I had to agree back then with Mike and I still do. Lots of fudging has to be done with the numbers on those programs to get the Buick to real world numbers. If the numbers look too good to be true they probably are too good to be true. If you know of somebody that has run a comparable engine on the dyno or even at the track I'd like to see those numbers. Otherwise all you're doing is setting up people that don't know any better for a big letdown when the real world gets in the way. As Mike said those programs are good for spotting trends but not absolute numbers. I'll take Mike's, my own or just about anybody else's emperical data over "cloud" data anytime. Too bad they couldn't have done a smaller is better show.
10 yrs experience 'playing' with the 350,I have no idea what your talking about with regards to the sbb. btw, what kind of buick are you running?
I have to agree. The simulator certainly doesn't show exactly what you'll get in the real world, though the trends are what I mainly look at when comparing camshafts and combinations. The actual literal numbers are probably off a bit, especially when you take into consideration the exhaust system, mufflers, transmission, accessories, rear end, etc. that will scalp it down considerably. What I pay more attention to are when power comes in, when it trails off, the width of the power band, how much is gained or lost when this or that change is made, etc. The program seems to be Chevy friendly too, so I have to tweak the data somewhat to try to compensate, and it's an educated guess. It won't be spot-on perfect, but I feel confident it'll be close. You could probably shave off about 20-25 off those numbers in actuality. Your typical moderate Buick 350 runs about 350 HP and 375 ft. lbs. give or take, depending on what all is done. Beefed up milder 'grunt' versions can expect around 400 ft. lbs. and 300-325 hp. With those numbers, no one should be disappointed when they turn out to be a bit higher in real world application. I noticed the choke flap just a floppin away, months ago when I first saw the video and knew there was some serious reversion going on, and the sluggish throttle response was probably due to compression too low and/or timing off. With the IVC point on that cam the DCR is way too low, which accounts for the numbers and characteristics you see in the video and dyno results. Those numbers could have been higher, for sure. Jim Weise built one with the TA 212-350 cam that made 350 HP and 400 TQ, and to my knowledge he used a real dyno, so it makes sense. EDIT: which, by the way, could have been higher by doing one simple thing: increasing the compression to better match the camshaft. Even Jim said it was a bit lower than he wanted. With a 66* IVC point, the TA 212-350 cam can go as high as 10.14:1 for 8:1 dynamic, and Jim's was set at 9.4:1. Then there's other things he said he could have done to improve it, so 350 HP and 400 ft. lbs. is modest. I've seen dyno runs on Youtube showing around 310-320 hp and 405-415 tq. with mildly built Buick 350's. Plenty of people here on the site claim over 360-370 hp on their moderate 350's as well, so it's not so hard to believe, is it? Now if the dyno **** out 600 HP and 900 ft. lbs, then yeah. Obviously. I could rig the dyno program up to show 300 ft. lbs. and 250 hp if it'll make people feel better about their 300 hp builds... But I'm more interested in practical, realistic, attainable numbers--FLYWHEEL numbers, but real nonetheless. I like to use flywheel numbers to show what the engine is doing, rather than guessing how much is being lost through parasitic accessories, which can vary even more than some engine mods. There's plenty the simulator doesn't take into account, and I've always said that. Never take that simulator for a literal, 100% accurate reading on numbers. Torque curves, peak power, seeing which change added or subtracted power, etc. it's more useful with. ---------- Post added at 10:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ---------- I see I hath offended thee. Just so you know, I wasn't talking about you, but in a more general census. btw, I've been 'playing' with Buicks since I was 19, and I'm 45 now. That's what, 26 years? So what? I have learned more about camshafts in 6 months than most people did in in their entire career. Do I brag about it, or use that to berate others? Not typically. My point is still valid, no matter who it offends...and offending someone was certainly not my intention. We all have something to bring to the table of knowledge, whether it be hands on experience, engineering, number crunching, or what have you. Gary ---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ---------- The dyno simulator seems to just loooove headers. So I question the validity of the grandeur amounts it adds when going from manifolds to headers. I can get a stock Buick 10:1 350 up to about 260 HP and 370 ft. lbs. without headers or other 'considerations' the simulator assumes that seems to be Chevy oriented. Slap on a set of headers and bam you got 430 ft. lbs. and 290 hp... So it can be difficult to discern fact from fiction. Just have to use a 'best guess' and still that can be off for sure. Gary
Decktop dynos are tools and not real world, with all this experience with Buicks you should have built one (350) by now. I have 10.5 comp and I know I am only getting 380hp and 400tq. Throw out the dyno and build a motor. "Playing" is just that.
