What is needed for a street motor 455 500hp then 600hp?

No.

Cam it to start making torque just off idle, that will help get the land barge moving. I'm with Jim, skip the expensive porting just get some bowl and chamber work done and call it good. The $$ you save on the porting, get an roller cam that can be ground with a much more aggressive ramp profile and getting the lift closer to .600" lift as you can while still keeping the duration @ .050" around 230* or lower. That's basically what I have in my sbc 383, a cam with .550" in. and .546" exhaust with 202* in and 212* ex. duration @.050'" roller cam and that thing makes a whole lot of torque to get that 4,600 lb car with me in it to 13.2 in the quarter mile! Image a similar car with 79 cid more if you go with a 462 could do in the QM with the engine setup similar!!

If you do decide to go with the Edelbrock heads they do make sbc 1.7:1 roller rockers to help get the lift higher if you insist on a flat tappet cam and Edelbrock heads. Spring for the extra $20 bucks and have Scott Brown grind a custom cam for your application, see how high he can get the lift while keeping the duration @ .050" below 230*. Go a bit higher with the duration than what I have in my sbc because with the extra cubes will make a bigger cam act smaller.

Contrary to the popular opinion here I actually absolutely love my 700R4 in my '65 land barge Impala, it helps to get the car moving no problem with a 3.07:1 rear gear with a posi and shifts into O/D at 45 with zero "lugging" or trying to downshift even over hills while just cruising at 45.

The 2.93:1 isn't that far off of the 3.07:1 rear in my Impala, with the added torque of a BBB vs the sbc if cammed properly I don't see any problem at all to cruise @45mph in O/D without any "lugging" as mentioned before. The only downsides to using that trans would be it would require an adapter but that only costs about $40 bucks, the costs involved in upgrading one to withstand the monster torque from a BBB and possibly having to have your driveshaft shortened.

First gear would pull like a freight train, and with the 2.93:1 could stay in that gear a bit more than a numerically higher gear could with your setup. With a beefed up rear suspension you should be able to get decent traction with those big 27.5" tall tires.(mine are 27.99" tall 275R15 IIRC basically 28" tall BF Goodrich drag radials)

The advantage of using the 700R4 with a small duration cam is that the MPG on the highway are around 24 with the converter locked up and still run 13.2 seconds in the QM @ 101 mph with 60 ft times in the high 1.8s! GL



Derek

 

I know some will not like the idea of Rhodes lifters, but they can help ease the low end power issues with the 413. I can do a custom cam, but feel more comfortable using a (tried and true) off the shelf stick. Using 1.6 or 1.7 ratio roller rockers, Rhodes lifters, wesicos pt054h4 pistons, and 413 should get me good compression, high power in mid and high rpm, and the lifters compensating for the lacking low end performance.

 

I like the 700r4 for some things, we have used many in our builds before. The 52 chevy we did had a 425 hp 383, 3.73 fully auto locking up converter clutch build by monster so it locked up with no electrical input. Once the tv cable got adjusted correctly, it had great shifts and he got 20 mpg at normal high driving speeds.

Did not know the adapters were that low in price, I still feel the power and torque levels will be alot for thar trans to hold without alot of parts. It's very similar to the th350 in its power handling range. But I am sure this trans is like most things, better parts are now available for it at better pricing as compaired to the last time I seriously looked into buying one, and that was 5 or 6 years ago.

At highway speeds of 70ish, and 1800 I don't think it will lug, but at lower speeds in the 55 area only turning 1400 ish rpm, there us a chance. The first gear in the trans will surely help the get it moving.

As with any project there are many paths, and more than one effective way to get there. One just has to first figure out the main objectives and goals and cross the problems off as and if the come up as they do. But this sounds like it should be fun project that is realistically doable and within the stated budget for the most parts. He just needs to first figure out if he truly wants 600hp or not first, normally motors in hp level do trade off some of the street friendly manors.

Keep us posted with how your project goes and which way you go with it. But sounds like a fun one to work through and enjoy

 

The Wiseco PT054H4 are flat top pistons with only 8cc in the valve pockets. The compression ratio will be around 12:1 (At zero deck). That absolutely will not work with pump gas!!
Furthermore the Rhoads lifters decrease the duration at low rpm which raises the dynamic compression even further compounding the problem.
You must use a piston that has a dish with at least 20cc of volume.
Both the Autotec or the TA 1611B piston will give you that.

Jim Weise laid out a plan that will give you the best performance for your money.
He has built enough Buick engines over the years that any recommended choice of parts including cam choice has been "Tried and true".

The recommendation for a Roller Cam is for two reasons.
1. A roller cam does not need the 20 minute break-in procedure and is not prone to lobe failure. Most present day oils are not friendly to flat tappet cams.
2. The roller cam permits a more aggressive ramp than a flat tappet and can produce more power using higher lift with less duration. Power bands are wider.

