loopy

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for the advice but cam has been ordered xr276HR.

skinny z

Be sure to get the latest edition. His first go round (1999) is full of info that's a little dated now. He has chapters devoted to porting OEM heads in the original book while the latest (2009) has an excellent section on the aftermarket selection. Lots of good Vortec stuff. Plenty of little things to pick up on too. And like the title says, plenty of it is on the cheap.

You may be surprised when you find that despite thinking you've got all the goods, the shopping list gets longer.
An example will be your stock valve covers. Your nice Pro Magnum rockers won't quite fit without a little modification (I think was touched upon a few months back but maybe not). You may have to invest in a die-grinder or suitable tool to clearence them an appropriate amount. There's a thread here with pictures that I can dig up should you need it.

skinny z

That's one of the builds we were discussing earlier. They may have used that cam in the Agent 87 engine too. Seems to be a popular choice.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

just picked it up, 2009 edition.

Regarding the rocker covers, I would like to score some fab'd alloy ones. It would be a shame to install all the nice new alloy inlet manifold and polished carby then skimp on the rocker covers lol

I know there will be lots of little stuff but I'm pretty sure I've got most of the big ticket stuff sorted.....well I hope anyways........

loopy

iTrader: (1)

Kevin

Whats your preferred short spark plug and leads for vortec heads with headers?

I read that book cover to cover, lots of good info in there. I really need to read it again

to absorb it properly.

skinny z

Hey Geoff
I never needed a short plug either with my Hedman short headers or my current Hedman mid-length. Both had a 1 5/8" primary tube. There's plenty of room for the AC Delco R44LTS plug.
As for plug wires, the Taylor Spiro-Pro has always worked well for me. The 8mm set with 90 degree plug boots is economical and fits reasonably well.
It IS an excellent book isn't it? I re-read sections from time to time. As with anything though, you have to be able to select what's relevant and what's reasonable. I don't have the resources or skill sets that Vizard has so certain compromises have to be made along the way.

skinny z

I've always liked this engine build. Here's an example of a Vortec headed 350 with a Vizard spec'd camshaft. I could never get my head around his cam choice but the results speak for themselves. Keep in mind that it's a magazine dyno engine so the numbers are unrealistically high. Probably an electric water pump, no power steering pump or alternator and a perfect exhaust system Still, 447 hp is a testimony to the Vortec heads and what can be considered a "little" cam.

http://www.hotrod.com/events/coverag...c-small-block/

loopy

iTrader: (1)

I guess with the cam, some times less is more, although it is moderately high lift.
In the book none of the cams suggested have such a short duration. I wonder why that is?


EDIT just realised the magazine cam duration spec was at .050" so quite similar to the xtreme energy cams except the specified 108* LSA. In the top 10 engine builds the hydraulic roller 350 he say 108LSA is quite important. Why is that do you think?

skinny z

Vizard states that it's the overlap value that the most important consideration when selecting a cam. The duration numbers determine the rpm at which peak torque is produced, not the amount of torque so the tighter LCA allows for the target RPM to be realized while achieving the necessary overlap for the performance goal.
I guess simply stated is that the tighter LCA allows for a shorter cam selection while achieving strong power production.
I spec'd my own cam for my latest engine using Comps XFI lobes. 274/282, 224/230. 110 LSA, 106 ICL. Something I could have done was tighten up the LCA however I was determined to build along the lines of the cam you've picked, the XR276HR which worked very well in the previous engine. The overlap with those duration values and the 108 LCA I felt would have been too much. I didn't want to drop the duration any further as I felt it was low enough as it was.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

I was thinking that by closing up LCA you could run less duration but maintain the same overlap.

So, from what you said , I take it that the lesser duration allows max torque at lower RPM. While still giving you the advantages of the greater or same overlap.

I think I'm getting a handle on it.

I'm learning so much from you mate and really appreciate the time you have spent on this.

skinny z

Exactly. In a well tuned engine, one more race orientated, it's the overlap together with exhaust scavenging via a properly designed exhaust system, that promotes the volumetric effeciency. That builds power due to the better cylinder filling.
Unfortunately for us street types, it's the overlap that kills vacuum and that tends to degrade drivability. It's a trade-off.

