[twinturrbo406]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

Some of you will bust Greatgto's b's till he either does what he says or announces he's going to give up on the idea. Just remember... if he does end up doing what he said... then he has the opportunity to bust you back. Keep that in mind.

And bustin in itself aint such a bad thing. If you do it right. All this hate stuff from some is a bit much.

IMO what tends to happen is we type and hit enter before we give it much thought. It comes across as mean or ridiculous etc.. and then it gets mistaken as a dislike or hatred or what have you. Some will ignore, some take sides, some will further instigate and blow threads up.

Aint none of us perfect... but we should try to read our posts as if we were on the recieving end before hittin that enter key. And even with care, sometimes the recieving end takes things differently than we intend. I have a hunch most of us are not english majors.

Some things GreatGTO has posted that we didnt like, or want to read, or believe, or whatever, were posted while or shortly after he was trying to defend a product or a friend and probably not what or how he would of posted, if not drawn in in the first place. Damned if he did, damned if he didnt.

Whether you like or believe GreatGTO or not is up to you as an individual. But I have to admit I admire anyone who sticks his neck out there and defends his friends and what he personally believes in.

Regardless what any of us may think he should or shouldnt have said. He does have the right to express his opinion same as the rest of us.

Well worded constructive criticism vs negative destructive comments could have prevented most of this in the 1st place, years ago. IMO

..... damn Bruce, your layin' it down, lol, very true though ..... i will say, that some of this stuff does get taken the wrong way, or maybe more seriously then intended, because from the people i've met at the trade shows, or Norwalk even, none of them were like what i expected to meet in some cases, everyone was very pleasant to be around, i think these types of threads will "stereotype" someone's opinion of you, and then that's what they see when ever that person posts, which i even fell victim to some of that, as far as what i expected when i was about to meet, or talk to some of these guys ..... basically what i'm saying is i have yet to meet someone in person, that behaves like you might expect them too, because of how you intepret their character or attitude on the boards, it was very eye opening ..... hell, Alan Minor and EPC took me to their pits and fed me like i was an orphan !!! Not so much Minor, but EPC can take some shots at guys from time to time, not complaining at all, you just might not expect someone to be quite as nice as they might really be in person ...

..... some of this stuff does seem to carry a certain amount of hate behind it, whether it is intended or not, sometimes it just reads that way .....

..... hell, i thought Langer was hilarious, i expected him to be very difficult to be around from some of what i've seen, and heard from others, i didn't get that at all when i met John, in fact he was extremely helpful and friendly, but, after some of the things have happened on here, recently, i'm sure many would expect him to set me on fire if he had the chance, (j/k) ...

..... not saying that he feels that way, but i'm just sayin', i wouldn't be surprized if others expected that .....

..... i can personally assure anyone that wants to know, that GreatGTO, is in all honesty, the best friend i have, and i dont have many, i would trust him with my life, and for me, that is saying alot ..... and i promise you guys, who ever you think he is from these threads, you couldn't be further from the truth .....

[71 Ventura II]

Originally Posted by 69Goat1

X2... I know 709 flywheel can get you to at least 136 MPH at 3525... been there, done that... so I am pretty sure it doesn't take 800 to the ground to run 141 at a lighter weight???

Did you notice the 1.91 60' time? It has to have an effect on the topend MPH. John your car ran 136 MPH with what a high 1.3X low 1.4X 60'? Running 141 mph with the 1.91 60' was really strong. If it were ET that could be a difference of +- .91!!! Right? JD

[GREATGTO]

Originally Posted by pontsd

Also, one last thing if I was a vendor looking to make a product for the Pontiac crowd and read some of these...... No thanks and I am sure none of us want that !!

Thats what I said the other day when asked about my reasoning for defending new products, especially before they have had the chance to develop .
If people want to attack a new product,any product right out of the gate you wont be seeing more new products for pontiacs.
When I first saw the cv1's I knew the foundation was there, its the most important thing when designing or building anything. Give them whatever time it takes to complete R&D like all the other heads have had is what I said from the beginning.

