Nice writeup. I'm sure this info will be useful to whomever reads it so that they're better educated on which would be the best path to take, and which path not to take. I've discovered that cars often reflect the personality of the owner, and the characteristics/desires of the id and ego are often trans-imposed upon the object that person has the most affection and/or interest. Edit: There's a guy here on the forums who uses a stock low comp 350 with some head work and a TA 310 cam and runs 13.2's @ 104 (or was it 105 or 106 I can't remember...I know it's higher than 101). This TA 310 cam is smaller....much smaller. Don't take my word for it though, read for yourself. Bigger is not always better, as I was saying. But I'm all talk though, so don't pay me no nevermind. But wait, there are actual results and evidence to back up my talk. Nevermind then. Maybe I'm not so full of **** afterall. There's a Buick 350 out there (or was) running over 500 ft. lbs. and 580 HP at less than 6000 RPM with 10:1 comp and a custom single plane intake and a properly set up cam, which had less than .500 lift, by the way. Stock class racers use camshafts that have stock lifts (.392/.408 I/E) and unported heads to achieve around 375 HP... Steve (underdog350) runs 13.77@99 with a Crower level 3 cam and stock valves, stock intake, and exhaust manifolds. This is smaller than the TA 212 (for reference to those who know only TA stuff and how he's supposed to be the only person who purveys Buick stuff). This is also only 2 MPH and .22 difference than your 510 cam...without the extra bolt-on power adds too. 400 hp and 400 ft. lbs isn't difficult to achieve with a (relatively) small cam. If you can't get there by using one of the biggest cams TA makes and all this other work done to the engine, maybe something else is the reason. Maybe your cam is too big? Maybe it's mismatched with the (actual) compression? Just a guess. Gary ---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ---------- 600 runs @ 1/4 mile = 000,150 miles. Yep, you sure blew that theory out. I don't know of anyone here who has put more than 000,150 miles on their Buick 350, right? You phrase your words in a combative way, you're going to get a combative response. I'll humor you with it for now, at least. No one disputes your experience with Buick engines and the 350, but your own numbers betray you. TA makes good stuff, no one here is saying otherwise. Saying TA is the ONLY way to go, and to trust no one else to understand Buicks is pure arrogant ignorance. TA has adjusted their camshaft specs, particularly the TA 212-350 cam, over the years several times to improve it. Things can be improved with better understanding and research and experience. This by itself shows that everyone here is learning, even TA. I have the understanding and research parts down, but lack the extensive experience. If we were to join as a group and use each other's strengths, we could come up with some great things. I use other people's experiences here as reference points, and even though I have not done it personally, using them as examples is still just as good since it has been recorded that someone has done it, and in many cases, more than one person with multiple results to be used as reference. Any cam will work. Any cam will start the engine and allow it to run (at least a while). Optimization is another issue entirely, however. In summary: yes, harsher lobe intensities and higher lift wear a cam out faster. It takes more than a couple hundred miles to prove this. There is always going to be a trade-off and there's always going to be a sweet spot where the engine performs. Rough cams tend to perform better, as has already been said. They also wear out faster, get ****tier gas mileage, and are generally less well-mannered for street use and as daily drivers. I have learned more about camshafts in the past few months (as a hobby) than the vast majority of camshaft designers have in many years (as a living). I'm not bragging, it's just the truth. Ask anyone here. Ask any camshaft designer (who's honest). If I don't know something, I'm the first to say so. If I make a mistake, I'm the first to say so (and usually the first to notice). I also will never knowingly mislead someone into thinking something is what it isn't. How many here can say this? Gary
Guy has a good point about the 310 cam being a possible option. I remember back in 2006 a guy posted about a 310 cam with nitrous so I looked it up and here is his quote. I later through PMs got more info about the engine and car combo and it was a really stock setup just the cam and nitrous with a loose converter. I found an old post about a guy who used a TA310 cam and nitrous on a close to stock 350 to run 11.22 in the quarter:
This is because that Lunati cam has a 58.5* IVC point @.006, and your dynamic compression would have been 8.85:1. This is waaaay more than 93 octane could handle... Here's the compression and dynamic stroke specs for it: Static compression ratio of 10.6:1. Effective stroke is 3.15 inches. Your dynamic compression ratio is 8.85:1 . Your dynamic cranking pressure is 181.10 PSI. The TA 510 cam has a full 20 points more, at 78.5* IVC point @.006, which gives you 7.46:1 DCR, which can run fine on premium pump gas. Static compression ratio of 10.6:1. Effective stroke is 2.59 inches. Your dynamic compression ratio is 7.46:1 . Your dynamic cranking pressure is 145.14 PSI. See how knowing about camshafts and all the nerdy technical **** helps? Peace bro. Gary ---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ---------- This was in reference to a rhetorical statement about people in general, but go ahead and take it personally if the shoe fits. I'm afraid you only skimmed over that book. Everyone has an id/ego. If you had actually 'read that book,' you'd know this... And I didn't ask you to bust my balls and the balls of the other guys in this thread. YOU started this. Not me. It's popcorn time, fellas. Pop up some and kick back and watch this, because it's going to get interesting. I'm in no mood to put up with nimrods today, so today's your lucky day! Yep, you conveyed to everyone how you ****ed up your car and had to call TA to get things fixed. That was well established in your previous writeup. "My standards" is simply to do things correctly the FIRST time, and how using math, logic, and general intelligence above room temperature can make a big difference in how well things can turn out, as opposed to throwing parts at something and hoping it works. If this is the experience you have, then I recant my previous comments on how no one is disputing your experience, because I am now. If by 'experience' you mean all the screw-ups you made in order to finally get something that only runs 70% as good as something with less done to it, then yeah I guess your experience speaks volumes here... Oh my bad. I already said I wasn't sure what it was, but that it was over 101, which it is. If this is all you got to argue with, my condolences. As do I. Yes I know. I specified it was stock LIFT and NO porting on heads. I said nothing about the durations because duration is not the point of contention here. Isn't speculation fun? See, you can do it too, and it doesn't take driving your car down the track xxx number of times to do it. Now you're just putting words in my mouth, and claiming I'm putting words in yours. Doesn't work that way. Sorry. If I wanted this kind of argument, I'd just talk to my wife. It's your car, you add it up. How's the camshaft look after all those miles? Want me to tear your engine down for you too? Every other weekend and using the car as entertainment was mentioned by me previously as a means to permit the cam to last longer over a period of time, since the amount of actual miles on it isn't very high at all. lmao. Really? Have you even been remotely following what happened surrounding that engine? Hell I don't have to defend myself anymore, you're doing a pretty good job of it yourself. I can't answer that because I don't know. Doesn't appear to be 'lifter crash' though. I'm not bashing your opinion. You busted my balls and I gave my retort. Reread what I said if you have any questions, because it seems you didn't quite understand. Now watch how fast I can get over this and move on. Peace Gary
Oh I know. I'm a chatterbox. I'm the first to admit it, and I have my issues too. We all do. Peace bro. No hard feelings. Gary
The 413 gets good reviews from those who've tried it. I think the 310 is the biggest you can go without roller rockers (or so I've gathered, could be wrong). Everything's relative I guess. What's too big for some might not be too big for others (that's what she said har har). As I said earlier, TA adjusts their cam specs without revising their catalog, and I got those numbers from their latest downloadable .pdf catalog that shows a 305* intake @110 LSA for the 510's .006 specs. I assumed a 4* advance on the ICL, which this can affect DCR depending on where you put the ICL. Lots of stuff affect spark knock as you probably know, and combustion chamber design and/or characteristics is important. Hot spots can raise the detonation risk, so a lower DCR may be needed or recommended if they know people will need notched pistons. I'm of the opinion that anything over .450 lift for flat tappet is asking for trouble down the road (or even upon break-in, if you don't use super weak springs for that). It just so happens that iron Buick 350 heads won't flow much past .400 unless you do some hogging, which affects the quality of the air flow. Intensities on the lobes are important too on how it'll flow. I've discussed this somewhat in other areas. IDEALLY you'd want roller cam all the way on everything so none of this **** is even an issue... Anyways, I'm rambling again. I'd say 413 is better yes. Certainly easier on the ole valvetrain (compared to the 510), and you just don't need all that extra lift unless your heads are like maxed out and you're pushing things to 6500+ RPM. Now with a set of aluminum heads and in roller form, that 510 would be great... 7.45:1 is ok for a cam with lots of overlap, since the DCR will actually increase as RPM increases due to the natural 'boost' scavenging and fuel charge momentum will generate. I just used those online calculators at Wallace's for those figures. Took me 10 seconds? Most of the time the calculators are pretty accurate, or accurate enough with the way they round off numbers. As long as you put it in a decent 'ball park' area, things are ok I think. The 510 will spin to 6k because of the duration numbers, and the Lunati won't because of the same reason. Most aftermarket cams tend to focus power in a certain RPM range so anything outside of it is lessened quite a bit (before is weaksauce and after it falls on its face). This is one of the tradeoffs these intense cams have over stock grinds. Whereas a stock cam can rev past 6k even though it has way less durations (the stock cam is complicated, believe it or not). More 'proof' is the Crower level 3's wider LSA compared to that Lunati (112 vs 110) and the Crower cam revs to 5700+ even though it has 5* less on intake and exhaust, but has more duration @.006 for a wider intensity on the lobes... blah blah blah. I could go on and on. Suffice it to say that a lot more matters about a cam than just its lift and duration @.050. Gary (P.S.) your heads play just as much of a role as your cam as far as where you want your RPMs to be. ---------- Post added at 10:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ---------- The 'dual pattern' cams I've been suggesting have wider LSA at .006 than at .050, which creates a cam that behaves like 2in1 sorta. More like a very wide power band with less loss outside of that power band, and smaller numbers @.050 are needed along with less lift and asymmetric lobes. "In theory" it should be fine... though no cams have been made yet. They take cues off the stock camshaft. So anyways, it's crickets over there in that thread on those ideas. Maybe no one has any ideas or thoughts, or maybe it's not something they're interested in. o No: I share this info with the community because I want others to know and maybe use it for testing, etc. I'm not a greedy **** so I won't be hiding my info and trying to profit off of it. I'm doing it for the Buick community, for what it's worth. Gary
i have heard that lunati cams have a lift crash thing after a certain rpm due to design. i noticed the hodrod tv sbb was mentioned and i remember that they only got 300 hp from it with 38 degrees of timing.no mention of porting just big valves. here is a pic of the prostars i ran on my regal awhile back
50*/50* for lobe intensities (for that Lunati cam) is something I'd never recommend, as everyone already surely knows by now lol... Lifter crash wouldn't surprise me with weaker springs, which means tighter ones needed for proper function, which means even MORE wear on it. No thanks. The 300 HP 350 ft. lb. engine had a mismatched cam and compression ratio, the cam was too big and compression too low, which made for craptastic performance on the dyno and pretty much doused anyone's hopes of the Buick 350 getting any attention for aftermarket support. I remember it having such doggy throttle response and intake reversion as to wonder how the thing ran at all. Gary ---------- Post added at 12:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 AM ---------- Not that the others are that much better, in reality. The other cams mentioned have 50* and 52* intensities, with even more lift, so... Notice how the 'newer' cams in TA's catalog (the TA 2xx-xxH) type have less lobe intensities, as a rule. Usually ranging in the 60s. The TA 212 cam used to have intensities in the 40's, then was bumped to 62/55 I/E respectively in the latest rendition I saw a cam card for. There's a reason for this. This is not bashing anyone or any particular company, because everyone's modifying their products (or at least TA is) to improve existing designs. Those larger cams in the catalog may very well have different specs now to reflect this too. I'm just going by what I see in the catalog, which I know for a fact is altered from what you'll get when you order one of those cams. On symmetrical lobes, giving less intensity on intake lobe is similar to what I've been doing with asymmetrical lobes for added intake duration between .006 and .050. This means that a higher number on intake intensity means less intense, since there's more room between .006 and .050 for the lifter to move, making it a gentler slope, easier on the valvetrain, and widens the usable duration between the .050 and .006 numbers. Only with the designs I have been suggesting, the intake lobe remains less on the lift side than it does on the closing side. This increases performance because the valve lifts in a nice quick fashion (as long as it's not too intense to promote increased wear) so it acts like a smaller duration when it's opening (lowers power band when power starts), but closes slower and gentler, making it easier on the head seats and increases the time the valve remains open, effectively increasing the intake duration a little bit beyond the usable duration @.050 compared to a symmetrical lobe. To any camshaft designer who may read any of this: the method is very simple. You retard the .006 numbers with a wider LSA, then either put the .050 numbers at 0* or advance, depending on how you want the lobe slopes to be, and make the LSA tighter. Experimenting around will net a wide range of results, but the idea and general purpose is the same: to widen the power band while retaining good I/E flow ratios. Gary
