geezzzze.... Gary, Sorry to offend you, I thought that we were friends, after the whole ordeal we went thru with your VP trans that was built for you out there, and the emails, phone calls ect.. I almost did not post that response to the board, thinking that you may take it the wrong way. I guess I should have trusted my gut. I in no way meant to be condescending. Sorry you took it that way. I have removed all references about you from that post. I will make sure not to make that mistake again, because I Sure as Hell don't appreciate being attacked verbally, over a misunderstanding. Not quite sure what prompted that, but I have an idea.. and I know I am sick to death of getting in these internet sqabbles.. makes me want to just chuck the whole thing sometimes. As to camshafts, like I said, the right one for any individual is the one that they are most comforable with, and suits their needs. What works for me, may not work for someone else, and vice-versa.. such is life. The issue of Ramp speed was discussed to death a while ago, and prompted a big cam test, that studied the issue. Here is that cam test, performed almost 3 years ago. http://www.trishieldperf.com/cam_dyno_tests.htm JW
Seems like an objective way to compare versions of that type of product. I did notice that the link to the Popular Mechanics cam comparison will not activate. The others did so it may not just be something on this end.
Jim, I did not attack you, I simply requested that you adjust your tone (per your gut feeling) that I perceived as patronizing. That is ALL that prompted my response. I have no idea what else you might think could have brought it on; I think, speak and act independently. I even slept on that response overnight so not to act on impulse. I was just as PO'd the next day. Things like "emotional attachment" as a reason for describing how my particular cam acts? Gimme a break. And that my description of "pulls hard" is minimal compared to yours... ?? Thin skin?.. maybe.. but that's the one way to get my Irish up. If someone offends me, I usually brush it off. If a friend offends me, I tell him, immediately. If it's done privately, that's how I inform them; if in public, ditto. I wasn't going to walk around with this, and I was considering "chucking the whole thing" as well. If in person, I could have barked at you, we could have discussed it, and we'd have settled it in moments... email, not so simple. Sorry if you saw it as a betrayal Jim, no intent on this end either. Guess I could have made one more phone call. If it's all a misunderstanding then let's move right along. I don't burn bridges over stuff like this. :beer
Gary, The fundimental issue here is that you think I was referring to your desciptions of your car, and camshaft. Given the context of my post, I can understand that. Hence I removed them, and apoligized for your perception of my words. In reality, I have heard "MY Car pulls like a Freight Train" a thousand times. And to that individual, his words are true. I'm fine with that. The point I was trying to make, and apparently rather poorly, was that soley relying on an indviduals discription of how a particular car operates can be misleading, to those who have not experienced a variety of vehicles, combinations, and engine builds. That's why I share all the dyno test info, driving perceptions, and all the specifications of a particular build, in a bunch of different cars. I'm just trying to help here gang, based on the work we do in the shop. And I won't apologize for doing that work, and trying to help. If you choose to follow those recommendations for the 08H car, YOU MUST FOLLOW EVERY ONE OF THEM, TO THE LETTER!!!! I would not put that 08H car in with a less than either a 3000 fixed stall converter or a VP setup.. Or with a single plane intake... because yes, it will not run the brakes, under certain engine operating conditons. But... with our 1800/3000 stall converter, under fully warmed up low speed engine conditions, with the proper advance curves in the dist, and a well sealed up engine, I have driven those cars around town, in traffic, in low stall.. When we turn the AC on, in those fully equipped 2 ton GS's, then you need to turn the converter to high stall at the stoplights, or bump the idle speed with a solenoid. That's all part of the recipe.. and why I have carefully laid that out that engine, advance requirements, stall speeds, rear gears, cam installation points ect.. 2 Years ago, if you wanted to go into the 11's solidly, with a real street car, you pretty much had to follow those guidelines, fairly closely... As much head flow with the iron heads as you could get, at least 235* intake duration, headers, converter.. ect.. ect.. But now, with the advent of the new alum heads, life gets much easier, as the heads don't require the "help" so much anymore. That's good news, and simplifies the whole cam situation greatly. Our level 1AH motor, is an 11 second, GS street car motor. And it idles at 700 rpm, with 15" of vacuum. And a noticeable, but not at all objectionable lope. At 555HP, and 575 Torque, you prolly could back up on the cam specs a little more, but quite frankly, I have never seen the need to run less than 230* intake duration, with a 114LC, for idle quality or driveability reasons. JW
Jim, A statement was made that the fast-ramp cams are dead at 4500rpm and that is NOT TRUE. I stated that, and to illustrate that I observed from my own experience, and that of friends, that the Straightline cam pulls to 6000rpm easily. Now, I didn't say it PULLS LIKE A FREIGHT TRAIN!, I didn't say it was better than a Hemi-killer or any TA cam, I just I said it pulls hard way past 4500, and it does. Arguing that is either disbelief or simply a matter of semantics. A simple, "Yes Gary, that cam will pull above 4500 and maybe to 6000rpm, but here's why I like brand-x better" would not have gotten my dander up. The fundamental issue from this end is that you dismissed my observation out-of-hand and the characterization that I only said what I did because it is MY car and MY cam. I DO NOT do that. Whether intended or not, that was my sense of it, and I don't think it was a total misperception. I am smart enough to know that I can't go heads up with you on the subject of engines so why would I? I wouldn't. But I do know that what I said is true and not at all misrepresentative of the characteristics of that cam. To be frank, your comment that you "apoligized for your perception of my words." is also a patronizing remark. Since you understand how I could read your words the way I did, apologize for your presentation of them, not for my perception of them. But you said there was no malicious intent, and I believe that. Good enough for me, misunderstanding over. If I've ruined your day, I apologize.
