pparaska

I think that a long pump opens up more possibilities for fiting A/C, alternators, etc. in front of the engine than a short pump. The setback plates and mounts of the JTR setup can get in the way. Plus there are more LWP brackets and pulleys out there. BLKMGK went short, then decided LWP after trying to fit things in.

Mike, consider that Joe's cam, as described on PH's website and in their mag is described as: " The camshaft was ground by Isky (PN 201282-08). It carries .565-inch of valve lift (with a 1.6:1 rocker) on the intake side, and .530-inch of lift on the exhaust (with a 1.5:1 rocker). The lobes were the same, and both were originally designed for intake use. Joe ordered it with the intake lobe on both sides, with a .234@.050 duration, and a 108-degree lobe separation angle. Advertised total duration was 282 degrees. It's a trick cam, but we've seen much bigger cams run on the street without worry. " And if Vizard and others are correct and that you need to delete 5-8 degrees off of a solid flat tappet's 0.050" duration to compare it to a hyd. flat tappet cam, the Crane 114681 (244/252@.050) is not that far off Joe's (intake anyway). Although it does have more exhaust timing. With dual exhaust and maybe restrictive exhaust for this engine, I'm thinking that may not be a bad idea. Same deal for my 327's 236/242 @.050" cam - it's more like a 228-231/234-237 @ .050 hydraulic. But the solid throws the valve open (initially) faster and gets into the .100 and up flow region of the port/valve sooner, even sooner than a roller. After that the roller is quicker. BTW, I know it's hard to compare lobe intensity between a solid cam and a hydraulic, but the Crane 114681 numbers are 280adv-244=36 deg and the Isky 280 is 280adv-232=48 deg. And the 280adv of the Crane intake lobe is after lash is accounted for as well. Subtracting 5-8 degrees from the 114681's intake .050 duration to be able to compare, you get 280adv-(236-239)=41 to 44 degs. To me the Isky seems a bit slow opening initially, but it's hard to compare without resorting to using a Cam Doctor on both grinds. I'm leaning toward the Vic Jr (have it) so the it'll probably be the 195 heads. Remember, this is a 406, not a 350 or 383. So the general advice for port port volume, which is typically for a 350 or 383 would be a bit conservative, in my thinking. When the carb is in good tune (recently), my 331 comes on strong at about 2200 and keeps pulling past 6200. Yes, it's a bit lumpy below 2000, but it's not bad - it'll lug down to 1600 around the side streets without complaint. I imagine that TBI will improve that as well. To me, a 2200-6200 powerband is just fine for a light street car. And with 75 more cubes and much better heads, I doubt that another 6 degrees of adv duration and 8 degrees of .050 duration will hurt. If so, the 236/242 cam can go in. I picked the 244/252 based on it being the MOST I'd ever run in this app (thanks to grumpyvette and Crane's tech line) and I wanted the rods clearanced for the most cam I'd be likely to install. I have no problem going down a step in cam if that's what's called for. But with the kind of traction problems these cars have, I'm not sure what will be best.

Thanks Grumpyvette - great post! I guess this answers my question on whether the 190 or 195cc heads would be preferable on my 406 - the 195s would be. Although I don't know where I'd ever notice a difference - probably only at the very top of the rpm band.

BTW, Jeg's seems to buy the castings from Canfield and have the valve work done, based on their description of what they have. Michael, good point on the money spent, but money is tight these days. I will probably just save longer and get the AFRs. Mike, that cam I'm starting out with is .518/.536 lift (after lash is subtracted). About as big as you can go on lift for a just-streetable FLAT TAPPET cam. It's the one grumpyvette suggested and that the engine is being set up with (rod/cam clearancing). I agree that a roller could get me maybe .040" more lift for the same duration numbers, but that's another pile of money (~$800) to do cam/lifters/springs/pushrods/retainers/locks/etc. Granted the .200 duration and above is better on the rollers, as well as area under the lift/duration curve, but that's a pile of money I don't have available. Heads will gain me at least 40hp over the wimpy stock castings I have (that have been bowl ported) but as Vizard points out, with cams in the range I'm in (280 deg or less) a roller is maybe up to a 20 hp advantage - one I'm leaving on the table. If I were to put money somewhere else in the engine, it'd be headers or port injection. Thanks for the thoughts on this - appreciated.

