Several recurring topics including manifold type, carb size, header size and port style / combustion chamber volume for BB heads has been discussed in great length. Opinions vary as to the merits of one over the other and which is best for a real street / strip car. My replies to such posts citing my experiences through on track testing have been the cause of much debate, primarily due to what is printed in many of the performance magazines we read.

Without recapping my stance on the previously mentioned components I thought I would share with you some information that until recently wasn't common knowledge to many enthusiast or the press for that matter.

Recently publications such as National Dragster, particularly articles written by Wayne Scraba have given us a look at some of the latest advancements in Pro Stock technology. Bear in mind that these "latest" advancements have been used for years and it's only now your starting to hear about it.

Now clearly what you and I are doing has no comparison to Pro Stock. However it demonstrates just how much thinking has changed in regards to what makes power.

For instance did you know that Pro Stock heads are using an "oval port" configuration and that they also utilize very small combustion chambers with volumes far less than late 60's era closed chamber BB heads. Or that small exhaust valves, typically smaller than what was stock on the famed LS6 are being used. All these changes emphasize the importance of a high velocity port / intake track and efficient combustion.

This change in thinking has come about because some innovative individuals have tried some "new" approaches to the same old problems. Professional racing and Pro Stock in particular is one place where the "bolt on barney" mentality won't cut it.

You see even these 2300 lb., 1300+HP, 10,000 RPM race cars are benefiting by maintaining a high velocity intake track. The goal here is to provide as much flow as required without sacrificing velocity.

So you see velocity is just as important as flow and in a street car more so, especially for that "seat of the pants" feel. Consider this the speed of the mixture determines how tightly the combustion chamber is packed. The more tightly packed the combustion chamber, the more pressure is developed when the mixture is ignited, pushing the piston with more force for more power.

Same thinking applies to headers. Most every enthusiast chooses headers that are too large. Consider the following next time your buddy tells you to get 2" primary tubes for your BB or 1 3/4" for your small block.

Pro Stock Trucks with their 900+HP, 9,000 RPM engines are typically using 1 7/8" headers and Pro Stock cars are using 2 1/2" primary tubes. This with motors making approximately 2.6 HP per cubic inch.

So next time your debating parts selection for your street / strip car take a cue from the pros and believe the results they have spent countless hours and dollars on proving. Smaller is quicker and faster.





[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 12-31-2000).]

Good Stuff! Thanks.
Phocksphyre

Another example of all this is a fairly typical combination used on late model Camaros and Corvettes. It's a 383 sbc with a Lingenfelter 219@.050 cam using an Accel Superram manifold and 1 5/8 headers. Heads are typically small port AFR's. Many of these cars run 11.6's at over 116 mph and get over 24 mpg and idle like stock. They also run mild converters and a lot of them 3.08 or so rear gears. Shift is usually 5500-5800.

This is because of the efficiency and velocity at low engine speeds.

You can get the same performance with a single plane, bigger heads, and a cam with over 240 @ .050. The tradeoff is that that engine will have 10" of vacuum and idle rough, get poor fuel economy and it needs gears and converter. It won't have the lowend power of the other engine. I'm not saying this is a bad combination, as I'll have a similar one to this in my car next year. Nothing wrong with an engine that shakes the fenders a little, but if you want economy and power, you need the components that provide as much intake velocity and efficiency as possible.

I don't have the formulas, but when flowing air, I believe a circular port will almost flow as much air as a rectangular port with a diameter equal to the width of the rectangular, all with less area.

An LS1 is a great example of an efficient engine.

Ed,

You bring up some very interesting points.

On the headers sizing I would like to add a comment. Pro Stock cars and trucks don't run full exhausts, which may possibly affect header tube sizing. Has anyone ever tested this? Probably so, but I've never had access to it. The magazine guys can't even get an apples to apples header shoot-out done. The people who will have this information is the top NMCA/NSCA type guys. How many guys on this board work for the Kenny Duttweiler's, Pat Musi's etc. I would venture to guess about NONE. I've been mulling this over in great depth lately. Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to purchase all the parts and unlimited access to a dyno. Without being exposed to such information/testing us average "enthusiasts" HAVE to rely on "monkey see, monkey do."

We all know collector length can be used as a tuning aid and will affect power. What actually does happen when you essentially have an "infinite collector?"

I'm not saying follow the leader is necessarily the right thing to do at all. In fact I ABSOLUTELY HATE IT, but realistically how are we going to find out what works other than seeing what has been done in the past or else testing ourselves. "Pro" anything teams are NOT going to share this type of info. Heck, they all have cardboard and duct tape around their intake manifolds to try to hide what's going on there.

I'm not getting on you Ed, just playing Devils advocate and trying to stir the debate and invoke a little more thought on this subject.

Thanks for Bringing this up!

Jason Gore
AKA DragRacer
jgchevelle@aol.com

Racer1320, while I wont dispute any of your comments ( as you know I run a "period" crate engine), I will say that the beauty of the big block design is that you just cant mess up a combo that much for the everyday street guy. The resilience and elegance of the design makes even "less than optimal" combos still give the driver and any riders, the "big block grin". http://www.chevelles.com/forum/eek.gif http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Anyway, think my next build is a 400 + sbc for wifes soon to be 61 Vette! http://www.chevelles.com/forum/wink.gif

------------------
Gene Chaas
Gold Member 62/ACES
67 SS 427 (http://www.chevelles.com/feature/october2000.html)

Personally I have no problem with following the leader......it's a great way to be a leader in your own right. I cannot and will not afford to try a multitude of combinations just to find out I was wrong. Give me a tried and proven combo and I'm there.

------------------
"Laissez Le Bon Temp Rouler' Cha!"
Chevytalk Moderator (http://forums.chevytalk.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=1970-1972+Chevelle&number=52)
My Car (http://hometown.aol.com/abayoukid/index.html)
"Jungle"Jim
A&P/ASE T/C#105
70SS396 & 70 Malibu
"I don't drive FAST, I just FLY low!"

[This message has been edited by junglejimmie (edited 12-31-2000).]

Hey Gene,

I think that a BBC combination can be real screwed up. My old combination was a great example. It would have been great in the 2500 lb. S/G car that it came out of, but was a TURD in my 3400 lb. "street car" (I say that term loosely for Ed's sake) http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

With a 3.600" stroke, 6.500" long rods, huge fully ported 990 rect port heads, large intake (Edelbrock 454R), dominator, and large solid roller, made for one high rpm, low torque TURD. I honestly could not believe it ran as poor as it did (at least the ET slip said so).

I have learned one big lesson...the combination has to be matched to all the other parts, but just as important...the intended usage, rpm range, vehicle weight, and your maintence expectations. It might be nice to run low 9's on motor but pulling the engine every couple races or so to check it out would be a serious pain.

------------------
Todd Geisler
79 Malibu
11.16@125.8mph
Malibu Muscle
http://www.MalibuMuscle.cjb.net

Doug while I agree Lingenfelter makes some outstanding combinations....very few 4th gen camaros are able to run even an 11 let alone a mid 11 using that combination you listed. In fact most of the 4th gens running the LPE 219 are running mid 12's. I can only speak from my own experience with the 4th gens and I realize different tracks and tuning can result in different ets but I definitely think 11.6 might be the best et ever produced by a specially tuned Lingenfelter car with a strong tailwind to boot... http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

As I stated in the other argument about this...their are LOTS of ways to go fast...I dont understand the mentality of some that they feel they are the only one to have ever figured it out. I gave Racer an example of a 67 chevelle that would run pretty even with his using the exact opposite components of his and he pretty much called me a liar....how he can come to this conclusion who knows......I learned a LONG time ago not to judge anything without seeing it run....in fact I learned this right after I got my arse absolutely beat down by a TTA...There are lots of mismatched combos out there...I think we all agree on that but to each their own...every car is different and while some might like one setup another car might not....if we all ran the same setup it would be pretty dull wouldnt it. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
Bill
65 SS
Team Member 1013

Gene, your period piece was certainly a terror in it's day and I'm sure your detuned L88 is quite stout. I will agree that if you don't get too crazy with component selection and build your big block similar in specs to a L78 396, L88 427 or LS6 454 you can't go wrong. However times change and with the information and technology available to us today we now know that these former terrors of the street and strip can be built to make even more usable power and at the same time be more streetable than their predecessors. Remember these motors in Chevelles were 13 and 14 second performers in street trim with 12 second ET's possible in race trim with open headers, deep gears and race gas to name a few. I know that grin you speak of. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/eek.gif

junglejimmie, your welcome to use my tried and proven combos.

Todd, I wouldn't say it was a turd. 11 teens at 126 MPH is not to shabby. I do however still suspect your converter isn't up to the task.

Bill, I never called you a liar, not my style. All I said was that this '67 you speak of isn't running those ET's under the same criteria that I run. By your own admission you know very little about this car other than it's a rectangular port headed big block. How do I know? Well I know because I run against and have observed other BB Chevelles with rectangular port heads and in most cases a single plane manifold. The ones that are actually street cars weighing near 4000 lbs and are a 454(462-467) can't run near the ET's that I post. I suspect your '67 is more like 3600 lbs., has more compression and possibly cubes.

The purpose of this post as well as the ones that I respond to is to educate our members as to what really works and why. Most of our members can't afford to make mistakes with mismatched combos in an effort to reach their performance goals. Most are family men and students both of which have limited resources for their hobby. So doing it right the first time is paramount.

I welcome all those who have a proven 454 BB rectangular port head/single plane combo installed in a real street / strip Chevelle running the ET's that I am to share it with us.

BTW Bill, this nor the other topic was an argument, just a discussion.



[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 12-31-2000).]

Bill,
I am certainly not a person to argue. Almost all of my comments I make are from things I have done myself. However, the numbers I gave however are numbers I typically see posted by the good running cars on corvetteforum.com. I agree that if you just throw these parts on your car you will probably be in the mid twelves. The guys that run at the strip all the time and have their 60 fts. good (1.7 and down) seem to break into the 11's and be able to run 11.6-11.8. I agree that this may not be the norm, but I guess I am just saying that a proper combination, such as the parts listed, when dialed in to the track can run very well. The guys that run these numbers have spent a lot of time dialing in their combination. Of course on street tires you'd never run these times. The mph is always a good indicator of hp, even if the et is not there.

As for Ed's combination, we dynoed some new oval port heads where I work at Holley with a dual plane and made about 600hp and 600ft/lbs on a 502 with a relatively mild hyd. roller. On this engine, rect. ports made no more power. There definately is a stigma that you need rec. ports by many people.

I'm fortuneate enough to work with some noted engine builders. It is very interesting to talk to them about their views. I find each one has very specialized knowledge in their area of expertise, but there are so many types of engines and applications, no one knows a lot about them all usually.

Would it be more efficient to run a smaller tube header that flares out for each primary tube? Say start out with a 1 5/8" primary that lasts for all of 3" then flare it up to a 2" primary... and on to a 3" collector?

From what I gathered, the only thing "oval" about my heads was the inlet opening. AFter that it opened up quite a bit. With the bowl work I had done, is my "turn down area" the same as a Rectangular port head? Any one have a "cut-out" of each head's respective "runner"

-What is the inlet/runner configuration of a HEMI head? I can't see spark travel making that much of a difference.

-While on the mopar note, why a common 4 barrel carb more effienct (A/F per piston) than a 6 pack setup? (3 dueces)

ED, AS soon as I get my slicks bolted on and 60' around a 1.7 I may have something to brag about http://www.chevelles.com/forum/cool.gif Untill then I have to settle for "that aint no hydraulic 396" http://www.chevelles.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

------------------
BB414, TH400, 3.73 posi,
13.1sec @ 105 MPH (TH400 needs clutch pack, Radial T/As = zero traction)
"I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end " J.T.
Picture of me roasting the tires and other guy stuff (http://www.auburnextremeracing.org/drivers/mike/)
Video of me staging (smoke of course) (http://www.notabusinessracing.org/videos/mike_chevelle_burnout.avi)

racer 1320 not everone is up on your car,you know what it is, how it runs maybe you should fill them in. i for one am interested in the combo you use cos it obviously works!! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by racer1320:
Several recurring topics including manifold type, carb size, header size and port style / combustion chamber volume for BB heads has been discussed in great length. Opinions vary as to the merits of one over the other and which is best for a real street / strip car. My replies to such posts citing my experiences through on track testing have been the cause of much debate, primarily due to what is printed in many of the performance magazines we read.

Without recapping my stance on the previously mentioned components I thought I would share with you some information that until recently wasn't common knowledge to many enthusiast or the press for that matter.

Recently publications such as National Dragster, particularly articles written by Wayne Scraba have given us a look at some of the latest advancements in Pro Stock technology. Bear in mind that these "latest" advancements have been used for years and it's only now your starting to hear about it.

Now clearly what you and I are doing has no comparison to Pro Stock. However it demonstrates just how much thinking has changed in regards to what makes power.

For instance did you know that Pro Stock heads are using an "oval port" configuration and that they also utilize very small combustion chambers with volumes far less than late 60's era closed chamber BB heads. Or that small exhaust valves, typically smaller than what was stock on the famed LS6 are being used. All these changes emphasize the importance of a high velocity port / intake track and efficient combustion.

This change in thinking has come about because some innovative individuals have tried some "new" approaches to the same old problems. Professional racing and Pro Stock in particular is one place where the "bolt on barney" mentality won't cut it.

You see even these 2300 lb., 1300+HP, 10,000 RPM race cars are benefiting by maintaining a high velocity intake track. The goal here is to provide as much flow as required without sacrificing velocity.

So you see velocity is just as important as flow and in a street car more so, especially for that "seat of the pants" feel. Consider this the speed of the mixture determines how tightly the combustion chamber is packed. The more tightly packed the combustion chamber, the more pressure is developed when the mixture is ignited, pushing the piston with more force for more power.

Same thinking applies to headers. Most every enthusiast chooses headers that are too large. Consider the following next time your buddy tells you to get 2" primary tubes for your BB or 1 3/4" for your small block.

Pro Stock Trucks with their 900+HP, 9,000 RPM engines are typically using 1 7/8" headers and Pro Stock cars are using 2 1/2" primary tubes. This with motors making approximately 2.6 HP per cubic inch.

So next time your debating parts selection for your street / strip car take a cue from the pros and believe the results they have spent countless hours and dollars on proving. Smaller is quicker and faster.



[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 12-31-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doug I agree there can be a big variance in cars....and I have read about different cars running drastically different ets with the same mods....I guess its all in the tune. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif I try not to place much stock in what I read though but rather what I can actually observe at a track and I have yet to see at the track of any LT series F-bodies turn those kind of ets with that mild of a setup but like I said all tracks are different. I need to contact you sometime in the next few months about the commander 950 setup....I'd like to have the best of both worlds with the brute force of a big block (even a rectangular port headed one at that http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif ) and the tuneability of fuel injection. After playing with 4th gens for so long I dont think I'd care to go back to a carburetor... http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif


Racer you are right...I dont know enough about the car to argue with you about it...I had the impression that you on the other hand seem to think you do know enough about it to know that I am wrong...in any event either way my choice of wording about the argument was incorrect...I enjoy discussions like these to a point.

------------------
Bill
65 SS
Team Member 1013

[This message has been edited by 65ssRat (edited 12-31-2000).]

bottlerat, here are the driveline specs:

-467BB
-10.7:1 CR (TRW #2399 piston and Speed Pro file-fit rings)
-GM cast iron close chamber oval port heads #215. Head work includes 2.19/1.88 valves, bowl work and gasket matched.
-Edelbrock Air Gap RPM
-Comp Xtreme Energy street roller 238I / 244 E @.050, .640 / .646 lift ground on a 108LSA
-MSD6AL with billet distributor
-1 3/4" headers with 3" merge collectors
-turbo 400 with ATI 10" converter
-Denny's 3 1/2" metal matrix composite driveshaft
-4.10 gear
-3" exhaust
30" x 10" Hoosier radial slick


Check it out here www.homestead.com/headsupchevelles/page13.html (http://www.homestead.com/headsupchevelles/page13.html)

To achieve similar results you would have to follow this buildup EXACTLY. Performance like this is more about the combo than just the motor.


[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 12-31-2000).]

Racer to run that roller setup what specs do you have for your valvesprings?

------------------
Bill
65 SS
Team Member 1013

1320 think you are right about the size of combustion chambers on those pro engines getting smaller. i have had the opportunity to work on some 500 inch chryslers. these are pro stock style motors in bracket cars. with b-1 and indy heads. i was surprised to see how small the combustion chambers were. but they have intake ports you can put your fist in. as you know alot of smallblock heads are going to lower valve angles and smaller chambers. you get two benefits a lighter piston and more compression with a flatter piston. as you know a flat piston motor is more efficent than one with domes at a given compression ratio. those 500 inch chryslers have a very small dome for a 15 to 1 motor. most of the "pro" guys are using as big a bore as the rules will permit. gasolines burns so fast in comparison to other fuels. that a large piston will prove more area to push it down. so after the expansion of each explosion is over the piston is close to the bottom of its stroke. as compared to a nitro motor that uses a small bore and a long stroke because the explosion is still pushing when the exhaust valve opens. as for header size i have seen some of those pro stock trucks with step headers.

one of the reasons i ask was, in may i bought a 69,and it came with a 454 4 bolt main standard bore and a set of big brodie II heads, and a brodix p.n.2001 intake,a 1050 dominator and the cam is a comp cams p.n.11-700-9 specs are lift is .680 and dur.is 253 261 @.50 its a solid roller. on 108 l.c. when i pulled the engine apart it looked like some one went out and bought a ls-7 short block and spent a bunch of money on parts and then just threw it all together.they did'nt even fly cut the pistons for the cam.they just used a .60 copper head gasket.oh yea it also has a nos cheater system on it. i've since taken the whole thing to tony bischoff and let him try to make something out of it. i guess what i would like to know is what would be the best way to set this thing up, like header size, things of this type. i need to try and make this stuff work cause as you afore mentioned i am a family man and can't afford to trash all of this stuff and start over. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by racer1320:
bottlerat, here are the driveline specs:

-467BB
-10.7:1 CR (TRW #2399 piston and Speed Pro file-fit rings)
-GM cast iron close chamber oval port heads #215. Head work includes 2.19/1.88 valves, bowl work and gasket matched.
-Edelbrock Air Gap RPM
-Comp Xtreme Energy street roller 238I / 244 E @.050, .640 / .646 lift ground on a 108LSA
-MSD6AL with billet distributor
-1 3/4" headers with 3" merge collectors
-turbo 400 with ATI 10" converter
-Denny's 3 1/2" metal matrix composite driveshaft
-4.10 gear
-3" exhaust
30" x 10" Hoosier radial slick


Check it out here www.homestead.com/headsupchevelles/page13.html (http://www.homestead.com/headsupchevelles/page13.html)

To achieve similar results you would have to follow this buildup EXACTLY. Performance like this is more about the combo than just the motor.


[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 12-31-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bill, I currently run a Comp spring # 933 whose specs are 175 on the seat and 495 open. I was running # 939 which is 160 on the seat and 418 open. Both are dual springs with a damper. The 939 is what I recommend for those that do mostly street driving. I also recommend that the springs be coated for extended life. The 2001 season will mark my second season on these springs. 300 passes and counting with no appreciable loss in spring pressure.


68racer, I can't speak of the B-1 heads but the GM Pro Stock stuff doesn't have the huge intake ports (relatively speaking) anymore. These guys are also running compression approaching 20:1 hence the small chambers. You are correct in that some teams both in Pro Stock truck and car are running stepped headers. Many times it's hard to tell since all these headers are custom welded up units.



[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 12-31-2000).]

bottlerat, what is it your trying to do? I mean what are your performance goals and how do you really plan on using this car?

You've got some expense parts there but none of which will make a very streetable combo if that's your intent.

Clearly it would seem that you have some dollars to spend if Bischoff is building your motor. Just don't expect to be able to run with Gary Rohe. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/wink.gif

i'm planing on mostly bracket racing this thing.but you can never count out a fri or sat. night cruze if you know what i mean. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by racer1320:
bottlerat, what is it your trying to do? I mean what are your performance goals and how do you really plan on using this car?

You've got some expense parts there but none of which will make a very streetable combo if that's your intent.

