pparaska

As Glenn (gmccoy383) and I were taking the parts of the 327 to pull it last week, I was cursing those Stage 8 header fasteners. The D shaped aluminum "locking" plate gets soft and bends, letting the bolt turn just a little bit. But enough to jam the bent D plate into a curved mess. Glenn mentioned he'd been there before. I'm going to go with the breslin locking bolts this time...

yeah - I'm not looking forward to the "under-the-car-oil-pan-dance"! I'm just trying to find a REAL d-port, angle plug block header that will fit this swap. I can't believe I haven't found one yet. Thought I had! The search engine came up with this and the patriot header (same thing). I'm looking at Hedman now. They have PN 68409, but don't list a different number for HTC coated. I'll be calling tomorrow...

Some observations about Patriot headers: http://www.pertronix.com/exhaust_products/pdf_files/street_rod_headers.pdf 8019 has footnote 36, which says they "fit" D-port heads, and 17 which says they will fit angle plug heads. That doesn't seem to be true (the D-port part), as far as MATCHING a D-port shape - the ones I have are oval, and Summit Racing's info says they are for oval port - that could be in error - wouldn't be the first time I found incorrect application info on their site! Oh, Patriot's catalog says these headers take gasket H7585. If those are the ones in my box are those, they are oval. No way to tell, no part numbers on the gaskets and the instructions are general, not just for this header... 8027/8028 has footnote 1, which says they will not fit angle plug heads, but nothing about oval port. They don't have a foot note for that... They list gasket H7586 for those - different than those for the 8019 headers. If they are D-port headers, that'd mean the these are straight plug, D-port headers. Did Chevy ever make such a head? I remember oval port (well, squarish actually) angle plug "Turbo" heads from the early 70s, but D-port, straight plug seems wierd. My guess is that 8027 is an oval port, straight plug header like the hooker 2100. ThermalTech lists the 8027 with no details as to port shape or angle plug, but by process of elimination based on them listing other headers for those combinations, I'd guess I'm correct. Summit also lists this as oval port. If you look real hard at the photo of the D-port header on TTC's site you can kind of make out an upside down "8019" on the flange, just like mine have. So my theory of the manufacturer changing their design sounds like it might be correct. So that would mean TTC isn't really intentionally misleading you, but they should yank that photo if the part they SELL isn't what's shown... 8037 has footnote 17 "fits angle plug". No mention of D-port. But since that is shown for 8019, my guess is that 8037 is oval port, angle plug. TTC lists that as only "angle plug"

Mike - that stinks! Bartman - I wonder what headers they have pictured on their site then? The 8019 seems to be an oval port angle plug header. WHY someone would call them D-port is beyond me....

Oh, I didn't look in the box that far until now. They sent gaskets and bolts along with instructions from Patriot. The gaskets are DEFINITELY not D-port, but oval, with the long direction going vertical. I don't understand this. The photo on their web site clearly show's D-port header openings on their 8019 headers. But the ones that I got were stamped D-port but are definitely NOT D-port headers. I kind of figured they would be Patriot, but I couldn't find a part number like 8019 on their site. Maybe it's a part number that TTC puts on them... NO SCRATCH THAT. Here they are: http://www.pertronix.com/exhaust_products/pdf_files/street_rod_headers.pdf PN H8019 and H8109-1. Footnote 36 says they "Fits D-Port cylinder heads including ZZ4 crate engines". But they are also Footnote 11 "Universal application for most street rod applications". I guess that refers to them being "Block Huggers" There is some weld material that could be ported, but the pipes are oval'd so there's no room to bring them to D-port that I can see. I shouldn't have to port them. I had thought of doing that, but screw that. I'll return them. I'm off to look at the Patriot website now. Hopefully I can get some ordered and shipped red label....