Doesn't it make sense to run a bit larger port volume (although 5ccs isn't much) for a 406, even if it doesn't get spun much above 6200 or so rpm? Also, I'm starting out with grumpyvette's recommendded Crane solid flat cam 114681 (http://dab7.cranecams.com/SpecCard/DisplayCatalogCard.asp?PN=114681&B1=Display+Card), that has a good bit more 0.050 duration but a 112 LSA. Quite a bit more cam than you're suggesting. Not to worry, I have a 236/242@.050 110LSA solid flat tappet cam in the 327 I can use, as well as a 224/224@.050 LSA solid flat tappet cam in the wings. If the 114681 (244/252 @.050, but only 280/288 seat duration) is too much, I can always back down. Grumpyvette assures me I'll like the 114681 I'm thinking with 406 cubes, compression, etc. it should be have a good bit more low end torque and throttle response than the 327, especially with the TBI. With that cam and the 10.5:1 compression I should get, the DCR is over 8:1, so I should be in pretty good shape. The TBI is just a Holley Pro-jection unit bolted on either a Holley 300-36 dual plane or Victor Jr manifold.

Thanks, KraZ4spd! I too love the naked no-rear-bumper look on a Z also, but wanted some protection and to keep the police off my case. So, I removed the bumper ends that go around the car, shortened the depth of the Z bumper by 3/4" (from the rear panel to the rear edge of the bumper, and made short, tapered extensions that go to the side edge of the 1/4 panel. Painted it body color. I made up heavy duty 1/4" steel brackets and 1" black pipe behind it for reinforcement. All welded together as a stiff, strong structure. The bumper you see is just a cover now. It looks farily inconspicuous(I think so anyway):

No doubt, between the 1-5/8" primary block huggers with 2.5" secondaries, 2.5" duals and mufflers, I'm probably killing 25 or more horsepower over good open headers. The 700 cfm TBI is also a bottleneck. With large tube headers and large exhaust, and a 900 cfm TBI or carb, I'd probably gain 30+ hp over what I'll be running. But I think this will be more streetable, and cheaper to put together. If I feel the need for more top end, I'll go to MPI with a 1000cfm TB and larger tube headers. Straight plug it will be.

Supposedly, some angle plug heads won't have a problem with having the sparkplugs/wires clear block hugger headers. I have the usual hooker 1-5/8" block hugger headers. Anybody tried putting block hugger headers on AFR SBC heads and checking spark plug/wire clearance?

Yes, I've heard that too, Davy. And I wonder why they are so much cheaper - I worry that they are having a shop buy the castings from Canfield and putting crappy parts in, not to mention machine work. Once you get to putting all the heads on a level playing field as far as parts, CNC chambers, etc., the others (Pro Top Line, Twisted Wedge, Canfield) and the prices are pretty close. The more I look at it, the more just going with AFRs straight from them is making sense. Now to save up the $$$. I've not totally made up my mind, but getting there.

Yep, read that in the mag. Those heads (215 raised runner) have too-big exhaust ports for my headers, and I don't want to change those. Nice engine!

The Vic Jr and Pro 1 have good high lift flow, but the Canfield and AFR heads out flow them, based on the numbers I've seen: http://home.comcast.net/~pparaska/data/headflow2.pdf Considering the cam I will use won't be above .500" lift (intake) much of the time, the Vic Jrs. aren't in the running, since their mid-lift numbers are not that good, compared to the AFR and Canfields. The Pro 1s have the same issue - Great at .400 -.600 lift, but in the .200 to .300 area, not so hot. Looking at the area under the curve, the Canfields win out, with the AFRs very close behind. Of course, this is just intake flow at one depression. There are other things to consider (exhaust flow @ 28 in H2O, CC shape and swirl, etc.). That's why I was looking for PERFORMANCE data, dyno or track on these, back to back. But looking at the flow data and price, the Canfields look the best. Any of these heads kick the Camel hump heads I have though! I just figure if I'm going to be dropping near a grand or more on heads, I better LOOK hard before I leap.

I posted this question on http://www.chevytalk.com: http://www.chevytalk.org/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB64&Number=347227&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1 Interesting reading there on Canfields done up from bare castings by Competition Products not flowing well. That thread links to a 2nd gen Camaro site for the dirty details: http://www.nastyz28.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/005042.html I WON'T be buying assembled Canfields from Competition Products. I'm up in the air now. It seems that the assembled Canfields from them might still win in the $ aspect. Might save up more for the AFRs too.

Mark, I've looked at those heads. The only ones that make sense (port volume wise) for a 6000 rpm 400 are the -8 and -8 Pros. They don't flow nearly as well as the AFRs or Canfield 195s. Not that flow is everything. Maybe I read too many mags, but it seems the Brodix heads (except for the -10s, -11s, etc. just aren't competitive in the smaller port volumes.

I know, another SBC head question. But let's delve deeper than just flow numbers. I'm looking to get a good solution to this problem (an alum. cyl. head that flows well AND has a port configuration and chamber shape that makes near-the-best power/torque for not-insane money), not the BEST solution for just performance - money is important too. I'm considering the Canfield 195 heads. Â They supposedly (based on published numbers by the companies and ChevyHiPerformance Mag's test) flow about the same, with Canfields a bit better in the .200 to .400 range, which I think would be advantageous in a large engine (my 400 SBC) with a mild-ish cam (Crane 114681, 280/288 (244/252@.050) .518/.536 lift). Canfield 195s: http://www.canfieldheads.com/sbc_2500.html AFR 195s: http://www.airflowresearch.com/pages/195sbc_sh.htm (One stinker is that the flow for the Canfields is for a "mildly bowl ported" set. Hmm. More money.) But flow isn't everything. Â The AFR combustion chamber seems to have the sharp heart shape like the Vortec/Fastburn heads, which I think I've seen tested by some mag as all having great swirl. Â The Canfield heads don't have as sharp a point at the head surface between the valves. What I'd like to know is has anyone seen a back to back DYNO or track test of these two heads (or others in the AFR and Canfield lines) that might point to one being appreciably better than the other? I think cost is going to clinch it for me, unless I find out a lot of bad info on the Canfields. Â After all, Competition products can get me a set of CNC chambered straight plug heads with the springs I need for $1100. Â AFR 195s with CNC would be mor like $1400. Â Ouch.

I miss the "today's posts" function as well. But that'd probably be a big mod to the phpbb software. I guess Dan could ask for it in the Mods forum over there. I tried playing with the search engine to use the "1 Day" option, but couldn't find a search string that would return everything.

http://www.ntahc.org/modifiedhealeys/Photos/126Marian/Marian.htm Incredible. I love the suspension!

Hey Mike, Sounds suspiciously like the secondaries are opening too fast. Or that the pump/squirter isn't right. Should be damned close out of the box though!

...until I hit 5000 posts. I'm top poster, wiht BLKMGK and DavyZ several hundred behind me. Click on "Members" at the top of the screen, and sort on "total posts", "descending".

Good news on the "stay right unless passing" bill - it got a favorable review in the house recently and I believe it was actually adopted. I'm not sure but I think now the governor needs to just sign it into law? Gotta study up on my state government processes - shame on me for not knowing!

Oh, I love THAT! I'm seriously considering special lenses for my license plates.

The good news: Thank goodness, some kind person is trying a "move right to let someone pass law": http://mlis.state.md.us/2003rs/bills/hb/hb0073f.rtf Now the bad: They've tried it before, but here we go again. Photo Radar and mailing people speeding tickets. If you live in MD, please email or call you state senators and reps to let them know you'd like them to vote AGAINST this bill. Only in the senate now: http://mlis.state.md.us/2003rs/billfile/sb0455.htm I've already emailed my senator. It was presented in the state senate and house last year and killed. Let's make sure that happens again.

Sounds great Mike! You are so close to your garage-mahal!

Moved mine over. Bit of a pain to get the hood part of the latch aligned and attached, but I think it's more sano. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/pparaska/image/recentpics/1999July18/hoodlatchdistribv.jpg

Solid (and hydraulic) cam lobe ramps differ alot between cam brands and "lines" (Magnum, Xtreme, etc.). Looking at the difference in the seat and .050 duration numbers (if the seat durations are measured at the same lift) can show just how fast. SOme call this "lobe intensity". The Comp Cams Xtreme mechanical series and the Crane Powermax mechanical cams seem to have similar lobe intensities, with the Crane edging out the Comp Xtreme for a few comparisons I've made of similar lift and duration cams between the two. Don't forget that LSA is in camshaft degrees, and duration is in crankshaft degrees. So adding 2 degrees of lobe separation and keeping the same lobe center angles adds 4 degrees of overlap, all else being equal. This can have a sizeable impact on intake reversion and also Dynamic Compression Ratio.

It's pricey, but the nicest road race pan I've seen is from Canton. It's nearly $370 with the pickup included. It's 7" deep, and 13-3/4" wide at the bottom. Don't know if that's a header clearance issue for you or not, not hard to mock up with some cardboard. http://www.cantonracingproducts.com/pans/road_race/sbc_road_race.html Grumpyvette has a much cheaper roundy-round (lefthander) pan that he likes.