Gentleman, me again.

If I did go with the 395 cam, would like to use 1.6 self aligning, steel, elongated rockers to gain some lift to take advantage of the #520 heads capability.

Been looking, unsure of a reasonably priced “non-offshore” manufacturer.
Don’t think it is wise to drop $450+ for rockers on a 305 lol.

 

As Orr suggests...


There must be something to the OEMs adding all that extra duration on the exhaust side. Their cams profiles obviously have to be designed around manifolds and tailpipes.
For the enthusiast or racer, the quality of the heads, that is the intake to exhaust flow ratio, will be a determinate in the cam specs.

 

You'll have to dig up some flow specs for those heads. It may be, like the 062 Vortecs, that they stall and drop off approaching .500" lift. There's little to no benefit in going beyond that as it's said that heads don't recover well.
That said, the best plan is to open the valve quickly, to the desired maximum lift and keep it open as long as is practical. That's where the lazy lobe has it's failing. A quicker profile than say the OEM or the Magnum, such as an XR or equivalent, has more lift area under the curve. This means more flow for a given lift.

There may be something in Stan Weiss' database.

http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablehdc.htm

EDIT: I had a quick look and there's one test showing 221@.500". It climbs to that point however there's no data beyond that. At the very least you would want to get the valve opened quickly to at least .500". If there's anything out there to support that the heads don't fall off dramatically after .500", then going past that is a benefit as the port will see .500" on the way up and on the way down.

 

Stock L31 350 short block. On E85, 34° total at 2,400 rpm is what it made peak output with. 36° saw 1-2 added numbers in places but I backed down to 34. 32 saw 5-6 loss in places.

 

The gain going over 0.500 is just not there. There slight 2-3 cfm improvements at 0.600 over 0.500 but the added wear and tear on the valvetrain as well as the cylinder head modifications to run over 0.550 make it not worth the effort. These heads are not like a LS head where the added 0.050 lift to gp from 0.550 to 0.600 ands another ~10 hp.

 

Well, there you go then.
Keep it at .500" (or a touch more) but get it there in a hurry if you can.
To me that leaves out the 395. Further to that, going from a 1.5 factory rocker ratio to a 1.6 only nets something like .460".
There's another strike against it.
So far the front runner I think is a custom grind with a .310-.320" lobe.
A .320 with a 1.6 rocker ends up at .512". Looks pretty good. And a .320 isn't all that intense. An upgraded spring for sure but nothing extreme. Maybe a COMP 26915 or a PAC equivalent. (1218?)

 

Remember its valve open area vs time when it comes to lift curve for an engine. Just because a head doesnt gain much flow over a certain lift point doesnt mean you shouldnt run more lift. It depends. Peak lift is hit once per opening closing event and very little time is spent there…every other point on the curve is hit twice. If you need more duration (time) area to get the mass flow needed, it may be beneficial to lift beyond a certain point in order to have more time/area available at a better flowing point.

totally depends on the demand needed for the power goals. Theres calcs in some programs that can estimate this. But being a low rpm 305 you likely wont ever need to go above .500 lol

 

If you build that, would you mind throwing in a line for the GM 94666492 / Crane 2032? While it was a bargain on clearance, it's only a good deal if it works well. I didn't want to otherwise pollute this thread with discussions about it.

 

Agreed.
Which is why I mentioned...

Thing is with the 062 Vortecs (not sure of the 059's) is the port looses flow past .450" or so and doesn't recover as the lift decreases. The trend there was to get to that sweet spot as quick as is practical and keep it there as long as possible. All within the scope of what the engine needs of course.
This is why I've been talking up a quicker lobe (like the Jones .320"). If the 059 have a similar failing, and I believe Fast said that there's little to nothing being gained although nothing said about getting worse and not recovering, then it may going past does have that twice at best lift benefit. ​​​​​​​

 

I'll keep that in mind. Possibly an Saturday morning project with a fresh cup of coffee.

 

Thank you sir. If you need any specs for it. let me know. I'll buy the coffee.

 

Post everything that you've got.

 

Some say it’s supposed be a copy of the crane 2032 cam at 270/276, 214/220-112, .452/.465 w/1.5 rockers.

It very well may be, but I saw a post where someone measured it at 202/210-112.5, .450/.465. Which would be a little on the “too small” size for me to consider doing a cam change. Maybe not for the OP though?

Looks like it’s available at $115-$120 shipped. For that price, it might be worth the OP trying it out just to see if he likes it or not. Either that or just wait on a custom cam.

