[77 TRASHCAN]

Hey Jim,
Glad to hear you and the wagon were able to get out!!!
Is the 5059 the same cam you had in the engine at Ark City in the fall of 07???
You were missed at Ark City this past fall!!!

I'd like to thank you for sharing your "hobby experiences" in your book. Not a lot of folks understand that they can duplicate (to the best of their own abilities) your combination and have a very, very good running street driven Pontiac.
Those being the reason's (I think anyway...) that you wrote your book.
The parts you use are nothing exotic, and usually O.E. and in the lower $$$ price range.
I get a good laugh when I see souped up Pontiac cars with all the latest "Go Fast" goodies on them, high compression, big carb, low gears... a lot of them can't even make a 12 second pass, much less run 11.50's.....

I hope to duplicate you combination sometime soon, it works too well!!!
I hope to see you and the "Tractor Wagon" soon!!! Don't forget their is a spring race now at Tulsa, same format as Ark City. (I hope it's still an event...)
Jeff

[b-man]

The ultimate street Pontiac.

I really can't say anything other than to agree with all the posters here in this thread.

Bart

[Cliff R]

"Cliff, did you notice the MPH for both 1/8 and 1/4? There was almost no wind so it was the actual engine power, and as you stated when running a car shaped like a loaf of bread, more power is required then for the smaller, sleeker cars. And the good launch and solid pull in the mid range with the strong low/mid range torque makes the track appear longer so it has time to pick up a little more MPH."

Yes, it runs nearly as fast as our lighter car (engines specs in sig). Here's the numbers from our last outing, 60' 1.61, 7.28 @ 96 and 11.39 @ 119.78. Not as quick as your car if you through an additional 300 lbs in my trunk!.......Cliff

[guidos]

Great info and great runs as usual, I am curious about the following comment:

The fairly recent availability of the new larger displacement combos have added to the options/techniques we have for strong streeters, but I won’t be going in that direction.

Is there a reason other than the obvious, that your car runs amazing already, or is there another reason for not going this route?

Thanks for the update, I always enjoy your post and appreciate all you have done for the hobby!!

Rich

[Jim Hand]

Guidos,
I am pretty much at the end of my racing career - will be 76 in February. My present combination consistently proves the concepts I have presented for years about building a "mild" setup that can be very competitive without all the "must have" new parts and "big" RPM.

As you recall, I have tried a set of KRE heads, and also a Pro Systems carb. And as you note, neither are used today because I can run as well or better with iron heads and the Q Jet.

Finally, while my car is a realistic street car, I don't need it for street use, and drive it mainly for fun and to various events. So it doesn't make sense to spend the money required to completely change the engine and needed drive train parts in order to go a little quicker.

That comment you referenced was primarily to indicate there are different ways to go in addition to the two "rules" I listed for conventional Pontiac stock blocks.

But don't assume that no further changes will be made! I will always try for a little more performance in the 1/4 while keeping the great drivability of my wagon!

Thanks for the nice comments.

Jim Hand

[guidos]

OK thanks Jim.

[Half-Inch Stud]

Jim,

My junk sits at 12.9's with a profoundly poor 60foot for the combo. I've pinned it down to the cam profile being a Very-Hi-launch RPM grind ( Hey, I got it used with matching lifters) and I modified the lifters to leak a little, set at zero lash + 1/4turn. 4" Vacuum at idle, 6" at cruise, 8" at best, no vacuum leaks. Yet always starts, idles, & feels good at seat-of pants. Been 10,000 miles of poor MPG, yet no ping on 87 Octane. Soooo unlike my other signature combos.

So I'm asking for your advice on what cam profile you suggest for the 9:1 compression motor in my signature to get the best 60foots? ........................Thanks HIS

[Tom Vaught]

Quote:

"I found an NOS 5059 and carefully measured it, and then measured my used one - it was almost perfect - the lobes were down .001 on average but the duration was actually a bit higher - a result of the original mfg tolerances."

Jim, I actually watched Camshaft machine Company make some of the Wolverine camshafts (same people owned both companies). The
grinder could basically completely grind a camshaft in 15 seconds.

