Poor Combo Good Results

[stokerboats]

Thought I'd post this in here to inspire some thought. Sometimes wrong turns out. Lol
This is a 565BBC with some AFR 300cc Ovals which have been reworked by Tony Mamo
to end up at 405cfm int and 325cfm exh @ .700 lift
This happened because I didn't want to give up my Roger Helgesen ported Dart Intake
that I had on my Helgesen ported Edelbrock Rovals.
It is a 14 to 1 piece with a .779/750 280/282 solid roller/Isky EZX and an 1150 Dominator

[Walter R. Malik]

Thought I'd post this in here to inspire some thought. Sometimes wrong turns out. Lol
This is a 565BBC with some AFR 300cc Ovals which have been reworked by Tony Mamo
to end up at 405cfm int and 325cfm exh @ .700 lift
This happened because I didn't want to give up my Roger Helgesen ported Dart Intake
that I had on my Helgesen ported Edelbrock Rovals.
It is a 14 to 1 piece with a .779/750 280/282 solid roller/Isky EZX and an 1150 Dominator

RESULTS are the ONLY actual measure of a good combination or not.

[peejay]

RESULTS are the ONLY actual measure of a good combination or not.

Yup... I overheard a conversation the other day about someone who was a class record holder who was running a cam that was FAR smaller than anyone eise in the field, and the conversation was in the vein of "imagine how fast he could be if he wasn't running such a small cam?"

Meanwhile, I'm thinking "Maybe everyone else is running too large of a cam for the class rules?"

[canada1]

The AFR 300 ovals reworked by Tony Mamo - are they still 300cc?
I assume the csa has been greatly enlarged to work with 565" and 7000 rpm.

[banjo]

RESULTS are the ONLY actual measure of a good combination or not.

Yup... I overheard a conversation the other day about someone who was a class record holder who was running a cam that was FAR smaller than anyone eise in the field, and the conversation was in the vein of "imagine how fast he could be if he wasn't running such a small cam?"

Meanwhile, I'm thinking "Maybe everyone else is running too large of a cam for the class rules?"

Bigger is not always better, while back when Mike Jones originally spec'd my cam, Alot of people said it didn't have enough lift or duration to meet my power goals. Still have less that .700 lift and it far exceeded my most optimistic goals. One of these days people will learn not to build engines by committee.

[vortecpro]

RESULTS are the ONLY actual measure of a good combination or not.

Yup... I overheard a conversation the other day about someone who was a class record holder who was running a cam that was FAR smaller than anyone eise in the field, and the conversation was in the vein of "imagine how fast he could be if he wasn't running such a small cam?"

Meanwhile, I'm thinking "Maybe everyone else is running too large of a cam for the class rules?"

Bigger is not always better, while back when Mike Jones originally spec'd my cam, Alot of people said it didn't have enough lift or duration to meet my power goals. Still have less that .700 lift and it far exceeded my most optimistic goals. One of these days people will learn not to build engines by committee.

"One of these days people will learn not to build engines by committee.[/quote]" Unbelieveable

6.06 X 1.585 = 9.60 Alky, aftermarket everything, compression, 3200 pounds, what exactly have you and the "King of Cams" done here? Heres some reality 110 mph @ 3200 618 observed HP.

[af2]

WOW!!!!

[user-9274568]

" Unbelieveable

6.06 X 1.585 = 9.60 Alky, aftermarket everything, compression, 3200 pounds, what exactly have you and the "King of Cams" done here? Heres some reality 110 mph @ 3200 618 observed HP.

ARE YOU SERIOUS

[vortecpro]

" Unbelieveable

6.06 X 1.585 = 9.60 Alky, aftermarket everything, compression, 3200 pounds, what exactly have you and the "King of Cams" done here? Heres some reality 110 mph @ 3200 618 observed HP.

ARE YOU SERIOUS

Very. Probably you should have supplied the cam, I guess I shouldn't say that, but, Chad, I use Stan Weiss's calculators, please correct me and show what I should be using. I just know flattop 360 cu in, 1.940 valved, fuelie headed, gas burning, production blocked, Q-Jet engines run these times above, obviously theres more there.

[pdq67]

"The AFR 300 ovals reworked by Tony Mamo - are they still 300cc? "

What do the worked over heads now cc at?

And I ain't getting into the pissing contest that seems ta be coming.....

Just wanna know about the heads..

pdq67

[vortecpro]

Nice results Dan and Tony.

[banjo]

I agree, the mph is a little soft, but its hard to argue with the et. Only have had it to the track twice, give me some time to tune on it a little bit. At minimum converter 300-400 rpms too tight.

[vortecpro]

I agree, the mph is a little soft, but its hard to argue with the et. Only have had it to the track twice, give me some time to tune on it a little bit. At minimum converter 300-400 rpms too tight.

You will get there. MPH is HP.

[banjo]

" Unbelieveable

6.06 X 1.585 = 9.60 Alky, aftermarket everything, compression, 3200 pounds, what exactly have you and the "King of Cams" done here? Heres some reality 110 mph @ 3200 618 observed HP.

ARE YOU SERIOUS

Very. Probably you should have supplied the cam, I guess I shouldn't say that, but, Chad, I use Stan Weiss's calculators, please correct me and show what I should be using. I just know flattop 360 cu in, 1.940 valved, fuelie headed, production blocked, Q-Jet engines run these times above, obviously theres more there.

and Stan Weiss calc shows 748hp for ET. Agreed, there is more there, give me some tune.

[af2]

Nice results Dan and Tony.

Nice comeback. I guess another cam would have another 100 hp?

Some times I just don't get it.