Cascade Crew

dlp · Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:29 pm Post subject: new cam ordered today...

I finnaly pulled the trigger and ordered a cam to go with the AFR 195 Eliminators today.

112 spread, 108 intake centerline:
Intake – Lobe 3192 – 276/224/152 - .567 (1.5s)
Exhaust – Lobe 3194 – 282/230/157 - .584 (1.5s)

I went to the oracle of 3rd gens, and this is what they suggested.

What do you guys think?

chevymad · Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:40 pm Post subject:

Too small! Razz

Twilightoptics · Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:49 pm Post subject:

Definitely way way way too small for the numbers you were talking about.

Who is the oracle of thirdgens? You need a master of SBC...

dlp · Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:57 pm Post subject:

Lol, you guys sound like my brother.
I should have mentioned that I wanted something streetable, decent low end power, zero maintence, use all of my existing parts etc. The 1st Comp Cam guy tried to steer me towards a .600 lift, 234 duration cam, but I dont think the T-Ram will flow enough to rev the stock zz4 to 7K.

The thing that I found strange was the split duration, the AFR's flow well on the exhaust side.

Twilightoptics · Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject:

SBC inherently don't flow as well as the intake.

I peak at 6k with the cam I have. I know the HSR flows more than that RPM too. The heads I have shouldn't limit to 6k either.

:O)

241/249@.050
276/282@Adv
.520/.540 Lift 1.5
.555/.576 Lift 1.6
110ºLSA, 104 ICL

Mines quite streetable. I drive it to work alot. Best milage is defintiely freeway. Idle milage sucks thats my only complaint.

Something I just noticed is that your ramps are REALLY slow. You're going to bleed off alot of cylinder pressure which isn't good for "streetable/low end."

dlp · Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:07 pm Post subject:

Im OK with losing some bottom end power, the current cam along with the 2800 stall make traction impossible in 1st and half the time in 2nd. If it spins while going into 2nd, it will spin until it shifts to drive around 70 mph.
Maybe Im wrong, but more duration would move the powerband higher in the RPM range? I also didnt want to purchase new valve springs, the stockers that come on the AFR's are good to .600 lift.

I still think this set up should put down 375 HP and to 400+ ftlbs of tourqe to the rear wheels with a decent tune. When the 350 gets tired it will get more cubes and a larger cam, heads should still be sufficient.

Twilightoptics · Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject:

dlp · Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject:

I dont doubt that cheap parts wear out quickly, hell, I know for a fact they do (TF valve springs). But, high quality parts, or OEM parts engineered for the job should last for more than 10k. GM has been putting roller cams into OEM engines since 1987. The new LS series engines have larger cams that what I am putting in and they will go well over 100k.

I dont now if it will put out what I think it should, just know that the old setup put down 300 RWHP and 360ish RWT.
AFR's, Cam, injectors and decent tune should get it close to what I said. My brother has talked me into visiting another local board of the LS ilk, they are up for Dyno days close to home for me, would you be interested in going when my car is dailed in?

izcain · Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject:

you planning on having something supplying above atmospheric pressures to achieve this or just heads a mild cam and injectors?

Whats the current compression of your combo? Stock bottom end?

Bleeding cylinder pressure is going to kill you unless you have enough pressure you can afford to bleed some off......... Like something over 10:50:1......

Hard to compare an LS engine to the standard SBC since they run things like beehive springs and lighter weight parts in their valve train. Roller cams in the 80's lasting for over 100k.......... Those had some very small numbers.... there was a good reason they lasted so long since they barely move the valve with their low lift grinds they ran.

dlp · Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject:

The engine will be N/A for now. I think you guys give the LSx engines way to much credit. The magic the LSx engines have involves the valve placement / intake runner design. The bottom end isnt much different than an old school SBC. A great set of heads and decent cam will level the playing feild. I have owned an LS1 F body before, my current settup in the IROC smoked it until 90 mph.

You can put beehive springs on any cylinder head.

The CR should be around 10 to1 with the Cometic head gaskets. Exhisting is 9.2 - 1.The really uknown portion of the build will be how the intake works along with the tune. The intake runners are about 11" long, same as an LS1.

I dont plan to run this settup more than 10K. Will probably either build a larger old school SBC or swap to an LSx engine. Building an old school SBC is cheaper until you strive for 500+ crank HP. If you add in the costs for headers, engine mounts, transmissions, accessories etc the LS option becomes less attractive.

dlp · Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:19 pm Post subject:

izcain, are you saying that 375 RWHP is impossible from an old school 350 with AFR heads and fuel injection? Or are you trying to say 375 rwhp is impossable with the cam I chose?

dlp · Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:35 pm Post subject:

Check out this sight, especialy the comparison to the ported LS1 heads.

http://www.purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/techinfo/heads1.html#195%20Eliminators

The cam will be the difference maker. I could have gone with more duration and slightly more lift, but it would have hurt the bottom end.