I would think that given the normal wear on the grinding wheels that your .001 difference might be, as you say, manufacturer's tolerances over time and your original camshaft might still be "perfect" with a few micron of wear. Glad to hear that you found a NOS 5059 camshaft.

Tom Vaught

[JSchmitz]

Originally Posted by Jim Hand

As you recall, I have tried a set of KRE heads

Jim, I'm glad to hear that your old tank is still going strong.

I know I brought this up in a previous post. But, I still wish you would have pushed the compression ratio envelope, a little more, on your aluminum head venture. It seems you pushed the compression limit of your iron heads more. I seem to recall that you sold the KRE heads. Will you ever test another set of heads?

[Billz428]

Thanx for sharing all of your work and efforts with us.
I read your book and applied all of your methods but with E-heads.
Now I must learn to dial in all in!!

[Jim Hand]

JS,
Yes, I did sell the set of KRE heads. And no, I will not be trying any more Al heads.

However, the KRE heads are an excellent choice for worn out iron heads, an upgrade to stock type iron heads for street/strip use, and for race heads – all providing the port size and airflow is compatible with the intended use.

I learned a lot with the testing I did with my set. As they were part of the first fifty head batch cast, there were some problems and I spent a lot of time and money getting them ready to run. The total weight loss was 50# - that is bare head to bare head.

Compared to my previous #64 heads with almost 20 cfm less flow at .55, but 186.5 cc port volume to my 64’s 165 cc, and 10.48 CR to the 64’s 10.10, the car lost between 1.5 and .2 seconds! However, it did pick up at least 1 MPH and perhaps 1.5 with the added flow.

So I learned that the heat loss in Al is even more serious then I had thought, and that probably a full point of added CR is required to break even with all other parameters identical. But unfortunately, there was the additional problem of the added port volume. In a race car, very light car, a car with no traction, or a car with a loose converter, port volume is not nearly as critical. But in my heavy low RPM car with 3.31 gears and a fairly tight converter, the larger ports caused a significant loss in low end power. We actually lost .04-.05 60 ft. In fact, even with 50# less weight on the front, it wouldn’t even lift the left tire at launch, much less both tires!

As a result of my testing, I realized my engine recognized the added airflow because of the MPH gain. So I reworked my replacement 6X-4 heads (one of the 64’s had developed a water leak as a result of porting about 7 years before). I made a concentrated effort to increase flow while keeping the ports as small as possible. As a result, I now have excellent iron heads that are an ideal match for the application with great flowing ports off only 170 cc average port volume. I have posted the numbers (some extra numbers appear that my engine analyzer uses but ignore them). The KRE heads actually flowed slightly better at most lifts on both intake and exhaust. But notice that the 6X heads have essentially max flow at .5 lift so the engine actually sees and uses the peak lift. And at the modest RPM I run, “choke” (due to small ports) is not a concern – if there is any, the added power made by the smaller ports at low RPM more then offsets any loss at the 5500-5600 RPM range.

Also, don’t let anyone tell you low lift flow is not important in a street/strip car! It not only gets air flowing quicker but effectively extends the cam closing point, but without the adverse effects of a bigger cam. And makes my 5059 cam with its extended seat to seat timing even more effective.

In summary, the KRE heads are a good choice as mentioned above. But even at 11:1 CR, the 270 cfm heads (after I carefully upgraded the flow on both intake and exhaust) I had would not perform with my present 6X-4 iron heads!

I am not slamming the KRE heads but trying to explain that I now have excellent iron heads that already do what I bought the KRE heads to do – thus no more testing.

Bill, thanks for buying the book, and have patience - it will all come together and you will have a good performing car.

Jim Hand

[Ben M.]

Jim, you are an inspiration to me for all your work (your book is in the garage as reference while my new engine is being assembled ;-) ). It's great to see you are still getting out there and running the car (especially a wagon!). With as much street trim installed as it does, it is quite an impressive feat. For a 4500lb brick wagon, it sure moves alot quicker than most of the gutted "race" cars that get trailered on and off the track!

[JSchmitz]

Originally Posted by Jim Hand

JS,
Yes, I did sell the set of KRE heads. And no, I will not be trying any more Al heads.

