TA 413, or 290 08H

Discussion in 'Street/strip 400/430/455' started by babyblue 69, Jan 2, 2011.

  1. pooods

    pooods Well-Known Member

    More info on swapping order:
    http://www.hotrod.com/techfaq/113_0701_lunati_cams/firing_order.html
     
  2. pro tour gsx

    pro tour gsx pro tour gsx

    nice numbers larry we gotta line up at e town
     
  3. Mark Dalquist

    Mark Dalquist Well-Known Member

    The newer cars are. Cadillac Northstar is 4/7 and 2/3 swap if you take into account the #1 cylinder is on the right bank and the gen 3 motors are also 4/7 and 2/3 swap. 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3

    They have found that there are reduced harmonics in the crankshaft when this is done and the engine runs smoother. That is why the o.e.'s do it. Racers have found power gains at higher rpm with the 4/7 swap and that's why they do it. The end result is that there does not seem to be any downside to the swap so if you are buying a camshaft anyway why not?
    The 351W ford firing order is a 4/7 swap as well if you take into account the cylinder labeling and the right bank #1 position as well.
     
  4. Mark Dalquist

    Mark Dalquist Well-Known Member

    I saw there was more to your question. The gm cores have been made in the standard firing order for years and years and for some reason the cam compainies that have the cores do not change them. It does take a dedicated core (unless it's a billet cam) to do the swap so it is very expensive. If you are designing a new core though such as TA's hyd roller the cost is the same so then why not do the 4/7 swap. As time goes on we see more and more camshafts offered with the swapped event firing order but a lot of people are spending a lot of money on the standard firing order stuff so I don't think you will see wholesale changes in cam cores anytime soon.
     
  5. LARRY70GS

    LARRY70GS a.k.a. "THE WIZARD" Staff Member


    The car will weigh about 4000 lbs with me in it. 10.70's? Really? I know I can't run faster than 11.50. Guess I'll have to find a way to launch it nice and easy and just go mid 11's, which is all I really wanted to begin with. I have No Hops, and an HR Bar. The HR bar should help with the twist. It will have to, because there is no way I will cut up a real Stage1.:laugh:
     
  6. DaWildcat

    DaWildcat Platinum Level Contributor

    I'd think for max fun factor, a hairy-scary launch would be the goal, then just short-shift it to your taste (and track rules) to manage the ET. The first 1/8 mile is the most fun in my book. :Brow:

    Devon
     
  7. LARRY70GS

    LARRY70GS a.k.a. "THE WIZARD" Staff Member

    :laugh: I don't know about that. I think launching it easy, and just noting the trap speed will do on the first pass. Then I'll launch it progressively harder, and see what happens.
     
  8. 69GS400s

    69GS400s ...my own amusement ride!

    Yeah ... who would try to run a full 1.5 sec. under the allowed limits anyways :Do No:
     
  9. LARRY70GS

    LARRY70GS a.k.a. "THE WIZARD" Staff Member

    Why a Stooge, Of Course:laugh:
     
  10. d7cook

    d7cook Guest

    At 4000 lbs, 10.90's at 123 +/-. I had assumed 3800 lbs.

    Go to BG. There's a couple cars running 10's with no roll bar every year. Tech is a mere formality you drive past on the way to the pits.
     
  11. 69GS400s

    69GS400s ...my own amusement ride!

    Mark - just want to say, its good to see you participating here again more regularly. Quite often I found myself actually having to think after reading your posts :beer
     
  12. sailbrd

    sailbrd Well-Known Member

    x2 but that thinking hurts:Dou:
     
  13. Mark Dalquist

    Mark Dalquist Well-Known Member

    Thanks. I was a little dissapointed on how the Voodoo ran because it SHOULD have out performed the older design all of the way up. The idle vacuum is suprising too because the cam is small enough it should not have been a problem. I'm thinking 36* locked out timing would have helped in that area though. Probably some beehive springs and a better set of lifters would have cured it from 4000 on up but unless I buy all of the parts and test them to prove it out we will have to go with what Jim found for results.

    That being said, the whole purpose of this website is for us to put our ideas together and think about them. Some ideas are good, some not so good. Through thought and some trial and error we can only make our Buicks better.

    I am just starting a build on a VERY stout 401 cubic inch small block Chevy. I know it's not a Buick but I think you guys will find it interesting. I will be photo documenting the build and it will either be a great engine or a turd. One or the other, there is no inbetween with this one. Here are a few tidbits on the engine -- 12.3:1 compression intended for pump gas:eek2: inverted radius solid roller cam with .700" lift:Brow: state of the art valvetrain:kodak: I expect peak power at 6500 shifted at 7000 and the list goes on and on. I hope to have it on the dyno sometime this spring and I will post results if you guys are interested in a Chivvy:pp I would like to see around 630 hp or better from this little motor but we will see...:Do No:
     
  14. TORQUED455

    TORQUED455 Well-Known Member


    A-HEM!! :grin:
     
  15. Jim Weise

    Jim Weise EFI/DIS 482

    coming Bob... cam stuff is already up..

    JW
     
  16. ick

    ick ick

    I am also disapointed with the results of the Lunati Voodoo grind. Jim ,was a Lunati camshaft kit used (springs & lifters) ? The two cams are alot alike in lift & Duration specs ,but the VooDoo cam may require a special type of valve spring (PAC) style to control the ramp profile. I know of a fellow running this cam in a 455 Olds with the proper springs & lifters & it pulls to 6200 rpm with great power.
    I have followed this thread from the start & thank you Jim for sharing all your data with us very interesting.

    Mark
     
  17. Jim Weise

    Jim Weise EFI/DIS 482

    Mark,

    The motor was actually built around 2 cams, the Lunati and the Roller.. I personally felt during the building phase that the Lunati would be the best comparison for a flat tappet cam.

    The TA 413 was an afterthought, I almost didn't even bring it, and I didn't bring the right length pushrods for it.

    The Lunati cam ran the 858-16 Comp Cams Pro Magnum lifters, and it's geometry at the rocker was spot on. That's the Chev lifter cup ones, so a 9.400 pushrod was used. Preload was .015 Hot.

    The TA cam ran a set of Buick Delphi's I had sitting on the shelf, with the rocker geometry way off, due to the fact that I didn't have the shorter pushrods with me.

    Valve springs were 125 on the seat, and 310 open, for both flat tappet cams.

    While there maybe some "Voodoo" (pun intended) to making this thing work, I honestly doubt it. No way are you going to run any more spring than that, the lifters will collapse sooner. The only possible way would be to lighten up the valvetrain components dramatically, to be able to reduce the spring loads, and then hope the lifters could still follow the lobes.




    Lunati cams in general have a very bad rep around the dyno shop, as well as in the industry. Concern with them is always the same, they don't Rev. Both Steve Tanzi at Erson (who did our roller) and Jerry at Schneider will tell you the same thing if you ask them. Harold is always trying to push the limits of lifter velocity, and often in simply won't mechanically work.. and not just in Buick engines.

    None the less, I will make this cam and lifters available to anyone who wants to actually spend the money to set up the motor specifically for it with valvetrain components, and also will test it on a dyno. I also then would want to be on hand to swap a 413 back in it, because I have my doubts that even if it would have had stable valvetrain events, it would have made any more hp, you have to remember that it's on a 110 Lobe center, and my testing in the past has indicated that tight lobe center cams will make considerably more power in the mid range. This one was not that impressive even when the lifter was able maintain itself.

    Too bad... The Lunati cams I have worked with in the past are cheap, well executed on the grind, and readily available.. they just have to work now :Dou:
    JW
     
  18. ick

    ick ick

    Thanks for the reply, I agree Jim, you would think the VooDoo looking @ the specs would have run away from the T/A 413 camshaft. Dyno testing proved this not to be the case & from a setup stand point the VooDoo was @ no disadvantage that I can see in this test. I think from brake in ... to top end the roller cam is the way to go & will be my next choise . With that said I have the same Lunati VooDoo FOR SALE new in the box .....mmmmmmmmmmmm

    Thanks Jim

    The trans & converter look great, the converter looks to be very well built . Mark
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2011
  19. Mark Dalquist

    Mark Dalquist Well-Known Member

    "Concern with them is always the same, they don't Rev"

    Jim, you did put more effort into the Lunati than I previously thought. The pro-magnums are a decent lifter and while I would have had more valvespring on it per Lunati's recommendation it would have only been around 340# to 350# open. Weather or not it would have made the difference I really don't know.

    As far a Harold's designs not revving I can say that I only have 1 flat tappet Harold cam in a engine right now and it's a solid. It is in a 2bbl restricted oval track motor. It is in the 260+/270 ish int/exh duration with .6 something lift/.5 something lift with 150lbs on the seat and around 385lbs open. This engine was just torn down after: dyno time fresh, raced 56 complete shows:shock: , and then dyno'd again. depending upon the track it is revved anywhere from 6800 to 7200 rpm and at one of the specials this year (a 4 day event) it was seeing 7400 rpm. Not only does this engine make more power than any other 2bbl engine that has been on this particular dyno but it never shows any signs of valve float or valvetrain duress. This is with a single valve spring (as per the rules) and stock-style stamped steel rocker arms (as per the rules).

    The only other thing I can say about Harold's cams is: Ultradyne. I don't think ANYONE can accuse the old ultradyne stuff of not running the number and that was Harold's company and all of the cams were his design. Federal Mogul's bankruptcy eventually took Ultradyne with them but their camshafts sure did run.

    As far as the hydraulic rollers/solid rollers go: My 505 big chevy single 4bbl solid roller makes good steam right to 8000 rpm, no valvetrain issues other than the valvesprings themselves don't seem to want to make more than 150 passes so we are going to switch to a better spring. I don't have a single hyd roller motor that doesn't go past 6000 rpm like it's not even there so I really don't know what to say:Do No:

    I will say this. For the vast majority of Buick people that use this site as an informational tool the best bet is to go with the proven parts combinations. Jim put a lot of effort into this test and it did not work out well for the Lunati camshaft. I have run the 413 in the past and it was a good camshaft. The safe choice is to go with the proven parts which means you have a greater chance at success with your build. Another thing to remember is that TA Performance has put a ton of effort specializing in Buck aftermarket parts and I don't think you can buy anything from them that is crap. Go with the safe bet.
     
  20. Yardley

    Yardley Club Jackass

    Just an FYI... Nick Rabi's 464 is a non-stroker and has solid lifters and he makes 592HP. While rollers are certainly a great innovation, you can still get great performance with solids.
     

Share This Page