSA that is listed in a cam's specs. Most typical LSA's will be in the 108*-114* range, it is a single number. The calculation you do here, gives you an answer in advertised overlap for the cam you just did the math on. Then you compare your answer to the chart above. You'll no doubt endup checking several examples of cams, to see where they fall in the overlap chart above. In your case, it is a bit of trial and error to see which cam best fits your needs. But it only takes a minute or two per cam check, once you get the hang of the math. Doing all this won't directly give you a LSA answer, it just shows you where various LSA's stack-up in the overlap chart. You might say that you sort of back into the answer. Remember that the LSA is simply a by-product of the duration and overlap, so one could make the argument that the LSA in and of itself, is of no real value. If you decide on the duration and overlap, you don't really have to even care what your LSA is, since it just falls where it may. Keep in mind, that the more overlap your cam has, the more lope or rough idle it will have. It becomes more and more obvious as you get further up into the street/strip range and beyond. Hope this helps :thumbsup:

Thought I’d jump in and share my combination since I’m running AFR 335 CNC heads on my pump gas 548”. I run a ported Vic Jr intake manifold (Bernard Mondello) w/ a Mondello prep’d 4150 HP 1000 carb and no spacer. In fact the carb pad was angle milled to fit under my hood. I made 700 RWHP @ 6400 – 6700 rpm w/ full exhaust system (3.5” system w/ Borla XR-1 mufflers) as I drove the car to the dyno shop. Cam is a Comp solid roller 266/272 @ .050 w/ .711 intake and .687 exhaust lift on a 112 LSA installed on a 110 ICL.

Yup, these engines are tough on manual transmissions. Stripped the teeth off 3rd gear on my Richmond Gear 5-sp. Actually Jim 540Hotrod Moore did, but that’s another story. I’ve since switched to a G-Force GF-5R and no longer worry about transmission carnage.

I can’t imagine much more throttle response and frankly, I’m not sure I would welcome any increase in low end torque that the smaller AFR 315 heads might offer. I can easily break loose the MT ET Radials from a roll at any speed in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear.

Mark

Thought I’d jump in and share my combination since I’m running AFR 335 CNC heads on my pump gas 548”. I run a ported Vic Jr intake manifold (Bernard Mondello) w/ a Mondello prep’d 4150 HP 1000 carb and no spacer. Cam is a Comp solid roller 266/272 @ .050 w/ .711 intake and .687 exhaust lift on a 112 LSA installed on a 110 ICL.


I can’t imagine much more throttle response and frankly, I’m not sure I would welcome any increase in low end torque that the smaller AFR 315 heads might offer. I can easily break loose the MT ET Radials from a roll at any speed in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear.

Mark

Hi Mark,

How's the cam for longevity?? Do you do much street driving with it?? If you're having good luck with it, what type lifters and springs do you use.

What compression?? Those are GREAT numbers for a cam like that.

Thanks,

Bob

Tony,
Thanks for addressing my carb/intake question.
I appreciate all your input, thanks for taking the time to post not only the results but the reasons why different combinations work the way they do. Timing is perfect on this topic, I'm fairly close to a build for a '72 and your real-world info helps a lot!

Mike (Wolfplace) often refers to his Dyno results as modest or stingy while others may be regarded as comparible or even gratuitous. Well I have it from a very credible source that chassis dyno's are typically far more variant from one to another. My source happens to Dyno (I don't know the specifics) the top finishers, as well as, any number of random or selected also finishers, from the various NASCAR sanctioned divisions, including NexTel Cup.

For the last five winters, I spend about an hour and a half with this guy each weekend. His daughter plays on my daughters soccer team. The girls are also schoolmates and at times, best friends (you know how girls are). He calls it moonlighting (working for his brothers company), as he is normally a suit at a local casino. I have been invited (with my Chevelle) to his brothers annual Dyno/BBQ/Pool party twice, but have yet to attend due to conflicting schedules.

Scrutinization of a racers hp numbers, inevitably brings out the results of the teams Dyno. So it's safe to say, these guys get to compare the results of a lot of different machines. While an engine Dyno is usually in a enviromentally controlled cell, chassis Dynos are subject to all kinds of conditions that are beyond the operators control, especially if it is subject to weekly mobilization. I guess that's why non top finishers are tested, to give some kind of scale to work with.

Then you have the individual parasitic components of any given car. Corrective formulas to determine flywheel hp are speculative at best. The real value of a chassis Dyno is in tuning the combination as a whole and the validity of there figures are primarily for comparing to pulls immediately before or after any particular tuning variations. The same car, on the same Dyno, can produce significantly different figures from one day to the next, simply due to weather. My understanding is that most units provide a calculated corrected hp. Everybody has their own opinions of corrected figures in relation to real world numbers.

Hey Gary,
I haven't heard back from you since my last email. It included a couple of questions regarding the Super Comps. If you did not receive it, let me know, I'll re-send it.

Since it's pretty much a street only car, I wonder if fuel injection would make it idle/run better? Also, would it be able to make an more power with fuel injection?

Thought I’d jump in and share my combination since I’m running AFR 335 CNC heads on my pump gas 548”. I run a ported Vic Jr intake manifold (Bernard Mondello) w/ a Mondello prep’d 4150 HP 1000 carb and no spacer. In fact the carb pad was angle milled to fit under my hood. I made 700 RWHP @ 6400 – 6700 rpm w/ full exhaust system (3.5” system w/ Borla XR-1 mufflers) as I drove the car to the dyno shop. Cam is a Comp solid roller 266/272 @ .050 w/ .711 intake and .687 exhaust lift on a 112 LSA installed on a 110 ICL.

Yup, these engines are tough on manual transmissions. Stripped the teeth off 3rd gear on my Richmond Gear 5-sp. Actually Jim 540Hotrod Moore did, but that’s another story. I’ve since switched to a G-Force GF-5R and no longer worry about transmission carnage.

I can’t imagine much more throttle response and frankly, I’m not sure I would welcome any increase in low end torque that the smaller AFR 315 heads might offer. I can easily break loose the MT ET Radials from a roll at any speed in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear.

Mark


Mark

How much of the rwhp result is due to motor being in a much lighter (I assume) corvette? I would think your driveline loss would be much improved over our 3,600+ # Chevelles. :confused:

Anybody have any thoughts on how much better a TKO 600 would hold up with this kind of power in a Chevelle?

Andy

It is exclusively a street car. I put about 3000 miles on it per year. It would be higher if I lived in warmer climes….
I previously ran Crower Severe Duty roller lifters w/ HIPPO and got ~ 5000 miles on them. I’m currently running the Morel solid rollers with pin oiling. The Morel lifters are rebuildable unlike the Crowers and I plan to have them rebuilt every year. It’s a tick over 11:1 CR and I run 93 octane.

I’m not sure the Corvette driveline is more efficient with its independent rear suspension and attendant 6 u-joints. I don’t know how it would compare to a solid axle Chevelle driveline. I’m also not sure how vehicle weight affects chassis dyno readings. A Corvette is lighter than a Chevelle, but with ~ 50:50weight distribution, probably has more weight over the rear tires, at least statically loaded. That would be an interesting test to see how different cars and drivelines running the same engine affect chassis dyno readings.

On a different Dynojet chassis dyno running a different carburetor (Carb Shop HP 1000 w/ annular boosters) and stud mounted rockers w/o a stud girdle, it made 687 RWHP SAE corrected. The more recent 700+ SAE corrected RWHP was made with a Bernard Mondello HP 1000 carb w/ downleg boosters and Jesel shaft rockers. SAE correction gives lower HP readings than STD correction.

Mark

ML67...

Still telling that story about me killing that trans huh?? Well...you know......I tell you all the time...I'm an *enabler*....I just helped enable you to significantly upgrade your trans!! I guess maybe it stands to reason since 3rd gear died in my Doug Nash 5 speed a few times too.....teeth just can't handle it!

Ando to think you offered to let me take yours down the track...even after seeing how I treat mine! But I gurantee you...I WILL find whatever it's capable of!

What did my wife say last time...."Either run a 9.** or bring it home in a box!"

I can vouch for the TQ Marks 335 equipped 548 makes. It's definitely killer. It doesn't nose over at higher RPM's even with the Vic Jr and 4150...though they have had a little magic worked on them....but I don't think the plenum or ports were crazily opened up any were they Mark? More blending and tweeking to match the AFR's?

I doubt the Vette IRS is saving any HP....in fact we have another buddy that is about to help us find that out. He's got a 900+ RWHP Vette IRS that is getting converted to a 9". So at least we will have some comparisons.

540 Olds....that must be the same cam guy that helped Vizard work out all those charts and stuff maybe? If you use Vizards recommendations.....it adds up to cams like that...with 98*-102* LSA's for big inch motors like this...yet I never even see him build them that way when he does projects. I think I'm going to wait this one out and see what someone else comes up with. I suppose there is a way it could work in a certain application.....but I'm not sure what it would be. I some of the stuff Vizard does...he's a smart dude.....but I'm not sold on all of his cam plans yet.

Your OVAL's flow 380CFM? Those are some awful nice *definitely not ordinary* ovals. Unless they are large CC race type ones.

I know on my combo....I purposely reconfigured it to kill some bottom and midrange and make it easier to hook and get moving with the stick trans. It was insane before. I moved a lot of power upstairs. Now that I have the clutch management and suspension better sorted out..I could probably shift some power back downstairs....but I sure like that top end pull!

JIM

Nice :thumbsup:
I have been wanting to do one of these with 315's for a while now but have been a little gun-shy to recommend the smaller head on someone else's dime even though I have no doubt they would generate 750 on an honest dyno with obscene torque,,,,

I have three 540's in the works & maybe one will end up with the "baby heads" after folks see this combo,,,,

The first question that comes to mind is how much tweaking was done on an already great head & what was the final size?
The second of course is the intake,,,,
I would normally consider a Vic Jr as too damn small for a 540 so how much plenum work & how much spacer if any
My own feeling along with the input of some pretty sharp induction guys (including a guy named Tony something or other,,, :D ) says this intake needs some plunum on a 540,,,,,,

I would have loved to see this on the same engine dyno as the old combo
Now that would have been an interesting test ;)

Mike,
I would be willing to supply the camshaft for the 315 test. If the cam works well then customer pays for it, if not then send it back no charge.

[quote=Rowdy;1587491]Mike (Wolfplace) often refers to his Dyno results as modest or stingy while others may be regarded as comparible or even gratuitous. Well I have it from a very credible source that chassis dyno's are typically far more variant from one to another.

While an engine Dyno is usually in a enviromentally controlled cell, chassis Dynos are subject to all kinds of conditions that are beyond the operators control, especially if it is subject to weekly mobilization.

Then you have the individual parasitic components of any given car. Corrective formulas to determine flywheel hp are speculative at best.
The real value of a chassis Dyno is in tuning the combination as a whole and the validity of there figures are primarily for comparing to pulls immediately before or after any particular tuning variations. The same car, on the same Dyno, can produce significantly different figures from one day to the next, simply due to weather. My understanding is that most units provide a calculated corrected hp.

Hi Rowdy,

I owned a mobile chassis dyno for three years; a DynoJet 248. I had a test "mule" that we'd take with us to run when we set the dyno up. This served two purposes; #1 to check the numbers were valid, #2 to draw a crowd. I found this dyno to be EXTREMELY repeatable, ie, this car would always come in within 2-4 hp every time. We put it at one event and the power was off by quite a bit; I thought the dyno was screwed up, but upon further inspection, we found a plug wire burned. We replaced it and the number came right back. So this dyno was very reliable with it's numbers and I didn't see any variations of more than 1-2% if that. It did provide corrected nubers via a computr linked weather station onboard that tracked tempurature, humidity, and baro pressure.

You are correct that dynos can vary from one to another, and I think that's where most guys get into trouble as many of them "search" for the dyno that shows the best numbers.They would come to me and say "I made this much" on another dyno, usually a different brand. If they had made any radical changes since the other dyno visit, that would be even more of a problem, especially if the numbers were lower, because the changes "had to make an improvement." I know I have gone backwards a few times in hp while trying some "trick" mods.

EVERYONE wanted to know "how much percentage loss of my drivetrain?" I called all over; DynoJet, GM Powertrain, etc, and no one has any concrete numbers. We had some "ballpark" numbers, but that was it. And most guys were "shocked" by the chassis numbers because they would be much lower than flywheel. Each car and avery combination is different. I spent a lot of time explaining this. As I said, my 725 flywheel was only 540 rear wheel; I was hoping for 724.!! I wanted to experiment with electric fans and water pumps to see how it would affect these numbers, but I sold it before I could find time.

The biggest problem, as you stated, is going from one dyno to another. You hit it on thead when you mentioned going back to the same dyno each time. Perfect world is get on the dyno and do all the tuning/changes at once, then go back to that same dyno for any future checks/mods.

I do know you could change the numbers on a chassis dyno depending on tire pressure, how hard you strapped it down, etc, but those numbers were small in the overall picture. We always tried to keep things the same so as to get more accurate info.

They are great tools, but only when comparing "apples to apples"... and dyno time isn't cheap.


Bob

540 Hotrod asked "Your OVAL's flow 380CFM? Those are some awful nice *definitely not ordinary* ovals. Unless they are large CC race type ones."

I am trying to get exact runner numbers; I "think" they were 308 after CNC, but the intake ports match the Mr.Gasket #107 intake gasket......I'll print more info as I get it.
I tried them specifically for torque in the heavy Cutlass.