Looks like the headers will either have to be a huge choke point or maybe Thermal Tech can send me another set that really ARE D-port. Grrrr..... http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?p=561339#post561339

I am willing to bet that the vendor will straighten this out, but to have ordered these on Friday, being told they'd go out Monday, and to have them not go out until Tuesday (after offering to pay extra for them to rush getting them out their door as I wanted them PRONTO) and THEN get them and have them be WRONG really pi$$es me off!!!! Does this, this, this, this, this, or this look like what a "D port" header should look like (That's an Earl's D-port gasket on them)? They are stamped with PN 8019 like the D-Port Angle Plug headers are supposed to be and the vendor told me are what I want. But damned if they don't have port shapes just like the vertical oval Hooker Block Hugger headers I am replaceing (due to the bad port match, but mostly because I needed an Angle Plug Header!!!). I discussed my need for D-port Angle plug headers, as I had Canfield heads. We discussed the Angle plug part as well as the D-port part. He mentioned he'd sold these to others with V8Z's and I told him that's how I found out about these. My guess is that either they changed manufacturers, they or the manufacturer mis marked the headers (easy to do - they look just like the non-angle plug ones they sell), or the manufacturer changed the design. Did I ask if the ones I'd get look like the ones in the photo? Yes. That didn't help any. Word to the wise - if you order these headers, be SURE to specify that you will not accept headers that aren't really for D-port heads. I haven't even tried them to see if the sparkplugs will mis, but looking at them it seems they will work. Who wants to guess how much performance those tiny, horribly mis-matched ports will leave on the table? I didn't build this engine and spend all this money on it to have it choked down by ports like those on the headers.... Can you tell I'm upset????

Latest screw up - This Monday Bolted the 60s Vette oil pan onto the 400 - and didn't check the clearance of the rod/crank with the pan's rails. It LOOKed o.k., but me, the dumba$$, didn't bother to rotate the crank once it was bolted down! Tuesday night (last night). Removed engine from stand and installed pilot bearing, blowproof housing block plate (heh- remembered that at least!), then the flywheel and clutch. Installing engine into car with the trans in, I was rotating the crank to let the clutch splines engage (more of an issue with 10 spline than 26), I found the crank wouldn't turn past a certain point! Once engine was bolted to the bellhousing with a few bolts, and set the engine down on the mounts. I had to find out. Got under the car and turned the crank until it stopped. Tap on the oil pan side up near the block. Sounds kind of high pitched. Rotate crank away from stalled position. Tap - the pitch is lower. GRRR. CRANK/RODS HITTING THE PAN. Now to do the "under the car oil pan dance" a few times to get the oil pan clearanced. No, I refuse to take the engine out and remove the clutch (locktited bolts) and flywheel to put it on the stand. I will pay for my sins by doing pan R&R many times while clearancing it. Sometimes I feel like I spend more time going backwards than forwards!!!

Guys, thanks for all the good thoughts - they do help! Power of positive thinking! The engine is in. Yeah, I can do this by myself, like I did at 1am this morning . It's a piece of cake (except for the typical problem of getting the clutch/tranny to align, like any install.) The headers will hopefully show up today. If not, I'll order another set and UPS red label them tomorrow. (grumpyvette will roll his eyes on this one: ) Too bad I RUSHED and didn't check for interference with the oil pan and the 400 - I had planned to do this before installing it, but in the rush overlooked it. It's an old Corvette 6qt pan I had on the 327. The crank stops turning and I can tell it's hitting the pan, as the frequency of the drum sound when tapping the side of the pan on the driver's side goes up. Oh well, easy to remove even with the engine in the car. My bad planning here means I get to crawl under the car a bunch of times while clearancing the pan. Torch and hammer time! I know, if I had my head on straight, I would have checked this (and I had planned too) before getting the engine in the car. The Canton 15-240 RR pan and the block huggers don't mix (mocked that up on the stand to make sure it wasn't possible - it's not without a SEVERE bend in the downpipe), so that pan stays in it's box...until I get around to making a set of full length 1-3/4" headers. Don't worry, if I make a set, I will look to get some header company to make a jig off of them so they can be duplicated. I was hoping someone would have done this by now, but the stars have not aligned like that... Mike, I will probably be o.k., but if I need help, I'll let you know. Keep at it on the Vette - BTW cool pictures. Please get some really good ones of that entire drivetrain, and then some pics of how/where the major components connect. If the pan can be clearanced this evening, and the headers don't require too much to adapt to the existing exhaust, it's all bolt back together, bleed the clutch, and tune. I'll probably take off work tomorrow to get a head start. I've not had good luck with the Megasquirt initial VE table tools with the 327 - the VE table I came away with after tuning was vastly different than the one the software gave me initially. I hope the 406 goes smoother...

