the buick guys knew back then that a small valve, low flowing head a tighter LSA would help. your right a heavy car would help more to get the car moving, but the light car with gears it would still help to make more peak hp and peak torque.
Bob - you can stomp all over this thread, and no offense taken. when the time comes to discuss how the car actually runs again, I'll start another thread or maybe just fire this one back up. I share your curiosity on what would be cheating and what would be legal, and how do you spec right up to the line...so yeah, I was initially thinking 091 as they only specify lift, duration and vacuum specs in the PSMCDR rulesets and that cam might just meet that criteria nicely. But cam specs arent my thing. I'd like to build "dual purpose" engine.. one that will meet pure stock specs and be streetable, yet repond to bolt on mods (doc manifold, rockers, lifters, gears and headers to name a few..) I dont know how that engine should be spec'd, but still talking to Tom T. about it. He has ideas on valves and valvesprings that I dont know will fly... One way or another we'll find out!
Kinda has me thinking, up to extra 1.5 comp. and 091 was a stock cam, so just a hair hotter custom cam and faster ramp and the q-jet. I think they said you could flip the air filter lid for more air. Good 3 angle valve job Who knows.:TU: I gotta tell you that this class and fast seem like a lot of fun. I do like a purpose built engine:TU:
You guys have been busy today!! I have some catching up to do.... Rhett, you're referring to the 'Flint Flyer' '66 GS. It was a Q-jet car but got some additional mods like a stroker crank! There's a brief writeup here: http://www.teambuick.com/reference/flint_flyer/index.php Thanks for all the '66 racecar pics!:TU: I'm aware of the C&G car, I actually posted those pics! I met the mechanic/driver a few years ago at the Vargo Dragway reunion here in Pa. Hoping to see him again at this years event on Nov 2nd. The '66 GS Q-jet option, aka option code L-76, used the Q-jet, the 2x4 distributor, and a different cam... the '091' grind, which simply refers to the part number, 1368091 The production version had the 10.25:1 CR, but there was another special order version with 11:1 CR..... still don't have much info about how that one was ordered back in the day. The NHRA has the standard '400' and the optional Q-jet 11:1 versions listed on their spec page, but not the 10.25 L-76 (???) Note the 11:1 Q-jet version is rated at only 7 hp more than the std '400's 325 hp. The listed cam has an extra 0.008"/0.010" of lift. http://www.nhra.net/tech_specs/engine/ There were a few road tests done back in '66 with the Q-jet cars, Modern Rod and Car Craft. And Motor Trend did a neat comparison of a stock vs modded '66 GS's. It would be ultra cool to build a 'legal' pure stock GS.... a Nailhead with 11.25:1+ compression, some thin low-drag piston rings, a fast-ramp 'cheater' cam, and some 4.88 gears would be a recipe for some easy 12's.
Now you are talking turkey, Walt,,, back in the day, if you were not running 4:56 or 4:88 or stiffer you were not really serious about drag racing.... now , on to the cam.... ol Doc actually says that the 091 cam was the best ''stock'' cam that was available , and it was,,, at $27 per copy, you could not get a better performing cam for the money.... it was a Duntov grind and would turn all the way up to 5800 rpm if the engine was set up right and HAD ENOUGH GEAR OUT BACK ...... You see if a engine has to strain less to get the rpm,,,, because it has more gear, it will turn higher, quicker....think stiff gear and switch pitch trans.... Sure, there was and has always been better cams out there,,,,, for a lot more money.... if you had enough money you could get and still can get a Isky roller cam for a nailhead..... but for Joe Average,,,, the 091 is ideal.... my skylark had reduced weight, 4:11 posi in the back, switch pitch th400, and would put a hole shot on most cars that even if they could out power me , it took them further than a quarter to catch up with me..... btw the 091 was the standard , early version of the dual quad ''supercat'' cam with the 109 deg. LSA.....fairly lumpy and sounded really good with the dumps open.... the closest thing that I have been able to find to the old 091 is the old Posten nh 400 as far as the specs.... and it is no more..... but if the rules require a ''stock'' cam, the 091 is your puppy.....
The NH 400 had just a little more lift and was on a 114 lsa. Pop was running 109 0r 110 lsa if I remember right from reading the stories. 109 might turn on faster and with a little faster ramp with the 091 as your "stock" cam your are using plus any extra you can get legally might work great. Tom T has always told me that Buick had fairly hot cams back in the day for factory showroom cars. I still love reading about Pop and renolds buick, and the flint flyer. Now we just have to sticker up a few 65 and 66 gs and all meet at the meltdown..
So here are the pure stock rules for cam and valvetrain specs.. Valve Train: The valve train must be factory stock for the year, make, and horsepower claimed. Rocker arm ratio must be correct for the year and horsepower claimed. No aftermarket rocker arms of any kind allowed. Stock stamped steel or stock cast iron factory rocker arms only. Random requests for valve cover removal WILL happen. Poly-lock type adjustable nuts, jam (crimp) nuts, and adjustable pushrods are allowed. Valve covers must be correct for the year, make, and horsepower claimed. OEM-style replacement lifters only no trick racing lifters (i.e. ceramic) or shimmed (limited travel) hydraulic lifters allowed. Maximum valve spring SEAT pressure allowed is 130 pounds. Higher seat pressure will require factory documentation. Factory spring configuration must be retained; that is, if your car came with single valve springs, you must run single springs. If it came with dual valve springs, you must run duals. Beehive valve springs are NOT allowed. No aluminum or titanium valve spring retainers allowed. Camshaft: The camshaft must be correct for the year, model, and horsepower claimed for the type of lifter (hydraulic or solid). Roller cams NOT allowed. Duration at .050" lobe lift must be within 1% of factory specs. Lift at the valve must be within 2% of factory specs. Engines must be able to produce at least 16.0 inches of vacuum at 1200 rpm. However, some factory-produced engines were not able to generate 16.0 inches in showroom condition, so those cars will be given a variance to the rule. If I had to go out an purchase a cam today to replace my stock cam in my 65 401 (1359442?), and take advantage of the 1-2% allowances, what do I have to chose from? Manufacurer? part number?
Maybe I am wrong, but didn't the '65 GS also have the '091' cam? I know in '66 it was placed in the dual quad cars and then the Q-Jet GS's, like Walt mentioned earlier. Maybe it wasn't part number '091' but I was thinking that was standard in the '65 GS. But I am probably mistaken. I would really like to get my hands on a '091' for my '66. Or even if I could get one custom ground. Want to keep my car as close to what it could have been in '66 with stock or like parts.
If I'm not mistaken the 65 Skylark GS cam is the same as the 66 425 cam, the "090", which looks to be exactly the same as the "442" cam.
Well,,,pard,,,, looks like your very best option is to have a cam blank ground to the old 091 specs with 109 LSA.... and I think 6 deg advance at the cam gear....already ground in..... then either a 3 angle or a 5 angle valve job on the heads..... now when you are doing the valve job the correct way to narrow the valve seat is to grind the valve pocket from the bottom up to the top.... this makes the pocket more open.... do not,, do not grind the seat ''down '' to narrow it.....that ruins the heads and cuts performance.... do the research on the factory reccomended proceedure for narrowing the valve seat.... under those rules you can measure and weigh the factory pushrods to get the lightest and all of them the same..... there were 2 types used in 59-66 engines,,,, hollow with welded ball ends... and solid ones... dont know which is lighter, you would have to weigh the two.... see if grinding a angle on the lip of the valve is allowed ,,, if it is grind ''approach'' angles on both sides of the 45 deg. angle...and make the 45 very narrow.... and of course port match the intake and exhaust manifolds.....
Hey! Thought I heard nce that nailhead blanks were a fairly rare commodity? True? PS, havent forgotten about your air compressor - had my niece look through the car and she couldnt find it, but then again thats with all the interest and motivation of a 16 year old...I'll be in touch.
Stock Nailhead rocker arms are aluminum....would they be illegal? Older ones were cast iron and have less ratio, about 1.5 I believe. Alum rockers are about 1.6 ratio. Stock '66 401 cam specs are approx: (measured on a used cam) 208-209 deg duration@ 0.050" , 0.425" to 0.448" lift (106 to 111 deg duration @ 0.200") Comp Cams High Energy series cams are very close .... 252H series is 206 deg duration, 0.433" lift (109 deg duration @ 0.200") 260H series is 212 deg duration, 0.447" lift (117 deg duration @ 0.200")***** this one might do it.**** There are a few other Comp Cam lobes that are close: Dual Energy: 211 deg duration, 0.448" lift (112 deg duration @ 0.200") Xtreme Energy: 206 deg duration, 0.443" lift (114 deg duration @ 0.200") 212 deg duration, 0.453" lift (120 deg duration @ 0.200")****or this one**** 212 deg duration, 0.448" lift (117 deg duration @ 0.200") Does the Pure Stock organization have a database of the stock specs?? .... some of the Comp cam lobes might be a hair out of tolerance.... if stock is 209 duration, then a Comp with 212 duration would be 1.4% bigger..... would they round that off to 1%?ray:
Walt - thats good info, and I think at some point you'd have to give the the "mea culpa" - you came as close as you could....and I thinnk you coould get by the rocker arm thing too - Are those specs for the 090 or 091 cam? if not the 091, do any of the other specs come close ?
Russ Martin is selling one he describes: Brand new copy of the factory performance camshaft for a 57-66 364-401-425. All 63-65 425 engines got this cam, the 66 got a smaller 401 cam. This is not a Chevy grind put on a Buick cam core..The duration at .050 is 205/215 and a .454/.483 lift on a 110 LC. This is the closest we can get to factory spec's. Please contact me with your needs..The stock Buick cams are hotter than the smallest Isky cam and others, don't waste money on RV cams for the nailhead !. I sell bigger cams too so contact me for more info. We have the correct valve springs, lifters and all other nailhead parts i bought one for my next rebuild.
Thanks Ted - I had been wondering about what he or Carmen might have to offer. Let us know how that cam works out - I think that might be one of the best/closest choices for the 091.
I measured the 090 cam, stock in 65-66 401's. According to Dennis Manner, it's 0.431" lift, so +2% would give a max of 0.440" lift for Pure Stock. For duration, I measured 208-209 degrees, and Russ measured 207 degrees. Looks like the only 'legal' cam (from my earlier choices) would be the Comp Cam High Energy 252H with 206 duration and 0.433" lift. Duration at 0.200" lift is very close to what I measured on my stock 401 cam..... I suspect it would perform about the same. I haven't profiled a 091 cam yet, but Russ says 208/213 duration, and lift (per Buick) is 0.441/0.439". I bet Joe or I could find some hotter lobes in Comp Cams' arsenal to build a better '091' cam:bglasses:
Last track rental of the day yesterday up at LVD - drove 100 miles through a beautiful morning, awesome day with a DA of 1200 on an 1100 ft track, even a tailwind! What could go wrong, right? No one showed up to open the track! They made the call the day before not to open because of potential showers, but didnt post it on the website or call anyone! There were a dozen guys who had towed trailers from who knows where standing there and they were PISSED! And there was one guy (who I recognized as their "flagman") who was prepping the track and taking all the heat. He obviously couldnt open the track by himself...felt sorry for him.. On the bright side, drove back down through farm country and ran into a guy I hadnt seen for 20 years or better - he's an old lead sled/street rodder guy and is running a big show tommorow in New Hartford, CT at the old Waring factory called Cartoberfest. It's a big show thats been going on for years, but I never considered bringing the car up because it's really a rat rod/tatoo girl/50's throwback kinda thing (OK, I get that that could be fun striclty for it's own merits) Short version - he went wild over the 65 and begged me to bring it, told me he'd save me a showcase spot - he says these guys go CRAZY over naildheads, especially with the factory Q-Jet GS set up, track stickers all over the windshield with rubber all up on the quarters (havent cleaned the car up recently) I'll take pictures.
Long and dry post, so brace yourself. Forgive the font, but I wrote this up in Word, and cut and pasted it here. <o></o> <o></o> Went racing again with the 65 Gran Sport last week:<o></o> <o></o> The Good<o></o> Drove home!<o></o> Car felt GREAT – Launched hard, great traction and shifts like a BB TH400 <o></o> Ran a pretty evenly matched runs against a 68 383 Road Runner<o></o> Beat a beautiful 74 GTX 440 pretty good, even though she treed me on the Pro Tree<o></o> <o></o> The Not-So-Good<o></o> Was overall .3 tenths and 2 mph slower than normal – best run of 15.19 @ 90.27 with a 2.19 60 ft.<o></o> Stiff headwind – Ave. 10mph, with gusts to 25mph<o></o> Got beat 3 out of 3 by the 68 Road Runner (ok, he had qualified at 14.4, but couldn’t hook in the cold)<o></o> Carb/Timing/launch tuning had no effect at all<o></o> <o></o> So trying to write off my miserable performance, I started digging in to the drag effects of windspeed, crosswinds and headwinds, and how it correlates to HP. Using research from road bikers (http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/wind.html),formulas on HP needed to run certain speeds (http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculate HP For Speed.php),Formulas to match ET’s to HP corrected for weather conditions (http://www.wallaceracing.com/hp-correction-quarter.php)The methodology may be flawed, but I come up with this: The car is running exactly the same as it has for the past couple years. <o></o> <o></o> When all the data is corrected, the car puts between 250-254 HP to the wheels, and has been for some time. I based the HP calculation onET in this chart , but if you base it on MPH the trend still looks the same. It’s just that my ET’s and MPH are spread way apart from the norm, and conventional wisdom says that based on my MPH I should be running 14.2s and 60fting at 2.0 flat. Fat chance. <o></o> <o></o> [TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 706"] <tbody>[TR] [TD="width: 75, bgcolor: transparent"]Date<o></o> [/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"]Temp<o></o> [/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"]Pressure<o></o> [/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"]Humidity<o></o> [/TD] [TD="width: 72, bgcolor: transparent"]Wind mph<o></o> [/TD] [TD="width: 137, bgcolor: transparent"] Wind Direction<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 99, bgcolor: transparent"] Cd HP Correction<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"]Ave ET<o></o> [/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"]Ave MPH<o></o> [/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"]Ave 60 ft.<o></o> [/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"]Actual HP<o></o> [/TD] [TD="width: 115, bgcolor: transparent"]Net Corrected HP<o></o> [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 75, bgcolor: transparent"] 10/13/2012<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 50<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 30.25<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 43<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 72, bgcolor: transparent"] 5<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 137, bgcolor: transparent"] SW-head/crosswind<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 99, bgcolor: transparent"] -4<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 14.80<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 91.80<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 2.13<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 254<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 115, bgcolor: transparent"] 250<o></o>[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 75, bgcolor: transparent"] 4/28/2013<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 70<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 30.25<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 96<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 72, bgcolor: transparent"] 5-10<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 137, bgcolor: transparent"] SE-tail/cross wind<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 99, bgcolor: transparent"] +4<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 14.91<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 92.52<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 2.24<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 252<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 115, bgcolor: transparent"] 256<o></o>[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 75, bgcolor: transparent"] 9/27/2013<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 57<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 30.30<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 96<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 72, bgcolor: transparent"] 5<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 137, bgcolor: transparent"] W - head wind<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 99, bgcolor: transparent"] -5<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 15.01<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 90.83<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 2.15<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 250<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 115, bgcolor: transparent"] 245<o></o>[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 75, bgcolor: transparent"] 10/20/2013<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 55<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 30.00<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 78<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 72, bgcolor: transparent"] 10-15<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 137, bgcolor: transparent"] W - head wind<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 99, bgcolor: transparent"] -17<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 15.22<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 90.01<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 63, bgcolor: transparent"] 2.22<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"] 251<o></o>[/TD] [TD="width: 115, bgcolor: transparent"] 234<o></o>[/TD] [/TR] </tbody>[/TABLE] <o></o> I went back to 2010 (when I got my first official time slips), the car started at235 RWP, before the Q-Jet, Doc Mod, exhaust and everything else. <o></o> <o></o> So now the question is: For all the work I’ve done, why isn’t gross HP increasing? I think it’s because I’m making improvements to an engine that’s getting more and more tired…compression is 130-135 average, getting lots more blow-by and have a steady 21 lbs vacuum – great, but Tom T seems to feel that a my factory cam with all its lift wouldn’t pull that kind of vacuum, the cam is wearing.. The motor has 49 years and 80,000 miles, I can see it’s time to build my spare 401. <o></o> <o></o> Aside from all that , this will be the last weekend the track will be open for the season and the weather looks good. Temps in the high 40’s (I can still hook, honest) pressure in the 30’s and a 10 mph crosswind. <o></o> <o></o> Sorry this post is so long… I hope it helps someone somewhere with something!<o></o> <o></o>