Bob

Mike,
I would be willing to supply the camshaft for the 315 test. If the cam works well then customer pays for it, if not then send it back no charge.
=
HI Chris,
Works for me :)
If it comes to pass either I or the owner will certainly be bugging you but these three I am doing are all somewhat "camshaft committed" as of now
Two I am doing/did & the other is being supplied by the customer from another source.

I have another but I haven't heard from him for a while now, think he is out of the country on business so I don't know the status

Chris and Mike........Lets build me a 540 :)
I'll try it out and if it works, we'll iron out the bill :D
Brian

Chris and Mike........Lets build me a 540 :)
I'll try it out and if it works, we'll iron out the bill :D
Brian
=
Sorry Brian,,
Chris & I were just talking about doing one for you but Santa called & said you have been a very very bad boy soooo :p

Chris and Mike........Lets build me a 540 :)
I'll try it out and if it works, we'll iron out the bill :D
Brian


I want a 540 now too. and I live closer to Mike than you do!
So Mike, let me know when I can come and pick it up!

By the way Mike......how much hp would you estimate would be lost if poor cheapo guys like me and Brian (who should have just bought the 315's) were to use the 305 head with the CNC chambers and said 540?

And one more thing....sounds like an opportunity to develop a 540 crate engine program....

Ron

I have used the formula and have come up with 87. I am wondering if this is too high for a 540 street car, 1966 Corvette Coupe, RPM Performer from Wilson's, 4150 1000 cfm, 10:5 compression, AFR 315's, Jessel rockers, Richmond 5 speed 4:11 1st - 4th final 308. 27 inch tires.

The cam is a Solid Roller 307/315 advertised @ .50 it is 257/265, lift is 725, and LSA is 112.

307 +315 = 622 / 4 = 155.5 - 112 + 43.5 * 2= 87

=
Sorry Brian,,
Chris & I were just talking about doing one for you but Santa called & said you have been a very very bad boy soooo :p


You think he is going to try and pay us in Cheese Mike?

I want a 540 now too. and I live closer to Mike than you do!
So Mike, let me know when I can come and pick it up!

By the way Mike......how much hp would you estimate would be lost if poor cheapo guys like me and Brian (who should have just bought the 315's) were to use the 305 head with the CNC chambers and said 540?

And one more thing....sounds like an opportunity to develop a 540 crate engine program....

Ron
=
Any time Ron, if I ain't here just come on in through the double gates out front of the house,,,, & wait,,, someone will be with you in no time,,, don't mind the cold noses,,,, :D

Hey, you could always call Tony, whine & snibble a lot & maybe he would hand port them for you in his "spare time",, ;)
Or you could sell them & get the 325's, I would be more than happy to fix you up,,,, :p

I will pass on the crate engine thing,,

You think he is going to try and pay us in Cheese Mike?

Nah,,, probably try to bribe me with chicken :D :noway:

=
Sorry Brian,,
Chris & I were just talking about doing one for you but Santa called & said you have been a very very bad boy soooo :p

And I was trying to be good this year :(

You think he is going to try and pay us in Cheese Mike?

Hey now, just because I am from up nort here in WI......
We just like to wear cheese when watching the Packers, LOL.


=
Any time Ron, if I ain't here just come on in through the double gates out front of the house,,,, & wait,,, someone will be with you in no time,,, don't mind the cold noses,,,,
Hey, you could always call Tony, whine & snibble a lot & maybe he would hand port them for you in his "spare time",, ;)
Or you could sell them & get the 325's, I would be more than happy to fix you up,,,, :p

I will pass on the crate engine thing,,



Nah,,, probably try to bribe me with chicken :D :noway:

Would chicken work MIke?

You'll all be laughin when I call to order some parts, :D
I have a guy wanting to buy my 496.
I don't think I could part with it just yet though.
Never know though, if the price is right :confused:
Still gotta get it in the nines :thumbsup:

:beers:
Brian

=
Any time Ron, if I ain't here just come on in through the double gates out front of the house,,,, & wait,,, someone will be with you in no time,,, don't mind the cold noses,,,, :D

Dammit, Mike, now I gotta clean the keyboard again, ROFLMAO!

Mike...I think you have an order from a fellow I know in Chicago for a 540. Any chance it could be one of the test beds?


JIM

And I was trying to be good this year :(



Hey now, just because I am from up nort here in WI......
We just like to wear cheese when watching the Packers, LOL.




Would chicken work MIke?

You'll all be laughin when I call to order some parts, :D
I have a guy wanting to buy my 496.
I don't think I could part with it just yet though.
Never know though, if the price is right :confused:
Still gotta get it in the nines :thumbsup:

:beers:
Brian

I told you to put slicks on the thing!!!! 9's would have gotten another 2 grand for the engine... I will look for some "new" parts at the PRI show for you....