Matatk wrote:

Was that was on your 500 hp supercharged motor? Hardly a comparison for a stock or mildy modified motor.

anesthes wrote:
keep in mind this was with a 224/230* camshaft and good heads. I wouldn't expect much on a stock engine.

cuisinartvette wrote:
Youll get some slack on about any timing chain after some use,they all do it, some more than others.

corvetteronw wrote:
Is this guy's stuff any good? He seems to be a sleazy, used-car salesman type.
http://www.vetteheaders.com/servlet/Detail?no=33

rklessdriver wrote:
Typically at that low of an RPM, 125lbs seat and 350lbs over the nose on valve springs will control most all hyd roller profiles. Even with the heavy retro fit lifters.

I don't think you would see any gain. The Hydra Rev was really intended for guys trying to turn a hyd roller near or over 7000RPM.
Will

PeteK wrote:
I would like to hear more about the hydra-rev kit.

Joe,
Have you run one in the past?

PeteK wrote:

My guy charges:

$160 to bore and deck (Decking will normally be to 9.010, unless a different deck height is specified by the customer).

$90 to hone w/torque plate

$125 to line hone main saddles.

Cleaning, magnafluxing and shotpeening normally run about $150.

Notching the block for a stroker usually runs about $75, and my guy will often clean up and radius the oil returns in the block while he is there.

$25 to install cam bearings (but I always do that myself).

PeteK wrote:


I am scared to run quench that tight. I always shoot for a minimum of .040. I ran a 350 years ago with about .030, (piston was about .010 above the deck), and it was an .025 gasket. I remember it looked loke the pistons may have kissed a chamber or 2.

I was never able to find a custom length pushrod for less than $90. I am never lucky enough to be at the 7.190 length. I always seem to need 7.250 or 7.150.

PeteK wrote:

I currently own:

Heads - $1170
Head gaskets - $40
Intake base gasket $9
Superram Gaskets (I cut my own) $10
Header Gaskets - $15
Oil, antifreeze, filter, etc $40
Plugs - $17

I may need to buy:

Pushrods - $90
Valve springs - $100

Looks like my maximum budget is:
$4224.00

Not exactly cheap, but as cheap as I can do it.
If it runs in the 11's and is reliable, I guess it will be a good bang for the buck.

Combined Total: $2733.00


Not a bad value, if you ask me.

mseven wrote:
Quote:

anesthes wrote:
True. Still impressive power for the size of the motor.
-- Joe

no doubt, he has always made impressive numbers with a sbc.
Aside from the really big inch stuff of Sonny Leonard, I have always been partial to the Reher Morrison builds. In recent times, it appears their prices have also become more reasonble.

mseven wrote:
sounds like a regular sherman build, big power and cammed to the moon....lol

383tpimachine wrote:
What are the flow numbers on the 210 elim vs the 195 elim?

Sounds like an engine I want

JLeatherman wrote:
I am gonna post here now. Frankly, I took a couple months off and didn't touch the vette while I got my shop cleaned up and moved around. I knew Anesthes wasn't around the corvetteforum anymore, but I didn't know where he was hanging out these days so I figured if I put it in the title he'd catch it lurking or something. And it worked too

Anyway, nothing new to report to anyone who read the thread over there. My plan is to pull the halfshafts and run the car on the lift with just the trans/driveshaft/rear and see if the noise is gone. If it is I'll put the halfshafts back one at a time until the noise returns and focus on that side. I am still hoping it's just a bad halfshaft u-joint (even though I already replaced them).

Thanks guys. I see a lot of familiar faces around here.

sliding wrote:
From manufacturer, .0025 - .0035, but that sounds a little
bit too tight to me for forged pistons.

PeteK wrote:
I almost forgot. The Comp Cam will be working Speed Pro Hydraulic roller lifters (retrofit style).
[IMG]http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t221/vrodpete/100_5628.jpg[/IMG]

PeteK wrote:
Quote:

Durango_Boy wrote:
So far I'm seeing a lot of similarities. I used a stock cut 400 crank though and didn't weight the crank.

I went with the Scat because the 400 cranks (in my area) are getting tough to find.