Here's the problem,camshaft designers are moving away from flat tappit designs in favor of roller cam design where the $$$ are at. I am really surprised that TA keeps updating the old technology flat tappit cams,instead of testing new roller grinds that they can put on the shelf ready to sell.(maybe they will when they have their heads and intake done to do testing with?) Not many designers playing with flat tappit cams unless they are a custom cam grinder shop.But I suppose the high costs of going roller is keeping the flat tappit alive.uzzled: For me its a no brainer,roller all the way,it really SUCKS when you follow all the break-in procedures and the cam still gets wiped out and sends metal throughout your freshly machined and assembled engine!!! And then it has to come apart again for a re-hone and new pistons because all that metal scraped up the cylinder walls and you have cam metal stuck in the new pistons as well!!! And the oil passages need cleaned,not to mention it destroys the oilpump,and thats a really bad thing for a Buick seeing how the oilpump is part of the timing chain cover.(and not cheap to replace) And the crank has to be reground as well!!:af: Even though this happened when the conditions were primed for the "perfect storm" from the oil being changed(about 6 months before HRM had their first article on the "new oil") and nobody told anyone,and the lifter company that made made in USA lifters went out of business and the market was flooded with chinesium lifters sold by US cam companies with their name on them.:af: All this has made me a roller believer,even though most of the above can be compensated for and corrected now. After running a roller cam,I was very impressed,NO break-in,start it up and go,and boy does it go a lot better than any outdated flat tappit design I've ran. So any engine I build for myself WILL have a roller cam,and if I don't have the funds for one,that build will have to wait until $$$ are available. One engine had to wait a year to be finished waiting on when I had the funds for the roller lifters to run the roller cam I bought,but I didn't have to take it apart and fix it because the cam failed and it still runs great 6 years later. And any engine I build for someone I try very hard to convince them to get off their wallet and spring for a roller. If I can't talk some sense into them, even though I will do everything right I tell them there are no guarantees if the cam and lifters fail. Sorry about the rant,but thats how I feel about flat tappit cams. Derek
The designs I'm talking about are not exclusive to flat tappet designs; it's about the lobe shape. As a matter of fact, there are even more ways to manipulate the lobe shape like I'm suggesting, and in more efficient ways, with a roller cam... I agree. Roller cams are the way of the future and are superior to flat tappets in every way other than price, and that may very well come down too, making flat tappets defunct. I think you're right about TA's continued support for flat tappet designs. They seem to have improved them best they can and are holding off for when the rollers become more popular, and would if the price difference between flat tappet and roller decreases. I can foresee an increase in roller designs and sales in the future. Gary ---------- Post added at 03:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:26 AM ---------- The ultimate Buick 350 will inevitably be one with aluminum heads, intake with fuel injection, roller cam (whichever size and application from mild to wild), and headers (shorty or full length). Very lightweight and an equally impressive power to weight/CID ratio. :TU: With the thermal dissipation of aluminum heads, compression can be bumped further about .5 to .75 points to run on the same octane of fuel. This means deeper intake strokes and higher compression strokes (a wider and earlier IVC point, as well as increased dynamic CID) which the roller cam will accomplish far superior than flat tappet. The two (aluminum heads and roller cam) will compliment each other so well in fact as to transform the engine practically from night to day in terms of performance and economy potential. I have foreseen this some time back, and am reserving my roller cam designs for such a period in the future, as well as sharing the basic info with any who may be interested in the fundamental design goals. I'm waiting for flow numbers on those heads so I can better develop roller camshafts for it. Gary
TA does make some nice roller cams, they are custom order. I had one but I sold it as it would be likely to sit on my shelf for ain't time being a na cam while my projects are turbocharged.