Although there is a Comp 4x4 in stock that should work very well. 260/264, 210/214-111, .474/.474 (.506/.506). I used a comparable 4x4 grind in a hydraulic flat tappet in a 5-speed L69 with mildly pocket ported L69 heads and the computer controlled carb. Both me and the car owner were “extremely” pleased in how it performed. Used 92 octane though, like all the rest I’ve installed.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-08-411-8

Maybe Fast can run both through the sim to see what it would do compared to what the OP has now.

 

After I bought the cam based on some recommendations here ($99....I love a bargain, though price alone is certainly a lousy reason to buy a cam), I called Crane and asked for a 2032 cam card. This is what they sent me.


From the Crane catalog...




Per the Crane tech I spoke with and notes I took (trying to keep up)...

Max Lift = Lobe Centerlines. Add and divide by 2 for Lobe Seperation Angle (LSA).

107 Intake Lobe Centerline
117 Exhaust Lobe Centerline

112* LSA

Crane says built with 5* advanced built in (107 Intake Lobe Centerline). Install straight up.

 

I'm surprised a roller cam would require only 276 pounds of open spring pressure.
And what does a fuel pressure regulator have to do with a camshaft??...

 

Depends on valvetrain weights and spring type, low mass and a beehive type spring easily gets away with less pressure. But low lift mild lobes typically dont need alot. Id still like to see closer to 300 open on mild rollers and mid 300’s on medium rpm semi aggressive stuff and 400 on the higher rpm aggressive stuff

 

Our go to spring for hydraulic rollers has always been COMPs 26918.
It's a beehive type and we use a light weight tool steel retainer.
Biggest, most aggressive cam was a XR 288 so not that crazy really. Did run some smaller XFI with them as well. Been to 7k more than once.

Installed Height/Seat Pressure 1.800"/125 Lbs
Open Height/Open Pressure 1.150"/367 Lbs
Coil Bind 1.100"
O.D. Base/Top 1.310"/1.07

PAC has their 1219 and it's spec is identical (+/-) to the COMP spring. Jones Cams suggests the 1219 for the roller cam of theirs that I'm after.

 

Real hot ticket is the new comp conicals. Not a beehive but a true conical

that technology doesnt really have a natural frequency so its hard to excite, so no harmonics to worry about. The design can handle aggressive motion with much less spring force and being light, it helps reduce mass that needs controlled. Win win

i have them in my bbc, stable to 7400 so far and its only 135 lbs on seat and 500 open on a .750” cam. Heavy 2.30” valves. The ls version is lighter on loads and would be perfect for most hyd rollers. Problem is availability of spring and retainers to go with them

 

Very interesting.
It just so happens that I'm in the market for springs and retainers.

Yeah, availability seems to be the buzzword these days. I can wait until spring before pulling the trigger so maybe the inventory will have improved by then.

Thanks for that Orr.

​​​​​​

 

I just checked the 7228 is still pretty aggressive in loads unless you go with the quickest lobe hyd roller in a sbc or have a big valve sbc. Its still 136/412 at 1.800” install height, good to .600-.615” i believe. Great ls cam spring or a racey sbc deal. I thought they made a smaller spring. Beehives may be better for milder cams. The conical would be awesome for 7000 rpm .550-.600” cams like I had in my 383 and sbc turbo

 

When I was talking with Mike Jones, we were looking at his .360" lobes so not overly aggressive. A 1.6 rocker gets me to .575" and with the engine spec'd to make peak power at or around 6000-6200 it's not going be a screamer. That's probably why he recommended the PAC 1219 (which is pretty much the COMP Beehive 26918).
At least I'd be able to reuse the retainers if I go that route.

 

The Crane CompuCam line (of which the 2032 is a part) is designed to work without a chip change in the ECM. As such, you need an adjustable fuel pressure regulator to richen the mixture a bit (more pressure than stock) to account for the more aggressive than stock cam.

I had PAC 1218s on my short list. There are a few other options. But as long as I'm buying springs, why not go with an improved beehive design with a slightly lighter retainer?

I've read several articles about those, and think they are genius. Do I need them? No. Will I benefit from them? Probably not significantly. Do I want them if them come in a size/rate that will work with my heads. Yes. Yes I do.

 

 

There very well could be inaccuracies in the above.
Let me know.