However, the KRE heads are an excellent choice for worn out iron heads, an upgrade to stock type iron heads for street/strip use, and for race heads – all providing the port size and airflow is compatible with the intended use.

I learned a lot with the testing I did with my set. As they were part of the first fifty head batch cast, there were some problems and I spent a lot of time and money getting them ready to run. The total weight loss was 50# - that is bare head to bare head.

Compared to my previous #64 heads with almost 20 cfm less flow at .55, but 186.5 cc port volume to my 64’s 165 cc, and 10.48 CR to the 64’s 10.10, the car lost between 1.5 and .2 seconds! However, it did pick up at least 1 MPH and perhaps 1.5 with the added flow.

So I learned that the heat loss in Al is even more serious then I had thought, and that probably a full point of added CR is required to break even with all other parameters identical. But unfortunately, there was the additional problem of the added port volume. In a race car, very light car, a car with no traction, or a car with a loose converter, port volume is not nearly as critical. But in my heavy low RPM car with 3.31 gears and a fairly tight converter, the larger ports caused a significant loss in low end power. We actually lost .04-.05 60 ft. In fact, even with 50# less weight on the front, it wouldn’t even lift the left tire at launch, much less both tires!

As a result of my testing, I realized my engine recognized the added airflow because of the MPH gain. So I reworked my replacement 6X-4 heads (one of the 64’s had developed a water leak as a result of porting about 7 years before). I made a concentrated effort to increase flow while keeping the ports as small as possible. As a result, I now have excellent iron heads that are an ideal match for the application with great flowing ports off only 170 cc average port volume. I have posted the numbers (some extra numbers appear that my engine analyzer uses but ignore them). The KRE heads actually flowed slightly better at most lifts on both intake and exhaust. But notice that the 6X heads have essentially max flow at .5 lift so the engine actually sees and uses the peak lift. And at the modest RPM I run, “choke” (due to small ports) is not a concern – if there is any, the added power made by the smaller ports at low RPM more then offsets any loss at the 5500-5600 RPM range.

Also, don’t let anyone tell you low lift flow is not important in a street/strip car! It not only gets air flowing quicker but effectively extends the cam closing point, but without the adverse effects of a bigger cam. And makes my 5059 cam with its extended seat to seat timing even more effective.

In summary, the KRE heads are a good choice as mentioned above. But even at 11:1 CR, the 270 cfm heads (after I carefully upgraded the flow on both intake and exhaust) I had would not perform with my present 6X-4 iron heads!

I am not slamming the KRE heads but trying to explain that I now have excellent iron heads that already do what I bought the KRE heads to do – thus no more testing.

Bill, thanks for buying the book, and have patience - it will all come together and you will have a good performing car.

Jim Hand

I agree with everything you just said. I have my concerns about going to larger intake ports on my car. I have '71 #96 heads with a little bowl work, and almost no port work. I run 3.23:1 gears, a 13" Continental converter, and a RAIV cam, in a 455+.060". It works very well. But, with the high gear, I don't care to give up any low-end power.

Do you feel you could have gone higher on the compression? I think 10.10:1 on iron heads, pump gas, high gear ratio, and a heavy car, has to be about maxed out. I don't think the same is true of 10.48:1 on the aluminum. As you said before, increased compression ratio adds power at every rpm. It just surprises me to see you stop short on that point (IMHO). You're a guy that always pushes everything to the edge. Maybe the little bit of extra C.R. wouldn't have been noticeable.

I know it's hard to improve on a near perfect combo!

[Jim Hand]

JS,
I obtained my heads very early and we didn't know how well the new chamber worked, or what kind of CR would be needed. As I would only use 92 octane pump gas, I decided to start with an increase CR of about .5. I did't want to get caught with a new set of $2000 heads that would run only on race gas. We know know they would have run at 11 with the 92 octane, and today I might well cut them to obtain that number. But no more $2000 heads for me! There simply is not enough difference in performance even when they are optimized as compared to good iron heads

Some corrections:
The weight difference was 50# total for both heads and not 50# each.

Ben, while my car is heavy, it "only" weighs 4050-4070# depending on which intake and mufflers I have on at the time. You might be thinking of Darby Otto's 4600# tank GrandVille that he got to run 12.80's this past season.