Night rider327

iTrader: (13)

Yes sir, that is the biggest problem for street performance, street/strip builds.. The trade offs.

I have told customers for years the street/strip engine is the hardest engine combo to build and get just right, most just looks at me like I'm crazy as they think race engines are harder to build.

It's the trade offs that you have to try to figure out. What can I give up to gain X.

Pure street, stock engines we all know. Race engines just keep with in the class limits.

But street/strip you have to keep your drivability, fuel mileage, emissions, octane requirements, etc while still getting great power out of the engine.

Sorry guys for the rambling on, but I just wanted to emphasize how hard it is to get a great street performance combo

loopy

iTrader: (1)

No, not rambling ,It makes perfect sense. Everything involves comprimise especially our engines. Excellent stuff

skinny z

Well said.
I know that with the money I've invested in my build, in particular my engine, I could be WAY faster. There are plenty of vehicles with lesser components that are much quicker but I've made the choice to have fuel economy, not to mention cross-country drivability, as important as ET and trap speed.
That said, there's a certain sense of accomplishment when I know I have a 3700 lbs (actually closer to 3600 now) that soldily in the 12's and can knock down 20+mpg travelling 3000 miles across the country.
The only fly in that ointment is that all of the above can be purchased from the local dealer these days. Blazing performance, superb handling and arctic ice cold AC blowing through the blondes hair in the passenger seat.
Next car will be a Cadillac CTS-V with a blown LS going 10's all day. Or quicker. Check this out.
http://ls1tech.com/articles/worlds-f...adillac-cts-v/
Or a dedicated race car...














.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {padding:0px;}.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage {font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}

loopy

iTrader: (1)

But would it give you the same sense of accomplishment and satisfaction as your 100% skinny build?

I'd be surprised if it did

EDIT,,,,,, Ok it's freaky fast so maybe it would lol

skinny z

Well, first I'd revel in owning a new(ish) CTS-V. Then I'd drop in a supercharger (forget the NO2) and revel in that. There'd still be the build aspect to it. Just a little different. From there's it's just plain faster. And for a guy my age...perhaps more suitable. That said, surprisingly I get a lot of compliments on the Camaro despite it's weathered and beaten down apprearence. That I've been told it has a great sound and that it can get out of it's own way (and that of many other street driven vehicles) quite handily probably contributes to that.
I'm sure you'll have a blast with yours too. Then get yourself a Holden and stuff a supercharged LS in it!

loopy

iTrader: (1)

You know I have always liked V8 holdens but TBH, after the Camaro I would think it a backward step. Too new, too easy if you know what I mean.

I'm an old school kinda guy I guess.

feilds

Yea same here, i sold my 79 V8 Holden Torana to buy my third gen... just had to get that american coupe and these are the most affordable.

Maybe we could start an exchange program sending holdens stateside haha!!

loopy

iTrader: (1)

True! Would be a point of difference over there, especially the 304 holden powered ones. I remember the 1st year of Chev powered Holdens at Bathurst, they couldn't touch the Holden powered cars and IIRC a Holden powered Holden won that year.


I had a Sunbird with 327 and powerglide. That car went pretty hard. Before that the engine/auto was in a HK premier. That was a choice car but I couldn't save the body so the sunbird was the easy way out for me.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

Kevin......

I finally took the heads into the shop today for machining and assembly.

He is going to smooth the ports, especially the area immediately above the valve where there is that rough casting mark. Nothing radical just a touch up.
While doing that he's also going to gasket match the intake ports to the Edelbrock airgap manifold, install the screw-in studs and guide plates and open up the pushrod holes to suit the extra length of the 1.6 ratio rockers.
He is also going to CC a couple of chambers just to confirm our comp ratio calculations (my measuring may be a little out so I asked him to check).

He has talked me into getting some scat rods for it, reckons the powdered metal ones tend to elongate through the big-end and spin bearings when pushed too hard. For $300ish I couldn't say no , cheap insurance really.