 

OK, The Crane 2032 advertised duration is measured at .004 according to their lobe catalog. Duration at .006 is probably more like 264/270??? If so, the DCR would probably be more like 7.68. And there's a typo for the 1.5 lift on the 2032 - it's 0.452 and a typo on the overlap on Jones Custom 2. I also can’t find a 252/206 Comp hydraulic roller profile in their master listing (there is one in a flat tappet).

Added an estimated vacuum collumn - might not be what the engine actually makes, but the trend is accurate. Also added the 4x4 260H-11.

ALTHOUGH, if the GM 94666492 is really the Crane 2032, if I were the OP, at $115-$120 shipped, there is no question what I’d run. It would idle a little better than the Magnum 270 and almost as good as the 4x4 260H-11. While it would probably come a couple HP and lb/ft short of both, I dare say you couldn’t tell a seat of the pants difference and see no more than 0.1 seconds in the quarter mile between the three, max.

 

Thanks for the corrections. The measurement values between brands and manufacturers is all over the map and it's hard to keep track. Just like the GM 395 that was discussed and clarified above.
I've come across measurements at the valve, at the lifter (so the rocker ratio gets in the way there) and heights ranging from zero through .004 to .006 for advertised numbers.
The 4 x 4 cam looks interesting.
I could add a few more columns as well. The vacuum is a nice addition (RPM and elevation specific) and I could do the same for an estimated cranking compression.
I wanted to get this out there to initiate a little dialogue just like this.
Thanks again.
I also corrected the 270 HR in that I had listed it as 270H. I've yet to update the spreadsheet. Speaking of which Bad, could you post the .xlsx file? I'll up date my own and go from there.

You're spot on with respect to the differences between any of the top choices. You'd be hard pressed to tell. Some of it will be very dependent on the rest of the overall package (headers and exhaust) and how it's assembled and tuned and timed.
Personally, if the exhaust system is up to it, I tend to favour a little overlap to help with the scavenging, cylinder fill and VE. But again, that's combination dependent.

Now, where is the OP?

 

Added the spreadsheet.

Yeah, looked at the duration at 0.200 to make the WAG on the duration at .006 compared to .004, could be more than 6-degrees difference.

The tighter lobe spreads are very exhaust sensitive, not so much on these with lower durations, but the wider lobe spreads tend to be more forgiving on less than a "zero loss" type exhaust. On the F-bodies with a typical single 3" exhaust, I tend to recommend a little wider lobe spread than I would for a true dual exhaust. What I've found over the years is that for the most part a single duration cam will make more torque vs the amount of vacuum when compared to a split duration cam. However, adding a little extra duration on the exhaust will typically add just a little HP and hold it longer without seeing much if any drop in torque, but at a cost of loosing a little vacuum. Many times adding more than 4-6 degrees duration to the exhaust side does nothing to the HP or the RPM range and just starts killing the vacuum. That's not usually a problem on cams as small as we're looking at here, but can mean a lot when looking at the drivability of a ragged edge combination.

 

I can agree with you on all counts Bad.
I find myself caught up in my own engine specification and often lose sight of the amount of overlap and how it relates to effective scavenging. The smaller overlap cams, even with a tighter LSA, just don't provide the necessary window for that scavenging effect. Especially if the exhaust is restrictive. And that brings us to the F-body exhaust system packaging you mention. That takes away from some if not all of the benefits to be had there.

With regards to myself, I've more or less decided that the engine that's in the works now (shortblock and heads finalized) will be designed around open headers and calculated collectors lengths. The cam spec will reflect that. I'll take my lumps with the single 3" and Chokemaster muffler that's presently installed and I'm driving on the street. I've already demonstrated the improvements at the drag strip with a simple cut-out at the 90 before the muffler. Open headers will bring the package up to another level I'm sure. But that's not for everyone.

Thanks for the spreadsheet update.

 

I run 50° main seat angles on the intake valves. Helps limit some of the reversion seen at lower rpm with tighter LSAs. 50° seat also limits some of the airflow at low lifts and allows a stronger pulse of air after the valve clears about 0.250 lift when the piston is really gaining velocity.

On the L30 heads I did factory seat angles were 30, 45, 60 and valves a 45 and 30 back cut. My revised seat angles 45, 50, 70 and the valves 50 with a 37.5 back cut. Was worth ~15 hp and matching torque and the torque curve came on sooner. A 270HR and 50° seat would be hard to better. The 270HR comes on strong in the mid lifts. With a little cleanup work, bowl work, some 1.94/1.60 valves and a little deshrouding around the valves the 059s were flowing 250 cfm.

