[gtofreek]

How fast was it idling? That's awefully high for that cam.

[max 93]

Originally Posted by gtofreek

How fast was it idling? That's awefully high for that cam.

It might have been up around 950 when I looked at the vacuum

[74Grandville]

I'm guessing you're using manifold vacuum. That is probably why the reading is 17-18. Seems like it likes the timing, I'd leave it.

Nice torque curve


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Formulajones]

Great torque curve for a 400. That thing should be a ball on the street. Those Voodoo cams flat work. Paul is da man!

[Will]

Very nice results! What was the cam you had before? Would be interesting to compare the lobes and their positions.

I love it when people call 400s "small." cracks me up...

[max 93]

I had a stump puller before with 1.5 rockers. I didn't say what it was before because I know how people like it here. And it's not an even comparison because of the rocker ratio change. It may just be a better cam for a 455 than my 400.

[Will]

Thanks. I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning that you got better results with cam "X" vs. cam "Y" regardless of how well "Y" might have worked for other people. Information, when presented honestly and fairly, is a good thing for us all to have.

Now I just need to figure out what the lobe specs for the Stump Puller are - anyone know what lobes SD uses for that cam?

Your 1.65 rockers definitely affect the valve motion but I still think it would be interesting to compare the lobes. We can compare the valve motion by accounting for the difference in rockers easily enough.

[Steve C.]

Stump Puller ( Magnum High Lift lobes )
3111B
3122B
286 / 289
230 /236
112 / 5 degrees advanced
.3770 / .3800

Revised Stump Puller ( XE lobes )
3194
3196
281 / 287
230 / 236
112 / 5 degrees advanced
.3890 / .3910

( The revised version has also been ordered with "B" lobes )


.

[Will]

Thanks Steve. Knowing the lobe numbers I can now look up the rest of the info about them (duration @ .200", etc.)

[Steve C.]

Voodoo lobes....

Advertised Duration (Int/Exh): 282/290
Duration @ .050 (Int/Exh): 231/239
Gross Valve Lift (Int/Exh): .530/.550
LSA/ICL: 110/116 ( I suspect the intake centerline is actually 106 )

http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=3210&gid=289




.

[Cliff R]

Agreed, NOTHING wrong with comparing camshafts even though they are considerably different, installed at a different ICL, and adding high ratio rockers, etc. It's a good end result that we look for with these things, not matter what it took to get there.

I've been criticized here in public forum a couple of times now for putting up dyno sheets on a 455 where we made an additional 90hp with only a cam swap, inferring that it wasn't an "apples to apples" comparison and the at cam B was a LOT bigger than cam A. Well, when it comes to this sort of thing, and someone asks for my assistance/advice for a better cam, its certainly NOT going to be anywhere close to the cam being replaced, especially if power is WAY off the mark with it......FWIW......Cliff

PS: I'll bet 116ICL is a typo above and should have been 106....

[Steve C.]

I made a note to correct the intake center line on the Voodoo cam. I suspect the web site is incorrect.

.

[Navy Horn 16]

Is this an engine dyno or chassis dyno measuring rear wheel HP?

[Steve C.]

Land & Sea engine dyno.
Our dyno is set-up to run Chevy, Ford, Mopar, Buick, Olds. Capable of holding 1600hp & 2000 foot pounds of torque. Learn where your torque and horsepower curves are, set the best timming, learn the optimum fuel to run, jet the carb to match your engine, check your exhaust gas temperatures, look for any leaks, listen for noises, break-in the enigne under a controlled enviroment, etc.


TLC Restorations is located in south central Wisconsin.

635 Greenman St
Milton, WI 53563



.

[Navy Horn 16]

Thanks. That's a long way from Austin, and my engine is already in the car.

I appreciate the info!

[steve25]

Even in its ported condition, its the small port area of the factory Intake that is holding down the rpm of peak Torqueand hence the max HP level.
The velocity level is just too high and above the sonic threshold , but this will make for tremendous around town drivability!

Your current level of HP shows that your only using some 230 cfm@28" out of what those Heads flow.

[Cliff R]

I'd add here that if you want bragging rights on a car cruise install a T-II or Tomahawk intake and at least a 1" spacer for a couple of pulls. For all dyno testing I've done over many years and many different engine configurations the T-II will almost always show improvements from about 4500rpms to peak power or the shift point. It's going to require a spacer more times than not to get that done, and never use a spread bore carb on one unless you want your feelings hurt!

What folks fail to realize with this topic, and here in the "Street" section is that average power will trump increases in upper mid-range and top end power with most of these vehicles. Even my relatively "light" Ventura with a race weight of 3640lbs w/driver will run quicker in ET with a slight loss of MPH when back to back testing single plane vs dual plane intakes.

I've done that sort of testing more times than I can count, and never once has a well prepared single plane intake managed to ET quicker, and I use a 3500rpm stall converter and 3.42 gears. Imagine if I had a much lower stall converter and 3.08 or even lower (numerically) gears?

I'd also add here that to at least 500hp the iron and HO intakes are excellent, unless you have the "re-pop" HO manifold. Right on the dyno we back to back tested the Edelbrock RPM (port matched), fully "modified" re-pop HO, and my "modified" iron intake. The HO made 487hp, the RPM 491, and the iron intake 497hp, with NO OTHER CHANGES.

The test engine was a very well prepared 428 with Oliver rods and Ross pistons, KRE 260cfm aluminum "D" port heads (prepared here), and a custom ground HR cam with 236/242 @ .050" specs and .361" lobes topped with Crower 1.6 ratio Ford rockers. I didn't test a T-II simply because it would not have met the hood clearance requirements using a 1" spacer on it. I can tell anyone reading this that the 428 would have LOVED the T-II intake with a 1" spacer and it would have made at least 10 more HP if not 15....FWIW........Cliff

[steve25]

For those of you who have never seen this good, very accurate info from the Edelbrock Catalog here it is.

Please note that there is no Victor jr for a Pontiac motor .

[pontibeast]

Steve, I haven't seen that chart before. Very helpful, I could have used that when I first bought my Lemans with a Pontiac 350 as I threw a RPM and a 244 single pattern and .501 lift cam on it and it was a dog. Later after some research I went to a Summit 214/224 cam and a Performer intake on it and it was much better down low and around town driving(until it dropped one of the two piece valves and grenaded the engine). Sometimes bigger isn't better and this was a good lesson for me.Looks like the RPM is going to be good for my new 455 though.

[steve25]

Your welcome!
Sorry to hear about that motors demise!