I'm getting excited now, things are finally moving ahead lol

skinny z

I sense your excitement but I question the expense of the new rods. With ARP bolts, I'd think at the RPM levels you'll put the engine through, and none of it sustained, the OEM rods would have been fine. That said, it's"cheap insurance" I suppose. I hope the Scat rods have quality hardware (ARP or equivalent). It'd be nice to get the old rods back and sell them to recoup some of the expense.
I'm glad you picked up on the push rod holes. I'm not sure that was touched upon in the thread but it's important that it be done. I can't say much for gasket matching however cleaning up the rough cut in the bowl area is never a bad idea. If you ever need a valve job down the road, keep in mind that part of what makes the Vortecs a good piece is the factory work on the seat. Trust a shop that's had experience specifically with the Vortecs. That's not so much my opinion as it is the GM engineering group that designed them. There's a published paper floating around to the effect.
I guess your next step will be mocking up the heads and block and determining the correct length pushrods. You don't have anything too exotic or unusual but you'll still have to do your due diligence and run a few checks. There are a few really good articles on the subject, not so much method but more an understanding of what you're trying to achieve and why.
For what it's worth, I've done it more times than I can count and will admit I've made some terrible mistakes based on assumptions as well as relying on some of the misinformation that gets passed along on the web. The funny thing is, you don't know you've made a mistake until a few thousand miles have been put on the valve train and you find yourself in need of new guides. What's more, the amatuer drag racing engine building crowd, in particular those that only get maybe a 1000 miles a year on an engine, fail to see the connection and routinely get a valve job every season, chaulking it up to racing. Like we've stated earlier, high performance street engines are particularly difficult to build AND make last. That takes a lot atttention to detail.
My apologies for the rant, Geoff, I just wanted to get that off my chest.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

Yeah I did read in the SBC on a budget book that David Vizard said the PMF rods in the vortec engines are streets ahead of the early versions, but he (Vizard) also went on to say that the cost of outfitting my rods with ARP bolts and resizing gets me to with 75-80% of the cost of the cheapest scat rods which come with ARP already installed. ( a point the engine guy made too) so I did the math and in the end was happy to go with it.



Regarding the rocker geometry, I have that article by Jim Miller that you put me onto at the start of this thread and will definitely follow those guidelines for my build.

I read that article on the valve/ports by the GM engineers some weeks ago and with that in mind told my engine guy I didn't want any extensive grinding, just a tidy up in the areas mentioned.

He seems pretty sharp though Kevin, said the valves were nicely back cut and nothing required there. That was a relief as I have read that its very easy to mess up the vortec's flows at low lift.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

On a different note, have you ever used ram air boxes cold air intake systems.
http://www.ramairbox.com/product.html

I have searched around here but no results to speak of.

I have been searching for a cold air intake of some sort and came across their website.

They don't look that pretty but seem like they are very functional and taking in to account what you said about keeping the intake charge cool they are definitely an option.
I read in one of your threads that you live in the vicinity of there work shop and had been there.

Night rider327

iTrader: (13)

The scat rods are great for the money. For your build I don't think I would have went that route though with a good set of PMR, but you will be happy with the scats.

Every set I have bought has been weight matched +/- 2 grams out of the box. Most of the times I can just weigh my pistons, pins, ring packages and play around with lightest to heaviest and get a rod/piston package that's within 0.5 to 1 gram matched with out any grinding.

As far as the cold air intake. I seen the ram air boxes and not really impressed with them for the price. I have always just made my own. You can fashion one up for less than 50 bucks that looks great. Most of mine I do for 10-20 dollars.

You can use many diff things from two stock snorkel air cleaners from junkyard, cut and weld snorkel on to make a dual snorkel...

Round cake pan.. Steel, alum. or stainless

Plastic round tub/bucket.

Sheet metal with thick foam.

Moroso air pan foam

Home clothes dryer vent hose, home a/c duct, alum 3 or 4 inch pipe and rubber or silicon adapters/couplings.