If Im wrong I said I would say so after all R&D is complete. After all it is just a street/strip head, the cv2 is the full race version of the platform. Even being a street/ strip head its come a long way hitting 500 cfm in testing.

[69Goat1]

Originally Posted by 65nss4spdGTO

Tracks vary, dyno's vary, cars vary on any given day. I use the same formula to compare combinations. It's strictly a tool. I'll give you 725 vs his 790, his HP to ci is very close to the combination you are so proud of. Now here is something to ponder, that was the first time out for his car, do you think you can squeeze another 65 HP out of your engine on pump gas?

Btw, his engine in your car would run 3 to 4 MPH faster then yours the first time out.

Calvin Hill
Hill Performance / Mondello Tech Center
708-250-7420

Don't know about that... I guess you missed this quote I made earlier when I mentioned my little 709 HP $6K stock block/stock crank 462 engine has not made a full 1/4 mile pass... I will show it to you again...

"No it is not. The cracked main block I built in Spring of 2007 and ran until September of 2010. I finally tore it down to freshen it up and found the cracked (hairline) main. I then built my current engine which I had dynoed. The engine I have now has more HP than the one I had then. My old engine saw 7200 a few times and is the one that ran 9.90 @ 136 MPH... My new engine has not made 1/4 mile full pass yet as the trans exploded at 1000 ft last yr on my first 1/4 mile test pass... it still ran 10.07 @ 106 mph coasting... The 709 engine is absolutely perfect and in the car now and I would be happy to run it against a comparable built CV-1 stock block/factory 4.210 cast crank 462 @ 3525 lbs any time..."

I looked around a bit for this combo being mentioned and this is what I found...

"Thought I would share the numbers of my cv-1's. John Marcella of Marcella Manifolds did the port and chamber work. They were flowed on an independent bench. They are going on a pump gas 535 in my 63 LeMans. Mike"

more on the same engine...
"11.5 compression. 63cc chambers, scat crank and rods, ross reverse dome pistons, solid roller cam 282-290 @ .050 113 centers .470 lobe w/1.7 yella terra's Pro systems carb don't know what size yet Patrick @ Pro Systems is going to send a dominator and a sv-1.Msd ignition blah, blah, blah. Ordinary stuff"

Calvin... if I couldn't get 65 more HP with that combination of parts over my little engine I would throw it down the hill... I mean GEEZ, it is only 73 more ci and weighs nearly 100 lbs less...

[ho428]

Quote:

Thats what I said the other day when asked about my reasoning for defending new products, especially before they have had the chance to develop .
If people want to attack a new product,any product right out of the gate you wont be seeing more new products for pontiacs.

Yup!
Seems I recall Porosity issues with the first KRE heads, "total junk, never work, blah, blah, blah..." was posted by many on this board.
It took some time to finish development and now KRE's are one of the most used and respected aftermarket Pontiac heads.
E-heads, everyone screamed bloody murder because it was round port only. Now offered in O and D.

Same song, different dance.

[GTO Dan]

Originally Posted by pontsd

Also, one last thing if I was a vendor looking to make a product for the Pontiac crowd and read some of these...... No thanks and I am sure none of us want that !!

Not necessarily true. Any time you have passionate supporters of a product you will get this type of bickering. Just look at all the IPhone vs Android vs Blackberry "discussions".

Also, from a product marketing standpoint, there is a school of thought that believes any discussion on a product (as long as it is not related to a fatal flaw) is good. You want people talking about your product, as soon as all discussion stops, so do the sales.

Just my opinion, take it for what it is worth.

[69Goat1]

Originally Posted by 71 Ventura II

Did you notice the 1.91 60' time? It has to have an effect on the topend MPH. John your car ran 136 MPH with what a high 1.3X low 1.4X 60'? Running 141 mph with the 1.91 60' was really strong. If it were ET that could be a difference of +- .91!!! Right? JD

JD... even if he spun the first 200 ft the car would still mph... my experience is loss of traction at the hit causes MORE MPH at the stripe so I would hope a car with a 535, more compression, and more cam by .015 @ .050, and 90 lbs less weight could muster more than 5 MPH over a 462 with a set of Junk 314 cfm E-heads in the 1/4...

