Thanks for the input, My old car has a 3.42 gear and it worked well as the turbos like less gear ratio it helps them build boost. I do kind of think it would be fun to run it NA. Around town the 4.88 gear and 200R4 would make a fun car even with a mild 350 but would use the big solid cam for some nasty sounding idle action. Highway RPM would be not too bad. I will weigh a Herche rod and let you know what they weigh... The diamond pistons are 555 grams vs 700 grams for TRW forged.
With a 4.88 gear you could probably shift into O/D around 35 mph and still get respectful fuel economy with a 3.27:1 final drive gear driving around town! :Brow: I'm getting bored of the cam in my '65 Impala, way to street friendly but I don't have the time to change the rear gear right now. Nah, would be easier to put the 12 bolt rear I have with a 3.73 in one of my '64 Skylark's, in the other one that is painted already and put something that can rev higher in it. The Skylarks are way lighter anyway. Maybe next year? Wouldn't mind trying a 200R4 either. Derek
Anthony can now get his car back together since I sent his carb hat back to him. Bobb does think the P-1 will not support much more than the 600's. They have been working getting the valve train (rockers) stabilized. No doubt, one of, if not the baddest street 350 Buick around. I wonder if Michigan has the most blown V8 Buick's. There are 2 roots 455's (Mike Kunkle is one,) Anthony's P-1, my 455 D-1, Bobb's TA block D-1, Bobb's blown Regal race car, then the turbo 455. Kenny is putting together a TA block 69GS. Don't know if they are going to boost it. Could be a 1000 hp Buick with boost. I should be able to get over 700hp but do not have the short block to hold it. So I pull a ton of timing to keep it alive.
Got some better pics of the new car and getting parts together for an iron head NA engine. Some rod weight info: Herche rods are 542 grams I measured them today on my good scale. The eagle rods we just had done are 580 grams And from an old post we have the weights of the stock rods and the Nascar take outs: So all in all I am happy with the weight savings of any of the aftermarket rods that we have available all of them are much lighter than stock, and also much stronger. This is the cam I am stuffing in there: http://www.crower.com/buick-350-compu-pro-solid-cam-292-fdp.html I will have to have 60 thou milled off the block, and then use the steel shim gaskets but it will give over 10.6:1 compression with these heads. TA roller rockers. the Herche rods, Diamond pistons, X factor intake, Holley 750 carb. MSD dist, just stuff I have kicking around. It will not be optimum but it will run well I am sure. I will drive it around a bit on the street but more of a track car. Better pics:
The car's not real pretty but looks like a solid foundation to start with. That cam looks like it will be fun! If in the heads you are going to use on this build has the burton sbc conversion think about using these; http://www.ebay.com/itm/222061981797?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT The more lift the better the performance, contrary to the misinformation written here in the past about the sbb 350 heads flow and cams(its like certain people don't want sbb 350s to make power!). Lifting the valve past the ports max flow doesn't mean the air flow stops, it will actually still flow at max past max flow lift. Instead of raising the duration @ .050" to keep the valve opened in the max flow range longer, opening the valve past its max flow will get the valve in the max flow range quicker and it will stay there longer without raising duration @ .050" vs. a cam that has a lower lift with the same duration that will take more time to get to the max flow and will leave the max flow range quicker then the higher lift cam. Those 1.70:1 rockers will help raise the lift to .532" in. and .546" ex. without raising duration to much. But who cares if the duration is increased slightly with 4.88 rear gears!! :Brow: 542 grams is good for the rods, as well as the weight of the pistons, you should be able to raise the "redline" to 7,500 and the max HP a hundred or so RPM with the 1.70:1 rockers added and spin the snot out of it when you want!! This is exactly the kind of engine that would make an excellent test mule for the SP3, maybe you can chassis dyno the car with the X-factor and then again with the SP3? If you wanted to? Andy's engine will probably get an high rise sbc S/P intake adapted to his engine and also will try a D/P RPM Air Gap as well. I think you're going to like the way the car runs doing a N/A high RPM engine, hopefully the static compression will be enough for that cam to come on strong enough for the 4.88 gears, should be, the 1.70:1 rockers would probably help fill the cylinders a bit more to help out as well? That car is going to be lots of fun, I think you're going to like it! Spin to win, it doesn't pay if you don't play! :Brow: Derek