Come on Guy,give him a chance,its REALLY cold outside(even in Kentucky or Tennesse where he's from,can't remeber which state) this time of year and he probably doesn't have a heated area of his own to work,me either.(I can go to my friends machine shop if I really need to though,but not everyone has that option) He has done some good reasearch,in time perhaps he'll put that to use in the "real world"? Even though the simulator's numbers might not be exact,it is a good point of reference to compare how different cams will act compared to each other to help decide which one would work better in a given combo. Derek
It's ok Derek, they're right. My input is worthless unless I have pictures detailing a step-by-step process of building, real dynometer results instead of program simulations (because we all know "real" dynos can't be manipulated or give misleading results, right?....), and is certainly less valuable unless I have at least 10 years of 'documented' time slips at the drag strip (because everyone here wants to drag race Buicks and not build them for cruising or pleasure, of course), and the list goes on. In reality, they're pissed because I've pointed out a few uncomfortable things that a "real" engine builder should have known before putting things together (but didn't), and that it's all useless unless I build at least 10 engines that either blow up or fail until I get it right through trial and error, and not try to figure things out from an engineering perspective first. Sad thing is, I have had more 'theories' and calculations that have turned out to be true than not. That's gotta burn... So it's no surprise when I get a few hateful remarks. It just tells me I'm on the right track. Y'all just keep on keepin on. Peace. Gary ---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ---------- Why does it bother you so much? We are all just 'playing'. Ideas come from the mind, no matter who it is. We ALL have experience building engines here. Some more than others. We all have something to bring to the table. Why can't we just combine our efforts instead of trying to trip a brother up when he looks like he might have an idea that works? I've done nothing but support this community and try to contribute by offering ideas and thoughts on solutions. There isn't as much documented support for the Buick 350 so anything 'new' that's being tried will be trial and error for the most part, building on existing knowledge that we're all trying to expand. If anyone has kept up with my posts at all they'd have to see that. If I recall, you had a few issues with YOUR engine as well, and needed to consult a person like ME (wasn't me, but was someone who understood basic math) to get your camshaft and compression ratio sorted out...which is one of the main things I keep reminding people about, that camshaft and compression match is essential to a properly running engine, and the engine in this thread is a prime example of what can happen when you don't. "Budget" or not, if you don't match your parts up correctly, you end up with **** results. Period. Next problem. This forum will (hopefully) help others to not make the same mistakes others have made by providing valuable knowledge. We need people like you, and we need people like me. It helps to make the team more well-rounded. So you wanna **** with me? Again? Really? Just let it go. Gary
Gary don't let em get to you like I did in that amp 350 piston thread... A lot of people appreciate your number crunching for free. Keep up the good work pal!
Well here's some more info I missed that shines a favorable light on this engine thread: "Originally Posted by JBOUCHARD I think a lot of people are forgeting that the early 70's heads are the good ones. the later model's did not fair so well and even with the light port work we were really trying to get them back to the early style flow numbers. Mike at Perf. auto machine got about 240 cfm out of them. If I had time to souce a set of early style heads we would have. Also the early style oil threw the shaft and not the push rods. I really wanted to oil threw the pushrods so with time restaints that's what we decides to go with. I think with the early styl heads and convering to oil threw push rods with the port work we would have had better HP numbers, It also had a full exhaust on the dyno with 2 1/2 exhaust pipes and mufflers" This is why I post my numbers for the dyno simulator with open exhaust and headers, to simulate a 'typical dyno environment'... I know when I add exhaust to it the numbers dip considerably. So 300/350 HP/TQ was with typical exhaust and mufflers. This means the engine actually produced closer to 325/375 'raw numbers,' which still tells me things weren't right inside the engine, but it also tells me 'damn, it did that good despite the odds'. Increased valve pockets with turn radius getting 'murdered' will kill it right there, but there was more. Lots more. The later model heads aren't as ****ty as everyone makes them out to be, you just have to port them differently compared to the earlier model ones (and if you treat them like a Chevy head, you're setting it up for failure). They're best used with combinations between stock-moderate, not moderate-race. 195 CFM @.400 lift is only 3 CFM less than what a '71 stock head flows @.400 lift (which is max lift, btw)... (I actually paid the engine a compliment earlier when I said I was surprised it did as well as it did, considering everything that was stacked against it. I know the builders