Scat was dirt cheap, and I have been pleased with their quality (for the most part) on other builds. Machinest had a few in stock, so I think I paid $130. Mallory was another $100, but allowed me to use the harmonic balancer I already own, so a good investment.

PeteK wrote:

I have heard of seats falling out, but the guides are new to me. I guess we are at the mercy of the machinest's preference during refresh time.
They always get the final say I guess.

PeteK wrote:
Normally, machinests I deal with do not replace the guides. The ream them oversize and insert bronze liners.
Removing the cast iron guides from the aluminum heads often pulls a small amount of metal with them that will result in a poor press fit of the new ones. Liners are very inexpensive, and work very well. On future builds, they are slid out, and new ones re-installed just as easy.
PK

Steve40th wrote:
There are 3 Rubys in island, one being a ZR-1. My friend has a automatic ZO7 Ruby. Showroom condition but will not part with the tranny.
Seriously though, the transmission shops dont even have cores. I went to three different ones here. Yes it sux being here, not just because of shipping.

SpectatorRacing wrote:
All of the people slandering GM and claiming that they killed the car for sinister reasons made me laugh. One comment in particular sticks with me - "GM had close to 3000 people interested in this car yet they killed it". Seriuosly? 3000 people? That's laughable. At what point does carrying a car line that sells a mere 3000 cars fit into GM's business model?

Hippies, greenies, and philosophers don't understand the simplest concepts of business. If it takes $250 million to design a car, and you sell 3000 of those cars, what is the cost per car going to be? It's not somehow "magically" cheaper to design an electric car.

Then take the same $250 million and divide it over 250,000 vehicles that people will actually buy. Hmmm...

bogus wrote:
I didn't. Someone else did. There was a documentary on one of the cable channels about electric cars. I don't remember the source, just the stat.

When you think about it, it does make some sense. If you drive to a city, especially every where but here in LA, you drive to a transit center and commute in.

I drive about 3 miles to work. Did that in Delaware for all but 3 years of work. When I was in Richmond, I did 15 miles to work.

bogus wrote:

When I worked in Pasadena and Irwindale, that year, literally, was about 35 or 45 miles one way. So when it comes right down to it, my work life has fit into the range of a modern electric car for all but 4 of my 22+ years of work. I am not counting socalizing, and that's where an electric car would really fall down.

Weavsvet wrote:
I installed the cam and it was not degreed. Lloyd said would be close without doing that because the advance is ground into it.

bogus wrote:
can you upload the data log?

If the cam is indexed wrong, then timing gets ugly...

Mekanic wrote:
your tune sucks. Either that or you're not getting spark

bogus wrote:
The only hold back to the electric car is range.

bogus wrote:

Interestingly, most people - some 80% or more - drive on average 30 miles a day. So for a majority of us, the electric car has viability.

Mekanic wrote:
So you're lookin at 3100 + pedals and console + labor for the 6 speed.

Durango_Boy wrote:
Um...did anyone catch the 15-20 mile range part? I can't even drive to work with that distance limit.

Durango_Boy wrote:
I'm just worried I won't be able to find a 400 head gasket thinner that's still appropriate for aluminum heads.

I'll be sure to update the thread Sunday with pics of the various steps of the build.

bogus wrote:
Ah, but the later models read the oil temp and look to see if they are close. At startup, they should be, but if they diverge in the wrong direction, then things get nutty.

Durango_Boy wrote:


Last time I saw a snapped cam like that it was a very aggressive cam being abused in an engine that didn't have perfectly straight cam bore. It was off just enough that before it was checked he snapped two or three cams.

BrianCunningham wrote:


Ouch, not a fan of reduced base circle cams.

I've seen too many snap on road courses

rklessdriver wrote:
NOT BOLTS. I stated CAP SCREWS. Scat offers a rod with thru bolts (like stock) and one with 3/8" capscrews. Buy the latter. Eagle switched their SIR rods to 3/8" capscrews about 3yrs ago. For all intense purposes the cap screw rods are equall and I would by the lowest price one.

rklessdriver wrote:
Joe - I'm not following your comment about how a cam with less lift usually has the faster rate of lift.

rklessdriver wrote:

You would have to break things down with a dial indicator and a degree wheel to map out every degree of lift/duration between 2 cams but I'm positive the cam with more lift will win on rate of lift every time - provided the duration of the 2 cams your comparing (such as in this case) are close to one another.

rklessdriver wrote:

I'm not trying to insult you with my (following) simplified explanation but I think it may help others understand what I'm talking about.

The first cam has an Intake lobe with 264* (out of 360*) advertised duration. It has 210* (out of 360*) of duration remaining after the lifter has acheived .050 lift. In that 264* it is only capable of .318 lobe lift and back to 0 (well .020 or .006 or whatever they use for advertised duration).

The second cam has less advertised duration to begin with at only 260*... It also has the same 210* of duration remaining after .050 lift. In only 260* of duration the second cam reaches .350 lobe lift and back to 0....

You were right the first time. The second cam has the faster rate of lift on the intake lobe. Not sure if you mispoke or what in your last post.

rklessdriver wrote:

For everyone else who may be lost:

First thing you have to know is that cam lobes only have 360* of rotation to get everything done (valve closed, valve opening, valve max lift, valve closing, valve closed again).

Timing events on a cam lobe are measured in "degrees of Duration". The total amount of time a lifter is off the heel of the cam or in positive lift (be aware that this point is measured differently by different cam grinders) is refered to as "Advertised Duration".

Because .000000 lift and .0000001 lift is really hard to detect and repeat, cam grinders long ago started using .020 or .006 lift (it is a more repeatable measurement) as a place to start measuring for the Advertied Duration. It casues alot of confusion, but it's an important measurement and these days very overlooked and misunderstood.

There are a host of other cam lobe timing measuerments for people to look at. Duration at .050, .100, .200 ect. They are smiply the remaining degrees of duration (remaining from your orginal 360*) at a given amount of lift. None of them mean anything unless you correlate them to the advertised duration. Then you can compare 2 differnt cam lobes by looking at and comparing all these timing numbers.

Now I'm only talking about individual CAM LOBE timing events here. They are very simple to understand compared to...

rklessdriver wrote:

Actual entire camshaft and valve timing events, which are a product of the cam lobe timing events combined with the centerlines the cam lobes are ground on (in releation to the crankshaft)and rocker arm ratio. Valve timing events are measured by degrees in releation to the piston being at TDC or BDC of it's stroke.

You almost always see the intake lobe centerline and lobe seperation on cam cards. Lobe seperation is nothing more than the intake & exhast centerline numbers added together and divided by 2. Some people put so much emphsis on it... I have no idea why. It really dosen't tell you that much useful.

rklessdriver wrote:

You sometimes you see the valve timing numbers on cam cards. These are very useful if can comprehend what is actually happening at those given points in a 4cyl engine. It's important to know how long the valve is actually off its seat when the piston is still on the up stroke and how long it continues to be open after the piston has gone past TDC and is approaching BDC. Same for the exhaust valve and for when the plug fires.

rklessdriver wrote:
I don't think either of them will have any kind of a lick at idle, so power brakes and driveability will be good. If I had to pick between the (2) I would run the second cam.

The second cam has far more lift and slightly longer lobe centerlines so it SHOULD have a wider powerband by maybe 2-300RPM over the first cam.

The first cam has a few degrees more seat timing but the ramp has a slower rate of lift and the lobe is not very big lift wise. It will make less peak HP/TQ on the order of 10-15 probally. It'll be down on power across the power band as well and you don't gain ANYTHING in driveabilty over the bigger second cam.

Of these (2) there is no reason (unless you just want less power) to not run the second one.
Will

Steve40th wrote:

DRM makes/made a convertible roll bar you can still use the rag top with and it was a bolt in.

BrianCunningham wrote:
Quote:

anesthes wrote: Won't look as nice..

That's a matter of opinion.

bogus wrote:

The HP of a supercharged 383 will be nearing 600 at the rear wheels

BrianCunningham wrote:
Quote:

bogus wrote:
Yea, but at under $20k, you are nearing Z06 performance without the Z06 cost and the insurance bill...

Hoping to have more than that actually

bogus wrote:
yea, but he ain't drag racing.

dan0617 wrote:
Quote:

anesthes wrote:

I cannot wear a helmet while sitting in a C4, the helmet rubs the roof..

-- Joe

Buy a 'vert. I did.