I will post up the real numbers when it is time, started removing the engine tonight.

izcain · Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject:

iansane · Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:56 pm Post subject:

izcain · Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:01 pm Post subject:

Only thing I would say that would come close in the head category for older SBC is SB2.2

other then that you better plan on some enormous runners, valves, and some serious port work to get the flow to come close.

dlp · Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:14 am Post subject:

I understand what you guys are saying about the Lsx engines being superior to the 1st gen SBC. My point is that if you already have a SBC and have the rest of the accessories, i.e., headers, intake, distributor, transmission, oil pan, alt /wp /AC / PS/ starter / flex plate /engine mounts etc it will be cheaper to build it than start over with an LSx engine. From what I have seen, 450 - 500 hp out of an old school SBC is not impossible, and with today's heads, not that expensive.

I looked into purchasing an LS1 crate engine back in 1999. 5 grand wasnt to bad, but then you get into the real cost. Engine accessory drive issues, crossmember clearence issues, rewiring the car, custom headers, oil pan clearence issues, it goes on and on. If you had the time to search wrecking yards, C/Ls, ebay you could probably purchase the parts and or fab them yourself. But it would add another two grand to the price of the swap. It may be cheaper now, but I cant imagine it being much cheaper. You can build a nice SBC for 7 grand.

I would like to drop a 6 litre LS engine into the 87 along with a 6 speed, and a 5.3 litre with 4L60E would be a nice upgrade for my wifes 90 convertible. Money doesnt grow on tree's, neither does spare time though.

Anyhow, thanks for your input.

chevymad · Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:38 pm Post subject:

The Ls isnt near as expensive as you think. There are 5.3s that are dirt cheap and if you watch close you can pick up 6.0s pretty fair as well.

Check this out.

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=377579

Built 50k mile 6.0 with a supercharger, built automatic with stall convertor.. Dude wanted $3500 for the setup. Motor alone was $1k and trans alone was $600..

For $3500.. Thats a helluva setup.

Now, that doesnt mean I'm saying you should drop all your stuff and put in an lsx. Just that they've gotten pretty affordable.

You've got a set of killer heads and I'm interested in seeing how they do. I think most of us are skeptical on the hp #s you want because of what we've seen on the dyno we go to. I personally think Steve's dyno is a bit stingy. I see all kinds of big #s on the net, but have never seen a car on his dyno match that. Of course if you play with the correction factors and stuff.. then the big #s come up. I sometimes wonder just which #s the internet guys are posting. They usually don't tell you.

izcain · Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:55 pm Post subject:

I didn't mean anything negative towards your setup..... It's just that myself coming from a dyno shop where all I did for a couple of years was dyno cars day in day out and build different engines for people I kinda understand from a persons setup what it will put out. I have seen many many a car come onto the roller only for the customer to leave with their head hung low.

dlp · Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject:

Lol, I am not offended by what your opinions are, thats why I posted up what I am doing and asked for your opinions.

I know exactly what it is like being dissapointed with dyno results. I put my car on The Carb Connections dyno 1 week after putting it together. I was early and watched a Ferrari 308 wheeze out 170 RWHP. He was the last member of a Ferrari club to run his car. I thought man, if thats all his put down I am in deep stuff. He seemed happy as did the rest of his club though. The first run with my car netted 299 RWHP and 360ish tourqe. I paid to use the shops wide band 02 and no matter what I did with the fuel pressure, the A/F ratio wouldnt drop below 15 to 1. My car ran strong though. Never had a custom tune done on it, but I am sure that if I did it would have put down better numbers.

A couple of years later I went to a dyno day at Turbo Tech in Tacoma with a 4th gen club. I knew the valve springs were bad at that point and my car only put down 285 RWHP. Different day, different dyno, lower power.

I spent some dough on parts that would last on the first build, i.e. Crower SS roller rockers, Hamburger oil pan with scraper and baffles, ARP bolts, MSD pro billet distributor etc that most wouldnt have gone for. I wish I would have spent the extra coin on AFR's and a custom tune though.

Anyhow, I am now building what I should have the first time around and fully expect to optimize this settup ( good tune).

The engine is now on a stand, cam should be here tommorow, should be running in a week.

Let me know if you guys would like to see pics.

izcain · Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:18 pm Post subject:

Of course man! I wanna see some pics of this build.......

So whats the rundown of this whole setup going to be..... a list of the complete combo?