were limited on a budget and didn't have lots of Buick experience. All that's considered. I'm not trying to bash anyone here, but only to make a crucial point that parts mismatching is detrimental. That's it.) Everyone can learn from this, hopefully. The dyno simulator assumes things are perfectly set up on the engine, which can be different in real world dynos with real engines attached to them. The dyno helps (and is most often) crucial to helping tune the engine for optimal performance. The simulator already assumes perfect synergy of components, and the only real limiting factor is the 'physical' dimensions and parameters of the build. No one's going to run a street rod down the road with large tubed, open exhaust headers for very long before either going deaf or getting pulled over by the local law enforcement. SO obviously, the numbers you will see won't be what you feel when everything's hooked up and bolted down in your car with A/C, alternator, water pump, trans, exhaust, axle, humid weather, etc. etc. etc. that all affect how the thing will perform. What it will show is what the engine is more than likely capable of producing, given ideal circumstances and with no restrictions. People like to see big numbers. One 'safe' way is to do the best you can with the simulator, then shave off some numbers to get a general ballpark of what it's likely to do, and pay attention to the power curves so you can know what to expect, which gear ratios and converter would be best, etc. My latest cam creation surprised even me on how well it performs, and I created it with the help of that dyno simulator. I've posted its specs elsewhere in this site for anyone who's interested, though I can see there's a lot of people who don't take me very seriously, and I'm cool with that. I don't take them very seriously either. :grin: Gary ---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ---------- I'll be ok. Whether people realize it or not, we are all catalysts for each other. Things are looking up for the community and the future of the Buick 350, whether people realize it or not. Peace all. Gary
I agree I just like to bust his b**** a little. I know the desktop dynos get you in the ballpark, he is just being too optimistic on the power numbers. Besides I knew he would write a novel on the subject. His research is good info. ---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 AM ---------- "So you wanna****with Me? Sounds a little threatening to me. I did not need you to tell me what was or was not wrong with my engine combo. I already knew there was really nothing wrong, it still put out 400 hp I just needed to make the other parts work with the engine. The only difference between the two camshafts I used was the fact that one had power down low and the other one had it up top. Both worked fine. Like I said build your 350, then you can come **** with me.
Everyone here knows my builds are mild. I don't need mine big. I have plenty elsewhere so I don't need over-compensation. You said yourself that your combo was jacked up and you needed to contact TA to get things sorted out. I'm not making this up, it's your own words. The first camshaft's dynamic comp was too high and so it pinged to hell and back. That's what the problem was. You prove my point yet again, that the compression needs to match the camshaft, and you needed a lesson in real life to learn your mistakes, instead of doing basic math you should have learned in grade school. So instead of admitting your mistakes, you take it out on me because I'm smarter than you and you don't know how to deal with it in any other way beside being barbaric. Typical. You're just pissed because I can figure things out, and you can't. So you take it out on me. So yeah, you are the one trying to **** with me. You asked for this, so here it is. Would you like to keep embarrassing yourself, or can we let this go finally? It's up to you. Gary
I can get along just fine with anyone, even him. I thought we buried the hatchet in the last post that this whole thing is about, but apparently, he'll take any opportunity to take a swing at me because he's still bitter about it. He started it in the other thread too. He doesn't like what I have to say because it means I've figured out things that he didn't until he spent lots of money on it. It's not my fault. Even now, I can get along with him. I'm asking him if he wants to continue this ridiculous argument or if he wants to keep on being a prick. Gary
yes you get paid. and paid by whom? yes sponsors who want to sell their parts. and there is where the problem is. when something doesnt make sense, just follow the money.
With the new heads and intake that cam would probably really shine as long as the bottom end can handle more RPM. Derek
Just saw the Episode again They didn't deck the block so i don't think it was even 10.1 more like 9.1
It was a combo of 3 things that caused the low output: 1. Low compression 2. Too large of a cam for the head flow and compression 3. Using the late model heads that flow poorly even when ported
Weren't the later model heads they used ported and flowed 240 cfm? With that amount of cfm on tap if they got the combo right they could of gotten 400+ HP and is enough to support 500 + HP for an all out race build. So to be fair I don't really think the heads were holding the power down as much as compression and the cam were. Isn't 240 cfm around what Anthony's heads flow? And he made 420 N/A with lower compression before it was boosted. Derek
