269/275 solid roller install

Checking valve to piston clearance on intake at 10*ATDC results in 0" clearance as the valve opens and on exhaust 10*BTDC results in .090" clearance as the valve closes. Looks like new 1.5 intake rockers are in order.
Can someone tell me proper way to map the lobes at .050, .100, .200, .300, .400, .500, .600, .700? Max lift came in at .710" on int. and .668" on exhaust. I use 1.6/1.5 HS rockers currently, soon to be 1.5/1.5, Cam lobe spec .4300/.4300.

This is what I do.
Read the degree wheel at each lobe lift desired (dial indicator, 0.020", 0.050", etc)

I was told years ago by a very good Mopar Sponsored SS NHRA SS racer to check them at 5 degree increments, not at .050, .100,.200, .300 and up to max lift in .100 increments
When I'm checking and setting up the intake lobe centers, I check them at .200, .100 and at .050 before and after max lift I have seen all of them the have exactly same as well as seeing two or three different ILC in one degree differences

Thanks guys. If there's time i will give it a try tomorrow.

I believe the lobe shape can make calculating ILC at 0.050 and 0.300 a couple degrees different. Some lobes are the same, some are not. You can really see a difference at low lobe lifts (0.010") since the entry and exit lash ramps can be different.

I would borrow or try to get my hands on a 1.5 first might not provide much (enough) change.

The HS rockers i have are sold as 1.5, but measure closer to 1.55 as others here have found as well. Their 1.6 is the same, 1.65 from my measures.

Then I really don't think going from 1.55 to 1.50 will get you there. retard the cam a couple of degrees and see what you get.

That will put the exhaust vale closer to the piston and it has .090" clearance as is. Gonna order up new 1.55(1.55) HS intake rockers and go with it.

good luck

Thanks, really appreciate the info.

Changing the intake from 1.6 rockers to 1.5 will likely give you roughly 0.043" at max lift. But at 10 ATC, the lobe is open about 0.190-0.200" so the reduction in valve lift at that point will be roughly 0.019"
Changing the ICL position 2 degrees will change it roughly 0.015". You can actually make this change now, and see how much it helps you.

Also if you are using checking springs this will be totally different with the load of there real spring.

I see. Looks like a cam redegree is in order than. I hate the idea of retarding the cam thou. Cam is ground on a 108, maybe just put it in straight up will give the clearance i need to make it work with a 1.5 (1.55) rocker. How much performance will be lost doing this i wonder.

Something else i notice is, the exhaust vave opens as stated on cam card, but closing spec is way off according to my measures. Should close on 25.5, i think it was actually closing at 75. It opens 70.
The intake open spec is consistant with the card,but the closing point is not. What is the proper way to get the closing points?

Jim, thank you for that example chart ! very informative to me !

if your running a solid roller lift cam with good spring pressures and an automatic tranny I've got away with .060 exhaust valve to pistons and .050 intake valve clearances in a bracket motor that got raced a lot with no issues other than not much exhaust soot under the valves position on the piston tops
You can always cut the valve reliefs in the pistons in the motor with the proper tools, Isky use to offer them, not sure if they still do or not

Cab, what is your method of checking v/p clearance with heads on motor?

light weight checking springs
A friend of mine work for a natural gas CO in SO CA, he gave a dozen or so lightweight springs that came out of their regulators that work excellent
If they show .050 or more on the intake at zero lash and .060 on the exhaust side, I know I have more than enough P to V clearances with the regular springs and valve lash
Depending on the cam lobe size and LSA I see V to P on the exhaust valves I see the least amount of P to V at TDC and on the intake valves from 5 BTDC to 15 ATDC depending on those lobes

Dave, the only real way to know what your P/V is is to use clay on the pistons and use the springs you are going to run and the head gasket you are going to run at the lash you want to run and turn it over.

If you do the soft spring method you will have way more clearance than you think you do. This is because no matter what rocker you have, if it’s built correctly the ratio will be .3-.5 or so higher than the nominal ratio. Has to be because all rockers flex under load.

I’ve seen guys machine the valve pockets because they did the soft spring deal, or change the ICL because they used soft springs when in reality under actual spring loads they had more than enough clearance.

I stopped using soft springs to check P/V in about 1986. It’s just not a good way to check that.

