bogus wrote:
You may also want to ask cuisinartvette. He can help you get a custom grind...

Brian asked about the V6 lifter. After rereading your post, I assume you are using the V6 lifter retainers, but V8 lifters?

At that point, is there a difference? I mean, the V6s share some internals with V8s, why not lifters?

Durango_Boy wrote:
Quote:

bogus wrote:
You may also want to ask cuisinartvette. He can help you get a custom grind...

Brian asked about the V6 lifter. After rereading your post, I assume you are using the V6 lifter retainers, but V8 lifters?

At that point, is there a difference? I mean, the V6s share some internals with V8s, why not lifters?

I am using V6 roller lifters and V8 retainers and spider bar. The Gen1 blocks have shorter lifter bores than the later roller blocks so the V8 lifters, being taller than V6 lifters, lift up too high out of the Gen1 lifter bores. This creates several problems...all solved by using shorter V6 lifters.

The benefit is a cheaper roller conversion and the reliability of the stock retainer system, which I like better than the after market stuff.

BrianCunningham wrote:
Quote:

Durango_Boy wrote:
Quote:

bogus wrote:
You may also want to ask cuisinartvette. He can help you get a custom grind...

Brian asked about the V6 lifter. After rereading your post, I assume you are using the V6 lifter retainers, but V8 lifters?

At that point, is there a difference? I mean, the V6s share some internals with V8s, why not lifters?

I am using V6 roller lifters and V8 retainers and spider bar. The Gen1 blocks have shorter lifter bores than the later roller blocks so the V8 lifters, being taller than V6 lifters, lift up too high out of the Gen1 lifter bores. This creates several problems...all solved by using shorter V6 lifters.

The benefit is a cheaper roller conversion and the reliability of the stock retainer system, which I like better than the after market stuff.

cool
learn something new everyday

Bubs wrote:
DB, don't you do anything the easy way? JK! Just wanted to say I'm glad I found where you went. I had trouble finding this site after you sent it to me.
Bubs

in2fun wrote:
HI Durango. Just thought I'd say hi. BTW. I'm not much into the high RPMs. I like a lot of low end power and torque.

A 405 with a dual plane intake and Vortec cylinder heads would definitely build better torque from off-idle to 4500 rpm with their 224/230 grind than the 236/242 cam shown.

Just food for thought....

BeachBum wrote:
Quote:

Durango_Boy wrote:

Well I approached it like this. I prefer low RPM torque but I also don't want to limit myself to it. I want to have that HP if I need it. My thoughts on that cam were that the 405 is going to be a torque monster anyway...because that's what they do, and that cam would not only play to that trend but it would give me some room to explore if I change in my driving habits.

Thanks so much for the insight.

I then think your set-up is a contradiction so to speak..... Vortec cylinder heads are nice low cost entry level street cruiser cylinder heads, but on a 406, they will really bottle-neck your motor. I think if you stay with the Vortecs, you would be happier with a torque building smaller cam. You might find the following results interesting.

(This is from a test done by Chevy High Performance - January 04 issue)

406 cubic inch motor, hyd flat tappet Lunati cam 230/230 - 480/480, 9.5-1 cr, Vortec Performer Air Gap manifold, Holley 750cfm. Here are the HP dyno results utilizing two different cylinder heads.

rpm.... Vortec 174 cc...un-named 180cc aftermarket
2500......227............216
3000......282............276
3500......350............338
4000......392............401
4500......420............450
5000......428............478
5500......421............489

As you can see, with no other changes to the above set-up, it gave away a little torque down low, but picked up extremely hard up top. The motor on the right peaked at 490 HP @ 5600 rpm, the Vortec motor on the left peaked at 5000 rpm and literally over 60 HP less. As you can see Vortecs are a great cylinder head for low rpm builds.

I think what I am saying, is that in my opinion, you want to definitely make a decision on what your motor is.... torque motor ? or HP motor ?..... and then build it appropriately.... Right now, you're kind of in the middle, you have cylinder heads that are really great for building low rpm torque, yet, you have a cam that wants to run you up to 6000 rpm where the Vortecs will really struggle.

Just my friendly opinion and advise.... in any regards, good luck with whatever your decision is !

Also the 2004r trans will in no way like a 3.08 ratio. You will need 3.55 or higher. Try again

Artsvettes wrote:
It's not that I don't think the 3.08 will work well with the 200. I know from first hand experience. I didn't read it anywhere. Carfull what you read it may get you in trouble

Artsvettes wrote:
Do what you want. You asked for thoughts on your build.

Artsvettes wrote:
Do what you want. You asked for thoughts on your build.

Little-Mouse wrote:
Are you going to run fuel injection, my understanding narrow
lsa (higher overlap) has bad effects on fuel injection if thats truely the case you should go to a wider 112 LSA. I did not notice any mention of a .900 base circle, will you not need the .900 base circle with a 3.75 stroke.

James

Artsvettes wrote:
DB Besides from my personal experience
http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/2006/01/01/hmn_feature9.html

Durango_Boy wrote:

I'm still wondering what about the TH2004R and the 3.08:1 gears YOU did not like since it was from personal experience. I also wouldn't consider that to be very tall, and from what others who have done this have said it's a great middle ground giving you improved mileage at high speeds AND less loss for 1st gear.

BrianCunningham wrote:
Quote:

Durango_Boy wrote:

I'm still wondering what about the TH2004R and the 3.08:1 gears YOU did not like since it was from personal experience. I also wouldn't consider that to be very tall, and from what others who have done this have said it's a great middle ground giving you improved mileage at high speeds AND less loss for 1st gear.

Ask PeteK if that 200 will even LIVE behind that 405.