 

Big car and 462 with low gears?
Forget OD trans unless cruising at 85.
Since mileage was mentioned, 1800rpm would be bad, maybe 10 mpg. 1400 is worse.
Car would need to be closer to 3200 lbs for that rpm to be an advantage.
Throttles would be open too far, below 10" vac on gauge if equipped.
The weight and aero of a large car need some rpm
Comments on cubes, cam, heads, etc.
Bigger cubes makes big-ish cams act tame, good heads make them breathe bigger and cam act smaller too.

You can certainly have fun with a powerful engine in a big car.
Build it around the capability of a decently pocket ported iron heads. Use dual plane and 230-ish cam to keep the throttle response high.
If you have a good working induction and blueprinted engine you won't need bleed-down lifters.
It will have plenty of balls.
You would be fine with an aggressive 575+ hp stroker in a big car with a simple rear end swap.
Don't be afraid of some rpm at cruise, it won't hurt a thing.

 

Looks like you didn't read the whole thread, anyway he has a 9 3/8" rear that he doesn't plan on changing and no one makes gears for that rear.

That is the reasoning behind what I recommended, a cam that starts making power right off of idle. If you can get such a cam for a sbc I'm sure there is one available for a BBB even better would be a custom from Scott Brown.

Mileage would be fine at the lower RPM mentioned with the above mentioned cam, to optimize mileage use a switch to engage the lockup torque converter. 10 mpg, LOL! A BBB with say an RV cam would make around 300 or more ft lbs of torque @ 1,400 RPM which would be plenty to cruise even that big of a car down the road. A larger duration cam wouldn't start making power until a higher RPM, which wouldn't be so bad with a 700R4 but would be like you say in the 10 MPG range in O/D @ 45 or even on the E-way.


The TA-413 cam would be a turd in that heavy car. Sure it is a "tried and true" cam but only in the appropriate application with a matched combo. I raced an old Ford big bodied car before(can't recall what model car it was but it was around the same size as my Impala) that had a BBF FE 428 engine in it with a big flat tappet cam because the guy wanted that HP and didn't want to get off his wallet for a roller, I smoked him by almost 2 seconds in the QM! He probably would of made the same mistake with the roller as well though to try and get that HP number.

That bigger cam and a 700R4 would be a good match if you could change the rear gear, but seeing how you're stuck with that rear the TA-413 isn't a good choice. I suppose you could use the 700R4 without using the O/D unless you're at least 70 on the E-way when you shift to O/D. o No:

And like Paul said, you don't want to use flat top pistons for a street BBB, unless you use the '75 or '76 open chamber heads with thicker gaskets or leave them in the hole .030" and use a .040" thick gasket? Not sure if a combo like that would be prone to detonation though?


My 2001 F-350 extended cab long bed 4x4 truck has a 7.3L diesel that only has 250 HP but has 500 ft lbs of torque, I wouldn't call it fast but I can pull out into traffic with it weighing in around 6,500 lbs! Torque moves weight, not HP. GL




Derek

 

Derek I was fully aware of the rear end situation when I posted that, just offering up my viewpoint.
IF...that were changed, it solves a lot of problems getting the OP to his goals of having a high powered daily driver.
IF the OP had deeper gears with the OD trans it would make the car a real pleasure to drive, but as several have pointed out...it has to have some $$ in it to survive the abuse of both big cube torque AND the weight of the car, whereas a shift kit'ed thm400 would already survive.
Big torque, big cubes works fine without so much extra gear.
I'd personally rather see that part of the budget go into a well matched top end, capable of overcoming the woes people are warning the OP about.

I'm suggesting what I am because I have a couple decades experience actually driving large cube, high powered (also fullsized) vehicles as daily drivers and I have long observed better mileage than what others are posting about.
The OP doesn't have to take any free advice.
I'm respecting of the fact that this is Jim's forum and try to build responses that are symbiotic to his and similar build philosophies and experiences.
Not sure why you would offer any opinion to my internet habits, I keep a laptop logged onto various things with several tabs going nearly 24/7, such as streaming music...but as I digress, it's easy to pop in.
I tend to make suggestions when I think people are stating from opinion rather than personal experience (not talking about you or your posts here).
If I didn't think people were possibly being steered the wrong way or with very unclear info based on repeating internet chatter elsewhere or what 'they suspect' without having done it, I wouldn't bother 'attempting' to make helpful suggestions.
I'm not here trying to lure any business or work.
I've straightened out a lot of mismatched builds in my lifetime and have created aftermarket parts, etc.
No need to critique me or take much issue with my ramblings.

 

Maybe some misunderstanding to what loses torque...
Larger CSA such as in heavily ported aftermarket heads WITH a big cam, low gears, heavy weight will be a pig until revved up, get bad mileage at low rpms, take excessive throttle to get moving, etc.
Need gears to move it and drive it in a happy rpm range, and it won't be a low speed.
It will need to cruise at a slightly higher rpm to stay above the conditions Larry mentioned, and yes...get better mileage.
A decent pocket ported factory head having a smaller CSA and corresponding higher airspeed through the port will not lose torque or response, even with a slightly big cam. The powerband follows the port and the airspeed more than the cam 'until you go way too big'.
The factory engines are still cam and air starved.
The tiny cams and restricted induction serve to smooth up things, not build torque.
The restriction and vacuum condition are why it's responsive to throttle transition, but they remain starved.
A build such as what Jim outlined will have much more response than a factory engine, even with some rumble to the idle.
If it fell short of the 600hp mark at the very top end of the range, who cares. Still a beast, and much less than budget.