Clearly it would seem that you have some dollars to spend if Bischoff is building your motor. Just don't expect to be able to run with Gary Rohe. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no i don't think i'm even remotly in gary rowes league i just want my car to run as good as it can with the pieces i've got <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bottlerat:
i'm planing on mostly bracket racing this thing.but you can never count out a fri or sat. night cruze if you know what i mean. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

bottlerat, tell me more about the car. Is it meant to be a real street car, pump gas? What compression you plan on running? How about the rest of the driveline, trans and rear. How much does it weigh? All steel, full interior, etc. If all you plan on doing is bracket racing and cruising then I would suggest selling those heads, intake, carb and cam and use the proceeds to purchase the components you really need. Build a low maintaince motor that you can enjoy and not have to worry about.

well lets see its a 69 chevelle all steel except for the hood. full interior with a 6 point cage. it weighs 3705lbs with me in it.i run a rossler tubo 400 with manual valvebody, no brake.4:11 gears, micky thompson e.t. streets 28 inches tall and 10 inches wide. i'm not sure what the compression is yet but i think it's going to be around 12:1,i do have the nos cheater system that i plan on using the 200 horse jets but i'm not sure on converter and header size.if theres any thing thaht i forgot let me know. likr i said 9i plan on mostly bracket racing the car.oh yea i have been running 115 octane fuel in it. it don't see hardly any street use but it does see some.

some day i would like to go street racing but for now i don't have the bucks

First, I have never set foot on a racetrack, and its been 20 years since I stuck my foot into a BB Chevelle and had some fun. My brand new 454HO is waiting for me to finish the project wrapped around it so I can turn the key. With that in mind, just a few thoughts on this thread.

First Racer's combo speaks for itself, results wise, and I tip my hat to you. I would argue the streetability of your setup, with nearly 11:1 compression, high lift cam and 4.10 gear, can you run on pump premium? Do you go to many cruises or just run errands on weekends? If so, great! If not, great also, just trying to compare what you think is a street car to what I may think.

I also note the valve size is 2.19/1.88, which happens to be standard on the rect. port heads.

I am only 50/50 on this point, but I could swear I read somewhere that the current performance oval port heads from Chevy are still bigger (cross sectional area wise) than the old oval port production heads, so making a blanket statement about the new heads proving the perfomance capability of the old designs is not consistent.

I would argue one other statement that "the speed of the mixture determines how tightly the combustion chamber is packed" creating more power, etc. I believe the key is being able to move the greatest gobs of air by any method you can. I choose using large port heads. At WOT, the pistons are essentially working with atmospheric pressure on one side with the carb, intake ports and valves in the way, and against exh. valves, manifolds, exh pipes, mufflers, etc. the other way. For the same exh. combo, the way to move more air becomes lowering the pressure drop across the entire system. Step one is to make the valves bigger, like the aforementioned 2.19/1.88, step two is either bowl blending and reducing restrictions in oval port heads or just getting bigger port heads! If you can get the same flow (CFM wise) with ovals that you can with rectangular, the only benefit of higher velocity is better fuel atomization, which leads to all the benefits you mentioned, especially when combined with a higher compression ratio. If the net effect is the same flow with better combustion efficiency, then by all means go oval. I didn't want to go through the hassle of building my own combo, so in goes the crate motor, which fits my goals very well.

My intentions for my ride is to be able to drive it every weekend on pump gas, with 3.31 gears on the highway (hard not to in ATL), and still have a decent ET when I do someday take it to the track. A while back I fed my car info to someone here who was running a desktop dyno/quarter mile estimator which had been uncannily accutate to date. Even with specing BFG radials, mine was estimated to run 12.1 with little slippage, since I am also running a stock LS6 converter with 1500 stall on a TH400 with a shift kit. The guy was stunned that I might go that fast. I had seen a similar combo for a Firebird written up in MCR that ran mid 11s. He had MH streetmasters with a high torque big inch poncho, TH400 and 3.31 gears as well, so there is hope of reaching 11s. I'll be posting the real numbers as soon as I can.

Red Label


[This message has been edited by jmw (edited 12-31-2000).]

Red Label, I humbly submit that for a 3.31 gearedT400 car Ed's "hi-velocity" type of rat is perfect, even with a smaller cam and milder compression. But dont expect to run high 11 or even low 12's.

My carzy lil 7000 rpm rat is a blast to drive, fast enough for me but still a bit of a dog with 3.55s. An "Ed motor" would work better in my bay. But I went the cheap route and am swapping in 3.90s.

------------------
Gene Chaas
Gold Member 62/ACES
67 SS 427 (http://www.chevelles.com/feature/october2000.html)

Happy New Year all!

Red label, first I appreciate your honesty.

I can run on premium pump gas (93 octane) and this is due to my head/piston combo together with the proper advance curve.

Up until this past year cruises and weekly drives to the track up to 140 miles each way were the norm. However with a family that includes two small children ages 2 & 4, 12 hour work days and racing at least 1 day each weekend, my free time is very limited.

Streetabilty is a very subjective term and in no way am I saying that my ride is on par with a stock BB Chevelle. With safety items like a 6 point roll bar, rear suspension without bushings and exhaust that terminates under the floor, it's ride is not cushy. However it is a street car none the less.

I've managed to retain creature comforts like power steering, power brakes and it still sports a full factory interior complete with all the sound deadening material. It also has everything required by DOT. In addition I haven't cut it up nor performed the typical modifications for a dual purpose street/strip car. The suspension doesn't include trick springs or shocks and the front end isn't loose. The wheel wells remain as they came from the factory, the battery still resides up front,the trunk is fully usable and I use the stock fuel tank(no fuel cell).

The larger valves really pump up the flow potential of these heads. The intake port volume of GM oval port heads from the late 60's to early 70's is 256cc excluding the later truck (peanut port) heads. The current crop including the Merlin is at 269cc, the Brodix BB-1 OEFI at 258cc and the Edelbrock/GM "roval" port at 290cc.

My statement is not so much about what the new heads prove but more about what the old heads are and were capable of.

Your thinking is incorrect however as it pertains to moving "gobs of air". Large ports are generally lazy because your flow has no energy. Moving that air through your motor without high velocity and you'll have a slug instead of a rocket. In addition low lift flow and it's velocity is far more important that high lift or peak flow numbers especially in your 4000 lb. Chevelle.

As for your anticipated 1/4 mile performance unfortunately you will be disappointed if you believe low 12 second ET's are coming your way. The combo you have described using a crate 454HO, turbo 400, LS6 converter and 3.31 gears won't get out of the 13's in a 4000 lb. Chevelle.

My comments here clearly aren't aimed for those who are just looking to have a stout BB under their hood and who aren't interested in 1/4 mile action and achieving max effort form their ride while maintaining streetability. To those guys and girls I say to each his own. Enjoy your BB and have fun. But for those looking to build a low maintaince, cost effective, max effort combo for a real street/strip Chevelle, then these are concepts that should be embraced.







[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 01-01-2001).]

Mine is a 67 which should put me closer to 3600lbs.

No problem with opinions, like I say I look forward to being able to post copies of the time slips some day. I'll start with BFGs all around for the type of driving I want to do first, then will get a set of stickies on a spare set of rims and start experimenting at a strip somewhere.

As to the computer runs, I was delighted but held out a lot of doubt until I saw the March 2000 MCR. Here are the specs on Mike Nouns' 69 Firebird:

3705 lbs.
455 CI, two bolt main block
stock CI crank
Competition Cams 305H, .525/.525 with 253/253 duration
Edlebrock performer AL heads (oval port perhaps?), port matched to intake 2.11/1.66 valves
Edlebrock performer 850CFM carb
36 degrees total adv.
Original TH400 with shift kit
B+M 2400Holeshot
12 bolt 3.36 pontiac posi
8 inch streetmasters, screwed to rims, running 15psi
Race type headers with 3 inch exhaust


He runs consistent 1.7 60 foot times with a low ET of 11.69. If I get below 13 I will be a happy camper.

I would be interested in the torque curve for your combo, I am sure it is killer. No matter how you get the torque, small port or large port, planting it on the ground either with your setup or one like Mikes (which I will shoot for) or one like the current LS1 cars are capable of, is the way to get the job done.

I just think the large port/oval port arguments are overblown, getting the torque on the street is the goal, however you do it.
I think the best way for me to walk the fence here is to say that if I were starting with a tired but re-buildable oval port motor, I would have done something like your combo from the start. I have seen your concepts written up elsewhere for quite a while an wouldn't have hesitated. Since my starting point was cloning a 283 Bu, I opted for the crate with its all new components, improved oiling system and rear main seal, roller cam, and ability to thrive on pump gas.

I promise to stay away from the carb vs. fuel injection debates, I know even less about FI!

Red Label

[This message has been edited by jmw (edited 01-01-2001).]

Red Label, your '67 is definitely lighter and 3600 - 3700 lbs. is about right with driver. However 13 second ET's are still coming your way. The combo your building while a healthy street motor/car just won't lay down quick ET's. Low compression combined with big port, low velocity heads, an rpm limited hydraulic roller cam, a "stock" converter, no leverage with 3.31 gears and you just won't launch that nearly 2 ton sled. With heavy street cars 60 foot is everything if you are to ET quick.

Let's look at this '69 Firebird, "The Edge". While not a apples to apples comparison his performance is above average for such a combo however I do suspect that his 3705 weight is generous unless he is a larger driver. With a Pontiac there is no such thing as a "big block" and cubes are had by varing stroke The 455 has a stroke of 4.21 yet the same bore as a pontiac 400. Externally they all look the same. Pontiacs are known as low RPM torque motors for just this reason. Their heads are also generic whether 350 or 455 cubes with some castings being better than others. Not including the Ram Air or HO heads but all are of a rectangular port shape and are rather small and restrictive at that. No comparison to either a BB oval or rectangular port. His cam is also much larger than what is in your 454HO motor and not very streetable at that. While I'm not a big fan of aluminum heads on a low to moderate compression street motor/car and this isn't a fair comparison I know those Edelbrock heads produce a high velocity charge far better than your stock rectangular ports. In addition he is running a higher stall converter. Possibly with all these "secrets of an 11 second stocker" they or he may have forgot to mention the blue bottle that might be hidden. All in all a much different approach than what you are doing.

There's no doubt that putting the power to the ground is everything. Even the most mild of big blocks will fry the tires at will on the street. Fact is for what I do which is bracket race, a BB Chevelle is not the best combo. All that torque combined with a nose heavy, tire limited, suspension handicapped car makes it that much more difficult to lay down consistant passes. This is exactly the reason I don't recommend stroked big blocks like a 496 or 540 in your street/strip Chevelle. A small block Camaro or Nova is really the ticket and far cheaper. But it can be done. I continue to prove it week in and week out. Now if only the driver was a good as the car.





[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 01-01-2001).]

