[Gach]

So yeah the theory hinges on this, if you add more cam and more compression on iron head motor, that was probably 10.1 and now increase the compression to 11.1 on pump gas YES! Its going to detonate. So his thinking is correct in that aspect. But he now knows that definitely wasn’t the case for his motor the bottom end was just shot!

[Gach]

This is why I offer having a phone conversation Because it’s inevitable it turns into drama. Especially for someone who’s just learning the ropes.

[242177P]

Originally Posted by TRADERMIKE 2012

I asked the forum if anyone had heard that if you build the top end of a motor the bottom will fail and vice- versa and no one admitted it or just did not answer me. I finally found someone that knew that.

It. Was. Gach.

Originally Posted by Gach

Not saying it was detonating, didn’t mean that, in our phone conversation I was just explaining to him, thats how they or why they came up with that old theory if you build top end and not the bottom end it usually wipes out the bottom end.

Reassuring people that old wives' tales are valid.
Not even the builders were that brave. Priceless.

[Gach]

Originally Posted by 242177P

It. Was. Gach.



Reassuring people that old wives' tales are valid.
Not even the builders were that brave. Priceless.

Oh my god, builder or some amateur trying to go faster. Oh by the way I wasn’t re-ensuring anybody that statement was valid. Just explaining why the old theory came about to begin with. I love how people can take things and twist it.

[242177P]

Originally Posted by Gach

Oh my god, builder or some amateur trying to go faster. Oh by the way I wasn’t re-ensuring anybody that statement was valid. Just explaining why the old theory came about to begin with. I love how people can take things and twist it.

Mike didn't say you explained how the
theory originated. He said you knew it.
That's why it was he brought up, again.
Even if it wasn't your intent, you most
assuredly 're-ensured' him. People can
take things and twist them, you know?

[Stuart]

Speaking of drama, that's why I edited this discussion yesterday. If you guys are posting in this discussion just to bicker with each other, you're not helping matters.

[Gach]

Originally Posted by 242177P

It. Was. Gach.



Reassuring people that old wives' tales are valid.
Not even the builders were that brave. Priceless.

Its very hard in print to interpret, or relay peoples thoughts, in how they interpret things, yeah you can say, I was right and he backed it up. Well hell yeah kind of, adding more cam and compression On the bottom end that was already ready to fail… like one full point on iron head motor will cause detonation, so my original thoughts were correct. then you have a couple guys that jump all over One particular statement, well hey what can I say it is social media.

[Gach]

Originally Posted by Stuart

Speaking of drama, that's why I edited this discussion yesterday. If you guys are posting in this discussion just to bicker with each other, you're not helping matters.

I agree….over and OUT !

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Moderator I need you to remove all conversation from this post pertaining to H-O and Mike Spizzuri, thank you in advance, I was not supposed to post it in the first place, my mistake.

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Originally Posted by 242177P

It. Was. Gach. : pound:



Reassuring people that old wives' tales are valid.
Not even the builders were that brave. Priceless.

Mikes Reply:

I said, "have you ever heard another mechanic say that if you build the top end of a motor the bottom end will fail, and vice versa".

There was nothing spoken about whether the statement is true, just an auto comment spread through the annals of history. Mike personally vouches for that statement, the Novis that I am. I think that my recent post shows that this could have some merit, after all.

[b-man]

Originally Posted by TRADERMIKE 2012

Moderator I need you to remove all conversation from this post pertaining to H-O and Mike Spizzuri, thank you in advance, I was not supposed to post it in the first place, my mistake.

Gladly.

After you stop referring to yourself in the third person, as requested by a moderator and numerous other members.

We know who’s posting by looking at your username, stop it already.

No more of this “Mikes reply”.

Furthermore this is a privately owned forum. We allow you, the public, to participate at no charge but again it’s privately owned. It is not open to whatever nonsense anyone feels like posting, there is no freedom of speech here although we’re very lenient and try to give everyone a chance to express themselves.

Just by looking at your previous threads you can see we let them continue on sometimes ad nauseam long after they’ve strayed off topic. When there is nothing to add value to the forums we shut threads down, as is our right to do so.

Please start posting in a manner that stays on topic and please heed rather than ignore the directive of the moderation crew. We don’t ask for much so it shouldn’t be a burden to follow our lead.

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Originally Posted by 242177P

Hmm. More cam isn't going to make it more
detonation prone, it's less cam that does that.
Factory scientists carefully selected a cam for
the 1967 428 ci HO YK Code Pontiac that didn't
detonate. Even inferring that a former gymnast
and his roommate failed to adequately tune the
motor is tantamount to heresy. And 067 heads?
They don't detonate. Ever.

Mikes Reply:

I want people to know who is speaking and when, sometimes I don't know who is up at bat, now you know why Mikes reply:

One thing that I can add is that I advanced my cam while I was into the Degree Wheel phase.

In one of my last posts, I explained that this motor was in a truck that went off mount Everest, while running Rum to the bearded Tenn, still man with the green teeth. The motor was running at the time it hit bottom and that probably caused the cracked Harmonic balancer. Then I ran this motor to 130 mph, at least ten times looking for the motor's limit. Well, I found that the used "588" Tri-power Cam was worn out so badly and the lobes at # 7 & 8 were not even hardly lifting the push rods.

The metal worn off from the Cams soft metal, is now throughout this engine. But mike cleaned that out with the Trans. fluid and went on. The Cam bearings were perfect, so I put the New "041" Cam in, using the existing Bearings. Seven thousand miles later, I could see that the crank Pin journals at # 7 & 8 were worn, the # 7 more than # 8, but eights Bearing was worse, for some reason. The number 4 Crank bearing is now worn to the copper, on the bottom of the Crank Journal cap. So, all that reciprocating motion, up and down, over the past ten years or seven thousand miles, finally took its toll on the old girl. Can I prove this, "No", but it is my prognosis anyway.

Then the pistons are backwards, adding insult to injury. Now that I am inside this motor, it is telling the story, there was no Piston Slap, and the cyl. walls are smooth to the touch. The Piston skirts have zero lines on them. The rod knock was # 7 & 8 and the Crank bearings on the other Crank Pin journals are normally worn and the lower Crank Main bearings look good except the fourth Crank Bearing is affected from the above, shared journal movement, all this is because the Harmonic Balancer was sending Harmonics and vibration over the years that I drove this car.

It is a good thing that we removed the Heads at this time, because the Exhaust valve that we replaced was ridden with hairline cracks and would have broken and I could have lost this motor. Maybe, it is just as well that we took the lower end apart, as the forum said to do, this I should have done already, thanks to Cliff, you were right and I was wrong, and that goes for all of you that tried to tell me. I won't make that mistake again; I am a true believer that if you build the top end of a motor, you had better build the bottom end at the same time. You can add parts in between without worrying, but the upper and lower end was designed to operate for 100k miles and they are mated to each other and ware simultaneously, throughout the service life. Just like a Cam must ware along with the Lifters, they are mated together and ware simultaneously. That is my observation.

[b-man]

Originally Posted by TRADERMIKE 2012

Mikes Reply:

I want people to know who is speaking and when, sometimes I don't know who is up at bat, now you know why Mikes reply:

One thing that I can add is that I advanced my cam while I was into the Degree Wheel phase.

In one of my last posts, I explained that this motor was in a truck that went off mount Everest, while running Rum to the bearded Tenn, still man with the green teeth. The motor was running at the time it hit bottom and that probably caused the cracked Harmonic balancer. Then I ran this motor to 130 mph, at least ten times looking for the motor's limit. Well, I found that the used "588" Tri-power Cam was worn out so badly and the lobes at # 7 & 8 were not even hardly lifting the push rods.

The metal worn off from the Cams soft metal, is now throughout this engine. But mike cleaned that out with the Trans. fluid and went on. The Cam bearings were perfect, so I put the New "041" Cam in, using the existing Bearings. Seven thousand miles later, I could see that the crank Pin journals at # 7 & 8 were worn, the # 7 more than # 8, but eights Bearing was worse, for some reason. The number 4 Crank bearing is now worn to the copper, on the bottom of the Crank Journal cap. So, all that reciprocating motion, up and down, over the past ten years or seven thousand miles, finally took its toll on the old girl. Can I prove this, "No", but it is my prognosis anyway.

Then the pistons are backwards, adding insult to injury. Now that I am inside this motor, it is telling the story, there was no Piston Slap, and the cyl. walls are smooth to the touch. The Piston skirts have zero lines on them. The rod knock was # 7 & 8 and the Crank bearings on the other Crank Pin journals are normally worn and the lower Crank Main bearings look good except the fourth Crank Bearing is affected from the above, shared journal movement, all this is because the Harmonic Balancer was sending Harmonics and vibration over the years that I drove this car.

It is a good thing that we removed the Heads at this time, because the Exhaust valve that we replaced was ridden with hairline cracks and would have broken and I could have lost this motor. Maybe, it is just as well that we took the lower end apart, as the forum said to do, this I should have done already, thanks to Cliff, you were right and I was wrong, and that goes for all of you that tried to tell me. I won't make that mistake again; I am a true believer that if you build the top end of a motor, you had better build the bottom end at the same time. You can add parts in between without worrying, but the upper and lower end was designed to operate for 100k miles and they are mated to each other and ware simultaneously, throughout the service life. Just like a Cam must ware along with the Lifters, they are mated together and ware simultaneously. That is my observation.

Goodbye troll.