Then for looks you can polish, paint, powder coat, engrave, etch, etc

Just google homemade ram air and homemade cold air intake pictures and you will see a lot of options.

skinny z

Well, it seems like like you're well informed and have done your research. That all bodes well for a quality build.
I hadn't considered the pricing points of upgrading to the Scat rods. Seems like a good move on your part.
Take your time on the VGT. Did you invest in the Comp adjustable pushrod? It's certainly worth the modest investment.
Having confidence in your machine shop is one of the most fortunate things that can happen. If you have enough work for him, don't be afarid to stop by his shop one Friday afternoon with a case of beer just to say thanks. It pays dividends down the road!

loopy

iTrader: (1)

And I have you 100% to thank for that!

Not yet. I will be getting one when I order the plugs and leads etc from Summit

Good thought..
I like the guys manner, understated but seems to know his stuff. He listened to what I wanted and didn't try to add his own agenda just made the comment about the rods was all. He wasn't pushy like some. He approves our choice of cam, reckons I will end up with a very nice engine.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for your reply.

I hadn't thought about doing it DIY, but don't see why I couldn't.

Good to hear about the scat rods. Also, I hadn't thought about weight matching the rotating assembly, but can be easily done so worth the effort I guess, I suppose it pays off in terms of engine balance/longevity?

skinny z

You may find this interesting.
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/carb...b-sealing.html
Or something else I'm considering is forgoing the sealed cowl hood (which by the way is something I've always wanted to do) and instead go for this sort of hybrid design.
I'd use a RamAir box single snorkel sealed filter case (picture 1) and mate it to the OEM twin filter case (sans filters) to TPI/TBI assembly (pictures 2 and 3).
My thinking is this: We build a lot of underhood heat, especially with headers and the design of our engine bays doesn't allow for the extraction of this heat. It's one thing to seal the carb from the underhood temps however the question of the trapped superheated air remains. What I've found with my cowl hood is that this heat escapes via the cowl (seeing as I haven't sealed it to the carb yet). By incorporating the sealed filter case into the TPI/TBI factory inlet housing (sans filters as I stated), then I've achieved a CAI package AND provided an outlet for the underhood heat. Seems a win/win.
What I haven't checked are the clearances. Of course, if you don't have a cowl hood, then the sealed case/OEM inlet is still a viable CAI option. I would think anyway.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

You've touched on something I have been pondering for a while and is partly why I was thinking ram air box.

I have a jeep Cherokee and most jeep owners will tell you, they run hot. Reason for this is small radiator , tight engine bay and nowhere for air to escape.

Same problem 3rd gens seem to have.
I've been thinking about opening my hood louvres to make them functional to allow air to escape and was thinking ram air box (or home made equivalent) to take car of CAI. This all hinges on my carb/intake clearing the hood. It's gonna be close. Another way to allow air to escape is to raise rear edge of hood 1" (jeep trick) this will also allow more clearance for CAI/carb/etc. Still working on this as I really would like to avoid cowl hoods. I like the look and lines of the std hood.


That thread you linked is one I read the last couple of days and is why I asked you about ram air.

skinny z

If you run an RPM Air Gap intake and a typical 3" dropped base air filter case then you will have an interference problem. Been there, done that. It's not possible to drop the base any further as it puts the lid into the choke horn and cuts off flow. It's the proximity of the lid to the carb that is the problem and it can't be dropped any further as it's tight as it is. There may be someone out there with experience otherwise but from what I've seen and read, it's an issue. I cut the embossment that makes up the sub-frame of the hood in the offending areas. Primarily where the leading edge of the filter housing meets the hood. Unless you knew what you were looking at, it would go undetected. Still, I had to cut it up.
I also preferred the looks of my Sport Coupes flat hood however I had to acquiesce for clearance sake. I now have a very tasty looking Glasstek 1 1/2" cowl hood that I find appealing. In my opinion it has a better look to it the AMD steel hood that there's a picture of floating around here somewhere.
As for cutting open the louvers, I've heard pros and cons about it. I would be concerned about the rain getting in where it shouldn't.
Please don't raise the rear of your hood an inch to provide clearance.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

LOL!!!


Its a jeep thing mate LOL.

I promise I wont.

So if I cut the hood supports at the front of the air cleaner I will have enough clearance?

I shudder at the thought of what it would cost to get a Glasstek hood down to NZ.

skinny z

Personally I'd like to see you make it work with the factory hood.
A Berlinetta has a flat hood doesn't it? However you commented on the opening the louvers.
Whatever the case do you have a pic of the underside? My Sport Coupe hood, despite being flat, still had the louvered framework. Yes, I had to trim the framework back to provide the needed clearance for my RPM Air Gap/Holley/3" open element dropped base air filter housing. With so many variables, the air filter housing being the real x factor, it's tough to say how or if you can pull it off with your arrangement.
My bet is that you can.
I still like and will probably pursue the idea of the single snorkle Ram Air Box sealed 14" filter case mated to the OEM dual filter element CAI assembly. I think that would be very inventive not to mention functional (and stealthy). What I don't know is how much the Ram Air Box takes up in a height sense. It may be too much for the factory hood. On the other hand, my cowl hood has loads of room. I running a 4" open element now and still have about 1/4" to spare at the most forward edge of the filter lid.

Night rider327

iTrader: (13)

On my Dad's twin turbo build we used a spectra brand polished alum. carb hat with 4" spout.

You could use the single or dual spout/snorkel spectra hat (or even other car's factory hats) and run a pipe from it to a cold air source out front and use cone air filter(s) at the end of pipe/tube.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

Here ya go



Topside



Im pretty certain from looking at the ram air boxes wesite that it will be just as difficult for me to fit as the 3" dropped aircleaner.



That's definitely an option.

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/spe-98499/overview/

2.4" High 675 CFM

or

http://www.summitracing.com/dom/parts/spe-9849

3.5" 900CFM

That 1st one could possibly fit, although I definitely need to get out and do some measuring. Not so sure about the 2nd but it would suit your plans skinny, although as night rider said needs cone filter.

skinny z

You're probably right about the Ram Air Box.
Looking at your hood, it has the same bracing that I cut/removed (it's attached to the hood skin via an adhesive) to make room for filter case. That's something you may not want to carve up though.
While I'm not a fan of the carb hat look, it could be incorporated into the OEM filter housing that draws air from in front of the rad. The problem with that is the filters, even an upgrade to K&N, are very small in terms of area and as such, once you start to push the horsepower limits, it may do more harm than good. My understanding is that a 14 x 3 is about the minimum you need for 400 hp. I've got the data here somewhere (Vizard touches on it in his SBC book). The cone filters, despite being widely used on engines far exceeding 400 hp may not have enough surface area either.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

So a 14x3 is about 72sq"

Unfortunately I don't have any of the original air box or ducting for mine. But for you, couldn't you go from ducting in front to an air box with a flat rectangular k & filter? I could do similar but get a tube shaped air filter housing such as a j d tractor has ( they are 4"dia). Just thinking out loud. I'm not so fussed with carb hats either but better to not hack and cut original body panels

skinny z

It's said that 1 square inch of a K&N filter will support 6 or 7 hp. A 14 x 3 has an equivalent area of 131 sq. in. (Not sure how they do math in New Zealand!). That's good for about 700 hp.
The twin OEM filters are about 5" inches square. Times two gets about 50 square inches of total filtering area. That can support 300-350 hp before it becomes a restriction. You see the limitations.
EDIT:I found this directly from K&N.
Engine size x max rpm/ 20839 = minimum filter area before the filter becomes an air flow restriction.
My engine: 350 x 6500/ 20839 = 109 sq. in. Seems about right to use a 14 x 3.
A 14 x 2 is too small. As are the twin OEM filters.