Hi All, I'd just like to throw my 2 cents in here based on my own experiences. Ed has without a doubt honed this combination down to acheive a level of performance that is undeniably successful. As most stock class racers do, he has wittled away at his combo and done the hard work and testing on the track that yielded these results. My hats off to you Ed. I know other stock class racers that also have acheived unbelievable Et's with even less motor than Ed's, all required major cam duration, super high stall converters and gearing. So the bottom line is for lowest et's at the track, these combos work. As for driving on the street, I think it would be hard to tell a 11.50 car from a 11.0 car just from the way the car feels gettin on it from a roll. The big port motor might even hook up better without the low end torque the oval ports produce, so its a debate than has many variables depending on your point of view and your intended result. If lowest Et is your goal, massive low end torque is the key, if a lumpy screemer that gets many oohs and ahhs on the street is your goal, big ports and big cams is the way to go. The rear tires will be the limiting factor on the street anyway.
In my own case, my chevelle ran a best ET of 11.52 @ 118 with a stock shortblock LS-6 (11.25 comp), LS-6 rec port heads (unported)Cam dynamics flat tappet solid cam (579/605, 302/312 dur), 850 vac carb, torquer manifold, 2" headers (open), 10" street converter and 5:13 gears(way too much). At 3700 lbs I was runnin my car against "race" cars at National Speedway back in 1980. With a better converter, less gearing I am quite sure the car would have gone 11.30's or better. I was surpised at the cars performance and back then a mid 11 second "street" car was really fast. That was also with the stock rear suspension, no traction aids whatsoever. So you can do this either way, Rec port, hi compression, big cam, weekend driver or oval port, less cam, lower compression daily driver, its all up to the individuals desires and final goals both driving on the street and running at the track. Happy New Year everyone!! http://www.chevelles.com/forum/tongue.gif


------------------
http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/yosemitedr/quintillis/index.html

racer1320, up to what ci. do you recamend oval ports im runing a 509 with dart pro 1 alumminums corvett 6 pack and crane 595, 615--238 ,246 @50 2500 stall 68 camaro all the low end amaginable and rips to 6800 2-1/8 headers 3 inch exhust let me no http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif

509, the jury's still out on that one. But it has more to do with RPM and the range your looking to make power in than cubes. Remember low lift flow/velocity is the goal here not peak numbers. Rectangular port heads can flow well and be made into a high velocity port. It just requires extensive reworking/shaping of the port including welding or epoxying, followed by grinding and on to the flow bench. Unfortunately this is a process of trial and error. Unless your proficient at this and own a flow bench you'll spend big dollars and for a street car and most race cars it just doesn't make sense.

My next motor which will be either a 522 or 533 will start life with these same oval ports. I will however do the swap/testing with '69 vintage closed chamber rectangular ports and post the results once completed.

Like everything else there are some heads that are better than others "out of the box". I personally like Canfields and would like them alot more if they were cast iron.

Our own 502 with 10.4:1 CR, dual plane, 248/254 @ .050 roller, 800DP(wrong carb) and too big 2" headers also has closed chamber cast iron oval ports. In a '66 Chevelle weighing 3600 with a turbo 400, 10" converter and 3.73 gears has gone a best of 10.85 @ 123 to date, shifting at 6000 with no tuning and without dead hooking.

I'm sure your 509 Camaro rips but tell me more about the combo and car and what ET's your posting. You can't "feel the difference" between these heads on the street. Simply because you can't mat it from a dead stop with either combo without lighting the tires.


Glenn, thanks for the thumbs up. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 01-01-2001).]

Anyone ever looked at the dyno charts of Edelbrocks power package combination? The BB Performer RPM oval and rectangular port charts specifically. The curves are so very similar between the two combinations it isnt even funny....in fact the oval port version makes more peak horsepower but my point is the curves are almost clones of each other....which backs up what I have always said....there are lots of different ways to go fast.

------------------
Bill
65 SS
Team Member 1013

Bill, I wouldn't recommend either of those packages. Just more marketing. Sure they'll "work" but for that money you can do far better.

I hear you on your point about lots of different ways to go fast. However for the purpose of this post I'm only talking about 3700 - 4000 lb. BB Chevelles. I know for those wanting to have a max effort BB, post the ET's that I am and remain truly streetable this is the way. No arguement just reality. Use my combo if you like, don't if you must have rectangular port heads, single plane and a dominator.

Racer, you have a proven combo that works. A lot of us here are experimenting and learning and are open to other ideas, which may work for them in their cars. In my opinion, others here are hinting that they believe this as well but you seem determined to make them see the light (i.e. "this is the way") or opine that they may have a bottle stashed in the trunk if they do well with some other method. Like I said I was reading 20 years ago about the potential for ovals, especially the 1971 open chamber variation when you add big valves and porting, along with the right cam, trans, gear, etc., so this is not really news, just another choice among many, such as blowers or turbos, which really make things interesting. See the supercharged Ford Lightning pickup, for example. A lot of the folks building cars now will benefit greatly from your knowledge and guys like you are what make this site a wonderful resource, others will continue with what they know and/or like in spite of the numbers you have posted. My long term goal is to build several cars, the next being a 4spd car, probably another 67, so I'll set some new goals and see what happens. Gotta rob a few more banks, first.....

Red Label

Racer I wasnt considering the combo...its just a good example of two identical engines with no differences other than the heads...and the curves are virtually identical with the only real difference being that the rectangular ports dont fall off until 6500 while the ovals peak at 6000 rpm....I found it to be interesting.

------------------
Bill
65 SS
Team Member 1013

racer1320 are you out there? i was wondering if you got a chance to look at the specs i gave you last night on this page.you said that i should sell all my stuff and buy a different setup that would work better for what i'm doing. but my problem is that i've all ready spent money on machine work to all this stuff,and unless it is totaly no good for what i want to do i realy need to use this combo for monitary reasons if nothing else.if you don't mind could you give me some ideas on how to make my combo work the best that it can.

racer1320 are you out there? i was wondering if you got a chance to look at the specs i gave you last night on this page.you said that i should sell all my stuff and buy a different setup that would work better for what i'm doing. but my problem is that i've all ready spent money on machine work to all this stuff,and unless it is totaly no good for what i want to do i realy need to use this combo for monitary reasons if nothing else.if you don't mind could you give me some ideas on how to make my combo work the best that it can.

racer1320 are you out there? i was wondering if you got a chance to look at the specs i gave you last night on this page.you said that i should sell all my stuff and buy a different setup that would work better for what i'm doing. but my problem is that i've all ready spent money on machine work to all this stuff,and unless it is totaly no good for what i want to do i realy need to use this combo for monitary reasons if nothing else.if you don't mind could you give me some ideas on how to make my combo work the best that it can.

Nitrous cures anything....dont sweat it. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
Bill
65 SS
Team Member 1013

sorry about the multiple posts i work for the city of cinti. and their computer is not quite what i'm use to.

Red label, this post and many of my responses aren't for everybody and perhaps they aren't for you either. We/I aren't talking about superchargers, turbos, N20, Fords, Mopars or Camaros. I'm talking about how to build a truly quick and fast real street / strip BB Chevelle. My approach to engine building is keep it simple, reliable and low maintance while delievering truly stout performance within a reasonable budget.

I too remember reading about ovals when I first started turning wrenches 24 years ago. However then as now many believed that the rectangular ports were the way to go. Back then if you were running 12's with a Chevelle you were a hero, 11's and you were a legend.

The guys I'm trying to help are people just like yourself. People who spend hard earned money building cars and motors like the magazines told them, only to be disappointed with their ultimate performance. Countless project cars go unfinished because guys spend most of their money on the motor and when they fall short of their goals or realize they have built something that isn't very streetable or driver friendly they become disenchanted.

Bill mentions Edelbrock's Power Packages. Well I've met guys running these components in 454 Chevelles. They sure look and sound nice with those aluminum heads and "dyno matched" cams and carbs. However how do you think this guy feels when after spending $3,000 he watches my ride with it's former 396/402 complete with Q-Jet run just as quick and in some cases faster.

Remember I'm not selling or marketing anything. I've got nothing to gain financially here by offering this info. As a matter of fact I'm losing when you added up all the $ and time I've put into this combo. 10 years of racing an honing this combo plus the cost to build the car so let's say I'm $100,000 in the hole and thousands of hours.

There are some on this board that are intent on trying to prove me wrong, and I welcome it. Many haven't even taken 1 trip down the 1/4 mile but they are sure I'm wrong. If they in fact prove I'm wrong then all the better because they are the one who benefits. However I do know that the performance I've achieved can't be duplicated with a rectangular port head / single plane 454/502 combo. Not in a 4000 lb. Chevelle and remain truly streetable. Surely there are street/strip Chevelles that are quicker and faster than my ride that utilize the large port head and single plane manifold. I know of a few in my area alone. But as I've said before these rides all have either more cubes, compression or both and even with these advantages they are only 3-4 tenths quicker yet aren't nearly as streetable.

Need some examples check these two out, both of which I know the car and driver personally

'67 Chevelle 540 10.4:1, Canfield heads, HVH single plane, 270 @.050 roller with 800# spring pressure open, turbo 400, 10" converter, 3.73 gear, 3600 lbs. Best ET 10.51 when/if he hooks.


'68 Chevelle (real sleeper) 468 14:1, Brodix BB-1 heads, Team G manifold, 1050 dominator, 280/284 @.050 roller, powerglide, 8" 5500 stall converter, 4.88 gear, 7500 RPM shift, 3700 lbs. ET's 10.50's

But don't be mistaken. Comparing apples to apples a streetable 454/502 with a rectangular port head/single plane combo installed in a almost 2 ton Chevelle WILL NOT post the ET's and MPH that my oval port combo will. In fact it will be at least 3 tenths slower.

BTW, the nitrous comment regarding the Firebird was made in jest and as I said his performance is stout. But believe me there is a whole lot more going on there then he claims.






[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 01-02-2001).]

Here's an interesting Pontiac combination running a really mild motor in the mid-11's
http://www.boyleworks.com/ta400/psp/rebuild455jh00.html

No doubt. Jim Hand has been finessing this combo for at least 10 years. Diligence pays big rewards.

bottlerat, my comment suggesting that you sell off the top end of this motor was made because you said you intended this combo to be streetable. Certainly this combo can be driven on the street and many guys across the country are driving far more radical combos on the street. However as you have been reading in my posts this is not the best approach for a true street / strip car/Chevelle. If in fact you will see very limited street use and you'll be primarily bracket racing then stay with what you have if not for convience. As you are aware with bracket racing it's not how quick and fast you are but how consistant you are. Putting together a "package" is everything and all you need be concerned with is the win light in your lane. I will admit though that IMO the faster car has an advantage for at least two reasons. Warning the following are some basic bracket racing principles. First is that your opponent(slower car) leaves first and therefore has the first chance at red lighting. Second, with you being the faster car the race is happening in front of you cause your chasing him. If and when you catch him all you need to do is put 1/2 a fender on him and drag the brake. If you don't catch him then you take him to the stripe and dump him hard.