Just a bit of an update. The 327 was making some nasty noises a while back, so I started in earnest on the 406. Finally got the valves I needed for the Canfield heads (needed stronger valves for the stronger roller springs) and lapped into the seats, springs measured and installed, etc. A week ago, gmccoy383 (Glenn) came over and helped me pull the 327. I've been getting the parts cleaned and moved over to the 406 and now I'll be putting it in tonight. I had to get new headers, as the Canfield heads are angle plug and there was NO WAY the Hooker Block Huggers would work. I went with http://www.thermaltechcoatings.com/new_headers.htm T8019 coated headers, since the_dj said they worked well for him. Hopefully minimal changes to the exhaust pipes will be needed to bolt them up. I hope to have things wrung out and tuned to be able to go to the convention (leaving next Tues), but if the car isn't ready, I doubt I'll go.

If you call MAD Electrical, you will be deluged with tech info. I've spent hours talking about electrical stuff with him - he lives, eats, and sleeps auto electrics and will talk your ear off! That's a great thing! However, everything he has told me and written in magazine articles and on his site is very good stuff. Interesting that he likes two relays in parallel to one. But the VF7 relay uses a larger blade connector on the arm and contact than the VF4. However, two VF4 connectors in parallel are probably better than one VF7. The other thing to consider is that VF4 relays are EVERYWHERE. VF7 are special order in most places. I personally like his tirade on how NHRA is making people switch the wrong side of the battery with their emergency cut off switch. The MAD proprietor thinks it should be on the negative side of the battery, between the battery and all ground connections. In a crash, if the switch terminals get in contact with bare metal (grounded), nothing would happen except maybe the switch would be short circuited, not able to unhook the battery from the car. The way the NHRA wants it, if the terminals hit sheetmetal, you have a hard short of the positive side of the battery to grounded sheetmetal - not good!

Agreed on the "cheap insurance is worth much" ideas . I need to upgrade my wiring to add those diodes. If I were to do this over, I'd use a 70 amp VF7 relay instead of two 30A VF4s in parallel. I have some now of the VF7s now, but unfortunately, they don't seem to make a chassis mountable socket like they have for the VF4.

Jack, Are the diodes that relays and/or the sockets sometimes have in them large enough to survive long with the large back emf this fan motor puts out on high? Aren't those diodes for something more akin to lamp loads and not long (time-wise - due to spin down of the fan) inductive loads? The 1N5408 (referenced in that article I linked) is a pretty hefty piece diode - 3A forward, 500A reverse.

It's a good idea to put a diode (like a 1N5408 ) http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2003/02/electricfan/index.shtml across the fan winding. You'd need two for the two speed fan. What it does is short out the back emf from the fan after the relay is de-energized, and keeps the contacts from arcing due to this back emf. If the wiring is too small in the total fan power circuit (like running it from the harness like Tim has) then you get less voltage at the fan due to the wiring acting like a resistor. Electric DC motors tend to draw less current when run below their designed voltage. http://www.gizmology.net/motors.htm That could be one reason that Tim's 20A fuse hasn't blown. I used a 60 maxi-fuse for my Mustang GT fan (I believe it uses the same motor as the Tuarus fan). That's the size fuse that the Mustang GT uses on the fan, so I just went with that. I measured 35 amp draw on high speed (didn't measure startup), with a 12.6 Volt battery. No doubt it probably draws more than 35 amps when running at 14V (alternator output voltage).

Here's a 350 like grumpyvette spec'd (w/ large tube headers with mufflers): rpm___HP___ft-lb 4000__321__421 4500__378__441 5000__429__450 5500__466__445 6000__487__426 6500__501__405 7000__493__370 Here's a 383 with the same parts (last two columns show the change in hp and ft-lbs from the 355): (updated - I forgot to bump the comp ratio to 10.9 from 10.5 before) rpm___HP___ft-lb__dHP__dft-lb 4000__347__456___26___35 4500__404__472___26___31 5000__454__476___25___26 5500__487__465___21___20 6000__503__440___16___14 6500__509__411____8____6 7000__493__369____0___-1 Look at torque or horsepower under either curve. I'll take the cubes and more power and torque any day. No need to rev beyond 6500 with the 383, and doing so means less longevity. Like Grumpy said, you can use cheaper valvetrain parts if you stay below 7000 anyway. Some food for thought: The people who experienced the old Z/28 Camaro's on the street with the 302 talk about how UNstreetable they were compared to the larger 327 or 350's of the day. That higher power band gives away the "mild" nature that crema240Z said he was looking for. To make power with the smaller engine, you need to rev higher, granted. But with that comes the more radical cam profile (all else the same). And the attendent valvetrain issues and costs. So if you want the high winder for some visceral reason, realize that if you put time on the engine at those elevated rpm levels, the valvetrain will become and issue. To shed some numbers on grumpyvette's last comment on the 302 with smaller heads (AFR 195 Competition ported) (but same cam): rpm___HP___ft-lb 4000__277__364 4500__333__388 5000__384__404 5500__426__407 6000__456__399 6500__479__387 7000__484__363 7500__483__338 Okay, here are the graphs - easier to see. Like grumpyvette has mentioned before, DD2000 is optimistic below 4000, so don't look to close to that area and below. Why install an engine that weighs exactly the same but has 100 ft lbs less than the 383 (the 302), is more expensive to build, is harder on parts and less streetable? The only answer must be the desire for mystique (doesn't a V8Z already have that, I have to ask?) or a desire to be really different (nothing wrong with that) or because you like a peaky engine that can rev higher (again, nothing wrong with that). Just make sure you go into the decision looking at what performance you'll be losing, (not to mention added cost and reliabilty) . I have a wiped flat tappet cam I just pulled out of my 327. I was pushing that engine somewhat hard with a fast acting cam - the reliability of the valve train caught up to me after 10000 miles. A more mild cam would have lasted longer, I'd think, but left performance lower (which I didn't want - heck, the 327 was getting boring with the power level it'd had).

Great News, Jody - Taking it to the Convention? Can't wait to see it either there or at Mikelly's!

GREAT NEWS! If you're out this way Sunday, give me a call! (I'm tied up Saturday -tomorrow- with family stuff. Maybe some Redline MTL? That can make the synchros work a bit nicer.

Thanks, those are a pleasure to watch!

It was the cam that made it radical. Comp Cams Xtreme mechanical flat tappet, 12-677-4 (CS274S-10), 274/280@.015", 236/242@.050", .501/.510" lift, 110 LSA. The rest of the details on the engine are here (Scroll down for the 327 info): http://alteredz.com/EngineInfo.htm About 12-14 inHg vacuum at 900 rpm idle. low speed torque was moderate. Throttle response o.k., but only with a well tuned small carb or EFI. The small carb severely limited top end power and punch. But (on my 327 build) I was shooting for the most power I could get while being "streetable". The 110mph trap speed means probably about 375hp at the crank. For me, NA is the only way. N2O is not really valid for me on the street. Turbo and supercharging too expensive and complicated for my liking. So to get the kind of peak power and powerband I wanted, I decided to go for CUBIC INCHES. With a fairly mild solid roller to maximize lift and area under the lift/duration curve, along with good flowing heads. DD2000 says over 500hp/lbft in the various combinations of headers and intakes that I'll run through as I modify things. My feeling is that if you want a mild engine that still has plenty of thrust, leaving cubes on the table is NOT the way to go. Even with the ~375 hp my 327 had, I was wanting MORE THRUST! A mild 327 would bore me in no time, even in a light car like a Z. Oh, don't get caught up in that old "327s rev so much quicker" nonsense. Maybe without a load. More torque from a longer stroke (and bore) will accelerate the car faster. The only thing you gain with the shorter stroke is a higher allowed rpm in terms of piston speed and maybe some detonation resistance. JMO

I'd build a 383 or a 400, personally. I've done the 327. Nice engine, but I wanted more grunt, along with a less radical character, so I went with a 400. I'm making other upgrades to the engine besides displacement, but I saw staying at 327 ci as leaving too many cubes on the table! You don't need to rev high if the gearing and powerband are designed to do what you need! High revs cost because of the expensive valvetrain needed.

