LOL X2 ^^ My forged pistons are 20 years old and the car does not make a sound on startup or use oil, what's my problem. It's the One reason I stay away now. I can't..... single exhaust better than duals Ha Ha.
Wow.. I should have added a few :bla::eek2::grin::laugh: to that response. It was not meant to be a personal attack, I am sorry if you took it that way. I don't know you at all, so attacking your character would be difficult at best. -------- It's not hard read your stuff, and not feel like some greasy long haired kid, who buys these "racing parts" because we don't know better. And it's not a stretch to see that you consider those of us selling this stuff, as ones who would pick on the uninformed. Selling unknowing folks "racing parts" for their street engine, that will end up damaging it (your accusation that a high performance camshaft will wear out in few thousand miles). But that's ok, your entitled to your opinion, and I won't let it bother me. But when you ridicule about half the guys on this board for having forged pistons in their engine, someone has to hold up the stop sign. As the board owner, sometimes that person has to be me, it goes with the job.. Now maybe you didn't intend to offend folks, but it's hard to read your diatribe on forged pistons, and not come away with that. JW
It was a personal attack. You claim I said something I did not. You purposefully used that misinformation to make your point about the forged pistons (which was an old post anyway), stacking up what you describe as being BS, when none of it is BS. My information may have been antiquated, but it was certainly valid, particularly the parts about single exhaust and scavenging manifolds. You purposefully twisted what I said to make it sound like my information isn't credible. That's the character assassination attempt to which I am referring. If you even bothered to read what I actually said, you'd have discovered that I in fact said the manifolds DO NOT scavenge, and that the merge pipe would help them tremendously. This leads to the single exhaust comment (which was actually stated as a large single OR a good X pipe) coupled to the manifolds to improve performance over divorced dual pipes. High performance camshafts can and do wear out in a few thousand miles. It depends on a lot of factors, but the greater the strain on components, the harder it is on them. This leads to decreased life expectancy. How is this difficult to understand, much less claim it to be false? Did I ridicule half the guys about using forged pistons? I don't recall that being the case either. There is a place for everything. Forged pistons certainly have their spot. It's no mystery that most do not recommend forged for stock/mild street use for an engine that will see a lot of miles, but hey you're the expert so I reckon I'm wrong. I can deal with being wrong. Everyone gets it wrong sometimes. No one wants to think or believe they chose the wrong parts for the job, and I see a lot of people defending their decisions because they have a lot of money invested into it. I find it interesting too that others never bothered to comment about that old post you brought up until just now. What were they waiting for, reinforcements? No better reinforcement than the owner of the board, eh? I tell things like I see them, as do you, and many others here. My words aren't so harsh, if someone has an average reading comprehension level. Isn't it peculiar that nothing gets said unless I have something to say about a pet product that many people use? Things to think about, for sure. Having said all that, I forgive you. I'll move on like I do with everything else and once I cool down I'll look back on it and have a good laugh. Gary
Differences in opinion does not = snide, condescending, slanderous comments aimed at someone because they defended the use of cast pistons in a mild engine. I have even defended the use of forged pistons if one were to hammer relentlessly on their engine without worry about shattering them like hypers. I believe this was in the 'offending' post that got brought back up? Someone seemed to take it personal, and it wasn't me. If anyone were to believe me, it could cause lost sales. Good reason to get upset I suppose? Even though this was not my intention, since anyone who wants those parts for a racing engine will get them anyway. Notice how much effort was put into 'correcting' me on the use of forged pistons, lest (not less) anyone believe me? They seemed to boost Steve's power levels though didn't they?... You guys can try to disguise it all you want, but you can't fool me. It's my opinion though, of course, and has nothing to do with factual information. No need for anyone to lose sleep over, is it? Gary
Here is the actual FULL post I made that caused all this. I reread it like Jim suggested. Does anyone else get offended when they read this? o No: The quotes in bold are factual information (despite Jim's claim that they are false), and the quotes in bold, italicized, and underlined are questionable with the particular grade of forged aluminum Jim talks about. I can concede on this part and stand corrected on this particular grade of aluminum. The ball is in your court, Jim. Gary
I posted a deal, but you know what... nevermind... let's move on and not muck up Steve's thread anymore than we have. JW
Not jumping on any bandwagon, just seems appropriate to comment about this. My perspective has nothing to do with "the race parts business" or "the stock restoration business", it's purely from the proper function of things and from being in several facets of IC engine or manufacturing related endeavors. I'm not here to promote a business. The biggest issues I see are misuse and mismatch, for both longevity and performance (compatibility). The superior engineering of stock engine parts has been misconstrued tremendously. They are designed to be adequate enough, that's it. Everything I've ever been involved with manufacturing, engineering, promoting or marketing, whether as an aftermarket or an OEM has had a bottom line cost, a finite life with planned obsolescence, and is designed for ease of manufacture. Way more engineering resources go into finding profit than performance. Every decent engine assembler, tuner, machinist, racer, etc. blows away the factory offerings in many aspects. We are lucky to have decent platforms to play with, though...(that's me bowing in respect of the SAE engineers). Minor changes in castings would have always made tremendous differences. That knowledge is not new. It's been a strategy to pour them into near finished shape from day 1. The main reason GM kept using crappy designs was because the tooling wasn't worn beyond uselessness and the dollar wins out over giving the buyer a better running engine. They knew of the attributes of the various makes' designs. They are the way they are because they assembled, poured, or tooled easier, cost less and lasted how they did to fall within the corporate strategy of marketing directives and planned obsolescence. If a person studies even old IC engineering you'd see that if performance was the focus, many engine designs would have died decades prior. You just wouldn't use those shapes of things. I have specific references I refrain from sharing, so that I'm never viewed as having personal or competitive interests here. That's the reason I cite references from other technologies or applications. I wouldn't bother commenting on anything if I didn't have first hand experience with it. Much of this stuff isn't new or "just theory". It just means some haven't crossed that bridge yet. It isn't secret knowledge (as previously labeled) per se, but there has always been sandbagging or "competitive advantage". People have to understand that it's only recent to expect longer life and daily driver like reliability from their performance projects. Despite what the magazines show, with an obvious motive the forum members and owners may not have...today's accomplishments with the streetable performance car have little to do with computer advancements and "well developed OEM platforms". It's the dissemination of info to the average dude. It's easier to tune things now. There's more "bolt on and go" things available. It is NOT the parts themselves but rather how you use them. Many industries already do Another huge factor is that more people are attempting to have their cake and eat it too. Some have done this long ago. Most are just beginning to learn. People's goals have changed because of simply seeing the previously impossible before their eyes, not with only hot rods...everything in life. Sorry to the OP for the muddying of the thread!
I had a good engine builder. It does not make a sound on startup, period. Maybe it is that Mobile 1 I have been putting in there for over 20 years. Of course it uses a little bit of oil but it does not use a qt. between oil changes. I change it so damn much just for the safety of the engine it does not have time to use any oil. I probably over do it but it has lasted 20 years now has it? Also I ran the same time of 13.50-60 every year for over 15 of those years and that was even after I ran the nitrous for at least 3 years. See, we question your game and you start to give us names. You know like, "Bandwagon Poster" Ha Ha Seems like the only one getting pissed off is you. Sure as heck aint me I could give a rats ..... I forgot, just for thits and giggles The older Mustangs Came from the Factory with Forged pistons and why would they do that? talking before 93. I really don't care why I am just throwing it out there. peace brother The most important part of all this is........................... Damn nice numbers on the 350 Steve great job. Got some good TQ
This idea you have here would be a great one to use for a bracket racing car. I read your ideas and they are quirky but I understand them and I know where you are going with them. You just like stock and longevity, nothing wrong with that but you do somewhat attack us on our racing motors instead of contributing to them and giving good suggestions on making them even better. you know like maybe changing the timing and events of the camshaft. Start building some 12.1 or 11.1 motors instead of this stock stuff. I want 550 Hp not 400 Make my 350 do that with out the power adders. We got single planes and Aluminum heads now its more compression time lets go to the edge. Well what do you say?
Ask Sean to give you the specs of that circle track engine that made 580 with a big isky cam and factory 10 to 1 slugs.
Finally a reasonable response! The 'attacks' I give are simply a reciprocation of someone who has already attacked me, accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about simply because I do not race engines or build them professionally. How quickly we seem to forget who starts the fights, only who finishes them. Many people hold grudges, but that's not my problem. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. You guys stop busting my balls and I'll stop busting yours. Deal? I do contribute some ideas toward higher-end engines from time to time as well, when I'm not outright ridiculed for my ideas or attempts are made to make my credibility look questionable. Well what if I don't want to build a racing engine? Does that make my math/ideas/contributions any less valid than those who do? Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical to tell me to build what everyone else is building or my words have no merit, attacking my methods on trying to improve and preserve the engine as is, while claiming you can have your cake and eat it too by building super hot racing engines that will outlast a blueprinted stocker? What's wrong with doing exactly what you just did just now, and offer up a compliment or a suggestion toward collaboration? Having said all that, I will try my best in the future to temper my reactions as best I can. I have already made progress toward helping the racing community with my ideas, and the best is yet to come--if you'll let me. Check out some posts I've made in the aluminum heads and headers posts instead of dwelling on old posts or comments about someone's stock engine. (I realize you personally have not said all these things, I'm speaking in a more general, broader sense aimed at all to whom it applies) Gary
I'm attempting to say that Buick did pretty good with their engines for what their directives were. They do run pretty good compared to most. I'm also saying that any of the OEM's worked well below their capabilities, according to the engineering education or the resources available. The fact that many do better with less resources supports the fact that factory stuff isn't that great. The Corvette or any other "supercar" was hardly any engineering marvel powerwise. I'm not saying factory engines are junk, they do exactly what they were designed to do. I've cited references before to industrial or fleet versions of common platforms that prove to outlast passenger cars exponentially. Marine stuff tolerates huge abuse without equivalent warm up. Lasts decades sometimes. Slightly better materials here and there. Gary, you'll find out how long they last when you replace the weak links. I'm certain you'll do fine. Sometimes mild performance parts fit that need. Race engine tolerancing and protocols only serve to help the milder stuff. It's really a matter of repeating a good process. Again, I'm saying that I'm no genius. Some of my accomplishments were unintentional. I math'ed things out "close enough" and hoped for the best until I learned to hone things in. I've found that the more one learns about auto technology and wonders why the consumer doesn't get the best available, the answers lead to questions of a more political or corporate nature. Even the aftermarket Co's are focusing more on corporate directives like filling the needs and marketability rather than giving us their absolute best engineering efforts.
Funny how almost every 350 thread ends up going down this same road. I put out information on an ACTUAL build. Both track times and now dyno numbers. Some posters don't even give their name or even a location and spew a lot of info on how it should be done. They don't even HAVE a Buick! And people listen to them, spend money, do work and then it runs poorly and ends up in the parts for sale listings. This HAS happened at least twice. I'm not saying mine is the only way but it is a solid combo that works well within the rules I have to follow. A couple people have followed what I've done with very similar results. Again not saying this is the only way to build a 350 Buick but there's still not been much of any others results. Demkos leading the way with SP3 testing and also the SS car closing in on a 10 second ET ( but won't share any information). Lots of theories but no action. Prove your point and build something. Not singling anyone out here so don't get all fired up. I appreciate the input from everyone. ( even Gary) LOL. My name is there, my car is at the events. I will be at the Dick Miller event and I'll might even let you drive my car in the pits to see how it runs.
Hey Steve can you give us a quick rundown now on what has been done to get to this point. Are you going to do any more dyno testing or are you done for now since you are limited with the rules. I am having a brain fart here you said you had some plenum divider on the intake. I know this was something you took out and put back in with but what exactly is this part. Are you using this with the stock intake or on the TA intake. I just can't picture the part now, brain dead. Thanks, Guy
I've never said scavenging does not work. I don't think its nearly as effective with iron as opposed to tube headers. I also think I've provided more actual data than anyone else. Time to reinstall the engine and drive it.
Gary, As far as making less torque than stock thats not really true. The stock rating for a 1970 SP engine was I believe 410lbs/ft. But it also was rated at 10.25:1. We know it was more like 9.25:1 so I don't think it truly made 410lbs/ft. Was probably closer to my 380. With the full blueprint compression it may have made 410. When you build your blueprint spec engine you can prove that out. I had a very sound stock SP engine in my car years ago. It would run 14.50's. Then I installed the Crower level 2 cam and went 14.05 with no other changes. Guy. I modified the stock intake cutting the center divider out to a size 2 3/4" wide x 1 1/4" deep. I then made a 1/4" aluminum plate that drops in from the top and is help in place by the carb. This allows me to try to make the open plenum work on a 350. So far the track does not like it on any combo tried. The dyno showed good numbers up top but suffered down low. Idle quality is poor with the divider out. Will try it again at the track with this new combo.
Comparing chassis to engine dyno #'s is silly. There is no assumed percentage loss correction that can even be considered accurate when; Different brands, designs, generations, or iterations don't compare well to others. The factory #'s can't even be legitimately compared, you have to alter metrics and corrections to get them to jive...then consider a sample group of engines. Aftermarket dynamometers such as the type used for hot rod testing aren't in the same league as what the OEM's use. Loads and sweep rates drastically change the #'s even on THE SAME dyno. The #'s change based on where the strain gauge is mounted, and that can differ. Different oil and water temps do the same... Sounds like some very respectable #'s seen here. Got any paying offers to test things for people? Just kidding. Enjoy your car!