sent you a pm on the wheels. ---------- Post added at 09:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 AM ---------- Aluminum heads would be the cats ass,, but it doesnt seem anyone is going to make any.
I hear ya. They're 'supposed' to be on the way, but well...I guess we can all remain hopeful. Meanwhile, roller cams still have plenty of pros for use with iron heads. Doesn't have to be .650 lift grinds, though it could. TA says they can make custom grinds ranging from .300 lift to .400 lift (lobe lift). That comes to .465 with 1.55 stock rockers all the way up to .660 with 1.65 roller rockers. So pretty much anyone can be pleased with that wide of a range to work with. When I first started toying around with the idea of a roller cam, I made a few up with .466/.488 lifts for use with regular Stage1 springs. That setup would outlast pretty much any stock cam by virtue of the fact that it would practically be 'wear-free' in its mild design. Everything will change with the introduction of new information. Gary
Have you considered using the stock short block for some testing along with a cam swap and porting and rebuild to the heads? This would get you on the track while you built up a nice short block using forged pistons, nice rods, and a roller cam. By then the alum heads may be an option and you could potentially have a full engine to swap in and the cost would not be much different than doing the whole engine right now. My advice is to either keep a stock bottom end or go with some really nice rods and pistons and roller cam etc. People have proven over the years that a stock 350 can handle 7 PSI of boost from twin turbos, a 125 shot, etc so do not be too afraid to hurt a roughly $200 stock engine.
Chris Will you launch the car using a transbrake? How will you pull the ignition timing back when the nitrous is on? Paul
Sean The reason I was asking is Chris stated that he has a stand alone HEI distributor. I'm not sure how to work with that unit as far as retarding spark. Paul
I agree, he should have either a retard box or retard his timing when we gets to the track and run nitrous the whole run from the line to the finish line...
Good question, the answer is exactly as stated above. The HEI will go away and a CD ignition with timi g control as well as rev limiter will be used. As for the trans brake...I plan to in the future, but not for a couple of seasons. There are certain things that I am going to build better right away for the future. An example of this is the rear end. Ignition falls Into this area also. ---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ---------- I completely agree with you. I want to use the stock bottom end and put the money into heads, cam, Intake, carb, and headers. I will build a separate motor on a stand for the 2015 or 2016 season. That would be the time for another converter change and a transbrake. On that motor I want to use more compression with forged components. ARP studs and HOPEFULLY some aluminum heads lol. Might even up the shot then too. ---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ---------- I completely agree with you. I want to use the stock bottom end and put the money into heads, cam, Intake, carb, and headers. I will build a separate motor on a stand for the 2015 or 2016 season. That would be the time for another converter change and a transbrake. On that motor I want to use more compression with forged components. ARP studs and HOPEFULLY some aluminum heads lol. Might even up the shot then too. ---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ---------- I get where your coming from and it makes a ton of sense. I am getting the feeling going with a roller setup is going to be the best way to go. I want to get something midrange. I will run better springs and I am debating the rocker choices too. Dont really want to go with anything bigger that stock ratio for now but who knows. Again here have been looking at TA offerings.
Just keep in mind a worn out 8:1 engine runs mid 12s with a 125 shot. No need to worry much about the setup...Keep the tune really good! Learn from the first engine.
Yes, that makes me think this will be a great setup for a little bit, and learning from this one is exactly what it is for! You hit the nail on the head with that. The next one I will go searching for wheels up and faster times!:laugh:
