[Half-Inch Stud]

Here's a false boundary condition: If the engine can start & idle then the cam is not too big.

Pretty sure i've attained "too big a cam" and starts & idles. Only benefits are nice sound & no ping.

A right-sized cam is most desirable, and should be desired. Same goes for TQ Converter stall & tightness.

[mgarblik]

Agree with others the cam choice will be a torque monster and work just fine. I like the 114 LC as well. From recent experience, at 500 Cubic inches, the exhaust manifolds will be a detriment. I do not know personally how much better the round port SD manifolds are than the D-port long branch I recently installed. But on the dyno, they killed almost 30 ft. lbs of torque everywhere from 3500 RPM to 5500 RPM. Possibly the SD manifolds are much better? My engine was only 462 CU IN. similar compression ratio, 10:1. The weak link from everything you listed is the Muncie transmission. Not to pick on them specifically, a BW super T-10 would fair no better. These little 70 lb. aluminum transmissions just were not designed for the kind of torque you will be making. On street tires, if you don't go crazy banging the gears, it will live for a while. I have the same Muncie in my car making 450 HP. and anticipate it flying into pieces at some point in the future. Then I will have an excuse to swap-in a 5-speed. Your car will be fun!!

[Steve C.]

No lifter bore bracing is necessary.
I will offer this suggestion, have your old valve springs tested to see how much pressure they have lost. Keep in mind the additional weight of those larger 2.190" diameter springs.
Test them with a calibrated bench tester like a Rimac machine at their verified installed height with their retainers in place.


.

[Murf]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

Agree with others the cam choice will be a torque monster and work just fine. I like the 114 LC as well. From recent experience, at 500 Cubic inches, the exhaust manifolds will be a detriment. I do not know personally how much better the round port SD manifolds are than the D-port long branch I recently installed. But on the dyno, they killed almost 30 ft. lbs of torque everywhere from 3500 RPM to 5500 RPM. Possibly the SD manifolds are much better? My engine was only 462 CU IN. similar compression ratio, 10:1. The weak link from everything you listed is the Muncie transmission. Not to pick on them specifically, a BW super T-10 would fair no better. These little 70 lb. aluminum transmissions just were not designed for the kind of torque you will be making. On street tires, if you don't go crazy banging the gears, it will live for a while. I have the same Muncie in my car making 450 HP. and anticipate it flying into pieces at some point in the future. Then I will have an excuse to swap-in a 5-speed. Your car will be fun!!

Definite thread hijack.! Are all 5 spds stronger than Muncies / super T-10’s? If not, which are & which aren’t?

Thanks
Murf

[mgarblik]

Originally Posted by Murf

Definite thread hijack.! Are all 5 spds stronger than Muncies / super T-10’s? If not, which are & which aren’t?

Thanks
Murf

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack. No personal experience with the modern 5-6 speeds. Only going by their claims for torque ratings. Have destroyed my share of Muncie and T-10's. Not much support for the countershaft/gears when high torque applied. Shelling of gear teeth, bent/broken countershafts common. Exploded case from separating forces just a fact of life over 400 Ft. Lbs. of torque with great traction. Street tires and no wheel hop, will last allot longer. Not bad mouthing the old transmissions. They were adequate for the power/tires of the 1960's-1970's. Things have changed allot.

Sorry for hijack. Back to topic.

[Formulajones]

The 5 and 6 speeds are pretty stout by stick shift standards. The TKO's have been pushed beyond their advertised ratings for decades being used in drag race applications. 6 speeds as well.

Of course they can all be beefed further if need be. Many places offer that service, but for a street car that might see a fun dragstrip day once in a great while, I wouldn't even worry about it. If you still use stock rearend and driveshaft components, I'd be more worried about those before that TKO gives up.

Street car with street tires, have fun and don't worry about it.

[tom s]

There was a iron case,steel midplate ST-10 2.64 first gear made some years ago for NASCAR.Also had high nickle gears.Bill Blair offered me one years ago and still kicking myself for not buying it.FWIW,Tom

[napster]

This is how the engine and trans changed along with the results. Changes Long tube headers, T-56 Tremec and 3.73 rear.

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...d.php?t=834864

Videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCVaZqP-PNo&t=46s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA3K-ydGsGo

[Sirrotica]

FWIW, your question at the beginning of the thread made me think of a quote in one of the member's signature.

Too much cam?

"There is no such thing as too much cam, just not enough engine."
Bob Eiler

Bob is a engine machinist, local to me, located in Centerville Ohio. He also is a Pontiaddict. He has been racing Pontiacs a good while, here are his two cars and times, and specs from decades ago, also taken from his signature. I've only met him once, when he had some M/T valve covers for sale, I traveled to his home/shop. We had a nice conversation. At that time he had the 67 Firebird sitting in the shop.

1966 GTO - 11.31@119 (3478 lbs) in 1979

1967 Firebird - 9.73@138 (2940 lbs) in 1986
400 cu in / 295-298 cfm RAIV / Lunati Cam 278/283 - .704 lift/5.13 gears

Pretty impressive performance back in 1986.....

[Kedavra]

Originally Posted by 25stevem

Welcome to ya!
If you want all the HP that 315 Intake cfm has to offer then I would run the Victor if you can make the clearance for it.

The T2 would need to be ported pretty well to just get into the 280 cfm range.

In the end the judgement call is going to be all yours Intake usage wise in terms of how much throttle responce/ drivability you want below 2500 rpm.

Ps, you hacked this thread from the OP, you should have started your own new one , but maybe you don't know how yet?

I have been running the Victor for years, and I may switch around with the RPM and it to see what works best for me. My initial combo will be engine dyno’d, maybe I can get the dynomeister interested enough to test them both out without killing my wallet.
Sorry for the hack - I did warn I was a newbie!

[Kedavra]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

No lifter bore bracing is necessary.
I will offer this suggestion, have your old valve springs tested to see how much pressure they have lost. Keep in mind the additional weight of those larger 2.190" diameter springs.
Test them with a calibrated bench tester like a Rimac machine at their verified installed height with their retainers in place.


.

Thanks for the advice. I have CCA-929’s and they are still good. Had a local racing machine shop check them out - he did have to adjust the shims a little to get the heights right with the higher lift. He tested them and showed me the IH and clearances. I’ve had the heads for a long time - the 2.19/1.77’s not so long. This is a rebuild triggered by a catastrophic lifter failure - the final chapter in a long take of woe that I could write a book about.

[Steve C.]

It won't be apples-to-apples but here was my back-to-back testing of a Performer RPM intake and a Victor intake on this engine:
https://pontiacstreetperformance.com...455sc2003.html

Both intakes were port matched to the heads in use.

RPM intake 580.2 HP at 5800 rpm (peak) and a Victor intake 600.9 HP at 6000 RPM (peak).

RPM intake 589.1 ft.lbs. torque at 4400 RPM (peak) and the Victor 595.1 ft.lbs. torque at 4700 RPM (peak).

Down low, the Performer RPM with 491.2 ft.lbs. torque at 3500 RPM and the Victor intake 487.0 ft.lbs. torque at the same 3500 RPM.


.

[Mr Anonymous]

There is such a thing as too much cam. A friend recently put a CC 305H into a 7.9:1 compression, 300 cubic inch v8 and couldnt get it to start. It has provided me with a lot of material to make fun of him with.