I've also watched the non electronics class(Heavy/Pro) evolve over the past 10 years. The ET breaks have changed several times and currently is 15.99 to 10.00. If you spend some time at your local track watching the weekly bracket racers in this class you'll see that the 10 second cars typically are there in the later rounds more often.

So this combo your building isn't all that bad. Not for what you plan on doing. But if your expecting 10's without the juice they won't be there. Juice and bracket racing don't work. Not as a full time power enhancer anyway. There are guys using N2O only when they get in trouble either from spinning the tire on launch or they were late on the tree and use it to catch or push out their opponent. However this subject is probably not for this board. Mid to low 11's are more like it with the right converter and suspension work.



[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 01-02-2001).]

I'm not sure if I agree or not the jury is still out.the reason being,while I do agree with you on the oval port dual plain setup.somehow I feel you are under estimating how well you can get a big port engine to run. I think i can make this combo run middle 10s on the motor. thit is if i can plan very carefully, things like converter, header and exsaust set up, and of corse getting the suspension to work.i have built both oval port and square port mills and they were'nt that far off from each other,granted the oval port motor ran better but it had more work done to it. but they were basicly the same c.i.440 in the oval port and 433 in the square port in basicly the same cars a 68 chevelle oval and 70 square. BTW the 69 that i'm doing now has allready clicked off a 11:46 @119 on a not tuned in, out of the box, 1000 foot run. now i'm not questioning you or your knowledge but i do believe that this thing should run 10:50s to 60s on the motor and with everything setup correct high 9s on the juice.i guess we'll have to wait and see. thanks for your help, i'm sure we'll talk again.

Don, 10's won't happen believe me. Not as the planned combo is now. That 11.46 @ 119 is indicative of a rectangular port / single plane combo. With it's typical better than average MPH for ET. I see this same general combo every weekend and the best one is still 1.5 tenths slower then my setup and i've been told he's running 13:1+ CR. Why is it that you think you're going to run that much quicker with a combo that you know has gone mid 11's. What was the 60 foots and 1000 foot ET?

Don go back and read your post. It's peppered with phrases like "I think I can make this combo run...." and I do believe that this thing should run....". My point again is that I run with and against this combo/approach every weekend, installed in street/strip Chevelles, Camaros and at least 1 firebird. I KNOW what they run.


[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 01-02-2001).]

Racer with your current combo did you run 10s the first night out or did you tune and tweak it down? I'd bet that you went faster as you tuned and played with it...we ALL do ...so why wouldnt the same thing hold true with his combo?? Because they are rectangular ports suddenly their isnt anything left in it? It cant benefit from tuning or tweaking? Is than another weak point of a rectangular port head that it wont respond to any tuning of any kind? It runs its best run the first time and thats all it will do? I mean come on already.

------------------
Bill
65 SS
Team Member 1013

Bill, no, yes, yes, I didn't say that, I didn't say that, no and no. But remember we're talking about it remaining streetable.

Don already is beyond the limits with 12.5:1 CR and has said he won't do much street driving. If I really setup my combo for best ET's regardless of streetability, I'll be at least 2.5 tenths quicker yet do it without going into the motor. It needs a 4.56 gear and 8" 4800 stall converter. Now if I were to go into the motor it would like a cam that is 10 degrees bigger while still maintaining my 10.7:1 CR.

Perhaps I should level the playing field even further by swapping my steel hood for a fiberglass cowl that virtually everybody is using, maybe eliminate my power brakes and power steering too. That's got to take 150+ lbs. off the nose and put me closer to what most other guys weigh. Just how fast do you want me to go Bill? http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

I honestly don't see why a few individuals continue to dispute my combo and defend the performance potential of the large port heads/single plane combo in a 2 ton Chevelle when they clearly don't have the ET slips to back it up. Build it and I will come!



[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 01-02-2001).]

i think the car will run much better than mid 11s, simply because like i said earlyer this was the first time i had the car at the track.the 60ft time was 1:72 spining badly. i'm not sure what the 1000ft time and mph was, the time slip is down at my G.i'll get it and let you know tomorrow. but this was the first time, and i only got to make 3 passes, cause of roll cage. i did no jetting the car had a junk distributor in it, and it had to much gear and not enough tire(4:56s and 28inches)and also a totaly stock rear suspension it was on the 7grand chip at the 1000 ft mark.and when i pulled the motor apart i found that the heads and intake were out of the box units and the guy who built it, instead of disassembling the engine and fly cutting the pistons. he just used a .60 copper head gasket for valve to piston clearance. now i don't claim to be a wizard or anything like that. but even tony bischoff seems to think the car will run middle 10s like i said before, i guess we'll have to wait and see. i've done this before. the 68 i built in 91 started out at 11:81 and ended up running the best of 10:75 @ 124 and that was with 049 oval ports with big valves a 620 lift 305 dur solid stick and a dart single plain intake w/ a b.g. reaction time 750. and the 70 i did in 94 started out in yhe bottom 13s and ended up with the best of 11:73 @ 115 with 392 square ports 163 casting dual plain intake a 580i 605e 246i 256e @.50 solid stick and that was thru full to the back bumper exsaust and m/t et streets. so thats why i think this rig has alot more that low to middle 11s

I can vouch for one thing racer1320 said. The single plane/rect will tend to et low and mph well if its not geared enough. By enough, I mean more than would be required for a 6000 rpm shift point ( 3.90-4.30 )and more like the 4.50-5.00 required to run a 7000 shift point. In my limited experience , of course...

The whole issue to me is quite simple. For the "street" as I define it. I love my 7000 rpm rat. Its fun. I love the sound. And I dont race on the street. Clutch drops, yea. A buzz to 7 once too often, yeah...

But if you want to race, quickly, consistently, and without replacing your damn valvesprings every 10th run, I believe the notion of making a stout 6000 rpm shiftpoint bracket car is key. You can do it with brute torque, like cubes, or by taking a "normally-sized" rat and using "torquey" parts not hp parts.

As I said before, if I was to do it again, I'd build a 4.25X4.25 to racers specs. To look like a stock 396/325 hp. Theres a sleeper.

So all Ed is saying is, spare your wear, make it a mid range mill and you'll get it just as fast, if not faster. In fact, if you spend a BOATLOAD of time dialing it in and optimizing the combo, it will be quicker.

And if you're out there every weekend making a dozen passes, it better be a combo that can live long.

For the street, it dont matter. If you dont race its all about fun. ANY RAT, with a healthy cam and healthy compression is capable of administering the " dumb big block look" http://www.chevelles.com/forum/eek.gif

Even Todd's all mismatched 11 second one! http://www.chevelles.com/forum/wink.gif

I think the beauty of racer1320s combo is that you can build one of these relatively inexpensively ( for the street ), and make it appear relatively stock either in 396 or 454 trim. ( but defintely use no less than 454 ci).

Its just another 10:1 oval porter with a roller. How simple? And a QJET!

Anyways, BS walks, time slips talk.

QED.

------------------
Gene Chaas
Gold Member 62/ACES
67 SS 427 (http://www.chevelles.com/feature/october2000.html)



[This message has been edited by 427L88 (edited 01-02-2001).]

Good luck Don. Let us know how it turns out. If I can be of any help just ask.


Well said Gene, thank you!

[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 01-02-2001).]

i'm not questioning 1320s combo or skill. all i'm saying is that my combo will run better than 11s. just look at your L-88s and ZL-1s they are by no means pigs and what are they? square ports. yea we've come a long way baby, but i think that anyone thinking that this thing won't get out of the 11s has had one to many adult beverage's beside's i've run middle 11s in a real drive it to tenn. to the grand run and back. street car and this car ( the 69) even before the work thats being done now will run circle's around my 70. don't get me wrong, a oval port dual plain built the same way my mill is would probably run better and if i was starting from scratch i'd go that route. but for now i'll have to make the best out of what i've got.

Hey Gene,

Now I know why I bought the bbc that I did...

...to teach everyone else what not to do for a bbc in a 3500 lbs car http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

I suppose it's time to stop sandbagging and put the other 2 plug wires back on. LOL

------------------
Todd Geisler
79 Malibu
11.16@125.8mph
Malibu Muscle
http://www.MalibuMuscle.cjb.net

Don, so promise us this. After you've had an opportunity to break it in, dial it in, you come back and admit it didn't get in the 10's on the motor with the combo you've describe.

BTW, I don't drink. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/wink.gif

Racer again you think I am tearing down your combo...I am not...I think its a fantastic combo...I think its silly of you to tell a guy he wont run any better than that et despite the car not being tuned. In either event I have let this irk me way too much so to each their own....I think if the car truly is untuned then dropping .5 should be cake....NOBODY finds their best setup first time out.

------------------
Bill
65 SS
Team Member 1013

427, 3300#,iron rectangle heads,single plane intake, 12.5 c.r., slicks 29/10.5, uncorked, 11.0 all day@ 124., 1.57-1.60 short times. Best E.T. has been 10.75 @ 127. Ed makes very good points, as you can see I have helped tune a rectangle port 427. After blaming poor sixty foots on converter our tranny guy enlightened us on the fact that the motor does not have enough torque to move 3400#'s any faster with a 4.30 gear. Many cam reps couldn't recommend a better grind to aid in performance E.T and still be street able most claimed a couple more MPH. We found that the faster the valves opened/closed(like wacking one with a hammer/and simulating a valve train beaten roller) the motor responded to 1.48-1.52 short times. This lash method netted consistent 10.80 @125-127. This was hard on valves. turned a sat. night warrior into a trailer queen for 2 tenths of E.T. This is a prime example of Ed's comparisons. Not only was the car lighter than Eds it ran on 110 race fuel. Ed's grama lookin ride would out run our 2 race seat fuel celled ride. So my conclusion due to fist hand experience is: Yes, it was very difficult to get a rectangle port motor in the tens, @ 3400# with driver. Yes, rectangle port motors run ok, and great with 4.56-488 gears and a 7800 redline with 5200 launch. Yes, Ed can make the claims that others may not see the 10sec barrier. Though we made what we had work, Ed's combo kicks ass and if your building a street strip big block its the way to go. rectangle ports are for max effort big inch race cars that have motors wich are rebuilt by the number of 1/4 mile passes and not miles. I thought I would ramble my 2 cents. Good luck guys and enjoy what ever you build.

Bottle, I edited this out from my last reply becuase its was "theoretical". But according to my research and asking folks here, an L88 will turn high 10's in a Camaro with 5.13's ( ask Greybeard) and 11's in a Chevelle with 4.56s or higher.
I believe Ed runs 4.11's or 4.30s max. And 10.60's.