I mentioned lifting both tires - while this photo was shot to explictly show both tires up (a professional photographer laying on the ground), it does illustrate how hard the card leaves even at the weight and with 3.31 gears and 28" rear tires. And that is why we lost performance with the bigger ports in the KRE heads.

Jim Hand

[Lloyd-TX]

Congratulations, Jim. Another fine outing for the Pontiac War Wagon!

It's great to hear that you got it to the track and it's still running so well.

I keep one copy of your fine book here at work, and my other copy is always next to my recliner at home for some late-night reading.

Keep it up, my friend, and have a great Thanksgiving!

[Cliff R]

Some notes on compression ratios and KRE aluminum heads. Our last engine was exactly 10.48 to 1 using KRE heads. With a 230/242/112 HR cam, we were able to effectively manage 89 octane fuel, street and at the track. The car actually slowed down just a tad if 91-93 octane fuel were added, apprx .03-.05 seconds.

The engine would actually run fine on 87 octane fuel, other than on occassion "bucking" the starter on hot restarts, and I never heard any audible detonation, except for on one occassion where I attempted to test a Performer intake.

Anyhow, seeing that we were successful with the first engine around 10.5 to 1 on 89 octane, I figured I'd move up to 11 to 1 for the new engine. We had Dave at SD CNC the combustion chambers to 74cc instead of 85cc. We ended up right at 10.99 to 1 SCR. I also installed a slightly larger camshaft, 236/245/112. The new engine has almost identical power characteristics as the old one, at lower rpm's. The 60' times are excactly the same. This clearly shows that the up in static compression combined with the slightly larger cam/improved head flow was a trade-off. Also keep in mind when reading this, that if we had added the additional airflow AND larger cam, and left the static compression ratio where it was, the results would have been devastating! The new engine does make more power in the upper mid-range and top end, due to the larger camshaft, and improved head flow (we went from 268cfm to 290cfm). I would also add that it sports significantly lighter internal components, specifically the crank, rods and pistons. The new pistons also use a lighter tension ring pack. This doesn't add much power, at least not the kind of power that is easy to measure, but it does allow the engine to rev quicker.

As with or old engine, I'm extremely pleased with the performance of the new one. It appears to make our car apprx 3-4 tenths quicker, but I don't have a lot of runs to average numbers with. Our old engine managed a best ever 11.52 run, in near perfect conditions. It would typically run in the 11.60-11.75 range in most any weather. The new engine runs between 11.39 and 11.45 in relatively hot/humid weather, so there is a significant gain in performance, and it may get even better when we run it is good air?.....Cliff

[uforacing]

How time flies. I remember the meetings at your house and all the tech articles of the day. I was there for the first testing of the RPM (and others) on the wagon. I thought I knew Pontiac's back then but you taught me a lot. I think the Wagon was running about 12.60's at that time.

Many of us owe you a great debt that can never be repaid. Take care old man and have a great Thanksgiving.

[grandville455]

[QUOTE=Cliff R;3490605] The new engine has almost identical power characteristics as the old one, at lower rpm's. The 60' times are excactly the same. This clearly shows that the up in static compression combined with the slightly larger cam/improved head flow was a trade-off. Also keep in mind when reading this, that if we had added the additional airflow AND larger cam, and left the static compression ratio where it was, the results would have been devastating!

Cliff.. AS U know i have went to the same set up as you as far as top end. with some differences being i will be at 10.4 instead of 10.99.. also my cam will be 2 degrees advanced from 108 to 106 cause of the weight.. and i also run a low gear set in my trans.So that should help and compensate for any losses that may or may not be there I am thinking in the bottom end.....same rear gear... Do U think with my added weight of almost 900 pds.. i could see also around 12.20's or better?

[Old Man Taylor]

Jim - I just got back in town to see this post or I would have responded sooner. It's great to see that you are still having fun, and that the "tractor" (barge, boat, tank, etc) is still running great. It’s performing better than my lighter ’64 GTO did back in its hay day with a 428. What can’t be described to others is how streetable the car is. You have to drive it to find out – which I had the rare opportunity to be able to do. The car is amazing!

[issach428]

I would love to see your motor put into a 3200-3500# car. theoreticaly it should run 10's.... right?