[johnta1]

Yup!
Seems I recall Porosity issues with the first KRE heads, "total junk, never work, blah, blah, blah..." was posted by many on this board.
It took some time to finish development and now KRE's are one of the most used and respected aftermarket Pontiac heads.
E-heads, everyone screamed bloody murder because it was round port only. Now offered in O and D.

Same song, different dance.

Also notice the ones lambasting them are the same ones lambasting all the others?

[65nss4spdGTO]

Originally Posted by 69Goat1

Don't know about that... I guess you missed this quote I made earlier when I mentioned my little 709 HP $6K stock block/stock crank 462 engine has not made a full 1/4 mile pass... I will show it to you again...

Calvin... if I couldn't get 65 more HP with that combination of parts over my little engine I would throw it down the hill... I mean GEEZ, it is only 73 more ci and weighs nearly 100 lbs less...

You are right. The E heads are much better suited for stock block, stock crank combinations. I would still ask you one simple question, how are you going to add 50HP to 75HP to your combination?

I posted in the street section where we just made 813 HP with a 10.75 to 1 compression CV-1 535 street engine. Cam is 265/272@.050, steel connecting rods, flat top pistons, standard rockers, .080 wall push rods and off the shelf headers. This combination will fit in a 67 GTO with a stock hood.

That's the reason they make bigger heads.

Calvin Hill
Hill Performance / Mondello Tech Center
708-250-7420

[69Goat1]

Originally Posted by 65nss4spdGTO

You are right. The E heads are much better suited for stock block, stock crank combinations. I would still ask you one simple question, how are you going to add 50HP to 75HP to your combination?

I posted in the street section where we just made 813 HP with a 10.75 to 1 compression CV-1 535 street engine. Cam is 265/272@.050, steel connecting rods, flat top pistons, standard rockers, .080 wall push rods and off the shelf headers. This combination will fit in a 67 GTO with a stock hood.

That's the reason they make bigger heads.

Calvin Hill
Hill Performance / Mondello Tech Center
708-250-7420

Don't need more HP on my stock block deal... remember 700 is the magical block shattering #...

I am glad you have finally told people how it is on the common stock block builds... Now, where is it's niche because it's not in the 500+ ci builds either? Power adder head maybe?

[69Goat1]

Originally Posted by 65nss4spdGTO

I'll give you 725 vs his 790

Calvin... Is this the rear wheel HP you quoted in your other thread? If so you are incorrect. I know what mine makes at the flywheel...

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by 69Goat1

Is that bnicks engine that BES built? IIRC that was not a stock crank and it was way down on torque and it made it's hp way the hell up there in the 7200+ rpm area which after a bit is beyond factory crank/block rpm capabilities.

In comparison I built a 462 out of a 455 block and factory cast crank and put a set of standard port eheads with$600 worth of port work onthem and made 709 hp at 6100 rpm and 683 torque... In my mind I can either make 705 hp at 7300 or 709 at 6100... Which one would you rather have in a stock block?

Can you make your numbers on 91 octane fuel? On same dyno and conditions? Could you make his numbers on same 91 octane fuel and dyno?

You want a cast crank? Thats your choice to make. Does his crank really add hp?

If both of you upgrade to a larger 535 and say 13.5 compression and race gas or e85, which of you is going to need new heads or spend a bunch more money on existing heads and valvetrain and ported intake (if needed) to beat the other? (No super deal on used parts considered)

We all have choices...ours to make...if you dont like one of the choices thats your decision no one elses.

BTW pretty sure Arnies stock block 467 cv1 combo makes a whole bunch more power than your stock block NA. Sure it probably has more $ involved... but then again it makes alot more than 709 HP... just sayin.

