[Cliff R]

SC, it's the competitive "spirit" and striving for perfection that keeps us working these combinations to DEATH for many, many countless hours. Of course there are cars out there that are faster, just damned few, and I mean DAMNED FEW in the same state of tune running similiar and/or "conservative" parts. But that is NOT what keeps me in the game, I just flat LOVE having a daily driven car that flat ars ROCKS at the track!

Where many are happy just to get to a local cruise or car show where they can throw up the hood and converse for hours about each others cars, I LOVE TO RACE my car, every chance I get. Making run after run, tweaking, tuning, swapping out parts, testing new ones, etc. Then, on my own time, I visit the websites and post the information for FREE.

I'm not at all offended by any of your comments, just wanting to clarify that we are ALWAYS open to suggestions, far from perfect, and never, never think that just because we do something one way or the other, that it is the only way to get the job done.

If Robert or anyone else wants to build 8.8 to 1 SCR engines and fill them with "whiz-bang" modern profile cams to bring back all the power, have at it! I've treaded that road a time or two, and couldn't make enough power to run where we are at today, so we took another road, or for a better definition.....just changed course as part of our learning curve, nothing more, nothing less.

I've been at this hobby most of my adult life, and have yet to see a RULE BOOK on how we are mandated to set up our cars, as you say, "to each their own".....have a great weekend!......Cliff

[gjn]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

Les, I'm ALWAYS baffled, if I had everything all figured out, this would be a BORING hobby to say the least.

I get calls all the time from folks who have pretty much "duplicated" my combination, who's cars still run in the low 13's/high 12's at best. Hey, it took me nearly 20 years to get my car to go this fast, and we're still going faster all the time!.....Cliff

I have said this a few times; however, if you build the exact same motor (every aspect), it will make the exact same power (within a 1% or 2%). We are talking about machines; once a combo is known (in every facet), it is easy to repeat the performance. There is no black magic involved. If this were not true, we would have to go through the learning curve every time we rebuilt/refreshed our motors....which is not the case. Now, getting it to the ground is different story.


The key word above is they pretty much duplicated my combo. They probably tried a "trick cam"/didn't deck the block/have a *****ty fuel system/different intake and carb/etc/etc. If they had built your motor to the last minute detail, they would be make the same power. Now, getting it to the ground is different story.

[Z Code 400]

SC,

Again, I will try to address your various concerns.

Originally Posted by screamingchief

I said the dynamic instabillity drama was akin to conspiracy theory here,not the spring pressure issues,those are two seperate issues IMO as they relate to anybody here on this forum,you read into those comments what you chose to,not what was intended to be read into them,that's on you my friend,not me.

Scooter Brothers of Comp Cams told me the higher rates of the #995 springs were required because the newer Comp profiles are very abrupt and required more pressure to keep the lifters on the lobes.

Originally Posted by screamingchief

You being the pro as opposed to the rest of us who are supposed to hacks,do tell,what makes you such a "pro" Robert?

Nothing at all SC...Those are just my observations. You can call them personal if that makes you feel better.

Originally Posted by screamingchief

Got a single professional certification in the automotive field Robert???

Yes. As a matter of fact I do. I worked exclusively in the family restoration business from 1978 until 1991 when we closed the business to the public. I became a police officer in 1992 and left the police force in 1996 to manage a private Porsche shop, during which time I also attended college courses. I continued to keep my California Smog License valid until 2000.

In 1998, I returned to police work as an investigator along with a handsome salary increase.

I worked part time for a BMW/Mercedes-Benz dealer from 2003 to 2004. I did all their Dinan performance upgrades. I hold an ASE Master Automotive Service Technician certification, Master Engine Machinist, Master Body & Paint Technician & Master School Bus/Air Brake Technician.

I keep most of my ASE's valid, especially the School Bus Certification as I do farm labor and commercial vehicle inspections as part of my regular police duties.

I was promoted to Sergeant in 2005 and currently serve in that capacity.

Originally Posted by screamingchief

I seriously doubt you helped anybody here avoid anything,you've offered them nothing but conjecture and unsubstantiated inuendo here,if you cant see and admit to that fact,I might argue that your not nearly the "pro" you want us to believe you to be.

I am sorry you see things in such a negative way.

Originally Posted by screamingchief

Ha,ha,ha,now you sing the praises of crower springs,well,do please remember I've recommended the crower springs ever since I came here,Been using them long before I ever posted here. But now your their biggest fan...

Not quite. For roller cam applications, I use the Isky #5105 dual springs with 125 seated @ 1.600" and 325 lbs open @ 1.050" lift. The Crower #68404 has long been recommended to me by Cliff and it is a good street spring, equal to the Lunati #73949. I often use the OEM Pontiac dual springs from www.sivalves.com for mild street camshafts such as the Iskenderian 256/262.

Biggest fan??? Not really, but I do use them on occasion.

Originally Posted by screamingchief

Should I dig up some of those old posts for these folks to show how you suggested that even the crower springs I recommended were more pressure than what is needed for many Pontiac applications and then advised others they should consider some other "lesser" spring???

Yes, that might not be a bad idea. I don't think the Crower #68404 is necessary with really mild grinds like the Isky 256/262 (.425"/.435" lift) and some of the 'Blueprint' grinds, like the Crane #968781 with .408"/.407" lift, although it certainly will work, so will other springs. I was once asked to recommend a 'budget' valve spring in this forum and the OEM Pontiac spring from www.sivalves.com cost only $3.00/each and develops around 90 lbs @ 1.590" and 240 lbs @ 1.190" lift.

It is interesting to note that Crane recommends their #99840 springs with the aforementioned #96871 Blueprint camshaft. They feature 90 lbs seated @ 1.590" and 235 lbs @ 1.190" lift.

Interesting, isn't it??? The spring rates are so similar. The Crane #99840 springs retail for $67.95/set and the springs from www.sivalves.com retail for $48.00/set. Somebody asked me for a cheaper valve spring alternative and I recommended the SI springs, that even Cliff has used in mild street applications and found their pressures to be very consistent.

How is that not helping someone???

Originally Posted by screamingchief

Anybody and everybody feel free to go back in the archives and check that out for yourselves,I've been here since late in '04,and have almost exclusively recommended the crower springs as SOP.

I am sure Brian appreciates your endorsement. I wonder who the very first person was to recommend a Crower camshaft???? Let's be sure they get the credit they deserve too.

Originally Posted by screamingchief

And as I've said earlier,if your trusting the spring specs in the catalog and not putting your springs on a spring tester to see for yourself,that is mistake numero uno!!!

We always recommend testing and measuring everything. The Comp #995’s actually seemed to run a little high in comparison to the book specification.

Originally Posted by screamingchief

Then please do explain all those 455's out there that are quicker than ya'll??? If there were nothing better,,,how can anybody be faster???
You do realize there are 455's out there that are quicker than ya'lls,,,right...

Wow...that just seems like a slap in Cliff's face. Cliff has been really nice to me and I respect his work and his readiness to help others. The same can be said for Ace Brewer, Jim Butler and the folks over at KRE.

And for the record, there is always someone faster...

Originally Posted by screamingchief

For the actual differences between those two cams mentioned,the custom order job would'nt show much if any improvement IMHO,thus very little reason to custom order the crower 60210 on a 113° LSA.

For as long as I have been posting herein, Cliff has maintained that the 113° LSA is a very good match with the 455's longer stroke. He has spent enough time on KRE's dyno to prove this a hundred times over. I have found the 113° and many times a 116° LSA (especially in applications with high SCR's) is a very good combination. The shorter stroke engines seem to like the 108° and 110° LSA's which is another fact well documented by Cliff's tireless testing and documentation.

It is likely that I will never subscribe to your point of view on camshaft theory, but I see no reason how you could read the information contained in this post and make the following statement:

Originally Posted by screamingchief

I seriously doubt you helped anybody here avoid anything,you've offered them nothing....

Originally Posted by Moontower69

Hi robert -- happy new year, I'm glad you asked, the isky cam you recommended is TERRIFIC, still breaking it in, but it has a desirable subtle lope at idle with lots of smooth torque. the acceleration curves on that cam are so perfect for my application that i'm now noticing that in light traffic (stop light to stop light) being just barely on the throttle, but steady, once it shifts into third gear at about 25mph it actually continues to accelerate on it's own as soon as it hits 2000 & climbs like an electric motor up to 2400 (to 35mph) -- i've never seen a car do that. kudos to you robert.

When I get messages like this, it is hard to understand how you can make such statements about me...Robert

[Z Code 400]

Cliff,

I really do appreciate all the time you put into posting your test results. I know other folks do too. Let me just clarify something here....

I like running the lower SCR combinations with the early intake events because it works well with the poor fuel quality we have out here in the Central Valley. That is in no way intended to show any disresepct to you or your approach and success with higher SCR combinations, longer seat timing and wider LSA's.

I'm just putting a street motor together for my car and even though I will dyno it and post the data for conversations sake, it's really the 'seat-of-the-pants' dyno that makes me happiest when I am behind the wheel...Robert

[Z Code 400]

Here is a copy of an email conversation I had with Brian Crower regarding Comp Cams lobe profiles:

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:09:57 -0700
Subject: Re: Dynamic Stability
From: "Brian Crower" <brian@crower.com>
To: "Robert Herndon" <zcode400@sbcglobal.net>

Robert,

Dynamic stability isn't talked about much because everyone seems to concentrate on lift and duration. Your observations are correct. A lobe profile that is dynamically stable by design will require less spring pressure at all rpm ranges.

The current trend is more area under the curve and fast ramps. A certain company in Tennensee likes to employ super fast acceleration rates but the only way to slow the velocity over the nose is with higher and higher spring tension. There is no way in the world that raising the valve spring rates can make a good cam lobe profile out of a bad one. A dynamically unstable profile is just bad.

Oval track racers know this all too well, but drag racers are often oblivious to this fact because drag engines only run for short periods of time. Have you ever wondered why the profiles are so different between the two types of cams? Drag racers are willing to use higher spring loads for the benefit of a fast ramp profile even if lobe life is shorter. Heavy spring rates and thick wall pushrods will get you by for a while but eventually things will start breaking. I agree with you that valve spring loads should be kept under 300 lb whenever possible with flat tappets.

If you are running a Pontiac with solids you might also be interested in our #66962X980-16 CoolFace lifters. It is piddle valve style and is a legitimate Pontiac lifter. We can even put the EDM holes in your solid lifters for $70, but you must remove the pushrod seats first.

Thanks for your interest in Crower,

Crower Cams & Equipment Co, Inc
6180 Business Center Court
San Diego, CA 92154-5604 USA
Tel: 619-661-6477
Fax: 619-661-6466
www.crower.com

[Z Code 400]

Here is another example of Comp Cams cutting edge Beehive Valve Spring technology.

These are #918 springs from a Chevrolet LS1 and Comp is experiencing a rash of failures, so much so that they have 'redesigned' the springs and changed the color codes. The red stripe #918's were the old version and the 'blue' stripe 918's are the improved versions. The problem is, they are still breaking, even when employed at far less than their maximum lift...Robert

[screamingchief]

Originally Posted by Z Code 400

Here is a copy of an email conversation I had with Brian Crower regarding Comp Cams lobe profiles:

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:09:57 -0700
Subject: Re: Dynamic Stability
From: "Brian Crower" <brian@crower.com>
To: "Robert Herndon" <zcode400@sbcglobal.net>

Robert,

Dynamic stability isn't talked about much because everyone seems to concentrate on lift and duration. Your observations are correct. A lobe profile that is dynamically stable by design will require less spring pressure at all rpm ranges.

The current trend is more area under the curve and fast ramps. A certain company in Tennensee likes to employ super fast acceleration rates but the only way to slow the velocity over the nose is with higher and higher spring tension. There is no way in the world that raising the valve spring rates can make a good cam lobe profile out of a bad one. A dynamically unstable profile is just bad.

Oval track racers know this all too well, but drag racers are often oblivious to this fact because drag engines only run for short periods of time. Have you ever wondered why the profiles are so different between the two types of cams? Drag racers are willing to use higher spring loads for the benefit of a fast ramp profile even if lobe life is shorter. Heavy spring rates and thick wall pushrods will get you by for a while but eventually things will start breaking. I agree with you that valve spring loads should be kept under 300 lb whenever possible with flat tappets.

If you are running a Pontiac with solids you might also be interested in our #66962X980-16 CoolFace lifters. It is piddle valve style and is a legitimate Pontiac lifter. We can even put the EDM holes in your solid lifters for $70, but you must remove the pushrod seats first.

Thanks for your interest in Crower,

Crower Cams & Equipment Co, Inc
6180 Business Center Court
San Diego, CA 92154-5604 USA
Tel: 619-661-6477
Fax: 619-661-6466
www.crower.com

So are you saying I should forward this post/thread to crower and verify it's content Robert?

I dont lend much validity to second hand correspondances like that.

And I gotta wonder how "Brian" or crower feels about you posting that Email without their explicit permission?

As for the beehives,,,dont use them,,,never have,,,never will,,,regardless of who is making them...

And again you give no info where the pic came from,or why they broke.

I had a big long post Robert,but I just blew it off,but your like a tenacious little dog trying to pick a fight or something,well I could care less about all this dreck,and likely will just go right on about my forum browsing.

What do you do,save all your emails so you can read them over and over again,then dig them up and post them here when you get all bent outta shape over something like this?

CYA.

[Z Code 400]

SC,

I see this forum as a sort of informational buffet. You take what information you need or that which you find helpful and abandon the rest.

I have no desire to fight with you...None whatsoever. But, I must ask....Why do you continue to question my intellect and my motives???

You challenge me that I do not post enough 'hard data' and even make light of the fact I have had conversations with industry experts and when I offer you a sample of some conversations, you scoff openly, even when the information contained therein is quite general and widely accepted.

When someone tries to share information openly and you state that they have "offered nothing" of benefit, I find that to be very closed minded and unfair. I do not agree with many of your approaches to camshaft theory, but I do not ever infer that you have nothing to offer the forum. I was confused by that comment because it was so contrary to the spirit of this post.

I am most certainly not 'bent out of shape' about anything and I am not quite sure where that comment came from. I have no vendetta with you and I am not trying to make you look like a fool or a liar to the forum at large, something you seem to have little reservation in doing.

Recently, I have even watched you begin to challenge Cliff, who has shared a tremendous amount of information openly in this forum, to include your preference for 'hard data,' all in the interest of helping and educating others about the Pontiac hobby. I must admit that I was surprised by that approach.

I think after all these exchanges, it is obvious that you will never be satisfied with anything I can offer, unless it subscribes directly to your point of view.

Having said that, I see no point in further debate with you...Robert

[screamingchief]

Originally Posted by Z Code 400

I have no desire to fight with you...None whatsoever. But, I must ask....Why do you continue to question my intellect and my motives???

I'm not fighting you here Robert,you've just assumed that role here,you love to play the victim in the open here on the forums,and it's always an entirely different Robert in your PMs/Emails to me.

Why do I question some of your postings here?

Because they defy any sort of logic I can follow often.

Originally Posted by Z Code 400

You challenge me that I do not post enough 'hard data' and even make light of the fact I have had conversations with industry experts and when I offer you a sample of some conversations, you scoff openly, even when the information contained therein is quite general and widely known.

Robert,anybody could generate that sorta "Email" themselves if it suited their needs.

Your a LEO,you know nothing is true till it's proven so,and verifiably so.

And you never trust a suspect to tell you the truth.

It's common skeptiscism,are you not familiar with that concept?

I don't think I will ever be able to produce anything that will satisfy you...

Absolutely not true,just make sure you have some means of substantiating any info/data/quotes that are second or third handed or more removed (read:not directly from you),otherwise it means next to nothing to me filtered thru you or any one else posting second or third hand info/data/quotes here.

If I cant independantly verify it on my own,it's real hard for me to take anything at face value without any supporting evidence.

And you know any "controversial" stuff like that Email will likely be denied as SOP after being posted on a forum like this,even if it is 100% true and accurate.

If they (Brian or Crower) wanted to post that sorta info,there is absolutely nothing stopping them,except good business sense,and possibly some legal liabillity.

I could care less about this tirade against comp and those XE lobes,I dont use them so it really does'nt hurt my feelings on the subject much,but you tend to lump the good in with the bad and throw them both out with the dishwater.

Sorry,but that I dont agree with.

Originally Posted by Z Code 400

I think after all these exchanges, it is obvious that you will never be satisfied with anything I can offer, unless it subscribes directly to your point of view.

Said it before,I'll say it again,dont have a single point of view,it's all wide open to me.

Originally Posted by Z Code 400

Recently, I have even watched you begin to challenge Cliff, who has shared a tremendous amount of information openly in this forum, to include your preference for 'hard data,' all in the interest of helping and educating others about the Pontiac hobby. I must admit that I was surprised by that approach.

The only thing I consistently give Cliff grief over is when he tends to dump on flat solid lobes just because his one experiment fell short,besides,that's for him to worry about,not you.

[screamingchief]

One more thing:

I do not agree with many of your approaches to camshaft theory,

Please,do explain for all this "theory" of mine,I'd be very interested to read that.

If you cant,than quit bringing that up in these discussions.

If you mean looking at all the cam specs instead of just one or two cam specs,well go right ahead and call that my "theory",me I just call that common freakin sense...

[Z Code 400]

Lately, there has been a lot of discussion about the metalurgical quality of the currently available valve lifters on the market. That discussion also includes the reduction of ZDDP in most of the commercially available engine oils. Having read as much as I can find on the subject and reading many of the posts in this forum dealing with camshaft failures, I thought it might be interesting to compile some first hand data with respect to the lobe failures that seem to be quite high in frequency.

My personal experience (locally) has revealed accelerated lobe wear with the #995 springs, even when the pressures are verified and they are installed at the correct height. In at least (2) separate incidents, I found the 1.65:1 rocker arms were added, which drove the #995's far beyond their 'normal' 372 lbs of open pressure.

Having taken all of this into consideration, I think we can classify the Comp Cams lobe failures into three catergories:

1. Lobe failures with #995's that are correctly installed and broken in (cause?)

2. Lobe failures with #995's that are incorrectly installed at 1.600" (pressure)

3. Lobe failures due to high-ratio rocker arms with correctly installed #995's (pressure)

We can obviously dismiss catergories #2 & #3 because they do not represent an oil or metalurgical failure, but what about catergory #1 failures???

Has anyone successfully been able to operate any of the XE grinds into safe, yet elevated rpm's with less than Comp's recommended spring pressures???

I would find the answers to these questions very interesting...Robert

[jimmy daniel]

and I may skip thru a lot of the post, but I always take time to read the ones from Cliff. He seems to have as much "real time" knowledge as anyone else you'll find. I completely copied his advice from an earlier column for my 455.
455 .030
zero decked
Crower 60919
197 H-O heads and intake
800 cfm Q-jet
Ram Air ported exhaust manifolds

He seems to have a lot of actual back to back dyno experience and I appreciate him taking the time to post it for free.

[68bird400HO]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

"What about a 9:1 455 with 197 heads. I have had my eye on the Crower 60243 but will compression be a problem for that cam?"

Haven't tried one, so can't provide any direct feed-back. My opinion, it will idle pretty much like an 068 cam in a 400 engine at 10 to 1 compression. Probably exhibiting little if any "lope", just a deep/heavy sound. Strong power to at least 4500-4800rpm's, maybe a tad bit higher with the round port heads. Being on a 112LSA the 455 should be fine on pump fuel with that cam. I'd still rather see a bit more squeeze and the 60919 camshaft used instead. Keep in mind that 230 @ .050" cams are commonplace in little 355 SBC engines, although many would probably run better with a bit less cam. A 230 degree cam in a 455-468cid engine, with a moderate compression ratio, isn't really that much camshaft......Cliff

I'd like to get a bit more squeeze too but I am building my original 455HO motor for my TA. I want to do a close to stock rebuild but get the compression as high as I can without cutting my heads too much. I will go for zero deck on the block but I think if I get to 9:1 SCR that will be about it. Not a fan of the CC XE line but would like to find a cam that works well. That's why I was asking about taking a cam like the 60243 or maybe the HC-02 (how do these compare?) and maybe installing it a few degrees advanced (if need be) to get the intake closing event sooner to get a little more low end. Does this method work well or is there a different cam I should look at (Ultradyne, Bullet, HC-02, etc)? FWIW, For exhaust I am planning on the PYPES 2.5" with crossover system. Car is a 4-speed with 3.42s.

[Cliff R]

At a true 9 to 1 static CR and manual transmission, the 60243 cam will be just about right. You might consider adding Rhoad's lifters in lieu of advancing the cam.

Ken Crocie would be the one to comment on the HC-02 for that application, I've never used one, but I know that Ken has used them with Rhoad's and high ratio rockers in 455's and made power very similiar to hydraulic roller grinds.......Cliff

[68bird400HO]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

At a true 9 to 1 static CR and manual transmission, the 60243 cam will be just about right. You might consider adding Rhoad's lifters in lieu of advancing the cam.

Ken Crocie would be the one to comment on the HC-02 for that application, I've never used one, but I know that Ken has used them with Rhoad's and high ratio rockers in 455's and made power very similiar to hydraulic roller grinds.......Cliff

Speaking of Ken and HO-Enterprises and valve spring recommendations, how come nobody even mentions the HO VS-11 springs? They seem like the perfect spring for most street motors and they are reasonable $$.

[Region Warrior]

Originally Posted by Z Code 400

Here is another example of Comp Cams cutting edge Beehive Valve Spring technology.

These are #918 springs from a Chevrolet LS1 and Comp is experiencing a rash of failures, so much so that they have 'redesigned' the springs and changed the color codes. The red stripe #918's were the old version and the 'blue' stripe 918's are the improved versions. The problem is, they are still breaking, even when employed at far less than their maximum lift...Robert

Cutting edge?
GM has been using them in a few different ap's since the early 80's.

[KEN CROCIE]

The original Olds 215 al. engine had "bee-hives"!

[goquick]

Beehive springs cutting edge? More like as old as the Pontiac V8!!! I used to have a T Bucket with the old buick V6 and it had Beehive springs!!! It was out of a 61 Buick. Actuly wouldn't mind having it back!! Got like 34 mpg and would bark the 33x18.50's in every gear. Even had a heater and defrost unit in it.

[Z Code 400]

Originally Posted by KEN CROCIE

The original Olds 215 al. engine had "bee-hives"!

Agreed...However, Billy Godbold of Comp Cams has said that his company has re-invented the beehive to such a degree that their 'cutting edge manufacturing processes' makes all other forms of the spring obsolete...Robert

[goquick]

Posted by Z Code;
Agreed...However, Billy Godbold of Comp Cams has said that his company has re-invented the beehive to such a degree that their 'cutting edge manufacturing processes' makes all other forms of the spring obsolete...Robert






Nothing like marketing your product !!!! But the proof is in the results in customer hands.
Marketing and claims only go so far.