Yes, i use checking springs. I notice as the intake is opening and at 10*ATDC the intake is the closest to the piston( mine is tight against it), but i feel no binding while barring over. Exhaust is closest at 10BTDC while it is closing, i have about .095.
My old SFT that i just removed had .118" p/v clearance measured with clay at the time and it had a .403" lobe lift with same 1.65 rocker. New cam has .430" lobe lift and with same 1.65 rocker has 0" clearance measure with dial indicator. The numbers don't add up here and the cam is in at 103.5 with a spec of 104. It seems like the cam was not ground properly. Open specs jib with the cam card, but the exhaust don't. I tried checking closing points .050 before close and as the valve closes. Can't get the correct number. What am i doing wrong?

Thats scarey. The piston is in contact with the piston at 10*ATDC using checking spring. I can not feel it in the breaker bar as im barring engine over, but i can not open valve at that point by hand with that rocker, thay are tight together. I think it would be a good idea to replace the 1.65 intake rockers with 1.55's to be safe, what do you think. I didn't want to pull the heads to check this time. I only use the clay method while engine is on a stand. Thanks

I have trouble seeing that process as checking v/p clearance. 0 lash, light checking springs, none of this represents the engine in operating conditions. This is more of just a check of "will I crash anything AT o lash, then I definitely won't at normal operating condition for sure". At 0 lash with checking springs you probably have enough clearance if it hits. I am not saying this won't keep you out of trouble. It is very good (generous) at that, but this is not checking actual v/p clearance.

Lobe lift has very little to do with it duration/ cam timing has much more effect than lift.

Move the cam to 106 and see what you get.

I did check open lifts with 1243 springs installed and .020 lash. Intake opens .665" and the exhaust has .625" max lifts.

A few times that I have needed to know what the V/P clearance after the engine is on the dyno, I used a length of some .090 acid core solder, just put it in through the spark plug hole, towards the intake valve and crank the engine over by hand, put it out and measure with some calipers, then do the exhaust.


Joe

Great idea. I used to do that on 2 strokes years ago. Thanks

Which is least harmful on hp, swapping out 1.65 for 1.55 or retarding cam 2*?

what lash setting are you using?

.020” on both valves. Harland Sharp just told me there could be as much as 1 full ratio deflection between a checking spring and a heavy valve spring. Measure the rocker as valve opens and then the retainer as valve opens to figure deflection using checking and 1243 springs .Changing to a 1.5 rocker won’t fix it.

Put it at 106, check the clearance, then measure/figure in the deflection.

https://youtu.be/YvfAmULr2dc

That’s what I do on the ones where the measured clearance when using checking springs is close/marginal.

Since the spring pressure hasn’t gotten real high with the lifts you see when the V/P clearance is closest, there usually isn’t all the much deflection at that point.
I checked some HS “1.6’s”, and they were 1.67 with a checking spring......and still 1.63 with 700lbs open load at .700-ish lift.

I’d say, if everything was as it should be, and you come up with “zero” V/P intake clearance with a checking spring, and you already have the exhaust clearance near the min....... you’re not going to be able to get to what most would consider “adequate” intake clearance(for me that’s about .050” min) by changing the RR by .1, and moving the cam 2*.
Plus, whatever you gain on the intake side by moving the cam...... you’ll lose a similar amount on the exhaust.

Off the top of my head I’d say moving the cam 2* will give you about .016”, and dropping the RR by .1 you’d get another .020” or so.
You’d go from zero with the checking spring to .036”. You’d need another .015” deflection at that lift point to get it to .050”(and then there’s the question of if you’re comfortable with .050 on the intake, and whatever you lost on the exhaust by moving the cam).

Thanks for chiming in Dwayne. Something I failed to mention is I had 0 lash using the checking springs, so add .020. Also I don’t have my new pushrods yet, using my too long pushrods from the flat tappet setup. The rocker adjusters are turned all the way out to get the pr to fit. I know it’s not right, but does that cause any real issues in measuring? Appreciate the help Dwayne

Ran my numbers thru a simulator which jibs with my Moroso slide rule with my SFT511. my new roller shows best performance at 106 install compared to 108 and 104. 108 wouldn't be a bad place to land either, It just moves the power band over giving 6 more peak power and same torque as at 104. I think i might be able to make this cam work without destroying anything. I need to order a new pushrod checker(loaned mine out) and some new pushrods, retard cam to 106 and see what happens. Thanks guys

You have a lot going on and I know myself I would have to go over the info several times with a clear head.Thank you for your post.

No problem Clinton. Looks like retarding the cam fixes a couple things. I don’t think long stroke BB like a lot of advance cam timing anyway.

You will never know what that motor in the car will like until you try it both ways
Sometimes making more power slows the car down due to traction limits, same thing on making less power
I've always made more power on the engine dyno by advancing the cams, lost power retarding them. Not the same results at the tracks
Fuel supply can limit the power and you will never find that out until you fatten it up enough to slow the MPH down in the 1/4 mile I've seen some really fast cars have that problem and the owners-tuners didn't know it until they tried to speed those cars up in the 1/4 mile by fattening them up Once they fix the fuel supply the cars would run quicker and faster, another reason to test all the time to make sure you have maxed that combination out

That’s very true. I won’t know how much clearance I gain by retarding the cam til I try it either. Depends on how aggressive the lobes are.

Doesn't look like i get enough clearance with this cam unless i install it at 108, straight up. Not gonna do that. I put the cam in at 106 and still cant get enough on the exhaust to be safe. .064" just is not enough and i found a new issue, a bent exhaust valve. It doesn't take much to bend these. So, now the head needs to come off to get that fixed and a new cam will need to be ordered or i take the opportunity to upgrade to 440-1 heads.

May have missed it but why not cut the pistons for clearance? What is target/current compression ratio?

Not interested in cutting the notches. Its currently 12.5:1, would like to keep it around 12.

Ok, good luck

Isky offers a piston notching kit that you can use with the pistons in the block at TDC to remove as little or as much you want to.
I bought the guides and cutters years ago for 3/8, 11/32 and 5/16 guides and two sies of intake and exhaust valve size cutters, work great .
I tape off the top of the pistons to the block and ran a vacuum cleaner hose to the port I wasn't using to suck most of the cuttings out as soon as the cutter cut them, work great with no real problems afterwards
I'm not sure how much a 2.20 cutter removing .045 from the piston top makes measures in CC but I bet it isn't much

Cab, im using the ICON pistons with a 12cc dish. I don't think they are the best quality piston to do that with, not sure. That sounds like too much trouble for me, but thanks for that idea guys. Cab, didn't you have a set on these same E max wedge victor heads that never performed to your liking? I'm really contemplating new heads. Might fix all my woes with these heads. Will see.

How much piston to head clearance do you have? Whatever that is, is all you need for P/V. I’ve run as close as .040 but I run a gear drive. Your .064 on the intake wouldn’t bother me in the least.

Dave, what is the intended usage of your vehicle? I've looked at both of your threads and can't seem to find that info. Don't want to respond to your posts without that info. Also , about what was the hp gain you were looking to achieve? It's hard to visualize the big picture without that knowledge. I have a B3 geometry correction kit that further plays w/effective rocker arm ratio and actual valve lift. Bill

With the cam in at 106, I have .044 on intake and .064 on exhaust with my last measures.

Street/Strip. Looking at my Moroso slide rule, it shows my hp at 650hp(3500#@134mph) , that is with a single dominator. A 511 with 12.5:1 should be making 700+ hp, so it looks mine is lacking somewhere. Too many people have reported disappointment in these E victor max wedge heads. I want to make as much power as possible and drive on the street as well. No power anything in the car, its a weekend toy with a full interior and cage. Thanks

What is the intake lobe lift at TDC?

Will your headers work with the exhaust port location of a 440-1?

With most of your time being in mid range rpm I think a smaller port than MW would be better and maybe avg tq output.Have you looked at a wider LSA in an engine program to see if that would be something to consider?

Im not sure what your asking Dwayne, but the lobe lift on cam is .430". I need to talk to you about that. How much different is the exhaust port on a -1 head vs my head? I believe my victor are raised .250 from stock port location.

Yes, that has been my thought too. Pipemax calls for a 112-113 lobe sep. Figure most time going down track my rpm is between 6200 and 6800. I only loose 600 rpm on each shift. I have 5400 stall or maybe flash is a better term.

Lobe lift at TDC.

Zero indicator on base circle, bring piston to TDC during overlap period, read what the intake lobe lift is at that point.

It makes no sense that the new cam would have vastly different lobe lift(which translates to V/P clearance) during the overlap period.

The intake lobe lift at TDC, with the cams installed at the same centerline, should be within .020.

.020” lobe lift difference, x 1.65 RR = .033” difference at the valve.

If the old V/P clearance measured .118”, the new clearance should be about .085”.

