I am thinking of going with a Victor Jr. intake on my camaro.

My question is, Will it fit under my stock camaro hood?

Also what cam are you running with this intake?

thanks.

 

i've run a vic jr under a stock hood before. just need the right drop base air cleaner. The cam was 250duration 550 lift

 

Yeah, I have a drop base air cleaner.

I was planning on running the comp xe282hr cam. .510-.520 lift.
Im afraid that the vic jr might be a little large for the cam.

 

Is this a street/strip car, or strickly drag? Even strickly drag, I sould consider a Performer RPM over the victor, unless your car is light with some deep gears.

 

It wil be a street/strip car. Maybe see the track twice in a month.

 

You'll see better power out of a high rise dual-plane(RPM air-gap style) for that small of cam/intended use of the car. The single plane would sacrifice to much bottom-end, and be really tmepermental w/ that small of a cam.

 

how in ***'s name did you manage that????

http://www.ss-perf.com/webfolder/P1001373.jpg

thats a vic jr intake, a 1 inch carb spacer and a drp base... the front of the aircleaner will make contact with the hood for sure without the spacer in there....

here's the drop base i was using...

http://www.ss-perf.com/webfolder/P1001378.jpg


I run the xr288... the vic jr was perfect for it... the performaer rpm lost me about 35hp... and only netted a few ftlbs of torque...

You're probably right ont he edge - what heads are you using? I would say it's probably safe to say that with a vic jr, you'll gain some top end, with the performer rpm, you'll pick up some bottom end...

 

two reasons mainly. one....i wasn't running a carb spacer that thick. and two....the camaro's have a little more hood height being that the nose does not slope down at the front like a firebird.

 

ahh yes - very true... had to have been very close thought still

 

yes i dented the front of air cleaner lid slightly to fit it in there, but the hood shut.

 

I have a set of AFR 190's that I am going to have ported.

Are you using the Vic Jr. #2975?

Do you think that intake will be ok with the xr282hr cam? Maybe with some 1.6 rr's on the intake side?

 

Yes the vic jr would be ok, but you'll make more power w/ the RPM style dual-plane. That small of a cam would never get to the power/airflow of an open-plenum intake. You'll be in a loose-loose situation. You'll be sacrificing bottom-end because of the open plenum, and you won't have as good of top end because the cam will run out before the intake really gets any velocity. RPM air-gaps have been dyno proven to make good power to about 7k. Hell, they'll breath just fine to around 7200ish, but once you're in that range, then you might as well have the HP of the open plenum.
- As for hood clearance I was running a standard drop-base w/ a 3" K&N on top my Team-G. Had 1/2 4-hole spacer and NOS plate in there too. All under the stock bird hood. Once I got the Ram-air I went flat base and 4" filter.

- dude, forget the open-plenum. Run a high rise dual-plane and enjoy the power of your new combo.

 

I dont have a problem running a dual plane as long as it will fit. With worn out motor mounts and a drop base air cleaner, the tallest I can use is about 4.56". Thats with the insulator mat removed.

Most of the Edelbrock intakes are taller. Which one do you suggest?

 

I'd look into the Professional Products "Crosswind". I've run one of their polished perf RPM style w/ another combo and was very pleased with it. I've got one of teir "crosswind" polished designed for vortecs. Very please with the fit and finish, but I haven't run it on a motor yet, just mock-up stuff. VERY nice piece, especially for the $. - As for height, my Team-G is every bit that tall, and I fit it under the bird hood w/o mods....

 

What is the part # on the Team-G you are running?

I have a weiand x-celerator #7546 in the garage that I can mock up. If it fits, I shouldnt have any problem with the air gap.

thanks

 

the x-celerator is lower than my Team-g. I have one, was running it before my Team-G. remember, this was under a stock bird hood. Your camaro has more clearance...
- you can mock-it up to make yourself feel better(I probably would, even though I know) but it'll clear.

 

I would recommend the Victor Jr., although with a hydraulic roller camshaft you could be running into valve float trying to turn those rpms.

I ran a Super Victor for Vortecs intake with my 350, 9.9:1 and an XE274. Car weighed 3050 without driver, ran 12.28 at 111.85 on the motor on street tires. I could power brake second gear from a 20 mph roll, I think that is plenty of power... People get caught up in magazine dynos and forget about real world performance-

A single plan manifold will sacrifice some low end torque, but in many cases this will actually help a lot of street/strip cars. This is the same reason de-stroked engines are popular for street racing- raise the peak horsepower/torque and it is easier to get the car hooked up on a small tire. My Camaro ran 12.2's on 275/50/15 BFG Radial T/A's, not even a drag radial! Plus, people get all excited about low end torque numbers, then stick a loose torque converter in their car that completely negates any gains made below xxxx rpm.

As for hood clearance, I could not fit the Super victor, demon carb and a drop base air cleaner under my stock hood with Vortec heads. I wound up buying a cowl.

Hope this helps .

 

I am currently running a victor jr. on my built 355. I was able to fit it under a stock hood but I had to run a drop base air cleaner.

 

I mocked up the Weiand x-celerator #7546 with the demon carb and my dropbase. I might have got the hood closed with a 1/2" shorter filter.

Looks like I may just get rid of both intakes and just get the RPM airgap. I will wait and see what my engine builder/head porter says for the final word. He comes up with some different combos that really work.

 

the cam type doesn't have anything to do with valve float, valve float is all in the valve springs. - I turn around 7200 on average, 7600 a couple times, no problems. - I ate 2 sets of stock roller lifters(I have several sets...) before I finally went to the Crane's, which I know is because of my higher spring pressure. I'm running dual springs, probably more suited to a mild solid roller, but to turn the r's you need a good spring.

- I do agree on the fact that many people get too focused on low end torque numbers. My car was a daily driver and, with my combo, there is no such thing as low end torque. I still ran in the 11's all motor, and still got around 16 in town/20 highway w/ a carb, no driveability problems. I will be switching to hydra-boost brakes though, because if you lift off the pedal at all, its manual brakes until the r's have been back up.

-kinda off topic, just some info on the cam/intake subject...

 

Shagwell, I'd love to here details about your combo. It sounds like a fun set up! PM me if you like.

 

Valve float on a hydraulic roller camshaft is a combination of valve springs and lifter weight. I know AFR makes a rev kit for Hydraulic roller cam setups. Just like a hydraulic flat tappet, tons of spring pressure is going to kill hyd. roller camshafts/lifters that weren't designed to handle it. Many solid roller setups run 50% to more than 100% more pressure on the seat and open than hydraulic roller setups. I think my Lunati springs are 240 on the seat and 500 open pressure.

 

I konw that higher spring pressure is harder on the lifters - actually I said that in my last post. Just saying/clarifying that the cam itself is not to blame for valve float. - I do often forget that some people have roller cams that aren't billet. So in that case, over a LONG period of time, the larger springs could take a toll on the cam itself. -
My comp springs are pretty close to that, around 240 seat, but I think I'm closer to 600 open(dual spring)...
That's it from me, I'm getting too far off topic.

Johnny Blaze - PM sent....

later, justin...

 

Comp calls for the 986 springs for the xr282hr, but said I could use the 987's. Do you think the 987's would be better?

 

there is some pretty opinionated info in here i think, and here's my thoughts... keep in mind i have a hydrolic roller cam motor, using stock trickflow dual coil springs.. they are comparable to the 987's i beleive.

My combo - xr288 cam, trickflow 23* heads, cnc chamber option, lt headers, vic jr intake, 4150 carb, stock zz3 bottom end. flywheel numbers - 462hp/431ftlbs peak hp holds from 6100 to 6600. valve springs are 130 seat closed, 430 open at .600lift

Ok - INTAKE choice... with a xr282 cam, it is my opinon, that you COULD run either a dual plane or a small single plane, and still retain good power through out... my peak torque is above 300ftlbs from 2500 on up... My suggestion would be to run the big dual plane - airgap performer rpm or the perf. rpm... whichever you prefer. The differences will be this...

The single plane will cost you some peak torque no doubt - BUT it will give you some extra top end hp.. if your drag racing, your going to want the top end, seems how your in your peak torque for all about 30-40 feet, (hopefully). Also, the single plane will bring your torque peak up higher in the power band... ALSO good for drag racing if you have a car with wide ratios in the gearbox.

The Dual plane will give you the opposite - You will sacrafice some top end hp. but you should pick up a good amount of torque downlow - good for driving on the street. Overall, taking peak numbers out of the equation, and considering the cam and heads you have, i think the RPM dual plane is going to give you a better "under the curve" set of numbers - meaning your power band will be much broader (flat if you look at a dyno sheet) - which is basicaly what you want for any motor... in this case, thats why i think that the dual plane will be a better choice - better street power, and will still do plenty well on the track.


Now, refering to the hydrolic roller cams and valve float...

To understand valve float, you have to understand there are two reasons it floats - Inertia from the mass of the lifter, pushrod, rocker arm and valve, and valve bouncing.

The inertia of the items i listed above is a function of there speed and weight, and the ramp rates on the cam. Stock GM lifters ARE HEAVY. this adds more inertia -= combine that with a roller cam that used very agressive ramp rates, and you have a valve spring on a very difficult mission.

Valve bounce is ALSO related to valvesprings - this is caused when the valve bounces off the seat - again, if the valve spring isn't strong enough to keep the valve closed, then it will bounce - this also has SOME to do with the ramp rates again - a more agressive close of the vlave means more built up speed.


The max spring i would go with is a spring that applies about 140-160lbs of pressure closed, and no more than 475-500lbs open - any more than this, and it will overwelm the hydrolic lifter and cause it to collapse.

I AM running an afr rev kit. The day we engine dynoed my motor, i was told that it would never turn past 5800 because of valve float - the reason they told me this was because they didn't know i had the rev kit, and because the motor they dynoed the day before was very simliar in setup to mine, but no rev kit.

First off - for those who don't know - the rev kit gets placed between the heads and the lifters, and uses a special retainor that applies extra spring pressure to the BODY of the lifters - taking lifter weight basically out of the equation.

My motor did not flat until about 7200rpm...

Now shagwell is using crane rollers - better design, and probably 5-8% lighter than the gm ones. this is most likely why he can turn the rpms he does along with the heavy valve spring. Obviously, lighter valve train hardware will help too - lighter retainors, rockers, pushrods, valves, ect ect will all reduce mass, which reduces inertia. The last roller motor we dynoed at the shop had some pretty heavy spring in it - close to what shawell is running, and we were having problems all day long with it until we put in a freash set of lifters and lighter springs..

With that cam, i would suggest that you just make sure you run the 987's and i think you will be ok. Be forewarned that you will likely have to run only a little preload to help keep down float however - i only run 1/8th of a turn of preload, rather than the usual 3/4-1 turn.


So cliff notes - run the dual plane rpm - your under the curve numebrs will be worth the loss of some hp on the top end.

Cam - hydrolic lifters can only take so much spring pressure, this is why a rev kit is made. the floating problem can be solved by reducing valve train weight, increasing spring pressure, or running a rev kit.

Even though it's not always an option for everyone - i know the next cam i will be buying will be a solid roller cam... i'd rath just check my valve lash, run a nice heavy spring and not have to worry about floating a valve.

 

fb305svs - I agree.
- Also, I was turning the same rpm w/ the stock lifters, but after about 5k miles, the lifters would go away. She'd start stumbling at part throttle acceleration. I know this is becasue they aren't meant for the amount of spring I'm running. However, I wasn't running a rev kit. I like a rev-kit, and highly reccomend one, but I don't have one in this combo.(note: isky makes one for hyd roller application also) The larger spring pressure overcame the inertia of the lifter, but also was the doom of the lifter, causing it to colapse. The aftermarket lifters solved this.
- another reason to run the dual plane intake is because of the auto trans as compared to fb305svs or I.
- bluegrassz, I'm not sure on the specs of those springs, but if it's what comp reccomends, I'd go w/ it. Your cam doesn't have near the duraton I have, so you won't be turning the rpm I do. You could, but it'd be pointless because you'd be past your power band.
- I too am going solid roller. I have a 400 block that I'm going to be running +.030 and a 3.50 stroke (380ci). I'm using my current rods, cam, heads, intake and such. I'll be going to 1.6 shaft rockers and a rev-kit.

 

you'll still go with a rev kit even with the solids huh?

intresting... it's not so much that it dislike the rev kit, it's just a royal cramp...

FYI, for those considering a afr rev kit, i suggest the following - drill and tap both ends of both spring retainor bars (the part that tucks under the heads) and install a short bolt, with a nut on it. loctite RED the thread, and use these bolts to hold the retainor bar in the position it should be in. they don't go end to end, and therefore exhibit some play - this will make it so it doesnt shift, which with vibration it will. tighten down the nut ont he bolt against the spring bar and away you can go

it's a little fuzzy, but you should be able to see where i put them in...



much better pic - but it is huge... be forewarned... lol

http://www.gallery.ss-perf.com/d/909-3/P1001207.jpg

 

I'm running a vic. jr. on my built 383 with .575 lift comp. cam solid roller, 850 cfm Holley. Heres a link of it running
http://www.clixtrac.com/ebay/383.wmv

 

I just pulled the heads off my L98. Guess what!!!! Factory 4 valve releif flattops!!! Everything looked great, from the tops of the pistons to the cylinder walls.

I will take pics of the motor as I go when I get a new battery for my digital camera.

 

unless they've been changed, they're not true flat-tops. Stockers have the chamfered outer edge and slight dish.

- Yes, I'll be running a rev kit w/ a solid. two words, valve lash. The rev kit makes the lifter follow the cam, instead of allowing the slack of the lash. It's not neccessarily needed, and many run w/o. My dad has always run one on his race BBC's, and I believe in them. At the time I put my current motor together, none were available for the hyd roller. They're not hard to put in(especially w/ head studs), and its cheap insurance(ever spit a push-rod?). I'll probably just use my ARP head bolts, but hopefully I won't have the heads on/off enough to care.

 

There is no chamfered outer edge. I have saw some flattops in other later L98's. This is a 91-92 block. There are a few pics floating around the site. I will try to get a couple of pics.

 

Well, thats the only reason i went with head studs - easier to install the kit lol.. Me and my dad ran a latemodel for 8 years - we used to do most of our own motorwork at this guys shop (he'd do some of the machining) great learning experiance. And it def is nice if ya ever do bend or spit a push rod... didnt really think of it until ya mentioned it lol...

Anyways - those pistons have the eyerbrow reliefs or just the little cuts for the valves?

the ones with the little 4 cuts are more or less flat tops - the dish is so minimal it's nothing to worry about...

 

Here is a pic I found here at thirdgen thats like my pistons. The valve releif looks the same. The is no dis like some of the other pics I have seen.

 

Here is a pic of what I think the dish piston you are talking about.
Mine dosent have the chamfered edge like these.

 

...I guess it is possible to learn something everday...must be the difference in the years...

Thats cool on the pistons, but unless they're in great shape and there's no taper/run-out in the bore, it doesn't mean much.

 

Everything looks great on my motor. 10 times better than those pics I posted. I can check the runout, but I should be ok. Now I just need to get my compression up, or atleast not loose any. Maybe mill my heads from 68 to 62. Might even angle mill them.

 

you should get close but not quite 10:1 on that setup - more compression the less fuel tolereant it will tend to be...

 

If I could get 9.5 or 9.8 to 1, that would be great.

I am hoping for atleast 375hp. I would like to break the 400hp/400tq mark. I guess time will tell.

 

I agree on 10:1, hell I'm running 10.98:1 - angle milling takes more faster....just don't cut em so much you have to cut the intake to get it on.

 

Yeah, thats what I want to avoid. I dont want to have to mill the intake. I should be able to get the compression somewhat above stock.

 

what cc chambers do your afr's have? you can cut quiet a bit before any issues.

 

they are 68cc's. AFR said I could flat mill them .006 per cc or angle mill the .008 per cc. The head work will open them up a bit. I should be able to get them down to say 62cc before having issues. I will check with my engine builder and machine shop.

 

62 would be pretty good. - although not really noticeable on a street motor, angle milling angles the ports upward, slightly, thus slightly improving power.

 

I took the heads by the machine shop, he said it will be close to the valve seats. My engine builder said we could cut into the 30, but not the 45 on the valve seat. If we dont cut into the 30, he wont be able to take any off. We want to take 25 thou off if we can.

We did get the cam degreed in. Now im wating on the heads.

I ordered the rpm airgap, and a Msd pro billit dist.

Now I need to start selling some parts.

 

sounds good. - really should be a nice motor. - I just picked up a billet dist for mine. Deffinitely a nice piece.
- what did you put the cam in at?

- can't wait to hear how she runs!

 

We ended up putting it straight up dot to dot. It has 4 degrees adv. built in. We degreed it, and it was almost perfect.

 

UPDATE!!!!

We just put the heads on last night. We run the valves and everything looks good. The intake is being matched up from the heads being milled, but the will be just right when done.

The only problem is the valvecovers. Im running the crane gold rr's. I clearanced the webing inside the centerbolt vc's. The edge of the vc's are riding on the head. I think I will try a thick gasket to see if that will work. The valvetrain dosent hit, so as long as they seal, I should be fine.

Oh yeah, When I got the heads back, we checked the cc's and got 60cc's.

We figured the compression to be around 10.3 to 1.

 

sounds good. - glad to hear the progress