|
Post by AZdude on Aug 18, 2004 3:28:55 GMT -5
I will race a chevy ;D but they usually don't wanna race me.
The desktop dyno can be accurate, as long as you have perfect specs. I think it is great for building a combo.
I thought you guys with Chevy's could get better numbers with your numbers.
|
|
|
Post by 73Nova73 on Aug 18, 2004 12:42:41 GMT -5
Hey 73nova73...can you run these specs for me, just to see what this would put out if i built it up. Block: 327 CI Bore : 4.030 Stroke: 3.000 Valves: 2.080 / 1.600 Carb: 750 CFM Intake: Single Plane Weiand Team "G" Headers: Long Tube Cam Specs: Roller --Advanced Duration 312/320 -- Lift .640/.645 Compression ratio? 3" stroke?...are ya buiding a 302 or was that a typo? What kind of heads so I can get the specs. What brand of cam so I can get the specs. Are the headers small or large tube? (small tube would be 1 5/8" and smaller) It's a pain but if you want an accurate "dyno run" I need those specs.
|
|
|
Post by §ùp€®ÑÓV∆ on Aug 18, 2004 14:51:11 GMT -5
Compression Ratio will be either 10:1 or 11:1 I havent decided yet...you can run the 11:1 on the dyno I guess.
Yea its a 3.000 stroke, aka 283 crank. Large tube headers. Lunati SP Roller Series cam World Products SBC Motown 220 Lite Heads
|
|
|
Post by 73Nova73 on Aug 19, 2004 16:11:16 GMT -5
I couldn't find those heads so I used ones that are fairly close. (Canfield 220 with the same valve sizes)
547hp@7500 431 ft.-lbs. of tq.@6000
With that much cam I would go with more compression and more carb, I put in 12.5:1 and a 900cfm carb and this is what it said:
605hp@7500 461 ft.-lbs. of tq.@6000
|
|
|
Post by §ùp€®ÑÓV∆ on Aug 19, 2004 16:41:45 GMT -5
605hp & 461 ft/lbs isnt too bad for a N/A 327 ;D. Well actually it would be a 306 CI after the .030 bore and destroke.
|
|
|
Post by 73Nova73 on Aug 20, 2004 12:12:38 GMT -5
One thing you should know is a destroked motor loves rpms, my dad told me that you had to shift his old 302 camaro at 10,000 when you were really getting on it or it would lose so many rpms that you wouldnt get going again in the next gear, I'm not sure what it would do with a auto trans because they never made one with an auto.
|
|
|
Post by §ùp€®ÑÓV∆ on Aug 20, 2004 16:17:18 GMT -5
Yea destroke engines love RPMS's and make less torque. It should be able to rev up pretty high fairly quick with my rear end tho. Right now, soon as you hit one gear you have to be ready to hit another one.
I remember when we first got the car..it had the tranny and rear end...but they guy had took the big block out and dropped in a shitty worn out 267. (not the 265's that came in the bel air's...a 267) It took that engine all it had to get those gears going. After 2nd gear, going into 3rd it would do fairly good. But trying to pull the car from a dead stop...it would barely spin in gravel.
|
|
|
Post by 73Nova73 on Aug 22, 2004 7:50:48 GMT -5
Was that 267 the original motor for your car?
|
|
|
Post by §ùp€®ÑÓV∆ on Aug 22, 2004 9:46:50 GMT -5
No it was just something the guy stuck back in the car. See the guy had got it off a car lot...put a big block, tranny, and rear end in it...well I guess he spent all his money on that because the guy at the car lot said he didnt pay for it and they told him they were going to pick it up. By the time they went to pick it up, he had took the big block back out and dropped the 267 back in it. Why he left the tranny I dont know...would have been easy to take it out along with the engine. Rear end I can kinda see if he didnt have time for that. So when we got the car it had the tranny and rear, but the worn out 267.
|
|
|
Post by §ùp€®ÑÓV∆ on Aug 22, 2004 9:50:10 GMT -5
I ran the VIN on my car a while back. It was orginially a 250 I6 110hp car. It was made in Willow Run MI. The car had to be the cheapest thing on the lot lol...it has no emblems on it (didnt come new with them on it), didnt have a hole for the antenna (although fender I have now did, untill I shaved it). Car didnt even have back up lights . Which you can probally tell from pictures of my car. Because the ones that had back up lights had a little strip of white/clear on one of the tail lights on each side.
|
|
|
Post by SinisterCRX on Aug 22, 2004 11:32:16 GMT -5
Oh man.. my CRX had more horsepower stock than your Nova did That's fucked up that it didnt have emblems/radio/backup lights. Jeez, especially the back up lights. How can that be legal?
|
|
|
Post by §ùp€®ÑÓV∆ on Aug 22, 2004 20:44:30 GMT -5
I guess it could get by with no back up lights back then (and now too obviously since I dont have them lol). I cant get pulled over for not wearing my seatbelt in my old truck either...because it didnt come out from the factory with them. Kinda dumb eh? But since it didnt have them stock...its not illegal for me not to have them on. Yet I can get in trouble for not wearing them in my car.
|
|
|
Post by §ùp€®ÑÓV∆ on Aug 22, 2004 20:57:38 GMT -5
Yea your CRX had more power then the stock 250 that came in my nova new lol. Bad thing is, the smaller 235 in my truck makes 145hp with 8.25:1 compression. And its not meant to be a high hp engine...its meant to have torque and pull.
|
|
|
Post by §ùp€®ÑÓV∆ on Aug 22, 2004 21:51:44 GMT -5
Hey 73nova, I saw a post on the truck forum I go to where a guy asked about what kinda hp his engine would make. Nobody had replied, so I thought id show you the specs. If you get time could you run these? If not its cool, just figured id try to help him out.
Block: 350 CI Bore : 4.030 Stroke: 3.750 Valves: 1.94/1.50 Carb: 600 CFM Intake: Edelbrock performer RPM Headers: Large Tube (he just said headers, im guessing large tube) Cam Specs: Roller --Advanced Duration 254/262 -- Lift .447/462 Compression: 9.6:1
Says the heads are the stock production 882 heads. 76cc combustion chamber & 151? (i think) intake.
BTW: Cam is Comp x4-254H.
|
|
|
Post by 73Nova73 on Aug 23, 2004 10:07:02 GMT -5
Comp cams site doesnt seem to be working so I'll try to get the specs later.
|
|