The old cams intake lobe lift at TDC, installed at 106, should be .141”.
The new cam should be .155”-.160”.

440-1 exhaust ports are raised about .750”

intake port choke calc I was checking my build and rpm of the head flow the other day and with a std port sq in of 2.7 446" 7krpm my choke on my port size was more like 2.85 sq in. for 7k rpm.I am sure I am not figuring in everything that is needed but maybe it will help

If you put the real springs in there and measure with clay you'll find it will add typically .030 to those numbers. I typically do it both ways every time ( unless with the checking springs I already have a ton) and that's what I have found.

The lash used was .018?

I did use a set of the Eddy Victor M.W. heads that had been ported all the way to the valve seats, I did have issues using them with pushrod clearances with the Hughes 1.6 ratio extrude aluminum rocker arms that came with those heads when I bought them from a member on here. I switch to a set of Harland Sharp 1.6 ratio with more offset on the intake rockers and that help a bunch along with some more grinding the heads for more pushrod clearances
On your deal with .064 exhaust to piston clearances and the little less intake clearances I would hesitate to go racing with that motor

I agree with B1 MAX. You really should do a careful clay check with 1 cylinder outfitted with the actual valve springs and valve gear being used or considered. The system of checking with a dial indicater only checks the depths of the valve pockets. It doesn't check the valve margin's radial clearance in the valve pocket unless it is the first point of contact when checking the depth. You could have only .002" radial clearance and never know it til you fire it up and that ain't gonna be good. When I had the pistons made by Diamond I told them they were for Victor heads, they said it mattered as they were somewhat different than others. I ended up with plenty of clearance there when I assembled. Careful clay measuring is quite accurate contrary to what some believe.It is the only way I know of to see actual verifiable minimum radial clearance. I'm sure that statement will draw a lot of fire, but I'm speaking of a proceedure we could all do in our driveway or garage and feel safe with our findings. Bill

I used a long center punch and put it in the v guide and marked my piston and also did a clay check for radial clearence.

I know that makes a difference, but Harland Sharp claims the flex is pretty much gone once the engine is spinning. Not sure i believe that totally.

Last time the heads were off i measure with clay and had .050 radial from what i remember. The valve is a 2.200 and the piston notch is good for up to 2.30 valve. Now that the head needs to come off, it will be way easier measuring things including v/p using clay.

Dwayne, with the extension on my dial indicator at the same angle the pushrod runs i measure.400" lobe lift.

H8 to interrupt, but during overlap (cylinder 6 firing)?

My point is that the number you have with checking springs under real conditions they would be fine. You haven't really changed much from the old cam.

You aren’t grasping what I’m asking for.
The lifter rise from the base circle when the piston is at TDC during overlap.
It will be something like .160”.

I have been thinking that the cam card would be very helpful during his 2 topics on this along with piston to deck,valve reliefe depth.

The info I’m asking for isn’t on the cam card.

My primary reason for asking are because of Dave’s comments about the measurements he’s taken not agreeing with the cam card.
That, and the fact that the new cam “should” only have about .020” more tappet lift when the V/P clearance is closest.
If he actually had .118” clearance before, the new cam should fit no problem.

So, either it didn’t have as much clearance as he thought it did with the old cam, or the new cam is somehow showing more lift in that part of the lift curve than it “should”.

The first thing I would have done when the new cam had “0” V/P clearance........would have been to slide the old cam back in and verify I had the clearance I thought I had.

Prior to even checking the clearance, I would have plotted the new cam out to verify it matched the card.

I have struggled with that battle in the past not wanting to go backwards just forward until you give into going back like you said.

If he checked the old cam with clay as he says, then this time with checking springs.... there you go.

.118 with clay
.064 + .030 = .094 with springs accounting for clay method.

It’s not going backward, it’s just a verification....... especially since it sounds like the old .118” clearance figure was obtained using a different method than he’s using this time around.

Slipping the old cam back in and checking the clearances wouldn’t take(me) long at all.
(Certainly less time than has been invested in this thread)

One of Comps most aggressive 269@.050 .430 roller lobes only has .021” more lobe lift at TDC than Dave’s old SFT cam, with both installed at 106.
With a net RR of 1.65, he should only have lost about .035” clearance.
Instead he’s coming up with over double that difference(.118(old) - .044(new)= .073)
It doesn’t add up....... simple as that.

Intake clearance is said to be .044”.

I doubt there is .030” deflection at the point where the clearance issue is.
At the very least, I would verify it with an indicator.

Measured lift at point where V/P clearance is closest with checking spring vs measured lift at that same point with full spring pressure.
However much less lift is observed with the big springs(at that point), add that you the .044” clearance figure.

At 10* ATDC the tappet lift should be close to .200”. With a 1.65 rocker that’s .330” lift. Take out the .020 lash....... .310 at the valve.
A PAC 1243 is 550lb/in...... .550 x .310 = 170.5 + 240 on the seat is 410lbs at that point.
Does that equate to .030 deflection at that point with Dave’s parts? Only one way to know for sure.
And...... you’d need the correct “real” pushrods(not a checking pushrod) to get an accurate deflection measurement.

When I tested some 1.6HS rockers, the deflection was only .018” at full lift with 700lbs open force.

The bottom line is this, when he had zero clearance initially(even adding in the .020” lash).........if the cam position was verified as correct....... that cam isn’t likely going to fit without modifying something.

It's not just rocker deflection. Put a dial indicator on the quill of a machine, the harder you pull, the more the clearance closes up. even when on a stop. In this case it would open up. With the valve spring in there you'll even pull the valve in to the head several thou. compared to a checker. (just as an example)

.074 on the intake is plenty.

Not sure what the adding .020 lash means was these done at 0 lash? then opening and closing points aren't right. which is key. This getting way to complicated. Sorry if I added to it.

I believe the “0” clearance was done with the cam in at 104, and zero lash....... and I think the .044 is with the cam at 106 and lash.

What I meant was, when it was checked with zero lash and the clearance was zero...... if you had the lash set of .020, you’d have had .020 clearance.
Still far enough from something preferred that it’s likely going to be a marginal fit.

I’ll test the theory about how the spring tension gives you a little extra clearance by pulling the valve into the head harder.
I’ll measure the valve drop between no spring, and then with a spring that’s about 200 on the seat.

Of course, any elasticity there might be over the length of the valve when it’s closed will be removed once the valve comes off the seat.
At that point, the load on the valve is between the tip and the keeper groove.

That's part of my point there is "play " everywhere that real pressures take up.
the 0 lash is bad practice, the clearance ramps start the valve action long before is supposed to and timing events are the critical part here.

similarly why they put ratchet thimbals on mics. A heavy hand can change readings alot.

I had .118 on the intake and 170 on the exhaust using clay with the old flat tappet.

How is measuring the difference in valve lift at the trouble spot between checking springs and real springs not taking into account the play?

The spring force will be loading the entire valvetrain from the roller tip all the way to the camshaft.
All the defelecttions from bending the rockers and shafts, to the compressive loads on the pushrods, lifters, and then back to the bending load on the camshaft, accounted for in the lift measurement.
In Dave’s case, that’s going to be about 400lbs of force on the valve side of the rocker, and 600+ on the pushrod side.
Seems like that should be enough to take up the play.

With his parts the deflection might provide enough added clearance for it to work(he’s looking for another .016).
I’d take the measurement to find out of it were me.

I agree the zero lash thing is a mistake.

No, i had no idea of that spec or what its for. .139" is what i just measured with cam in at 106.75 I'm using the pro gear 9 way timing chain set and its a bit confusing with this cam. I set it to straight up dot to dot and get 106.75 with a 108 lobe sep cam. If ya set it at 2R i get 108.25. I don't get it. I now have the head off ,so i can get more accurate measures using a bridge and a lifter indicator tool that slides into the lifter bore. The cam measures .430 lobe lift dead nuts, so my indicators are accurate.
If ya want to get picky, i get 65.25+148.25=106.75. I checked the opening and closing at .050 numbers and get 25*@.050 lift and 58*@ .050 before close. Cam card says 30.5 open and 58.5 close. I don't get it. I have installed and degree'd a couple dozen cams or so and never had an issue like this cam.

The lobe lift at TDC is shown in Comp Cams lobe master catalogue, is this the kind of number you are talking about Dwayne?

Well, according to the lobe specs in the catalog, your old cam should have had .141” lift at TDC, with the cam installed at 106.

Which means, in theory(assuming your .139 measurement is correct), the new cam would actually have a tiny amount more clearance........at TDC.

Both cams should be moving the lifter about .004/degree at that point in the lift curve.
So, if the closest point for v/p clearance is 10ATDC, you’d have another .040” or so tappet rise at that point.

