[i82much]

65 GTO hardtop, 3.54 gears, 28" tire, ultra wide ratio muncie. Old Faithful 1.0 cam and 1.5 rockers, unported 87 cc edelbrock heads with old-style chambers. 850 double pumper, doug's headers. Street car.

Engine is 505 CID IA2. I own an unported RPM and unported Torker 2 intake.

Would it be worthwhile to send the heads and either intake out to get port work done? And if so, is this combo too mild to benefit from a Northwind? Should I go all the way to 340 cfm, 325 cfm, how far out should I go if I have the heads ported?

[Gach]

It all depends on what your intentions are with a Car. What hp range your looking to be in.

[jhein]

Seems like with 505 cid, it would want a better flowing intake and heads. But then you would also need a much bigger cam too (the OF also seems small for a 505 no matter what), otherwise I wonder if just the intake and porting would matter very much??

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by i82much

65 GTO hardtop, 3.54 gears, 28" tire, ultra wide ratio muncie. Old Faithful 1.0 cam and 1.5 rockers, unported 87 cc edelbrock heads with old-style chambers. 850 double pumper, doug's headers. Street car.

Engine is 505 CID IA2. I own an unported RPM and unported Torker 2 intake.

Would it be worthwhile to send the heads and either intake out to get port work done? And if so, is this combo too mild to benefit from a Northwind? Should I go all the way to 340 cfm, 325 cfm, how far out should I go if I have the heads ported?

How about some more information about your engine? Without knowing CR it is a little hard to spec parts, but with your ci I would think a Road Paver might be a better cam choice.

Stan

[i82much]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

How about some more information about your engine? Without knowing CR it is a little hard to spec parts, but with your ci I would think a Road Paver might be a better cam choice.

Stan

sorry, forgot that part - it's very close to 10:1. I run 92 ethanol free but may switch back to 93 e10 and use an additive to prevent corrosion. 2000 feet elevation in Spokane.

[steve25]

Let’s assume the heads flow 275 cfm@28” ( about average for out of the box ) at .550” lift.
That’s enough to make a super easy 525 Hp through a gasket matched T2 or the Performer rpm with your CID while having excellent drivability with 3.5 series rear gears.

Now let’s say your shooting for 600 Hp.

Now the heads will need to be ported some so that you have between 290 and 300 cfm available at the lift your cam is providing.

At this point also the Performer rpm should get left behind and the T2 ported some besides the gasket match and a 1” blended carb spacer used.

So now the question is do you have the hood clearance for that while running a decent air cleaner?

[i82much]

pretty sure I have clearance for a T2 and a 1 inch spacer, the RPM is on the car now. I didn't notice much difference between the two intakes, but we know how butt dyno's are ...

The road paver recommendation is intriguing because then I start to wonder about whether a beehive spring and light retainer might let me buzz it to 6000 RPM or so safely, I have the rev limiter set at 5500 now and it seems to fall off right about then anyway.

[mgarblik]

Related question: I have never heard of an ultrawide ratio Muncie trans. Does it have a different gear set than a 2.56:1 ratio?

[i82much]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

Related question: I have never heard of an ultrawide ratio Muncie trans. Does it have a different gear set than a 2.56:1 ratio?

Yeah it's called an M23Z, a Muncie supercase with 1.000, 1.468, 2.043, 2.994 ratios.

I got mine before the N cases came out so it's the older supercase.

[PunchT37]

Originally Posted by i82much

pretty sure I have clearance for a T2 and a 1 inch spacer, the RPM is on the car now. I didn't notice much difference between the two intakes, but we know how butt dyno's are ...

The road paver recommendation is intriguing because then I start to wonder about whether a beehive spring and light retainer might let me buzz it to 6000 RPM or so safely, I have the rev limiter set at 5500 now and it seems to fall off right about then anyway.

I have the Road Paver on 463 cubes. 330 eddy heads with a gasket ported T2 for SCE 128103 gaskets. 1 inch open wood spacer.



6000 to 6400 is no problem. Even though, 6400 is too high for that cam on my cubes. Even worse on your cubes. But, it does love to fly to 6000 without paying attention.

[i82much]

Originally Posted by PunchT37

I have the Road Paver on 463 cubes. 330 eddy heads with a gasket ported T2 for SCE 128103 gaskets. 1 inch open wood spacer.



6000 to 6400 is no problem. Even though, 6400 is too high for that cam on my cubes. Even worse on your cubes. But, it does love to fly to 6000 without paying attention.

what rocker ratio and valve springs? sounds perfect!

[PunchT37]

Running 1.5`s. 1.65`s puts it at 660 lift. This is a street car. Crane 99893 spring.

[Gach]

Whats spec’s on Road Paver cam

[PunchT37]

Why they call it Road Paver.

But, I can’t rotate these pics.