A side note on higher lift cams for a sbb 350, Mart's car for example, he has a hyd. roller with .580" lift cam IIRC with close to the duration @.050" as the cam in the link and his car runs better than some big block cars I have road in before! Of coarse he had a 3.64:1 rear gear at the time I went for a ride(I think he has a 4.11 now :eek2 with I think a 3,000 stall, he has his combo dialed in pretty darn good! From what has been written here in the past it shouldn't be possible for a sbb 350 run that good with that much lift! o No: I wonder what gives with his car? uzzled: There must be something to having the valve open in the max flow range and have it there longer to fill the cylinder I would imagine. My '77 Nova had slightly ported double camel hump heads with just a tiny Comp .480" .480" Magnum series hyd. flat tappet cam with around IIRC 230*/230* degrees @.050", .030" over with around 9.5:1 static compression, a TH350 trans/w a shift kit and a 3.73 rear gear. That thing ran consistent mid 12s, it squawked 2nd and chirped 3rd with that combo with 26.5" tall rear tires, about 29 years ago. With your sbb 355 and that rotating assembly in it should run much better than the old school sbc 355 I had all those years ago. These cars are light and didn't take much to make them run good, can hardly wait to see what it does, it may even surprise you? Imagine a 302 Mustang with 48 more cubes, that's around what these cars weighed IIRC, wouldn't mind having another one. :TU: Derek
Got the rear end opened up and holly crap its a 5.57 gear, WOW!! This may just run okay without boost. Crunching some numbers with the 200R4 trans and 26" tall tires and 100% converter lockup via toggle switch: RPM at 65 MPH would be 3135 RPM which is not that bad actually and the car would not be driven long distances on the highway. RPM at 125 MPH would be about 6030 RPM so that would be good for a relatively low HP engine to run fast in the quarter. Lots of torque multiplication. The last time this car ran with a Th400 trans it would have been revving the below RPM and actually more due to converter slip: RPM at 65 MPH would have been 4700 RPM RPM at 125 MPH would have been 9000 RPM Will be using fully ported iron heads with oversized valve and TA roller rockers.
Holly crap is right! WOW a 5.57 gear! That's like having a 3.73(3.7319 actual) when its in O/D, still not that bad. As for the RPM you posted just above 3,000, that's when your cam starts making power so fuel economy shouldn't be to bad on the highway either if you have a lockup converter, maybe around 18 mpg highway? Wouldn't hurt at all to cruise the highway at even a faster RPM because where the cam makes power. Are the TA rockers the 1.60" or are they the 1.55"? And is Mark making the sbc roller rocker conversion kit for the sbb 350 heads again? Derek
Thanks for the info and relevant experience with your Nova. This one is a 75 Omega with a 77 Skylark front clip. A car like this I would not be too worried about fuel mileage, and I will have the car hauler done before this is done so I can piggy back the cars anywhere I want and not have to worry about breakdowns or issues at the track I can just winch it on and drive home... Best of all I will not have to use my trailer its a pain in the butt trailering. I know you mentioned before that a turbo diesel would be a better option for the car hauler and that is what I am doing now its a 2000 E-450 with 7.3 Turbo Diesel and a tank that costs about $900 to fill up LOL! Roller rockers are 1.6 ratio I am not sure if Burton is making the roller rocker kits again? Last I heard he was understandably annoyed because there was a ton of interest in turbo kits and then he made them and had very little sales so not sure whats up... I looked up the specs on the trans and torque converter package and it is a 3400 Stall converter so that will flash up nicely... The rest of the specs and the quote from the guy I got it from:
Didn't figure you would be to worried about fuel mileage with that setup, was just sayin it probably wouldn't be that bad even with the 5.57 gear with the 200R4 if you could drive it easy. With that gear will you need to hit 4th gear(O/D) before you go through the traps in the QM? With the weight of the car, the gear and the engine your installing you should be easily over 100 mph in the quarter, I would guess close to 110 mph if you don't run out of RPM or can shift into O/D at WOT, but if you can shift into O/D at WOT then you shouldn't have a problem. If not you may want a different rear gear that will be @ 7,250(cam card redline) when you cross the finish line to optimize the combo. If you do that you might end up with a 4.88 gear. LOL With the big gear and a decent stall in that 200R4 you won't even miss not having a turbo. :Brow: Derek
Yes this trans is fine with 4th gear shifts at wide open throttle, but not all overdrive trans are as you know. If I crossed the traps in 3rd gear at 110 mph it would be 7900 Rpm which is okay with that Herche rod and diamond piston combo I would think. Building a 32x26 shop as soon as the snow melts, then I will get working on this. Not enough time to get the shop built before winter.
Assuming intake flow at 260 by .500" with a 2.020" valve, throat being the induction's minimum cross sectional area @ 1.8", and a cam lift of .530"... you will hover 490 hp and choke out the port before 7500 rpm. Math suggests more cam is needed. Experience suggests that much, much more cam could be used to over lift the port as suggested. I'd go 20+ more degrees on the intake side and remove some of the swirl from the port for more raw flow. You could go quite a bit more on compression without load induced det. and still keep street reliability. I'd add stroke, even to the point of shaving the pistons or poking them out the top (My crank guy is reasonable). I've seen max mileage at that cruise speed and higher with slightly undercompressed, heavily cammed builds... as long as the vehicle weight/aero doesn't require a huge throttle opening. Sounds fun any way you go!
Intake flow of 260 CFM by .500 on iron heads would be...pretty good flowing Buick 350 (iron) heads, to say the least (though a sneak peek into the aluminum head flow suggests gains well beyond this) AND with a 2.02 valve (1.92 or 1.94 currently available, with 1.55 or 1.50 exhaust valve, respectively), it certainly would need more cam! With 260 CFM by .600 and a .600 roller cam (along with other racing components--this is for iron), math suggests 538 hp @7000 and 462 ft. lbs. @5500 with a straight pattern .600/.600 I/E lift, 248/248 @.050 and 302/302 @.006 110/106 LSA/ICL roller cam shows between 101-104% VE @peaks, and this isn't 'max effort'--just something I threw together in about 5 mins on the dyno sim for a representation. This is with a 355 CID Buick 350 (no stroking), though more cubes would certainly improve things. Power is definitely there to be had with the right components and enough RPM.
...This is exactly what I have said in the past, and is possible with either overshooting the lift beyond the peaks with symmetric lobe patterns, or asymmetric lobe patterns with less lift.
Good info Gary! I came up with similar #'s using only head flow but then found limitations when using an ASSumed valve and port throat size. The port goes into sonic choke before a VE that high is realized. The choke would be sooner with smaller CSA port throats, and likely so...I picked the CFM from tribal memory of some aforementioned 'max ported' heads. Of course this still ASSumes that the restriction is at the throat itself and that the rest of the induction is slightly larger in CSA and flows accordingly. It's been suggested here that the 260 # might not be credible...also likely. This is where a later closing intake valve and a longer rod length would 'make' more hp by slowing things up a bit and hanging on a bit longer after the port chokes out near peak hp and hangs on just a little bit after that, rather than dropping off like a rock. A bigger valve and throat (if it were possible) flowing the same amount 'might' rev a bit higher due to the slower speed down the runner and valve throat. My point for picking an unlikely head example was to show that CFM isn't any accurate measure of hp, airspeed and cylinder fill time works better (tougher to do on a calc or spreadsheet). CFM has a hp potential accuracy like that fish caught that one time (hold arms up this wide), and sonic choke has a narrower scope. Indeed it makes the new heads that more exiting. I don't put tremendous time into other people's sims, just use a few quick cross-checks to look for an anomaly. I'd 'like' to see a high winder Buick out there with deep gears.
"But, the problem with applying that idea to engines is that it assumes that engine airflow works the way it does on a flow bench ... that port flow is a constant steady stream. It also assumes that the cylinder is only filled by the action of the piston, and ignores the charging phenomenon. This is an example of "half science".... Which is when a phenomenon is observed and found to be true, and then incorrectly applied to another situation. What's Actually Happening: It's true that at the peak of intake port velocity, high velocity porting does cause the airflow to reach and even exceed supersonic speed, and the "nozzle" causes the port to not gain any more flow at that point in the cycle. The flow is momentarily restricted, but it's important to note that that doesn't mean it stops flowing air !! When the port velocity slows to below supersonic, and the piston is returning up again, the charging effect overcomes the loss created by the dreaded SuperSonicNozzle !! The overall effect is a net gain in cylinder filling over the intake period." Derek
Good to see you preaching to the choir! Good thing we don't race flow benches or dyno sheets. Your points are not lost. I'd hoped to leave a polite suggestion regarding the cam and port flow without raising sand There was no criticism to anyone intended, I just don't think it will quite make it to the level expected. It SHOULD do just fine as described...it would likely pull harder up top with more cam and compression, more port throat, etc. Basic bench racing stuff, right? Might as well put the FM cam in there and spin it to 9000 rpm The formula used for sonic choke was from Larry Meaux, not just some Carcraft/Hotrod flowbench voodoo. His work is well respected for being able to transfer flow bench to dyno to track. I pulled random #'s out of thin air to plug in...so take it for what it's worth. Can't wait for the tests between different cams and theories. I'll look forward to eating my words, and everyone will benefit when it screams as intended. It would be a serious accomplishment to see such a high VE with a small cam and low compression.