[65nss4spdGTO]

Originally Posted by 69Goat1

Calvin... Is this the rear wheel HP you quoted in your other thread? If so you are incorrect. I know what mine makes at the flywheel...

This engine just came off the dyno. It's the same dyno that my 400ci engine made 603 HP and showed 600 HP to the ground in my 3550 lbs GTO.

Looks like you have a pretty good combination, care to share all of the specs?

Calvin Hill
Hill Performance / Mondello Tech Center
708-250-7420

[69Goat1]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

Can you make your numbers on 91 octane fuel? On same dyno and conditions? Could you make his numbers on same 91 octane fuel and dyno?

Question 1 = YES
Question 2 = We were comparing MPH, my 136 at 3525 lbs to 141 at 3435 lbs.
Question 3 = With 535 CI I would certainly hope so!

[69Goat1]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

BTW pretty sure Arnies stock block 467 cv1 combo makes a whole bunch more power than your stock block NA. Sure it probably has more $ involved... but then again it makes alot more than 709 HP... just sayin.

Not sure about that... I heard he has to spray it to start it, that is if it even still runs, haven't heard a word about it in some time... Just Sayin...

[69Goat1]

Originally Posted by 65nss4spdGTO

This engine just came off the dyno. It's the same dyno that my 400ci engine made 603 HP and showed 600 HP to the ground in my 3550 lbs GTO.

Looks like you have a pretty good combination, care to share all of the specs?

Calvin Hill
Hill Performance / Mondello Tech Center
708-250-7420

That all depends on the calc you use to get Ground HP from... tell me it's not one of those cheesy online calculators....

[PONTIAC DUDE]

I have run 8.93@160 with a 1.52 60 ft'er. But when talking nitrous, Hp is really hard to figure cause all the numbers get out of wack.

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by 69Goat1

Question 1 = YES

You have run 91 octane? What compression for 709 hp?

Question 2 = We were comparing MPH, my 136 at 3525 lbs to 141 at 3435 lbs.

725-730 hp at 3525 vs 790-795 at 3435. What are we comparing? I dont think I asked anything relative in my post.
So... you can get 725 -730 hp from your 467 on 91 octane? Do share details like compression and cam.

Question 3 = With 535 CI I would certainly hope so!

My 3rd question was

Could you make his numbers on same 91 octane fuel and dyno?

My questions in reference to 535 was...

If both of you upgrade to a larger 535 and say 13.5 compression and race gas or e85, which of you is going to need new heads or spend a bunch more money on existing heads and valvetrain and ported intake (if needed) to beat the other? (No super deal on used parts considered)

BTW, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Calvins terminology for hp to the ground is actually 1/4 mile speed to weight estimated flywheel hp. vs Dyno flywheel hp result. In other words hp at the flywheel made on the run not dyno number made at another time. NOT wheel hp on a chassis dyno.

[cgeise]

Originally Posted by 69Goat1

Question 1 = YES
Question 2 = We were comparing MPH, my 136 at 3525 lbs to 141 at 3435 lbs.
Question 3 = With 535 CI I would certainly hope so!

Are these the exact same type of car - I have see huge differences in MPH based on how slippery a car is -- when I went from my Willy's to the firebird body it was worth at least 7 to 8 mph -- same drive train and weight was close.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

You have run 91 octane? What compression for 709 hp?

725-730 hp at 3525 vs 790-795 at 3435. What are we comparing? I dont think I asked anything relative in my post.




My 3rd question was


My questions in reference to 535 was...



BTW, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Calvins terminology for hp to the ground is actually 1/4 mile speed to weight estimated flywheel hp. vs Dyno flywheel hp result. In other words hp at the flywheel made on the run not dyno number made at another time. NOT wheel hp on a chassis dyno.

Lol, why couldnt he make 800hp from a 535? I made more with a 496.
By the way Calvin/Bill said they dynoed on 93 octane so where did 91 octane come from?