I'm a traditionalist and as such I like the look of the round air filter sitting on the carb (or throttle body). I'd like to use the OEM twin filter case mostly because it's slick in it's appearence however it's limited in it's flow capacity without modification. Even opening up the smallish throat still leaves you with the undersized filter area. That leads to using a modified OEM filter case:
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tpi/...pi-camaro.html



without the filters and adapting it to something like the single snorkle Ram Air box.
Of course there's the other also traditional method of sealing things up with a "cake pan" and rubber or foam stripping.
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/carb...b-sealing.html
I no longer have the hood in that thread however what jhainer pulled off in post #160 is what I had been thinking originally.



Now here's a thought. Looking through those pictures, I came across the air pan that seals to the underside of the hood (regardless of it's shape) and exits to the rear of the hood. It may be possbile for you to incorporate something like that with your flat hood. The only snag I see is that lack of space where the hood meets the cowl at the base of the windshield.



Now that I have the open cowl under my fibreglass hood, I may pursue this approach. I could, with a little ingenuity, draw cold air from the base of the windshield and leave enough room in the cowl to allow hot air to escape.
Of course, for you, this is all contingent on the space you have available between your carb and hood. There's an example of a home made version of the air pan in that same thread. Looks pretty good.
I can understand you not wanting to cut up the original sheet metal considering what a hood must be worth in your part of the world. Around here, they're almost a dime a dozen. I think I sold my last one for 100 bucks and still have two original '82 Z-28 glass hoods stacked in the shop.
Of course, there's always the carb hat, some suitable lengths and elbows of silicone tube and a cone filter hanging of the end. Trouble is getting to an outside air source without cutting a 4" hole through one of the trays on either side of the rad.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

I know what you mean about being a traditionalist.

I prefer the old fashioned air cleaner setup too.

I would rather cut holes by the radiator than damage my hood.

I am only looking at other options because of the need for cold air to mitigate against detonation, and to achieve the best power I can get.

The question is, how much (in the way of looks) am I willing to sacrifice to achieve it.

I don't like the look of carb hats, or the ram air setup, or ducting all over my engine.

To my way of thinking you have the best of both worlds with your current hood. That air cleaner tray looks like the goods to me. That plus your 2" CIHood would be a great looking setup.

Those 2" glasstek hoods are by far (IMO) the best looking (subtle) of the cowl induction hoods but are unobtainable over here. I would have to ship one at great expense and you never know, I just may have to do that to get the look I am after. I have found an ebay seller who is prepared to ship one and am waiting for a freight price. Then at least I will know if it is an option.

One of the (to me anyway) most attractive things about 3rd gen Camaros are those huge flat hoods with louvres. I would hate to hack into it.
The sad thing is, early on in my build I didn't take the chance to buy a hood from an online auction that already had a hole cut in it. Then I could have just brought the cowl itself and had it fitted. Nevermind LOL
Unfortunately I was only starting out on this journey and had no idea what I was getting into.

With regard to the air hats. I was thinking a twin intake facing the rear of the car with the ducting at 45deg rearwards to intakes cut into the outer rear corners of the hood. does that make sense?
That way at least it would be a little more unobtrusive, leaving the front of the engine bay open to be admired! lol I quite like that idea but it still requires cutting.


I'm going to have to just bide my time with this one and wait until I have the engine installed, put up with hot air induction while working my way through it. I'm hoping that Vortech2 ( he posted towards the start of this thread) is correct about the intake fitting on my car without interference.
His was a holley 600 on a RPM intake (non airgap).





Oh, by the way LOL, I thought I was good at maths. I just substituted R for D when I calculated it in my head lol.



EDIT. Heres a thought. What about bilge vents from a boat. My glastron mercruiser had Vents at the back, ducting, etc which would work for my rear corner intakes


Something similar to this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BOAT-VENT-BILGE-10-LOUVER-STAINLESS-STEEL-PAIR-/151199999112?pt=Boat_Parts_Accessories_Gear&hash=item233438e488&vxp=mtr

Theres a large variety of plastic and stainless designs available

skinny z

Something to consider is how the venting would provide a reasonable access to fresh air. If placed improperly, it could concievably be a low pressure vent and actually try to draw air out of the intake tract. Talking out loud again. It also means cutting holes into, what agree is, one of the nicest features of the 3rd gen Camaro. That big, beautiful, flat hood (with louvres or without).
Have you checked out all of the options at Ram Air Box. I've always liked the rear facing intake housing although I'm unsure of how that would be incorporated in the cowling without cutting. I'm not into hacking up my ride as I prefer to leave the infrastructure intact and modify the parts to fit.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

Your a man after my own heart.