My street L88 would run high 11's if I geared it right( i'm going to 3.90s), but wouldn;t be fast unless I put 4.88s in.( and ditched the muncie http://www.chevelles.com/forum/frown.gif )

------------------


[This message has been edited by 427L88 (edited 01-03-2001).]

I'll say it again. Next time I do a bbc muscle car, it'll be a 454 or 496 "Bigley Special", with all stock exterior looks exe for headers. Bet it'll be as fast if not faster than my street L88.

I mean how damn simple! 10.5:1 under iron heads, 235/245 solid roller, dual plane, etc.

------------------
Gene Chaas
Gold Member 62/ACES
67 SS 427 (http://www.chevelles.com/feature/october2000.html)

Well I have been following this post for several days now. It is great. Don, I am really curious as to what you can do with that motor. I am pulling for you man. As some of you know, I have a .125 over 454, 427 crank, hi-compression motor with 840 casting closed chamber square ports. Over the past 17 years, I have had all sorts of head work done to them. If there is some special magic out there to make my car run faster, I'd like to hear about it. Other than that, I wish somebody had convinced me to use ovals 17 years ago.

Jim R.


------------------
My 70 Chevelle (http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/jim/)

FWIW, Just before Christmas I spent 4 days with my engine on the dyno. Trust Racer1320 on this one. We spent 4 days trying to get my fuel flow numbers up after 5,000 rpm. I have ported Dart 360's on a 540 with a .780 .740 lift 288 296 duration roller. At first my fuel flow numbers leveled off at 320 lbs/hr at 5,000 rpm. We added a four hole spacer and changed a few high speed jets in the carb and managed to get 345 lbs/hr at 6,800 rpm. Which made around 40 more hp and a few more ft/#'s of torque.

If you guy's ever get a chance to Dyno your engine, do it. You will learn a lot from it. But don't get discouraged if it doesn't put out the numbers you expect. I also found out that the length of the pull effects the dyno readings as well. The longer the pull the bigger the numbers. Just my .02 cents worth. Good luck racer1320 in your new season.




"Bigger is not always better!". Velocity is just as important if not more important than volume (on a naturally aspirated engine anyway).

------------------
Mike Hurta
(Aug98)
Gold#25
Lake Jackson, Texas
www.chevelles.com/feature/aug98.html (http://www.chevelles.com/feature/aug98.html)

yea i'll let you know what it runs.that is if this combo ever makes it in the car, i'll have to admit, you've got me thinkin, it's a good thing i'm in the early stage's of this car. i think i'll have a little talk with tony b. and see what he has to say. i don't want to look like a idiot out there with this car that has these big brodies and a dominator. that's a slug. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/eek.gif

Mike,
4 days on a dyno? Do you own your own dyno? I did one session two months ago (about 2.5 hours). It cost me $125. I can't imagine what the bill was for 4 days worth of pulls.

Don,
Don't quit now. If you think you have something that might work, try it. At least you'll know the results. Otherwise it will always be in the back of your mind. I'd rather do something and make a mistake than regret not doing it at all and wondering about it forever.

Jim

------------------
My 70 Chevelle (http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/jim/)

ok guys i just got off the phone with tony b. and it seems there's more than one way to skin a rat http://www.chevelles.com/forum/wink.gif he say's that combo will run 10s just as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow and like 1320 say's it's all in the combo, and with some of bischoff's wizardry machine work and some other well matched piece's. this thing will scream http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif i mean his engine's do own both end of a couple of nmca record's, that must count for something;( so i guess we'll see. maybe 1320s been spending so much time on his combo. he does'nt see that other guy sneakin up behind him.not that i'm sayin his stuff ain't bad, it is but there has to be other wat's besides the oval port dual plain setup. stay tuned speed freak's

oh and BTW. b.r.e. get's 125bucks for 6 pulls on the dyno and 400 for all day. so i guess the bottle rat will be making some pulls on the dyno. and i'm sure tony has a couple of thing's up his sleeve to make this thing run better than your average square port.and thanks jim for your support. but why have'nt you switched to oval port on your 70? and what does your car run with your current setup?

More than one way to go fast? No way....thats unheard of.... http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif J/K Good luck with your combo...with B working on it you shouldnt have any disappointments.

------------------
Bill
65 SS
Team Member 1013

oh and incase anyone did'nt know, or forgot,there are different size intake runners for square port heads mine are only 305cc man it's not like i'm tryin to run big chief's or nothin. iduno did i miss something or what is the only way to run 10s without a lot of abuse to the mill is to run the 1320 combo? how in the world did grumpy do it back in the day? with all factory parts. 1320 is one smart dude. his stuff hall's azz. but it can't be the only combo that will run quick & fast in a 3500 to 4000lb chevelle. we'll know in about 4 months

Jim,

I wish I did have one. I sure could use it. We made 18 pulls (time for a rebuild http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif ) at Owens Racing Engines in Pearland. I have been doing/sending business with these guy's for almost 15 years, so they didn't mind it.
It was less than $400.00 when they usually charge $350.00 for just an all day session.

Wes Colby showed up for the first day when we had crappy weather. Wes, I'll get with you this week-end and go over the dyno sheets and the changes we made.

------------------
Mike Hurta
(Aug98)
Gold#25
Lake Jackson, Texas
www.chevelles.com/feature/aug98.html (http://www.chevelles.com/feature/aug98.html)

[This message has been edited by Aug98 (edited 01-03-2001).]

Hooray, he's back in the game! http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif This makes for some good fun. Donnie, why haven't I switched over to ovals yet? I don't know, too stubborn I guess. Maybe I don't want to dish out $$ for a new set of heads and intake. I guess I could sell my old stuff and it would be pretty much of a wash, but I don't know. I have big domed closed chamber pistons also, would I need new slugs with a head swap also to make it work? What does my car run, you ask?? Uhhhh, I don't want to discourage you this early in the game. Let's just say the dyno showed an unimpressive 350HP at the wheels. Convert that to crankshaft HP and it is in the low to mid 400 HP range. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/frown.gif Go for it man, save face for us pre-historic square port boys!
Jim R.

Go man GO

------------------
My 70 Chevelle (http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/jim/)

well if what 1320 says is correct, a set of 215 casting closed chambered heads(and you would'nt have to change piston's) can't be that costly,and the performer rpm is like 175 bucks so you could probably sell your stuff and still have enough doe to do the machine work and buy the gasket set. so whats holdin ya back?

I don't think you can compare Grumpy's old combinations with Ed's. We just don't know all the little tricks Grumpy used to make his stuff go fast. Also, we don't know how fast he was spinning his stuff either...I suspect 8000+ rpm. Also, he probably was tearing his engines apart on very close intervals to replace/inspect components for wear and failure.

Sure, there are many ways to run 10's in a heavy Chevelle. It's up to you to pick a combination that fits your budget. If you don't mind replacing valve springs often and tearing down on a regular basis, have at it. I myself want something that doesnt need the 7800 rpm my original bbc needed to fly.

------------------
Todd Geisler
79 Malibu
11.16@125.8mph
Malibu Muscle
http://www.MalibuMuscle.cjb.net

i'll just say this and let it rest.my 70 chevelle weighed 3705lbs with me in it,and it was a 433ci with 392 square port alum.heads a 163 casting dual plain intake, a comp cams solid stick,580i 605e lift and 246i 256e dur. on 108 lc turbo 350 4:11 gears 28 inch tall m/t et street's full exsaust a 825 race demon carb, and it ran 11:73 @ 115mph so you can see why i think this setup 454 standard bore brodix BBII heads, pn2001 intake, comp cams solid roller 680i&e lift and 253i 261E @.50 with a 1050 dominator,turbo 400 4:11 gears and the same tire's. now iduno i might be missing something but common sense tell me this combo will spank the setup in my 70. we shall see.

yea todd your right we realy don't know all the little trick's that da grump used. but do you think 1320 is tellin us all of his? i don't think so. and i was'nt comparing the gump to ed, i was just saying that you can go fast with a square port mill. and also i won't be tearin down and changeing valve spring's if you look on comp cams web site you'll see that the stick i'm using is very easy on part's

racer, boat motors need tork wy is it all merc mag, engines use rec port heads and turn max 5200 rpm 400 hp. 8 to 1 cp.whats with that, does merc no somthing you dont?

Donnie,
The #215 casting heads that you refer to, are they #3917215 heads? 2.06/1.72 valves? Ok, I guess I could put bigger valves in them, but from what I see, they are also 96.4cc chambers. My #3919840 heads have 104.9cc chambers. If I was to bolt on the #215, my compression ratio would jump a full point. Then I have to change pistons.

Jim

------------------
My 70 Chevelle (http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/jim/)

We are not comparing apples-to-apples again here. The merc boat engines are GM 502's from what I understand. The general uses rect ports because that is what people think they want even if it doesn't make more power...simple marketing.

Also, the oval port heads need porting work to really shine. Any mass produced engine is gonna use off the shelf parts that are not optimized for the intended application. Rect port heads allow them to "fudge" the performance without having to resort to porting @ bowl blending, etc.

------------------
Todd Geisler
79 Malibu
11.16@125.8mph
Malibu Muscle
http://www.MalibuMuscle.cjb.net

yea jim those are the heads that 1320 recommends i know he cut them for 2:19 1:88 valves and does some minor port work as for the particulars i don't know check with ed and see what he say's

Bottom line is that contrary to 'popular' belief, there is more than one combo that works. If you make lots of power, and have a combination that can keep you in your power, you will run good numbers!

Granted, 1320 obviously has a VERY well matched combination that counters heavy weight and streetability with a engine that makes power where he needs it. Is this for everyone? No. But it is a proven combination, and if you want to copy it you can sure save yourself a lot of money in experimentation!

These discussions seem to always turn into "my combo is the best, name someone that can beat it!" And if they do, it is deemed "not streetable."

Here's an example of a combo that is streetable in MY OPINION - a good friend of mine runs a '69 Camaro, all steel, ~3800 lbs, and it ran 9.40's at 140mph at 3000'. (What does this correct to at sea level?)

This car IS driven on the street on pump gas. No nitrous (he has a dual stage system that hasn't been used yet).

Sure, it is a BIG engine, 588 BBC, 270's @.050" duration roller, but it does have less than 11:1 CR and run on pump gas all day long w/o overheating. Brodix -2X heads, Dart intake, 1250 dominator. It makes so much torque over a broad RPM range that it is not very sensitive to the combination. I recall it made more than 750 lb-ft from 3000-6000, and about 500lb-ft off idle! A much smaller camshaft could make almost as much power, and be easier on valvesprings in a daily driven application. The only real drawback is cost - Bow Tie blocks are expensive.

It may not be streetable by some people's standards, but everyone is different!


------------------
RH
505-1 (http://members.home.net/30145365113/505_Malibu11.jpg) 505-2 (http://members.home.net/30145365113/505_Malibu12.jpg) 505-3 (http://members.home.net/30145365113/505_Malibu13.jpg) 505-4 (http://members.home.net/30145365113/505_Malibu14.jpg) 505-5 (http://members.home.net/30145365113/505_Malibu02.jpg) 505-6 (http://members.home.net/30145365113/505_Malibu06.jpg) 505-7 (http://members.home.net/30145365113/505_Malibu07.jpg)

i agree totaly 505, i'm in no way saying that my combo is better than 1320s i was just saying that his combo is not the only way to run fast,be easy on parts and be streetable,to tell ya the truth if i was starting from scratch and did'nt allready have all of my stuff. i'd go with 1320s combo. but this is american land of the brave,home of the free dagit. oh i was getting carried away. anyway point well taken. and BTW, NICE 66. is that bahama blue?

I think the "who's combo is best" is not the issue. The issue is the best way to have a 427-468 street/strip motor. I provided an example of the rectangle port performance and I see high CR rectangle motors in the small range of 427-468 run high 10's-11.0 all the time. They do work, I think Ed's point is how much more practical oval ports and low compression is and its ability to achieve low time slips, and the importance of port velocity versus flow. Also a 588 motor needs alot of air and that also is an awsome combo, but not really relivant to the point, that 588 had to be around 20K to build, it better run hard, I know a guy with a 632 that could be driven on the street, and runs 8.90N/A with a 1.20 60ft but its a race car and has a chute because when you start running those times and MPH saftey is of the highest importance.When a pump gas, daul plane 4150 carbed big block runs tens, and the battery and fuel tank are in the stock location. it is impressive.

[This message has been edited by 1bad67 (edited 01-03-2001).]

yea that's a given i for one am very impressed by 1320s mean one. but i'll say it again there's more than one way to skin a rat. i for one have run 10:70s in something that 1320 say's won't work. so waz up wit dat?

We have ran 10.75 @127 with rectangle port heads and it really wasn't a street car. You could drive it on the street it was legal, but ed's is way more practical. I totally agree there are more ways than one to skin a rat, but when the rat is 12.5 Cr dominator running 10.75 and an oval port cruiser lays down 10.80 it makes you wonder? And the 10.75 was with a 1.48 short time showing the MPH should be a 10.40 but how can you get a 10" tire car with stock suspensionto hook better than that. Anyway I'll stick with the small blocks they can really make the street strip big block guys go HHMM! Have fun!

First let me thank the regulars who actually run their cars down the 1/4 mile for their support - Aug98, Todd, bad67 and Gene as well. This is not about mine is better than yours. Never was. I've explained my motivation for sharing this info.

Don, I'm not holding any secrets back. I continually apprise Team Chevelle members of my racing schedule and whereabouts. Anyone interested in confirming my claims and seeing me run is welcome to come out and meet with me anytime.

While Bischoff is known for Gary Rohe's motor and it's performance is pace setting it in no way has any bearing on what we're talking about here. That combo has been flogged day and night for years. Ask Gary how much he'll sell you that motor for and if he'd mind telling you some of his secrets. I'd guess you'd get silence on both counts.

All I'll say is "just do it".

do you think that tony b. only builds nmca mills. there are a skid load of his cars running at the local track down here. and guess what? they 9 times out of 10 take home the money. you said in a post earlier. build it and i will come. well how about a trip to edgewater this summer and as for B.E.S if you have a question they will answer it. and you can count on it.now i'm not trying to say that your stuff ain't mean. it is. but some guys want to run quicker than your car runs. so these guys have to try different combo's i'm in no way saying that your setup is'nt very good place to start. but 10:80s that you say can't be done with square ports and single plain intake's. guy are running down here on a regular basis.

Don, I don't know maybe it's me. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/wink.gif I never said 10.80's or quicker can't be done with anything other than my combo. I said it can't be done with a 2 ton Big Block(454/462/468) Chevelle that truly is streetable. You know pump gas(93 octane), resonable RPM(6500 max), 4.10 gear, 10" converter, 10" tire, running thru the exhaust, etc., etc.

ed you keep bringing up this streetable thing. just how streetable is your car? i mean with that suspension and the 4:10s and so on. who's definition of streetable are using here? i for one would'nt be afraid to drive my car anywhere. as a matter of fact i drive them to tenn. twice a year and you can bet your paycheck that i'll drive this one down there in april. and in april 99 i drove my 70 over 800 miles to panama city beach fla.and back. so would drive your car that far? how about you drive your car down here to cincy. make some passes at edgewater. would you be willing to drive your streetable piece that far?

Don, I've already giving my thoughts I streetability in this and previous posts. I stated that I've driven it regularly to the track up tp 140 miles away raced and driven back home. Steetability has every bit as much to do with the confidence that you'll get to and from your destination as it does with distance. How about passing a state DOT/Motor vehicle inspection too. I'll even waive the emissions test.

Tell me though what gas stations are you going to stop in on your way to Tennesse or Florida that sell Sunoco purple or VP114 @ $5 per gallon that you'll need for 12.5:1 CR.

But let's get back to those 10.80's @ 4000 lbs.

Don, let's agree to disagree and when / if you ever complete your ride then let's talk once you have REAL facts. How about providing us with some progress photos too.

Ummmmm,.... somebody crack a joke or something. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Anyway, somewhere earlier in this post, it was asked why I do not discard my #840 casting closed chamber square ports for the #215 castings closed chamber ovals that Ed suggested. My question was; "Will I need new pistons?". If I am already around 11.5:1 CR with my current 105cc heads, won't the ovals with their 96.4cc make my compression ratio around 12.5? Here is my dilemma, I have never been real happy with the performance (1/4 mile) of my car. I do want it to be quicker but without spending tons of cash or practically replacing the entire motor; heads, pistons, intake... Is it possible for my motor to get me a low 12 second run? I have sent Ed my specs before via e-mail and he didn't think so. Especially with my car being stock weight and having a 4-speed. The fact is that I can't dipsute him, because I haven't been able to do it. Sure, I can change the cam, most feel what I have is too big (Comp Cams 292H). According to the dyno sheet and my visits to the track, I am stuck with a 13.0 car @105 MPH. 13.0 !!! Mitsubishi Eclipses are kicking my butt. I would be as happy as can be if somebody told me how to tweak my combo without radical changes and knock .75 seconds off of my 1/4. Forget 10's. All I want is a 12.25. By the way, what does "bowl blended" mean?

What to do, what to do???
Ed, I really hope to see you this year at Island in NJ.

Jim R

------------------
My 70 Chevelle (http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/jim/)

[This message has been edited by Epistuff (edited 01-03-2001).]

Jim, 96.4cc is spec. However these heads typically have chambers of up to 106cc.

If you've gone 13.0 then I'll get you 12.90's under the right conditions.

I don't recall your your exact combo but reducing your ET by 3/4 of a second will require major changes, read $. In your case a simple plate N2O system is probably the most cost effective way to go.

I'll be starting pre-season testing in about 7 weeks at Atco. Come on by and we'll talk further. As for Island I may not be running there for several months, maybe late spring.

do you still drive your car to the track? and you don't need to run racing gas all the way to tenn. just back the timing off and i can run shell 93 all the way down. and racing gas is only 3.80 a gal for 115 octane i'm shopping for a digital camera and you can bet i'll send some photos in. and i've mixed my fuel for years and not had any problems the only time i run strait racing gas is when i go to the track

Racer1320, Why is pre-carb induction not to big of an issue? Will a cowl induction hood help my HP numbers any with 414cid and the 750 Q-jet? Right now I have to run a simpleWalmart special "e-brock" air cleaner and a 1" filter. So tight that I can't use a nut to hol dit on!! the hood holds it down http://www.chevelles.com/forum/rolleyes.gif


Epistuff, nice looking car man. That 454 only nets you 13.0s? At what mph? All I have to base my "facts" on is mph for now. I have a TH400 and traction problem.

I wish I could add in the conversation, but I can only 60' a 2.06 http://www.chevelles.com/forum/frown.gif -they just spin- However, I do pull 105mph through the traps with a very mild 396 motor over to 414cid. 10.7CR and a hydraulic 223/231 @ .050, 280/288 total duration. The heads are "Ed specials" and have had the bowls worked on as well as new valves and propper springs.

This motor, and poly bushings are the ONLY thing above stock on my car! AFter slicks at least ONE change of jetting, I am shooting for lows 12s at 110mph.

So that is the "lower" end of the BB spectrum that you guys are analyzing. I will glady compare my setup to ANY other setup using a similiar drivetrain: BB402/TH400/3.73 posi and a 10" tire (when summit gets them here)

-NO one at the tracks I go to think my motor is a 396 block. And any other high weight car has been "slimmed down" and sprayed to hell and back!!

Oh yeah, IMHO, anything greater than 600 Ft Lbs of Torque shouldn't be on the street. Certainly not with stock suspesion. Just too unsafe. My motor is "weak" and sometimes WOT, leaves me counter steering for weeks. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif but that's what makes it fun.



------------------
BB414, TH400, 3.73 posi,
13.1sec @ 105 MPH (TH400 needs clutch pack, Radial T/As = zero traction)
"I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end " J.T.
Picture of me roasting the tires and other guy stuff (http://www.auburnextremeracing.org/drivers/mike/)
Video of me staging (smoke of course) (http://www.notabusinessracing.org/videos/mike_chevelle_burnout.avi)

ATT. Todd geisler im talking about mercs 454s, i dont no of any 502 that pushes only 400 hp, I havent herd anyone talk yet of merlin ovals, my buddy put one together for his boat , 510ci merlin ovals small roller 9 to 1 dart singal plane 850 carb 640 hp at 4800, same motor merlin recs 671 hp at 5160 the year 2001 offers better things now then the 70s

Didn't know they still made a Merc 454, but it still could be compared to the 502 as they share the same crank.

I had considered going to Merlin oval ports when I was geting ready to switch just recently. For what I will have invested in the GM heads, it would have only cost another few hundred more for the Merlin heads. We chose not to use the Merlins for two reasons. First, the Merlins weigh considerably more than the GM iron heads as they are thicker castings. Second, my engine builder had not had very good luck with World Products castings in the past. The sbc castings he worked on didn't flow any better than stock GM stuff with very mild port work. He uses a JKM flow bench to verify work done and keeps a record book of heads he's done in the past. It would have been a crap shoot decision on whether to upgrade to the Merlins, so we stayed with the GM castings as I already owned them and he had experience with them in the past.