All that being said, it would have to be a pretty lazy roller lobe to have 269@.050 and only have .139” tappet lift at TDC, installed at 106.
Should be .150” or a bit more.

All of which means the loss of all the clearance between the two cams still makes no sense.

However....... your .050 numbers of 25/58 come out to 263@.050, not 269.
On a very aggressive .430 roller lobe, the difference in lift at TDC, with both cams installed at 106 would be about .010”.

What are you getting for open/close points at .020 lift?

The lifter bore tool you’re using has the radiused end for the roller cam?

What did you use to set/verify the wheel is correct at TDC?

The cam card calls out what the cam “should” be.
You should be able to have the specs coincide within a degree.
If you can’t, either you’re doing it wrong......... or the cam doesn’t match what’s on the card.

You can double check yourself by plotting out the old cam.

I am beginning to think this cam is f'ed up. I have never had so much trouble. I will get the valve replaced and try a clay test. I will give ya a call this week Dwayne, would be nice to start with good parts. Thanks

The cam card is just numbers on a piece of paper.

The cam measures what it measures.

With the tools on hand to degree the cam, you can make up the cam card.

I trust what I measure.

However, nothing you’ve come up with thus far with all the measuring has explained where the clearance went.

I’m not understanding the problem.
You were at 106.75, then you retarded it “2deg”, and it ended up being 1.5deg(108.25) instead.
No biggie.

Your right, there is no problem with the chain gears. I am just a bit frustrated at the moment. I have a ton of hours into this and have gotten nowhere really and a bent exhaust valve. It never takes me this long, should of been back together by now and running. I did remeasure the lobe again at overlap and yes its 139/140. Sounds like a good idea to pull this cam.

Cam is it at 106.75, and the lobe lift at TDC is .139/.140?

Put the old cam back in, do the same test.
It should be within a couple of thou, if you can get it close to being in at 106.

Then check the v/p clearance the same way that you have been with the new cam.

the difference between checkers/indicator vs clay is always between .030-.050 every time I have done it.

The old cam uses intake lobe number 7072, correct?

Here are the specs from the lobe catalog.
You’ll notice the lift at TDC spec is .141, if installed at 106.

The same as what you’re getting with the new cam.

Meaning, the V/P clearance at that point should be the same between the two.

Check the lobe lift between the two at the closest point(10ATDC?), they should still be within a few thou of each other.

As I said earlier....... you have yet to come up with anything that would point to why the new cam has way less clearance.

I have no explanation. First time for me using checking springs to check v/p clearance. So I think it would be best to check with clay once I get a new valve in that head and go from there. As for having the same lift as the flat tappet, I really think its time for a new cam. This cam is in at about 1* more retard, not sure how much that changes things. Thanks for that info Dwayne.

This is as good as it gets. These are the numbers i got with clay when i built the motor using the flat tappet installed at 105.5, .160 intake, .230 exhaust. Now cut head .045 and a .010 smaller head gasket = .055 less clearance. I also noticed once i got the head off, the intake valve is not centered in the valve notch and was touching on the right edge of the brow. I think alot of my numbers were skewed because i was not getting the degree wheel zeroed. I bent two piston stops just trying to find top dead center. I will never attempt a cam change in an engine with the heads on. Its just too hard to get accurate numbers. With head off i use a bridge with a dial indicator and a lifter tool that inserts into the lifter bore with another dial indicator. I will have to measure the exhaust valve and get one ordered. Does brand matter, because i have no idea what brand valves are in these heads?

Dave, Sorry for your troubles. What is the cam grind, profile and manufacturer? Who did you get the cam from and why aren't they helping you with these troubles?

The cam is a Bullet solid roller. 269/275@50 on a 108 with .430 lobe lift. I called Bullet last week to speak with Greg about it, but he was out sick and the guy I spoke with could not answer all my questions. Greg is very hard to get ahold of when he’s there. Too busy.

Tim Goolsby is another knowledgeable guy to speak with over there too.

If I have time today, I might be able to determine which lobes fit these specs. Assuming there is only one profile peculiar to 269/430 and again one to 275/430. These issues are more an engine builder issue than they are cam manufacturer. So you are the builder and bought the cam directly from them?

You might be on to something with that.

Thanks for offering and I apologize to everyone for all the bad info. I will have to get all new data from the pass side since it still has a head on it. I know how to fix this, brand new heads.