[i82much]

Originally Posted by PunchT37

Running 1.5`s. 1.65`s puts it at 660 lift. This is a street car. Crane 99893 spring.

i am impressed by how high it revs, you always hear hyd rollers won't pull those rpm's ....

[steve25]

Since you might change cams and have to check and adjust your geometry just due to that I want to ask you to take full advantage of those Aluminum heads and cut them to get over 10 to 1.

[77 TRASHCAN]

Steve C. Has a 505 combo, I am sure he has some experience to help.

My knowledge gained here, and from others...a dual plane intake loses its advantage over a single plane, the larger the cubes are...a 505 needs the T2.

I wonder what others think the choke point is on your current combo?

I really don't think it is the cam......
The cam core availability situation would push me away from a cam change, at least until things improve. If...

Don't get too crazy the the HP..
Might be too much, when you're running your mudgrips!!!

[i82much]

Originally Posted by 77 TRASHCAN

Steve C. Has a 505 combo, I am sure he has some experience to help.

My knowledge gained here, and from others...a dual plane intake loses its advantage over a single plane, the larger the cubes are...a 505 needs the T2.

I wonder what others think the choke point is on your current combo?

I really don't think it is the cam......
The cam core availability situation would push me away from a cam change, at least until things improve. If...

Don't get too crazy the the HP..
Might be too much, when you're running your mudgrips!!!

I am gonna drive this dang car as much as I possibly can ... I don't know if I'll ever get around to mud flaps and snow tires in the winter but that sounds a hell of a lot more likely than obsessing over making it look perfect!

[Steve C.]

When I first put my 505 together I dyno tested with a Performer RPM intake and a Victor intake. Both manifolds were port matched to the heads in use and both tested with the same custom HP950 Holley carb. The only difference was the RPM intake had a 1/2" carb spacer and the Victor had no spacer because of the hood clearance issue. The RPM intake was a disappointment with only about 615 HP at 5800 rpm. The Victor depending on the pull made 638-642 hp at 6000/6100 rpm. This was with a custom Crower solid roller cam with 260 degrees intake duration. When I went from the previous 4.210" stroke 462 CID engine to the 4.250" stroke 505 CID combo I added 6 degrees intake duration. The 462 engine used a 254 degree solid roller cam. On both engines the RPM intake made peak power at 5800 rpm and the Victor made peak power at around 6000 rpm.

After that dyno session we decided to change the cam. I got rid of the Crower cam and put in a UltraDyne MSP solid roller cam from Bullet Racing Cams rated with 255 degrees intake duration and went from .4200" lobe lift to .4300" lobe lift. Both cams had a 110 LSA. For the most part no other changes were made except we cut the Victor intake carb flange down 0.650" to help with the hood issues and the engine was dyno tested again. This time knowing the combo thrived on the single-plane intake we never bothered to test with the RPM intake. With the new cam it made about 660 hp at the same 6000 rpm. The engine uses Edelbrock heads with about 320 cfm and it only has 10:1 compression.

.


.

[Gach]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

When I first put my 505 together I dyno tested with a Performer RPM intake and a Victor intake. Both manifolds were port matched to the heads in use and both tested with the same custom HP950 Holley carb. The only difference was the RPM intake had a 1/2" carb spacer and the Victor had no spacer because of the hood clearance issue. The RPM intake was a disappointment with only about 615 HP at 5800 rpm. The Victor depending on the pull made 638-642 hp at 6000/6100 rpm. This was with a custom Crower solid roller cam with 260 degrees intake duration. When I went from the previous 4.210" stroke 462 CID engine to the 4.250" stroke 505 CID combo I added 6 degrees intake duration. The 462 engine used a 254 degree solid roller cam. On both engines the RPM intake made peak power at 5800 rpm and the Victor made peak power at around 6000 rpm.

After that dyno session we decided to change the cam. I got rid of the Crower cam and put in a UltraDyne MSP solid roller cam from Bullet Racing Cams rated with 255 degrees intake duration and went from .4200" lobe lift to .4300" lobe lift. Both cams had a 110 LSA. For the most part no other changes were made except we cut the Victor intake carb flange down 0.650" to help with the hood issues and the engine was dyno tested again. This time knowing the combo thrived on the single-plane intake we never bothered to test with the RPM intake. With the new cam it made about 660 hp at the same 6000 rpm. The engine uses Edelbrock heads with about 320 cfm and it only has 10:1 compression.

.


.

So there was probably a 30 cfm drop with RPM intake so actually only saw 290 cfm, it pick up with Victor because more plenum and maybe only 15-20 cfm drop. Then going to 505 which is 43 more ci. So going to 430 lube really didn’t do much. Mostly pick up because of 43 more ci. Its like a 462 ci with what you think is a head that flows 350 cfm is not going to make 700 hp more like 660 hp.