what do you guys think of this combo?
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
From: Caldwell, Idaho
Car: for now i have a 79 firebird that had a toasted 301 (imagine that!)
Engine: well i *had* a 301, but there is a pontiac 350 on the stand to get me on the road again and a 428 after that :D
Transmission: th350
what do you guys think of this combo?
uh, what do you guys think of this combo?
small block 400, ported heads (i won't buy a $1000 set of heads)9.5-9.7:1 compression, performer RPM intake and a Q-jet.
here's the cam it's a Crower solid (flat tappet) cam, here are the specs: lobe canter:112*, advt duration 264/270 dur @ .050 230/236 .458/.468 lift. sorry, i don't know the Lobe seperation angle.
will the following combo work with 3.42-3.50 gears a Th-350 (soon to be 200/700r4) with a 2200 rpm converter, i may be adding 1.6:1 rockers too.
thanks for the input guys.
this will be a semi daily driver, but i don't have a problem with popping the valve covers off to adjust lash every month or so.
small block 400, ported heads (i won't buy a $1000 set of heads)9.5-9.7:1 compression, performer RPM intake and a Q-jet.
here's the cam it's a Crower solid (flat tappet) cam, here are the specs: lobe canter:112*, advt duration 264/270 dur @ .050 230/236 .458/.468 lift. sorry, i don't know the Lobe seperation angle.
will the following combo work with 3.42-3.50 gears a Th-350 (soon to be 200/700r4) with a 2200 rpm converter, i may be adding 1.6:1 rockers too.
thanks for the input guys.
this will be a semi daily driver, but i don't have a problem with popping the valve covers off to adjust lash every month or so.
Supreme Member
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 18,457
Likes: 16
From: Loveland, OH, US
Car: 4
Engine: 6
Transmission: 5
Depends on what heads. If they're double-hump heads, it will run OK; if they're some kind of garbage like 882 or 993, it will disappoint.
You need more lift than that for a decent running 400. Definitely use 1.6 rockers with it.
In the 400 I usually run in my 83, I have a Comp XR282HR roller. Before that I had a XE274H, and before that a 282S. I'd suggest the XE274, or a solid equivalent of it, in your case. I'm running a set of 186 double-humps (the ones with the bolt holes) on it, with 1.6 roller rockers, bigger valve springs, undercut racing valves, a little gentle port work here and there, and a few other minor alterations. This car was a dily driver for about 11 years and 130,000 miles like that.
With a big motor, power lives in the heads. Remember, at any kind of high RPM, a big motor flows more air than a small one. If you don't feed it properly it will not run any better up top than a smaller motor would under the same heads.
OBTW, the 112° spec is lobe separation, not "lobe center". The intake lobe center is probably at 106°.
You need more lift than that for a decent running 400. Definitely use 1.6 rockers with it.
In the 400 I usually run in my 83, I have a Comp XR282HR roller. Before that I had a XE274H, and before that a 282S. I'd suggest the XE274, or a solid equivalent of it, in your case. I'm running a set of 186 double-humps (the ones with the bolt holes) on it, with 1.6 roller rockers, bigger valve springs, undercut racing valves, a little gentle port work here and there, and a few other minor alterations. This car was a dily driver for about 11 years and 130,000 miles like that.
With a big motor, power lives in the heads. Remember, at any kind of high RPM, a big motor flows more air than a small one. If you don't feed it properly it will not run any better up top than a smaller motor would under the same heads.
OBTW, the 112° spec is lobe separation, not "lobe center". The intake lobe center is probably at 106°.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
IMissMy86TA
Auto Detailing and Appearance
27
Aug 31, 2015 08:40 PM