I am going to be picking the new heads up tomorrow or the next day, so I can post the total costs involved and hopefully some flow #'s for anyone interested.

------------------
Todd Geisler
79 Malibu
11.16@125.8mph
Malibu Muscle
http://www.MalibuMuscle.cjb.net

Three pages long, and the best thing, it aint about no politicial sass.

http://www.chevelles.com/forum/wink.gif

I LOVE IT!

WOW,SLOW DOWN!!!...Take a breather.

[This message has been edited by Racer X (edited 01-04-2001).]

racer1320 i'm not trying to be a know it all. but your claim that i can't make a 3500-4000lb. car go into the 10s with a single plain square port headed setup is allready been done a number of time's. you see i belong to a local car club here in southwestern ohio.and a number of these guys, as well as myself have already been there and done that. and now i'm out to prove you wrong again. and not only will i get this car to run 10s on the motor. i predict that we're going to go deep in the 10s on the motor.everyone has there own ideal of what a street car is, and to answer your question about the d.o.t. or state or local safety test. i'll have my car tested and garanty this when it's finished it will pass these tests. now you seem to be a knowledgable man and i do beleive what you say about velocity. but that just make's common sense.and i don't believe that just because you run on pump gas and shift at 6 grand. that automaticly make's it a street car. and if you realy want to get technical your car is not as streetable as my 68 was when i clicked off a 10:75 back in the early 90s. you yourself posted on this site. a post on your rear suspension setup. as dragrace only. so if we are going to play by some of the rule's lets play by all of them.now, i am a man of my word. and if i say i'll do something, or for that matter have done something. you can count that i have or will do it. as for you, you said earlier in this very post. quote build it and i will come. well i am building it. will you come? i've asked you 3 time's and you have not answered. so, i'm asking you if you think this can't be done. then lets plan a weekend this summer when you drive or trailer your piece down to cincinnati, ohio, at edgewater park raceway,a nhra sanctioned track. and let me prove you wrong again, in person.

First, I'd like to thank all the Team Chevelle members who have been emailing me thanking me for sharing this info and supporting my views and poise.

Having said that I don't see what I can add to this topic at this point except to continue to reiterate the same points to the same 3 or 4 individuals.

To those guys I wish them well and hope they achieve their goals.

Those that would like to continue this post by all means go ahead. I however will move on.

BTW, my next post should also generate some spirited responses when I offer suggestions on how to choose the "right" camshaft for your street / strip Chevelle. Wait and see.

Ed,
Great info. Looking forward to test/tune here in Oregon with your reccommended setup(same spec motor/converter/3.90s) Car has been down due to an accident last Aug but should be ready. Can't wait to see what happens. I have also decided if I do hit the 11s http://www.chevelles.com/forum/eek.gif no roll bar will be added but waiting in the wings is a 10 pt caged/back halfed 68 just beggin' for this motor/tranny http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif. It'll be alot lighter and should definitely hook. Good Luck in the new season everyone.

------------------
Jeff Angerstein
ACES#841 TCG#158
68 SS396(454)
68 Pro Street
69 SSRS 396(427) 4spd
87 MC SS

My Chevs (http://www.tcg158.homestead.com)
My Favorite (http://tcg158.homestead.com/files/drvr.jpg)
If you don't have time to do it right, make sure you have time to do it over!

yea did'nt think so.some people can do a lot of talkin. but when it come's to put up or shut up,well you get my drift. nuf said.

Bottle, I dont mean to offend but you can take your ego and stick it in your ear. Ed races all season long, he's putting down times every weekend and he is no bullshirter. So whats your beef? Just because he wont drive TO YOU and race.

WAAAAAA little man, WAAAAA. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/frown.gif

This is an adult site.

Have no doubt you all can compare times and Ed will have witnesses.

Go do your thing and see what the real deal is.

------------------
Gene Chaas
Gold Member 62/ACES
67 SS 427 (http://www.chevelles.com/feature/october2000.html)

Bottle rat.....if you want it that bad, the "gentlemens duel" would be more appropriate to be offered in a more central location.

Ed's a good guy and has taken alot of time to help out many of us here, on the boards and I know in email as well. He doesn't strike me as the ego driven kind of guy that has to prove himself, but like he said, he is always posting where he can be seen racing; not for his own personal gain, or to show off, but for the sheer comraderie of the sport.

------------------
"Being good isn't always easy...no matter how hard I try"
Big 'ol Baddass Dave Armstrong

'67 Chevelle 396/Th400/4.10
'95 Firebird Formula LT1(2FST4LOV)

The Burnout (http://chevelles.com/showroom/BBD1burnout.jpg)
The Launch (http://chevelles.com/showroom/BBDavelaunch.jpg)
The MAN!!! (http://chevelles.com/showroom/BBDave.jpg)(the guy in the black shirt)

First if you are willing to be the second best just copy the best configuration. If you have to be better you have to do some testing. Im glad that racer1320 shares his testing and what he found out. I never get a rectport head, neither an alu. There is so many cracked 990 ported heads that are ****. Better lay any money on a truckhead and port it until youre happy.

Superstock guys runs mid 10:s in that weight , 10" stall etc. Lots of them uses stock LS6. But the everything that can be done has been done. I think its the same thing on 1320:s car. I ranned 11,2 with my first motor and car combo. The old one was a sluggish one that i only tested for a time. 12.9 1,7. I think if you go oval and chose a small roller then you cant miss 11.5 in a stock chevelle. But if you go with rect you never do this times the first time...

hea i'll be the first to comend ed on his acheavmant's nobody's trying to knock any body off here.and i'm not the one throwing things out there like build it and i will come. and i'm not telling anyone, oh that combo won't go quicker than low 11s, so if all you little pied pipeper's want to follow the leader then by all means, do so.if you can impress them with brilyance then dazzel them with bull#^&%$ nuff said

hea i'll be the first to commend ed on his achievement's nobody's trying to knock any body off here.and i'm not the one throwing things out there like build it and i will come. and i'm not telling anyone, oh that combo won't go quicker than low 11s, so if all you little pied piper's want to follow the leader then by all means, do so.if you can't impress them with brilliance then dazzel them with bull#^&%$ nuff said

hey bottle rat, how about bottle to bottle rat vs, small block? Since were gettin off the topic, I want in on some heads up fun When you get that beast runnin' let us know the outcome.

Don, you amaze me. You email me several times requesting my help to get you in the 10's. Not only that but you go on to say that you know by my responses that I'm not a BSer like those "other guys". Now we find out that not only have you been running faster than I since '92 but you have a "club" of guys running real steet/strip Chevelles in the 10's. So what's your point.

I can see where you need help unfortunately, it's not with your car.

Hey if you've got all these guys in southwestern Ohio running mid 10's in 2 ton BB Chevelles I suggest you call Peterson Publishing because they're going to want to do several pages of feature on you and your "club".

Several regulars on this board that either have or had a combo similar to what you say your building, have already attested to the fact that either it won't run those numbers or it won't be streetable. So what's your secret? We'd all like to hear how you guys do it.

BTW, I see you are now talking about a 3500lb. Chevelle. What's next 14:1 CR, 5500 stall converters, $3,000+ heads, 4.88 gears, etc., etc. So what are you really building?

The guys on this board that really do race know where you're coming from. You aren't fooling them. My only concern is for the guy's that don't know. Many of them are students that may believe your story, only to find that after spending money that they really didn't have they now can't run those numbers and have an unstreetable ride too boot.

As for me coming down , well the best I can offer is possibly the ACES event in July, if it doesn't interfere with my series point's races. You see my priorities are more geared toward securing a position on the track's team, shooting for the track championship and a possible divison title, rather than settling a difference of opinion. Oh and I plan to run select NHRA Division events this season in Super Street.

But if it's that important to you come meet me any weekend March to November in NJ/PA or MD.


Ok Bob/AL.

thanks





[This message has been edited by racer1320 (edited 01-04-2001).]

1320 there is no reason to start throwing insults. that is not what this forun is for.and as far as needing help, i was under the impression that you were running bottom 10s.and i don't recall asking you to help me get to the tens. the way i remeber was that i ask you far a oppinion on header tube size and converter specs.and your rear sospension setup. i also have said many times in this forum that you do have 1-a good setup, 2 a very nice looking car, 3comended you on your achievement's, 4 said that if i all ready did'nt have all my stuff that i would use your combo. and you come back with your chest all out like you've done something that no one has ever done before. on top of that you through out statement's like build it and i will come, and oh that set up will never run 10s. that when my mind was changed. i to have been e-mailed by guys who say other than your big head that team chevelle is a good site. and BTW,peterson has done a feature's on one of my cars, in two of there magazine's 1-car craft dec.99 centerfold 2-hotrod chevelles april 00 page 40 so i'm sorry if i steped on you or anyone else's toe's or hurt their feeling's but a spade is a spade.and i will not respond to any more of this childish bickering.

I think it's time we quit all this competition and recognize that everyone has differing opinions on nearly everything that goes on here in TC. What makes this site so great is the fact that we can have friendly agruements, but yet know that when the shouting is over, we are all still one big happy family http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

When talking about racing etc., there will always be the "I know more than you mentality"...just goes with the territory. I would much rather be able to read and participate in discussions where I can learn about the mistakes I have made in the past and how to make better combination choices in the future. I would guess that very few of us can afford to make costly mistakes when it comes to chooing components for our cars. It is very helpful when we can share information that might just get us to our performance goals and maybe save some time and money in the process.

Let's not risk losing some of our greatest knowledgable people just because a few have differing opinions. Everyone has an equal voice here and should have their oportunity to be heard.

The time is now to drop any attitudes and just agree to disagree and move on.

I'm done.

------------------
Todd Geisler
79 Malibu
11.16@125.8mph
Malibu Muscle
http://www.MalibuMuscle.cjb.net

[This message has been edited by Todd Geisler (edited 01-04-2001).]

Um, excuse me - gosh, I hope I'm in the right place, but can someone please just help me get my 2 ton Impala solidly into the TEENS? http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
Awww, fer cyrin out loud, there's that IMPALA guy again.

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/ss3964spd?d&.flabel=fld1&.src=ph

todd i could'nt agree with you more.i for one did'nt come to this site to create enemies.and i also think 1320 is a stand up guy and i'm very impressed with his knowledge and perfomance we just dissagree on something's.so with all that said, can we get on with what this forum is for.teach and learn chevelles

Closing this.


[Note: This message has been edited by Al]