Edit- Also forgot to mention there is a 15° cut completely above the valve sealing area in the chamber to help radius flow into and out of the valves as well as a 75° plunge cut for the transition to the bowl.

 

Thank you VERY MUCH for taking the time to do this skinny z! I really appreciate the effort, and the learning opportunity that this presents to me.

Now, given your level of experience, I'm going to assume your numbers are RIGHT (except for one that I "think" is typo), and that somewhere my calculations are WRONG. But this will give me a chance to learn.

Like someone learning to speak a new language (lets say German...I always wanted to learn German), I can only take this at a slow rate, not a conversational rate of speech. So bear with me.

Statement: Seeing the DCR calculations Vs overlap is very educational.

Looks like I have the only one of the group with a 112 LSA...a David Vizard no-no for my type of build.

The one mistake I see on the Crane 2032 / GM GM 94666492 is the intake lift with a 1.5 rocker. Cam card says 452 (I came up with 451.5, to split hairs). All the others look right.

Now a question. When I ran the numbers through the mgispeedware.com camshaft calculator, I came up with an intake close number of 36 ABDC. Your table has IVC (I "assume that is intake valve close) of 62. Are we measuring the same thing here?

One thing I don't understand about the mgispeedware.com calculation is it has my overlap at -7*. A far cry from the 49 you came up with, so I'm not sure I trust that calculator now that I'm looking at it.

And this is where my numbers really go off the rail! LOL When I took as stab at DCR, I came up with 8.15. Here are the numbers I used (this is going to be embarrassing, but it's one way to learn I guess). I don't know where I got the "formula" that this follows. I have no recollection of what the "+15" represents. I try to keep notes because I know I won't remember this stuff, but that doesn't always work out.

Static 9.3:1

Rod length 5.7"

Stroke 3.48"

Intake close 36 ABDC, +15 = 51

= 8.150

So that DCR is the thing that we come up the farthest apart on. I know even my number is not going to be that high, because I used the "advertised" CR of 9.3:1 (actually, we both did), and the reality if probably closer to 9:1.

EDIT: Well, slow typer, thinker and fact gather that I am, I see 4 or 5 posts have been made since I started typing my reply.

 

It was easiest to reply in point form like that. Hope it makes sense.

 

Thanks skinny. Yes, the mgispeerware tool calls for an @.050" number. Here's a screen shot of what that looks like. It's on the internet, so it must be true, right?

This calculator could be hot garbage, or I may have filled it out wrong. Not really my specialty.

 

My preferred calculator. It's a download at the end of that link. Good tech paper too.

http://members.uia.net/pkelley2/DynamicCR.html

Targeting 9.3:1 SCR with the Crane 2032. 270/276/112 LSA/107 ICL (installed "straight up").
7.6:1 DCR.


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

Using the .050" numbers (214/220) the IVC with a 107 ICL is 34. DCR shakes out to 8.8:1.



There are discrepancies between calculators that I'm aware of. I base my comparisons on always using that same Kelly calculator and correlate my successes and failures against that.

 

The most logical and obvious reason for using the advertised duration value for the IVC and DCR calculations is that this is where the cylinder has sealed sufficiently and starts to build cylinder pressure.
Keep in mind this is a static engine modelling. It has it's place to be sure but once parts start moving around in a big way, there are so many other factors in play.

Does that calculator have a setting somewhere where you can chose what to use? Or simply use the advertised number in place of the .050 numbers and see where that gets you.

EDIT: I see you haven't any entry in the advance box. That cam has 4 degrees ground in so that will change your numbers. And you'll have to have verified that ICL when you degreed the cam.

 

I have also used the Pat Kelley calculator for years myself.

 

I built a simple engine in DD2000, stock L03 spec, with the stock 059 flow numbers from Stan Weiss, used HP Manifolds and Mufflers which approximates shorty headers and slightly improved exhaust. I started with the 1st camshaft on the list and rolled with it. Since the cam type on DD2000 is more for lobe intensity, they were all modeled as a Solid lobe except for the Stock L03, the GM 395 and the E1136P which were modeled as Hydraulic. I ran both Seat to Seat and less accurate 0.050 specs for both cams through the simulations. I am working on the spreadsheet now. There were substantial differences in estimate output.

 

Between the 270HR, the Howard cam, Jones 1 and Jones 2 they are nearly exact overlays. The Jones 2 shows slightly improved numbers vs Jones 1. Crane 2032 may be the best return on investment given the cost of the GM equivalent. I averaged the 0.050 and Seat to Seat numbers and used them for the graph. I did not have time and all the data to model it with complex data in Engine Analyzer so the simple DD2000 will have to do.

 

Excellent work Fast.
This parallels exactly what has been discussed. The margins are very slim considering that when all of the analysis is said and done, there's not much to choose between them.
Something alluded to earlier was that price point and availability may trump any marginal gains with one spec over another.
I'm going to have a more detailed look later.

 

It's more than enough to see the trend for the different specs. Yep, I think with the price point of the Crane equivalent and considering the vacuum numbers, there's no question it would be the one I would pick.

If price and vacuum didn't come into play, I think the Howard makes a great compromise between making the most TQ and the most HP. If TQ was the major consideration, probably the Comp 258/206-108 with the Comp 260HR11 giving up a few lb/ft for a few more HP. If HP was the major consideration, Jones 2 with the Howard being a very close 2nd (considering the ave TQ).

 

I did some Iterator testing for the cam profile targeting maximum torque in two different rpm ranges and finally hp and the results surprising.

In the 3,500 rpm range maximum torque comes from a large split on a wide LSA. I took the best results and slightly tweaked them to make them actual Comp lobes on a cam that could actually be easily custom ground. Tried Magnum Low Lift, Magnum High Lift as well as XFI lobes. The XFI lobes were not enough of a difference to deal with their noise and loss of durability in my opinion. Actually the same could be said for 1.6 rockers. The difference from lift alone was 1-2 hp and torque. 1.5 rollers would probably be a more reliable option with less lift and less valve spring pressure. The power increase from roller rockers did show up slightly modeling from 0.050 specs and adding ~3° to the advertised but low speed torque was traded for more hp everytime. Over a broader rpm range it models an average of 2-3 ft/lbs decrease down low for 2-3 hp more up top. Remember changing lift and advertised duration alone is not the whole picture but a 1.5 roller and 1.6 roller will both have the same friction reduction which is not modeled.

Between 2,500 and 3,500 I was able to get the model to carry over 340 tq with a peak of 348 @ 3,000 but torque at 2,000 rpm took a nose-dive as did horsepower. Magnum low lift 256/274 @ 0.006, 200/220 @ 0.050, 118/134 @ 0.200, 0.465/0.480 lift on a 112 LSA and 107 ICL.

Targeting a peak torque around 4,000 rpm also gave nearly identical power and cam specs to targeting peak hp at 5,500. That setup actually increased low speed torque at 2,000-2,500 and carried close to peak power at out 6,000. It did give up a little torque in that 3,000 rpm range. It was down to 336 there. That cam was a Magnum High Lift single pattern 266 @ 0.006, 210 @ 0.050, 130 @ 0.200, 0.500 lift and a 111 LSA on a 111 ICL.

I then swapped to the 50° seat head flow from my prior 059 head setup. They had 1.94 intake valves and 1.6 exhaust and a little bowl work so not a direct comparison. I targeted the higher rpm power solely on those. The cam spec that seemed to have the broadest curve was still the 266 single pattern but ground on a 109 LSA and 109 ICL. The modified 059s and the 266/109 LSA cam increased torque everywhere with nearly 20 hp gain at 6,000 rpm. It modeled at 306 hp @ 5,500 and 349 tq @ 3,500 with 324 tq @ 2,000. I will throw a spreadsheet up later. those heads were flowed in 0.050" increments to 0.500 lift. They port stalled at 0.450 with 240 cfm but stayed within 5 cfm of peak out to 0.500 and were still well above the 45° seat in flow. At 0.150 lift the 45° seat 1.6 exhaust outflowed the 50° seat 1.94 intake by 3 cfm. The 50° seat really takes off above 0.250 compared to the 45° seat.

EDIT- I made a few changes to the numbers above to reflect the average from both prior modeling methods rather than seat to seat only, which I had previously quoted.

 

It's easy to see the HP and TQ trends. The highest DCR yields the best torque output. This naturally correlates with the IVC. Except the GM 395, I think has some issues in the modeling as the DCR and IVC match up with Mortorq's custom grind yet it's way off the pace output wise. Probably something to do in the conversion from GM's seat to seat timing and the traditional .006" number.






Now, the question is, which will run comfortably and without being crutched by a less than optimal timing curve on regular grade fuel?

 

I modeled the 395 based off the measured specs at 0.006. I believe the wide duration split combined with the tight LSA is blowing low speed torque out of the tailpipe. Might be why it felt a little weak down in the 1,200-1,500 rpm range in my old 350. I do find it odd that DD shows almost identical output modeling from both advertised and 0.050 specs on the 395 cam, but it is what it is. That cam was dead on repeatable in both methods.

As far as which one would work. I think the 2032, 270HR or Howards would all be easily tuned. The 270HR IMO would sound the beefiest albeit slightly less idle vacuum. Just my opinon but the 270HR would also have a slight EGR effect at lower engine speeds as shown by its decreased idle vacuum. That EGR effect will slightly hurt cylinder filling allowing for more timing and better MPG in a low rpm cruising situation. GM did a similar thing on the production 96 LT4 cam allowing them to remove the EGR valve.

 

What happens to the ICL when you do this?

 

It gets advanced quite a bit. I will give you some numbers after I eat breakfast.

 

That makes no sense seeing as the IVC is 50 degrees. I'm going to suspect that something isn't right with the numbers. With a DCR north of 8:1, it should really pop. It may be that my DCR and IVC numbers are the issue.

 

Makes sense. Advance the IVC and closing the valve earlier builds cylinder pressure. That equals torque.
Enjoy breakfast. I'm going for another cup of coffee.

EDIT: Isn't that the other way around? Spreading the LSA (but keeping the same amount of advance ground into the cam) delays the IVC? Like from a 108LSA/104ICL is now a 112LSA/108 ICL. IVC goes from 64 ABDC to 68 ABDC.

 

IVC on the 256/274 @ 0.06, 112 LSA and 107 ICL is 55*.

I finished my breakfast and working on a 2nd cup of coffee too.

I included the cam specs with the new theoretical cams. The last engine has 1.94/1.60 059 heads that I ran on a prior engine build. They have traditional 45* exhaust seats and 50* intake seats. Flow 126 @ 0.200, 240 @ 0.450 and 235 @ 0.500 intake and 123 @ 0.200, 170 @ 0.450 and 174 @ 0.500 exhaust.

 

I was comparing both the theoretical cams head to head. The IVC is sooner because of the shorter intake duration.

256/274 @ 0.006 with a 112 LSA and 107 ICL results in a IVC of 55*

266/266 @ 0.006 with a 111 LSA and 111 ICL results in a IVC of 64*

266/266 @ 0.006 with a 109 LSA and 109 ICL results in a IVC of 62*

 

OK. I was comparing the same cam but ground with a wider LSA. Wider LSA always tends to reduce peak torque but spread the "power band" out a little.
This is something I have to consider for myself with the 357. I'll go for higher peak TQ and HP over a narrower RPM range if I can spec a convertor that'll keep the car in that RPM window for a 1/4 mile.
If I can manage that, and the torque at cruise rpm of 2500 is the same or better, then it's a win/win.

 

Dang guys, that's a ton of calculations.

So the Crane has a slightly above mid-pack finish. I'd be happy with those numbers (290hp @ 5000 - 339tq @ 3500, a 120h.p. and 84 lb. ft. gain) if I could get them. Mid-range torque looks good for the street. With 3.42 gears and an S-10 converter, it should move pretty well. My aim was to end up with a 50% increase in H.P., so from a 170 base, 255 would be the "goal". @55 is only 25 horse more than a factory L30 Vortec engine, so that seemed reasonable to me. Seems like there's good chance of hitting that. Anything above that is gravy. Approaching the magical 1 horse per cube is dreamy.

It does still have the 2nd worst DCR of the bunch, which is a little disappointing. And that's with calculations assuming a 9.3:1 starting point, which is probably not the reality of things. From what I've read, DCR in the 7.5 - 8.5 (8.25 to be safe) range is desirable for a pump gas motor (anything from 87 regular to 93 premium is OK with me). With actual SCR being lower than 9.3:1, I'm concerned about falling outside of that suggested range.

I'd love some thin gaskets to bump the SCR and improve the odds of ending up with good quench, but 305 head gasket choices are horrible. I can chose from a stock replacement, or I can have a stock replacement. Which one would you like, sir? There are companies who make custom head gaskets, so something like that might be an option once I have the actual measurements to make an educated choice.

Milling the heads is always an option, but again from what I've read, not a great idea with Vortecs because of their thinner castings.

Custom pistons are the next stop, but for the ones I'd want, well over a grand. And at THAT point I make the jump to a 350.

Can't thank you guys enough for all this effort. Confirms I've made some good bargain/value choices along the way...it's nice to know for sure. Now to get the garage finished so I can actually GET TO this little engine project.