Just so we are clear... Understood Gary.. But.. You did not hear me say that a fast ramp cam will not pull over 4500... Quite to the contrary, I said that I have actually worked with some of these cams that work just fine. My intent is to merely say that if you looking for magic in a cam, then your going to be looking for a long time. Even the ultimate extreme in ramp speed, a roller cam, in a recent race motor we did, was worth in the neighbor hood of 20 HP and 10-15 foot lbs of torque. And that's in a 700 HP engine.. That was a roller cam which had an identical duration spec, measured from .200 lifter rise, as the flat tappet solid lifter camshaft, we used for the comparision. Those tests are posted on the company site. I spent the company's money to do that test, so I knew exactly what a roller cam is worth, from just the difference in lifter design and valve opening speed. In reality, "fast ramp hydraulics" are nothing more than solid lifter profiles, with hydraulic lifters being used on them, and this is nothing new. Some of these cams will have an rpm limitation, but none of them are worth any great increase in power. All of them will in fact put more load on the valvetrain and related components, and in a 455, that's not the greatest deal to be getting into, considering the cam bearing diameter and width in these motors. I'm not saying you can't use one, just that if your experienceing rpm limitations, or valvetrain failures, then the ramp speed of the cam is one thing to be aware of as a possible problem area. We do use roller cams in these motors, and the cam bearings live. So it certainly can be done. If half as much time was spent worring about the cylinder heads on the average buildup, that is spent on fussing over camshaft selection, then there would be a whole bunch of 455's out there, that have more power than they do now. Scotty Guadagno said it best... " I have over 100 different 455 cams grinds on the shelf.... and I use exactly 4 different ones, in the iron head motors I do here". JW
Re: Just so we are clear... Hey Jim, What's to stop someone (TA) from making a wider cam bearing. The journals in the block can take a wider bearing, so why isn't one made? And what's to stop someone from making a cam with larger journals? The block can be bored can't it? Just playing devil's advocate... as usual.
I think the cam bearing is limited by the intake lobe after #3. My solid 308s was not even touching the base circle. Had to grind just a hair off the cam journal. The wider bearing might hit the lifter, not sure about this. Maybe a some room since the lifter is offset to spin. Cam: I too have Scotts 226/236 cam. Its the little cam that could. Does run very hard when mated with enough carb.. I run the thermo 1000 that Jimbo recomends (2 tenths over holley). Great street combo. Mine is only running 12.30s @ 110 but it has a 2500 converter that seems to come in at 2200. 1.87 60ft times. In the next two weeks i'm going to take the trans king from my 69' GS 3800 stall and put it in the skylark to see if I can pull some low 1.6s. Should score an 11 sec pass. After saying all this I wish now I had gone with scotts slightly meaner street cam. Need for more speed thing. I need to be careful since I put 10k miles a year on this car. I am running TA solid cam in the stage2 motor. Have not run this at the track yet. Going with cone 4300 looking for some 1.4 60s.
Re: Re: Just so we are clear... Jeff, the cam journals cannot be bored out larger on the current block for 2 reasons, 1, there is not enough meat there in the first place, and 2, if you were to bore the hole larger, you would restrict the oil feed passage to the crank, remember , the crank gets it's oil from the pass side lifter galley, which passes through the backside of the cam bearing. You make the cam journal larger, you close off the oi feed to the crank. Not to worry though, this area will be addressed on the new 455 block. Actually, we refer to it as a 455 block, but the only way to get 455 inches out of this thing would be to destroke it. Chevrolet has recently introduced their newest crate motor at 572 inches because the other manufacturers had come out with stuff that was bigger than their 502. I'm looking at offering 573 inch crate motors( it's poetic justice that we get them by 1 cubic inch again) ie: 454 vs 455. Heh , heh, heh. Jim Burek P.A.E. ENTERPRISES
Jim I can't wait to see the supporting parts that will be available for that block. I may sell my 494 parts to go for one of these new block motors. Can you imagine how much fun it'll be to skull drag a big Chevy motor on pump gas and say "it's JUST a 455." :laugh:
