Big Block Power II - the dyno bandit strikes again - Team Camaro Tech
Tech 2000 Our previous General Forum
Replies ONLY - no new topics.

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 9th, 00, 12:18 PM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 108
Post

JonT,
you beat me with your question by a day! I was gonna ask someone to run my bb(402) through the desktop dyno to compare hp/torque figures on two cams that im having a hard time choosing between. if someone could run this on their program then help me figure out which would be better suited to my application it would really help me out. first the specs on the car:

.030 over 396 (402) with stock pistons
stock open (119cc) oval port heads
3 angle valve job (2.19/1.88) with cleanup of intake, exhaust runners
stock rockers
Performer RPM intake manifold
holley 750 vacuum secondaries
hei + msd 6a box
1 5/8 primary headers, 3in collectors, 2.5 in dual exhaust

ok. here's the situation. ive been looking for a cam to replace the 30 year old one thats in it now. ive settled on either the comp cams Xtreme energy 268 with specs as follows:
LIFT .515/.520

DURATION AT .050 224/230
LOBELIFT .3030/.3063 LSA 110

or the Xtreme energy 262 grind that jonT described:
LIFT:.504/.510
DURATION AT .050 218/224
LOBE LIFT .297/.300
LSA 110

ok, the technical part was easy, just plug into desktop dyno (which i wish i had) and find the numbers. now for the fun of the application part - it's intended to be a street driven beast that i can flog, but consistency is the key as i have to drive it to school everyday. i was hoping that with the weight of the car (guessing about 3300#) and the rest of the drivetrain (12 bolt 3.08:1 behind TH400, saturday night special torque converter) that some of you more experienced engine building guys could decide which would be the right cam for me; i dont want to over cam the thing and ruin all my efforts. i was also tossing around the idea of pump-up lifters with the XE268 grind to give me the vacuum for my power brakes and a little less lift for some more torque off the line.
ive been comparing all the posibilities on this engine and this is the last decision i have to make before it all goes together. i wanted your expert opinions before i went and built a dud motor, so im hoping that you guys can help me out like you always do. thanks in advance! (repeat) (repeat)

john mason
[email protected]
penguinjohn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 9th, 00, 07:52 PM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 108
Post

perhaps this is in the wrong forum, i just thought that more people would be able to see it and offer some input if in General Tech. If anyone could help me out i would really appreciate it. thanks.

john
penguinjohn is offline  
post #3 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 9th, 00, 08:38 PM
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Gilbert, AZ, USA
Posts: 190
Post

penguinjohn - I obviously don't have a dyno but I bet you'd be better off with the 268. You've got the large valves in your heads and you're running larger exhaust than me (2 1/2"). Plus you've got good spark for the higher rpms.

I've wondered myself whether I should have gotten the 268 cam - it uses the same springs and it's not that radical a profile anyway. And I've heard that expression "You can't kill the torque of a big block" and know that I won't be able to put all of that torque to use.

Still...for a true streeter how many times do you need to take it past 5000 rpm? And mashing the throttle at 2500 rpm with 470+ ft. lbs. of torque has got to have me "cheesin'" for a week!!!

Good luck...You can't go wrong with either cam

------------------
'69 Restification
JonT is offline  
 
post #4 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 10th, 00, 12:47 PM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 108
Post

JonT,

thanks for the reply. i was hoping that someone would run it through the dyno, as i would like to see where the actual powerband of the combo is so that i can choose an appropriate stall converter. like you said, i dont know how many times i will be taking it that far past 5000, and the 268's powerband (1600-5800) might be a little high for my application so i wanted to see the numbers before i went ahead and ordered it. Please, somebody run it through that magical program and offer me some advice. Please!!

john
penguinjohn is offline  
post #5 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 10th, 00, 03:41 PM
Senior Tech
Johnny
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Rutledge, Tn.
Posts: 610
Talking

Hey I have the xtreme enegry 268 in a 396 bored 30 over with the small valves & love it! It has a good idle but lopey (love that) & make excellent power all the way up the scale Anything smaller that it is would be too small for me

------------------
johnny
johnnyr is offline  
post #6 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 11th, 00, 12:33 AM
Senior Tech
Bruce
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PA
Posts: 915
Post

hi john,
i ran what your info through the program i have, but i took a stab at the compression ratio (9.5:1), and came up with 469hp with the 262xe, and 472hp with the 268xe. my dumb program doesn't tell me torque, but it will tell you the quarter mile, and everything else needed to drag race and setup the car.
i have the comp cams xe294h cam in my 408. have yet to fire it up, but i'm told it will work good for what i have and for what i need it for.
later,
bruce
bruce69camaro is offline  
post #7 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 11th, 00, 10:54 AM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 108
Post

thanks for the reply bruce. what kind of stall converter will that engine be bolted to? i dont really understand all this flash point nonsense, but im looking at one with about a 2000 or so stall point. what are you running?
if anyone could find a torque for this combination (9.5:1 sounds about right on the compression) i would greatly appreciate it. thanks.

john
penguinjohn is offline  
post #8 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 11th, 00, 02:59 PM
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Big D little a-l-l-a-s
Posts: 523
Post

Actually 112CC heads will yield around 9.6 to 9.7 to 1. I know because I cc'ed my heads and calculated the compression ratio.

Your heads will be closer to 9 to 1. I will run all this through some programs I have and I will get back to you tonite.

sr71bb is offline  
post #9 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 11th, 00, 04:05 PM
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Big D little a-l-l-a-s
Posts: 523
Post

Ok here's the deal with both CAMS:

RPM 268HP 268TQ 262HP 262TQ
2000 157 412 166 435
2500 203 427 212 445
3000 251 438 259 453
3500 301 451 308 462
4000 348 457* 352 463*
4500 391 457 390 456
5000 424 445 416 437
5500 437 417 423* 404
6000 438* 383 412 360
6500 418 338 382 309

*Indicates MAX values

As you can see there is not much difference and assuming a 2400 stall speed convertor 1/4 times on the 268 would be 13.3 @ 111.5 MPH. The 262 cam would yield a 13.4 @108 MPH.

I would suggest the 262 CAM while you may give up a little HP, you'll get more torque especially at lower RPM levels.

By the way, the valve timing events are VERY IMPORTANT when you do these calculations. I got these for you from the COMP CAMS website. They are usually expressed in terms of timing at .006.



[This message has been edited by sr71bb (edited 12-11-2000).]
sr71bb is offline  
post #10 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 11th, 00, 04:43 PM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 108
Post

sr71bb,

thanks for the help. i was hoping that the 262 would turn out better torque without alot of hp sacrificed, thanks for confirming this. i didnt know about including the opening and closing points for the valves, i didnt realize that the program was that extensive. once again, thanks for the help.

john
penguinjohn is offline  
post #11 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 11th, 00, 04:47 PM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 108
Post

sr71bb,

is there a way to specify pump-up lifters like rhodes in that program? i was wondering if by using those with the 268 grind that i could salvage some low end torque and get the advantage of a higher hp figure. thanks.

john
penguinjohn is offline  
post #12 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 12th, 00, 12:27 AM
Senior Tech
Bruce
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PA
Posts: 915
Post

john,
i run a 3500 stall converter with that cam. a lot of people are probably thinking that the cam is too big for that size engine. in fact, the cam that cam out of the engine was actually bigger, and caused me some carb troubles. so the engine builder said i could run the cam, but i needed to spend 800.00 on a new carb, OR, spend 200.00 on a new cam. well what do you think i did ? i called comp cams and told them what i have, and they fixed me up with the 294xe cam. i can run this cam because i have 11.5:1 compression and they said that with that high compression, i can get away with it in that small of a big block. if you want to play around with the program i have, go to: www.martelbros.com and download a free copy of dragstrip plus. it's a fun program and from what i've been told, it's pretty accurate. that program can tell you what type of stall you should run. just plug in your info and have fun. but i would say a 2000-2500 stall should be good for what you have.
later,
bruce
bruce69camaro is offline  
post #13 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 12th, 00, 03:50 AM
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Big D little a-l-l-a-s
Posts: 523
Post

John,

There is no way to specify the "type" of hydralic lifter just the type of cam. I don't think though that the use of the pump up lifters would really make that much difference. I do like the rhoades lifters though.

[This message has been edited by sr71bb (edited 12-12-2000).]
sr71bb is offline  
post #14 of 14 (permalink) Old Dec 12th, 00, 11:16 AM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 108
Post

so other than added vacuum at idle, are there any other advantages to using pump-up lifters? i had assumed that by decreasing duration at low rpms that it would boost torque. is this true? thanks.

john
penguinjohn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Team Camaro Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address.
NOTE we receive a lot of registrations with bad email addresses. IF you do not receive your confirmation email you will not be able to post. contact support and we will try and help.
Be sure you enter a valid email address and check your spam folder as well.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome