[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by TRADERMIKE 2012

An interesting topic that we went over years ago, the Tri-power was finished in 1966 and in 1967 came the Quadrajet.

However, During the 1966 Motor development for the 1967 models, how many Tripowers were installed on the 1967 upcoming models (400 ci and 428 ci) and are there any factory records of them?

Since my Uncle had a Pontiac dealership (for 67 years) in this time frame, And I worked for him for a few years as a mechanic, Mr Forrest, our Chief Mechanic told me that GM never installed TRI-POWER parts on 1967 engines and The Development Phase of the Rochester 4 BBL Carb was several years earlier. Another BS story vs reality.

If you worked for an Auto Company in the 1960s you would know that the engine development time "start date"
for the components was YEARS ahead of the production year.

Tom V.

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Originally Posted by P@blo

Well said Kenth.

130+ mph? Missed that but pictures or it did not happen

Mikes reply:

Over the first 4 years testing and tuning with the original worn out #886 Cam, I broke the sound barrier with this car, kidding, but I wore out the under rated Cooper tires at a rate of one a year reaching 130 mph many times. This car handles well at these speeds and holds to the ground. I would want to make a better front lower valance/spoiler in the future, if I wanted to go any faster and install speed rated tires to my set of fat rims...I have Hurb Adams suspension and Koni shocks on each corner and sub frame connectors. Bell tech. spindles, lowered 2" in the front.

Also, the "041" Cam will take this car faster, testing and tuning will give me that answer.

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

+2

IF you have an hour or so of your life to waste watch the video below. You can actually stop after the 6-minute mark. They found absolutely NOTHING with their test, but then found themselves going "against the grain" enough to have to go into theory and start guessing that maybe the engine was "snappier", revved quicker off the corners, blah, blah and blah. Bottom line on their test controlling things as closely as possible no gains whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmjL2nm5qWk

Good reference, I watched the video 3x, then I wrote Motor Trend to get in touch with Engine Masters to see if they want to retest using my car as the subject on a floor dyno. Then they can fix it and retest with the Pistons installed correctly. Wish me luck.

P.S. Some of you have pull on the internet, here is the time to help me get this motor fixed to keep the Pontiac Vehicles alive.

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Since my uncle had a Pontiac dealership (for 67 years) in this time frame, And I worked for him for a few years as a mechanic, Mr. Forrest, our Chief Mechanic told me that GM never installed TRI-POWER parts on 1967 engines and The Development Phase of the Rochester 4 BBL Carb was several years earlier. Another BS story vs reality.

If you worked for an Auto Company in the 1960s you would know that the engine development time "start date"
for the components were YEARS ahead of the production year.

Tom V.

Mikes reply:

THIS IS A QUESTION, "NOT" A BULL STORY, YOU CAN TELL BY THE QUESTION MARK AT THE END!

However, during the 1966 Motor development for the 1967 models, "how many Tripowers were installed on the 1967 upcoming models (400 ci and 428 ci) and are there any factory records of them?"

ALSO, IN MY READING, "IF YOU WERE LUCKY TO HAVE RECIEVED A 428 MOTOR, FROM THE FACTORY, IN A PONTIAC TRANS AM OR FIREBIRD OR GTO, YOU WOULD HAVE ONE RARE VEHICLE?", STATED IN SOMETHING THAT I READ, IN THE PAST, IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME.

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Originally Posted by NeighborsComplaint

I guess you guys aren't up on the regional options available on the 1967 GTO, specifically the " 3 Pot Lightning' " tripower option available only to moonshiners in the Appalachians. Moonshiners were known to love the '67 GTO for its larger trunk capacity and its understated styling which garnered it little or no attention from the revenuers on the backroads of Appalachia.

Those boys don't play around, when it comes down to their Gin-sing roots, they steal from one another and will kill you for the money that that root brings, saw it on TV.

[rolling money pits]

What in the wide wide world of sports is a goin’ on here?

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by NeighborsComplaint View Post
I guess you guys aren't up on the regional options available on the 1967 GTO, specifically the " 3 Pot Lightning' " tripower option available only to moonshiners in the Appalachians. Moonshiners were known to love the '67 GTO for its larger trunk capacity and its understated styling which garnered it little or no attention from the revenuers on the backroads of Appalachia.

WHERE DO THEY GET THIS STUFF, Tom S?
" 3 Pot Lightning' " tripower option available only to moonshiners in the Appalachians."

Must be trying to improve his typing skills with 10 times more posts in an hour vs any other member.

TV

I worked on only THREE FACTORY RA-IV 400 engines (in my whole life).

[Stuart]

This discussion is all over the map as it is, there's no need for sniping at each other. Keep it cool, guys.

[Stan Weiss]

So the problem is that he has reversed his pistons and this will cause all kinds of problems because of the wrist pin offset.

So if the wrist pin offset has to be in the factory direction to not have any problems, then what problems are people having who run after market pistons that have no wrist pin off set?

Stan

[Tom Vaught]

You crepe up on the canyon ledge. One step away from going over the edge.
(Factory Pistons to zero offset pistons.)

Now you reverse the factory offset pistons in the bores and you are over the edge and bad things will happen on a engine. the offset is now more that a neutral position.

You get away with ZERO OFFSET, you have issues with NEGATIVE OFFSET.

You went too far by installing pistons in a engine that was never designed by the piston manufacturer or the GM Engineer to run with in the Pontiac Block. What MIGHT work in a drag engine does not work in a street driven car or a road race car engine.

Somewhat like installing a camshaft one tooth off from a proper setting. It will run but not well or how the engine was designed by the Engine Engineer.

Simple Stan.

TV

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Originally Posted by 78w72

FYI- Rebuilt heads do not need "breaking in", there are no parts that need mated together like cam/lifters or rings or bearings.

Can you clarify the timeline of when you installed the new Johnson lifters? Based on what you've posted and lost deep in the paragraphs, it looks like you installed the new lifters on the old "worn out" 886 cam, hopefully you broke them into the cam properly... but more importantly you then mention installing the new 041 cam but no mention of new lifters, did you reuse the lifters you installed on the 886 Cam?

Are you adjusting each rocker arm or just cranking the nut to 20lb/ft? Did you check the geometry or wear pattern on the valves? With the rebuilt heads and other new valve train parts, the factory 20/lb/ft may not be what's needed.

Zinc in oil is a combo of zinc/phosphorus, called ZDDP, it is an anti-wear additive along with many other additives that are only in engine oil, not ATF, & they are VERY important for high wear areas like cam/lifters, even a few minutes without those additives in the oil, will cause major wear between those surfaces... 30 minutes without any engine oil would be terrible for cam/lifter surfaces & other internals... surprised nobody else mentions that. Thats great you think the bearings were OK visibly, did you measure the clearances of the cam, rod, crank bearings? or just look at them?

Still waiting for a video of the engine noises so we can actually hear what's going on.

Mikes reply:

The Heads need testing to see what improvements they make.

In short, over the first 4 years we replaced the oil pump first, Splash shields under the valve covers next, rebuilt the Carbs. , bought new Copper tires, already came with the Timing chain and Gears. As we tested at high speeds, for a stock unknown Engine, we had to replace a few of the Push Rods over that time and we discovered as we serviced other problems concurrently, that a nut was cracked on one of the Rocker arm studs, between cyl. # 1-3 and that the cam, in some places, on the lobes, was worn beyond recognition. The Cam as well was wiped out. How I obtained these high speeds is beyond me. These Pontiac Engines must be very tough.

After the first four years, going by memory, I am not looking back either, we installed the "041" Cam along with the Johnson Lifters, as a new set to mate them together. Butler Performance had us change the screw in studs to a beefier HD 7/16" version with the new nuts and a washer to lash the Rocker arms. They gave us a procedure to follow and we followed it too the letter. At that time, we also installed HD push rods, but we did not degree in the Cam until recently.

We drove and tested and tuned and made many repairs along the way, we went 7000 miles approx. when we went over the root that damaged the Trans. The Vehicle sat for two years or more and we repaired the Trans in that time frame. Then we bought a more adjustable Timing Gear that we did not need, installed that and advanced the Cam and then put it back to zero advance. Then we bought the degree wheel and ended up trying different settings, until we reached the conclusion that no advance is best for this mostly stock Engine. That brings us to today's new issues. This is not the same Motor it was ten years ago.

Since we did not install Roller type Rockers, we used the Push Rods that Butler sent for the project, there would "not" be a problem causing us to measure the push rods with the tool for that.

We added ZDDP on each oil change and I use Lucas oil treatment in both my Vehicles, Van as well. When we installed the "041" Cam we used MOLY Lube on the Lobes and Cam Bearings. I HOPE THIS BRINGS YOU UP TO DATE.



You ask:

Thats great you think the bearings were OK visibly, did you measure the clearances of the Cam, Rod, Crank bearings? or just look at them?

We saw that the Cam Bearings had the outer surface material and deduced that they could be used again and so we did, The Cam however was not.

Yes, we measured the clearances of the Cam, Rod, Crank bearings, the info. is posted in this Thread, look at the attachment area please.

I am not talking about "Amsoil VS ATF" and I wish you would drop the query over it.

KEEP IN MIND, I NEVER TOLD PEOPLE TO RUN THEIR MOTORS WITH ATF, ONLY THAT A WISE OLD TRANSMISSION MECHANIC, RAN HIS OWN PERSONAL VEHICLE WITH ATF AND GOT 300,000 MILES, WITH REGULAR FLUID CHANGES. I DO NOT ENDORCE WHAT HE DID. FOR ALL I KNOW OTHERS MAY HAVE SEEN THOSE MILES SIMPLY CHANGING THEIR OIL EVERY 3000 MILES?

Even if people use Deisel fluid, mixed with Trans. fluid to flush an Engine, is that written in any Service Manual? I am curious, I have not seen it in my research, however, I have listened to other Mechanics that use it. Marvel Mystery oil cleans the top of pistons, cleans Carbs. when mixed in the gas, etc... all from other people, BLA, BLA, BLA ...

You said this:

"Zinc in oil is a combo of zinc/phosphorus, called ZDDP, it is an anti-wear additive along with many other additives that are only in engine oil, not ATF, & they are VERY important for high wear areas like cam/lifters, even a few minutes without those additives in the oil, will cause major wear between those surfaces... 30 minutes without any engine oil would be terrible for cam/lifter surfaces & other internals... surprised nobody else mentions that. Thats great you think the bearings were OK visibly, did you measure the clearances of the cam, rod, crank bearings? or just look at them?"

Mikes reply:

Unless you do the test like the Trans. Mechanic, that proved his milage to himself, how could you know if it works or not. I say try it or prove it won't work on your own Vehicle, otherwise this is a mute argument, agree to disagree please, nobody cares, the topic is worn out, let's move on...WE ALL UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

We have the Oil pan removed and we will be taking pictures of the lower end today while we inspect the Windage Tray and inner dip stick tube for looseness. Meanwhile the parts are on their way like the Flexplate and hardware associated with it.

You said:

Still waiting for a video of the engine noises so we can actually hear what's going on.

Mikes reply:

Soon, but I am praying the noise is gone by then, after I install these new parts, OfCourse! If the noise is gone, I will still post a sound audio clip for the forum. Mike out.

[Stan Weiss]

Bore = 4.12 Stroke = 4.0 Rod Length = 6.625
Wrist Pin Offset = 0.0625
Actual Piston Stroke 4.00019586433
Cylinder Volume 53.329262 CI 873.910023 cc
Engine Size 426.634092 CI 6991.280186 cc
Crank Angle Piston TDC -0.41519044173 Piston BDC 179.22570914187

Bore = 4.12 Stroke = 4.0 Rod Length = 6.625
Wrist Pin Offset = -0.0625
Actual Piston Stroke 4.00019586433
Cylinder Volume 53.329262 CI 873.910023 cc
Engine Size 426.634092 CI 6991.280186 cc
Crank Angle Piston TDC 0.41519044173 Piston BDC 180.77429085813

Stan

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Bore = 4.12 Stroke = 4.0 Rod Length = 6.625
Wrist Pin Offset = 0.0625
Actual Piston Stroke 4.00019586433
Cylinder Volume 53.329262 CI 873.910023 cc
Engine Size 426.634092 CI 6991.280186 cc
Crank Angle Piston TDC -0.41519044173 Piston BDC 179.22570914187

Bore = 4.12 Stroke = 4.0 Rod Length = 6.625
Wrist Pin Offset = -0.0625
Actual Piston Stroke 4.00019586433
Cylinder Volume 53.329262 CI 873.910023 cc
Engine Size 426.634092 CI 6991.280186 cc
Crank Angle Piston TDC 0.41519044173 Piston BDC 180.77429085813

Stan

Thank you for the info. " Why are the #'s carried out so far"?

Mike wants to know?
Are these a copy of the other, they are different?


Crank Angle Piston TDC -0.41519044173 Piston BDC 179.22570914187

Crank Angle Piston TDC 0.41519044173 Piston BDC 180.77429085813

Mike: After looking carefully, there are two sides of a piston and one side is closer to the top?

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

You crepe up on the canyon ledge. One step away from going over the edge.
(Factory Pistons to zero offset pistons.)

Now you reverse the factory offset pistons in the bores and you are over the edge and bad things will happen on a engine. the offset is now more that a neutral position.

You get away with ZERO OFFSET, you have issues with NEGATIVE OFFSET.

You went too far by installing pistons in a engine that was never designed by the piston manufacturer or the GM Engineer to run with in the Pontiac Block. What MIGHT work in a drag engine does not work in a street driven car or a road race car engine.

Somewhat like installing a camshaft one tooth off from a proper setting. It will run but not well or how the engine was designed by the Engine Engineer.

Simple Stan.

TV

Tom,
So then why did the OEM's on their top of the line Hi-Performance engines that they still had a warranty on use non offset pistons?

Stan

[78w72]

Originally Posted by TRADERMIKE 2012

Mikes reply:

The Heads need testing to see what improvements they make.

OK, That is not breaking them in... correct words & terms make a big difference.

In short, over the first 4 years we replaced the oil pump first, Splash shields under the valve covers next, rebuilt the Carbs. , bought new Copper tires, already came with the Timing chain and Gears. As we tested at high speeds, for a stock unknown Engine, we had to replace a few of the Push Rods over that time and we discovered as we serviced other problems concurrently, that a nut was cracked on one of the Rocker arm studs, between cyl. # 1-3 and that the cam, in some places, on the lobes, was worn beyond recognition. The Cam as well was wiped out. How I obtained these high speeds is beyond me. These Pontiac Engines must be very tough.

Didnt ask or need to know about oil pump, splash shields or tires etc etc...

After the first four years, going by memory, I am not looking back either, we installed the "041" Cam along with the Johnson Lifters, as a new set to mate them together. Butler Performance had us change the screw in studs to a beefier HD 7/16" version with the new nuts and a washer to lash the Rocker arms. They gave us a procedure to follow and we followed it too the letter. At that time, we also installed HD push rods, but we did not degree in the Cam until recently.

You stated and I quoted that you put new johnson lifters on the old 886 cam, thats all I was trying to clarify.

We drove and tested and tuned and made many repairs along the way, we went 7000 miles approx. when we went over the root that damaged the Trans. The Vehicle sat for two years or more and we repaired the Trans in that time frame. Then we bought a more adjustable Timing Gear that we did not need, installed that and advanced the Cam and then put it back to zero advance. Then we bought the degree wheel and ended up trying different settings, until we reached the conclusion that no advance is best for this mostly stock Engine. That brings us to today's new issues. This is not the same Motor it was ten years ago.

Since we did not install Roller type Rockers, we used the Push Rods that Butler sent for the project, there would "not" be a problem causing us to measure the push rods with the tool for that.

Didnt ask about push rods, was just curious if you are adjusting the rockers like an SBC/BBC as most do with new cams & rebuilt parts, or just tightening the nut to 20lb/ft as per pontiac factory procedure.

We added ZDDP on each oil change and I use Lucas oil treatment in both my Vehicles, Van as well. When we installed the "041" Cam we used MOLY Lube on the Lobes and Cam Bearings. I HOPE THIS BRINGS YOU UP TO DATE.

Was just explaining how "zink" works in motor oil that you asked to be enlightened on...

You ask:

Thats great you think the bearings were OK visibly, did you measure the clearances of the Cam, Rod, Crank bearings? or just look at them?

We saw that the Cam Bearings had the outer surface material and deduced that they could be used again and so we did, The Cam however was not.

Yes, we measured the clearances of the Cam, Rod, Crank bearings, the info. is posted in this Thread, look at the attachment area please.

Not going back through all the pages, myself & others have lost track of most things posted in this thread. Thats great if you actually removed main/rod caps & properly measured for clearances, hope they were all within spec

I am not talking about "Amsoil VS ATF" and I wish you would drop the query over it.

I havent mentioned amsoil vs ATF besides one link to show some facts on the subject, many other companies say the same things but you seem to think all of that is "ridiculous" for some reason

KEEP IN MIND, I NEVER TOLD PEOPLE TO RUN THEIR MOTORS WITH ATF, ONLY THAT A WISE OLD TRANSMISSION MECHANIC, RAN HIS OWN PERSONAL VEHICLE WITH ATF AND GOT 300,000 MILES, WITH REGULAR FLUID CHANGES. I DO NOT ENDORCE WHAT HE DID. FOR ALL I KNOW OTHERS MAY HAVE SEEN THOSE MILES SIMPLY CHANGING THEIR OIL EVERY 3000 MILES?

Wise??

Even if people use Deisel fluid, mixed with Trans. fluid to flush an Engine, is that written in any Service Manual? I am curious, I have not seen it in my research, however, I have listened to other Mechanics that use it. Marvel Mystery oil cleans the top of pistons, cleans Carbs. when mixed in the gas, etc... all from other people, BLA, BLA, BLA ...

You said this:

"Zinc in oil is a combo of zinc/phosphorus, called ZDDP, it is an anti-wear additive along with many other additives that are only in engine oil, not ATF, & they are VERY important for high wear areas like cam/lifters, even a few minutes without those additives in the oil, will cause major wear between those surfaces... 30 minutes without any engine oil would be terrible for cam/lifter surfaces & other internals... surprised nobody else mentions that. Thats great you think the bearings were OK visibly, did you measure the clearances of the cam, rod, crank bearings? or just look at them?"

Mikes reply:

Unless you do the test like the Trans. Mechanic, that proved his milage to himself, how could you know if it works or not. I say try it or prove it won't work on your own Vehicle, otherwise this is a mute argument, agree to disagree please, nobody cares, the topic is worn out, let's move on...WE ALL UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

We have the Oil pan removed and we will be taking pictures of the lower end today while we inspect the Windage Tray and inner dip stick tube for looseness. Meanwhile the parts are on their way like the Flexplate and hardware associated with it.

You said:

Still waiting for a video of the engine noises so we can actually hear what's going on.

Mikes reply:

Soon, but I am praying the noise is gone by then, after I install these new parts, OfCourse! If the noise is gone, I will still post a sound audio clip for the forum. Mike out.

A quick vid on a cell phone would be better showing the general area where the noise is coming from instead of a blind audio clip. Hope the new uncracked flexplate fixes the mystery noise.

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

"You stated and I quoted that you put new Johnson lifters on the old 886 cam, that's all I was trying to clarify.", No Mike never said that.

The Butler people had me find the round part of the Cam and the valve is closed and we could spin the push rod some, with some tension on it, then 3/4 turn to seat the push rod into the lifter. We marked each push rod so we could see it spin, while running. The stud kit came with a Bolt a washer and screw in stud. And when you ask me something, please let me tell the story my way, it is only fair.

I read that today's Motor Oil has no ZDDP, that is why I must add it to my old 1967 Pontiac.

you said:


"Not going back through all the pages, myself & others have lost track of most things posted in this thread. Thats great if you actually removed main/rod caps & properly measured for clearances, hope they were all within spec."

No not yet, but we did provide some limited info. as I have stated. If I ever take this Motor down that far, to get those type of measurements, it would be rebuilt as I come back out, for sure.

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

So the problem is that he has reversed his pistons and this will cause all kinds of problems because of the wrist pin offset.

So, if the wrist pin offset has to be in the factory direction to not have any problems, then what problems are people having who run after market pistons that have no wrist pin off set?

Stan

Mikes reply:

This second-hand project came with the Pistons in backward and I, after 10 years, am just now discovering this, because we pulled the Heads off recently to have them reconditioned.

[78w72]

Originally Posted by TRADERMIKE 2012

"You stated and I quoted that you put new Johnson lifters on the old 886 cam, that's all I was trying to clarify.", No Mike never said that.

"Originally Posted by TRADERMIKE 2012-
Mikes reply:
In the beginning the Rocker stud nut was cracked and I replaced them with 7/16" screw- in studs , because I was bending the Factory Push rods. While there, we installed the Johnson Hydraulic Lifters, a new oil pump and HD Chrome moly Push Rods, had a new timing Gear and dual chain. I drove for about four years testing and tuning. "

Was just trying to clarify when the lifters were added since this statement doesnt say "when", just "in the beginning"

The Butler people had me find the round part of the Cam and the valve is closed and we could spin the push rod some, with some tension on it, then 3/4 turn to seat the push rod into the lifter. We marked each push rod so we could see it spin, while running. The stud kit came with a Bolt a washer and screw in stud. And when you ask me something, please let me tell the story my way, it is only fair.

Sounds like you adjusted the rockers then... when you tell a story, please include only pertinent details & timeframes, makes it much easier for others reading, thats why I had to ask to clarify the lifters and rocker adjustment.

I read that today's Motor Oil has no ZDDP, that is why I must add it to my old 1967 Pontiac.

You read wrong, ALL of todays oils have ZDDP in them, and at pretty good levels around 900-1000 ppm, which is adequate for factory stock cams & even some bigger mild cams. Modern oil also has other anti wear additives like moly that protect cams & internal parts, no factory cam need crazy high amounts of ZDDP and adding too much by pouring in an unknown amount additive is also not good for the engine.

you said:


"Not going back through all the pages, myself & others have lost track of most things posted in this thread. Thats great if you actually removed main/rod caps & properly measured for clearances, hope they were all within spec."

No not yet, but we did provide some limited info. as I have stated. If I ever take this Motor down that far, to get those type of measurements, it would be rebuilt as I come back out, for sure.

OK, then you didnt actually measure the bearing clearances, that can only be done by removing the caps & using plasti-gauge or the right measuring tool.

Sorry for trying to clarify some things that arent very clear or providing facts on some of the statements made, there is no argument on my part, just stating facts in an effort to help, but apparently myths & flawed opinions over rule facts.

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Tom,
So then why did the OEM's on their top of the line Hi-Performance engines that they still had a warranty on use non offset pistons?

Stan

Post up examples of GM Non Offset Pontiac Pistons.
Since this is a Pontiac Site the Pontiac Pistons will do fine, Stan.

Tom V.

Example TRW supplied Offset RA-IV Pistons as a OEM Supplier.
Still have the Specs from Dennis Novotny (a TRW Piston Engineer there)
RIP Dennis.

Tom V.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Post up examples of GM Non Offset Pontiac Pistons.
Since this is a Pontiac Site the Pontiac Pistons will do fine, Stan.

Tom V.

Example TRW supplied Offset RA-IV Pistons as a OEM Supplier.
Still have the Specs from Dennis Novotny (a TRW Piston Engineer there)
RIP Dennis.

Tom V.

Tom,
I am sure someone will correct me if I have this wrong. The information I have says the 455 SD had pistons with no offset.

Stan