 

So I guess what was done with a sbc in a land barge heavy car can't be done with a BBB with only 4.56% less gear than I have according to you? o No:

And I did mention the added cost involved to beef up the 700R4 to make it live, you must of skimmed over that? A TH400 would cost less, I should of added that, but typing sucks so I didn't.

And by the way, I agreed with the cam advice JW gave to keep it below 230* @ .050", I basically gave the same advice.(that's ok, maybe you skimmed over that as well? No big deal )

I never claimed you were trying to "lure any business or work", why would you even mention that? Are you saying I am? I have only offered my services if someone couldn't find a shop locally to machine nascar take out rods to make them fit in a sbb , as a favor because I really don't need that extra work. How are those 401 Nailheads that have a 10.000" deck height right on the nose from the factory going on the "shop floor"? Sounds like you have enough work to keep you busy for now anyway. Didn't you say you were from Florida? How's the weather down there?


Derek

 

Ditto.

 

I am starting to understand more about the difference with cam and gear selection. A ede intake with mid range cam with a good port job should give me good low and mid range power without sacrificing to much power. The voodoo 262/268 looks more reasonable, but power and torque potential are both unknown in my application.

 

The Lunati Voodoo series cam is an attempt to get a flat tappet cam to work like a roller cam by using aggressive ramps.
The problem is that the rest of the valve train looses stability with that type of lobe profile.
Yes there was one time where I recommended the Voodoo 256/262 (As you saw) but that was before testing.

Here is a comparison between The Lunati Voodoo 276/284 , The TA 413 and a TA hydraulic roller cam, 234/247/113 with .574/,584 lift at valves
You can clearly see the loss of valve train stability with the Voodoo cam and the power advantage with the roller cam.

http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.p...testing-(Larry-s-motor)&p=1786023#post1786023

A smaller roller cam with intake durations in the low 220 degree range would give you a good cross over between low end torque and upper end horsepower.

Which heads are you considering using?

 

OK so here is a 448 cu in with a 215 degree high lift roller cam. The heads are fully ported.
Notice the flat torque curve. This baby makes over 500 ft lbs of torque from below 3000 rpm to 5200 rpm and 500 hp. See graph at the bottom of post #18

http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.p...Hyd-roller-an-MPG-motor&p=2068967#post2068967

So again with 462 cid, heads that are ported with attention mainly in the bowl area (Read High Velocity Ports) and a roller cam in the 220 degree range you should have the power you are looking for.

 

That suggested build on a 462 will have beastly response well below 3000 rpm, where the dyno doesn't do a good job of holding such torque.

 

I plan on using edelbrock heads. Since all out porting isn't necessary I might up the game with a roller cam. Does the lifter galley need reinforced with a roller cam though? That motor sounds like what I am looking for. Good power and torque. Does anyone have the cam specs for it?

 

The engine was designed for a station wagon that would occasionally pull a trailer. The other consideration was gas mileage.
With both of those factors in mind the cam was specified with a wide lobe separation angle to minimize valve overlap and to create a wide flat torque curve.
The Static compression ratio would also be maximized in order to push an 8:1 Dynamic compression ratio for max engine efficiency but still be able to run on pump gas.

The cam is a TA/Schneider Hydraulic Roller with the following specs:

Intake .050 duration, 215*
Intake valve lift, .544" with a 1.6 rocker ratio
Exhaust .050 duration, 225*
Exhaust valve lift, .550" with a 1.6 rocker ratio
Lobe Center Separation, 115*

When Jim installed the cam the actual intake duration (On cylinder #1) was closer to 212 but all other parameters were really close.
The static compression ratio turned out to be on the high side with the TA heads so the cam was installed One degree retarded rather than a few degrees advanced in order to keep the Dynamic Compression in check.
This would also contribute to a slight shift in the power band upwards in RPM.

Personally I would increase the intake and exhaust duration by 5 degrees and decrease the LSA from 115 to 113.
This would cater more to the midrange torque and still maintain a strong upper end.
I would recommend discussing your cam needs with Jim Weise at Tri-Shield Performance.

The Eddy heads will need to have the valve guide clearance checked amongst other things. I let a set stay overnight in below freezing temps. The next day I pulled a spring and retainer and found that I had to use considerable force to push and pull the valve outward.
Here again I would have Jim supply a set of eddy heads that have been completely gone over and ready to go with the correct valve springs. Also consider some bowl porting. At least get a quote.

 

I don't mean to hijack, but that jig is a brilliant idea! Did the retainers quiet down your heads as they should??

And if so, by chance, would you be interested in welding up another set and selling them??

Sorry for the sidetrack, you can PM if you don't want to reply here.

Back to the business at hand.

 

PM Sent