I have always had the understanding that the area at the base of and immediately forward of the windscreen is a high pressure area. That is why rear facing cowl induction hoods work.

Needless to say, it would be a brave/silly man who would cut holes without 1st testing the theory.

I would tape short bits of string on the hood in various places and then go for a drive and see what the airflow is doing over the bonnet.
Where the string stands up you have low pressure. I think you will find the at the screen and immediately forward they will lie down indicating a high pressure area suitable for induction.

You probably know all this already though

Heres a good article with some ideas too.


http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...ld-air-system/








Holy S****t just got a quote to freight a hood over, $805 USD freight only

skinny z

Yikes! I thought Canada was expensive!

loopy

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, I must say it blew me away!

Kind of yeah. It would work in much the same way as the cowl hood.
It still requires that the airbox fits under the hood.


I would still do a string test as I'm not sure what happens to airflow at the outside edges of the screen/hood.

I quite like this one as its not a visual change to bodywork and can be easily installed/reversed by any one with a few welding skills.

skinny z

Anything to report on the engine front?

loopy

iTrader: (1)

Well, I still own it!

I went to the engine shop this past Friday and the turkey hadn't even started on it. I was a bit gutted.

He said he will start this this week.

Its Marlborough's only engine reconditioners and currently full of marine engines being repaired so I guess I just have to wait.

Its all good as I am still waiting for my last order from summit ( has all my gaskets timing chain leads etc etc)

skinny z

I had to get used to my preferrred machine shop taking their time on any one of my projects. Once I had said to them " Take your time. No rush..." That was a mistake.
Still I guess we have to understand, especially if it's a one man show (or nearly so) that we have to be patient. I'd rather have my machinist slot me in at an appropriate spot and take his time than rush me through and perhpas overlook something or give the short shift.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

Yep, I totally agree.

And, he makes me confident of a good job as well, just seems to know what I want , if you know what I mean.

He also offered to come to my house for the initial start up even though I live 30 miles or so out of town so yeah, I'm happy to wait.

2005Impalla

I know you already have your carb but if you get a chance I would get a larger carburetor and try a 750. You should be around or a little above 400 HP at the motor. People are pulling 350 at the rear wheels with the LT4 hot cam and your same intake and head combo and this is a little larger and has a tighter LSA so I would expect the same HP or better. Comp cams claims 375 HP with dart SR heads (which don't flow as good as vortecs), performer intake and less compression. Your 670 should work great but I think the 750 would make more power.

Fast355

iTrader: (2)

Not enough to be noticeable IMO and the 670 properly tuned will have better off-idle throttle response and mid-range torque. That is why I like a properly setup and tuned Q-Jet. They offer nice off-idle and low speed torque but can flow as little as 230 cfm on the primaries or much as 830 CFM. I just finished dialing in a Q-Jet on a 1987 Firebird with a 10:1 355 with a pair of ported Dart cast SR heads (older but still decent flowing), LT4 Hotcam, and factory 2.25" TPI manifolds into a single 3" exhaust. Put a 4.3 S10 converter in the 700r4 and still have the highway gear 2.73 or 3.08). Traction in first gear is non-existant above 1/2 throttle yet the car cold starts and drives perfectly.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

Cheers

David Vizard suggests as much as an 850(ish) Holley for these setups but I'm still trying to keep a good compromise between power/economy that's why I chose the 670VS.

If I really get into the motorsport/drags side of things I would go to a bigger DP carb, but that's a little way down the track yet.

loopy

iTrader: (1)

Hey Fast, what sort of stall speed do you get with the S10 converter and does it have lock-up?