You might find this interesting: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mzed.html "As usual in most of these matters, it's we the people of the US that changed it, not the other way around. "Zed" comes from the original Greek zeta via Old French zede, and pretty much all English speakers worldwide pronounce it that way. The reason we don't is because we had a pretty major falling out with the people that did, and in the aftermath, seized on dialectical nuances and amplified them. The last thing an American wanted to sound like after the Revolution was an Englishman, or vice-versa. Not that it was an intentional alteration, but there was a regional dialect in the US (and, it must be said, in parts of England) that pronounced it zee (as there were others that pronounced it zad, zard, ezod, izzard, and uzzard), and this was one difference in the vocabulary which was seized upon by post-George III America." Man, can you imagine someone calling your car an "izzard" or "uzzard"!? "Lye's New Spelling Book (1677) was the first to list "zee" as a correct pronunciation, and it was pretty much firmed up by Webster, who, like grammarians all over the former Empire, wanted to put the kibosh on all this "izzard" nonsense, and decreed "it is pronounced zee" (1827)." I'll take the Webster 1827 version, thanks! Why the "Englishish" say that Z is pronounced "Zed", but B, C, D, G, P, T, V are "Bee", "See", "Dee", "Jee", "Pee", "Tee", and "Vee" has never made any sense to me. But what do I know, I'm just an uncultured colonist! This is TOO funny: http://www.billcasselman.com/cwod_archive/zed.htm

I see alot of people build 383s and 400s and use the 180, 190, 195 AFR heads. I guess if you aren't going to turn it up past 5000 rpm, that's o.k. But as my Ford loving (FE, Cleveland, etc.) loves to say, the SBC is way under valved and bigger ports will help make more power. Also, I'm starting to see more people put larger runner heads on to enable more top end power. I say don't go too small on the ports - as long as they flow - my Canfield 215cc heads are a great example of a good head that's a bit on the large size for the intake port volume (but not necessarily the average cross section) but flow very well. I think the thing to look at is the flow/volume of the port to get an idea of the velocity (area would be better, granted, if you have that dimension). Just picking small ports to get velocity is cutting yourself off from larger heads that will flow more to provide the power, without giving up port velocity. For a 383, 200cc Edelbrock VTECs work well (Glen McCoy's 383 Daytona Cobra, for instance). For a 400, I say go towards 210, 215's, maybe larger if you are going to be winding much past 6000 rpm and have the cam, intake, exhaust to handle that.

I had trouble uploading pics tonight too. Not sure what's up. Anyway, I used your data, the AFR flow numbers, the Chet Herbert cam specs (seat timing, lift, LSA), 1150cfm @1.5Hg carb, "Large stepped tube race headers", "single plane" manifold. One run without Juice, one with 20lbm/min of N20 (since they only went up to 400 hp shot in the pull down which gives 16lb/min). Here they are: No N20: http://alteredz.com/data/grumpyvette555BBC_nojuice.png 20lbm/min (500hp shot) N20: http://alteredz.com/data/grumpyvette555BBC_20PPMNOS.png Tabular form: rpm hp ft-lbs 2000 228 599 2500 320 672 3000 405 709 3500 489 733 4000 577 757 4500 664 775 5000 734 770[b] 5500 780 745 6000 781 683[/b] 6500 764 617 7000 720 540 7500 666 466 8000 601 394 HP Peak is somewhere between 5500 and 6000 rpm. Just what you wanted! N20: rpm hp ft-lbs 2000 743 1951 2500 827 1738 3000 907 1587 3500 990 1486 4000 1078 1415 4500 1161 1354 5000 1227 1289 5500 1273 1216 [b]6000 1279 1119[/b] 6500 1266 1023 7000 1227 920 7500 1177 824 8000 1111 729 HP peak looks to be right around 6000 rpm! What a beast!

I only wish I could give YOU advice on matching components! I'd be happy to run a DD2000 run for you. But I can't find flow #s for those heads ANYWHERE. Any ideas?

This is SO true, in my experience. With a 600 cfm vac sec carb on my 327, I could make it idle and respond pretty well down to about 1600rpm in 3rd gear. With a holley 700cfm old-style 4bbl TBI (Pro-Jection 4D) and a MegaSquirt computer running it with all the sensors from the pro-jection, I can pull away from a corner in 3rd gear at 1200 rpm, and the cam is pretty damned lumpy. I'd imagine the Commander 950 is just as tunable as the MegaSquirt and could do the same. (Not the Pro-Jection 4D computer though! What a POS!!!)