A new set of pistons from Diamond with correctly placed and sized valve notches for your cam and valve gear that you have is a lot cheaper and more effective way to fix your ride. You may not have enough meat in your current pistons to safely cut deeper valve notches. Diamond warned me about the chambers in the Victor heads and spec'd my piston domes/valve reliefs accordingly. No problem whatsoever with 280*/283*, .690" solid roller cam. Call them and plan ahead for future valvetrain changes. Won't cost anywhere near that $4000-6000 price tag you spoke of earlier. The clay don't lie if it's done right,as you found out. Add a good top ring and a little extra gap and you could also spray some safely and make alot more power than a new set of heads- for less money. You got a great project. Good luck. Jeremiah has made some great power with those Victor heads. Send him a PM. I'm sure he would share his experience. He's a real nice guy. Bill

Thank you for the advice on new pistons. Not really too hip on rebuilding this engine. I wasted a lot of my time and others here with the bad data because I wasn’t getting the degree wheel zero correctly. Now that the head is off I can focus on figuring things out with accurate numbers. I may have to order a new cam that will fit at least, But being that one head is off, wouldn’t be too much trouble pulling the other and replacing with something that works well for everyone, 270’s. I have all the parts now for the 572 Hemi and it will be the last engine I build. This one just needs to get thru 3 or 4 more seasons. You would think a 511 with 12.5:1 compression and a head the size of the Victors would make 700hp easy. Mine don’t. Another guy over on B Bodies has the same set up , a 512 with same heads, but 13:1 and a big roller runs same times I do, maybe a 10th better. Still searching for a head that fits my combo. Thanks for all your time guys.

How many valves are bent? My personal preference is Ferrea,Manley. I have used a lot of cheap SS valves also, but not on any "good" setups. If the intakes touched the pistons check them close. Start by pouring alcohol in there, and look for bleeders. Die grind clearance where needed on the pistons. Can you take a pic of the spot where they touched on the pistons? Did you run some clay through it? What did it look like?

I just came from the garage, thought i would check a few things before heading off to work. I pulled the exhaust valve to measure it. Think i will just replace it with another Edelbrock valve, whatever they use. I poured some cleaner in the intake port and no leaks there. You can see on the right side of the intake brow that the valve was just touching that outer edge and some more deep into the brow. You can say i paid for an education in all of this. It will be awhile before i can get back to it.

Take a minute and gather your thoughts. Absorb the good advice some here have given. From my perspective, you are not far from screwing it back together and meeting your goals. Personally, I would have NO PROBLEM buying that home-made piston fly-cutter and making room. I'd bet you'll only need .030 IN DEPTH but where you'd gain room is radially. The amount you'll affect balance is INSIGNIFICANT. And the amount compression would 'suffer' would be the same (INSIGNIFICANT!). A bunch of people that have given advice, do this stuff for a living and I don't think their advice is being considered or absorbed. You do nice work, you aren't as far off as you think meeting your goals with the parts you have. Some of the theories you hold tight to are holding you back. Get that thing back together and the next time you're beside that Camaro, he'll be watching your rear-end! Based on what I see the camshaft IS a .430 lobe. Don't be so quick to change parts, it is unnecessary. (But that cam might like a better spring, talk later)

I appreciate all the advise I get here, I really do. I will give that more thought as I am not familiar with that tool. I have never cared for these heads I’m using. They should make power similar to a good Indy head, but they don’t and this cam I bought I’m now thinking it might be a bit too big for my combo. I think something like the cam Andy used in his 470 build a while might work a little better. Think it was a 264/268? I have time to think.

..."just as i thought" ...the '430' lobes are a mystery as to which one. Some of these ARE AGGRESSIVE. I wouldn't run anything other than the two I circled with that spring package. What pushrod? Is this pushrod oiled?

I use a manton .120 ball ball oil thru pushrod. Being that this roller has same lobe lift as the flat tappet at TDC doesn’t sound aggressive at all.

The 264/268 roller Andy used is .144@TDC, when installed at 106.

So, that’s not going to buy you any room.

It’s also .446 lobe lift.

My feeling about your heads/combo are this.......
There is no doubt in my mind your current long block(with whatever tweaks might be necessary to provide adequate v/p clearance) would make solidly over 700hp.

Brads std port stock stroke combo made close to 700hp, and I’m sure it could best that mark with just a cam swap to something a little more aggressive.

But that ...... and $1.59 will buy you a cup of coffee.

It does appear from the pic of the piston that the radial clearance of the intake pocket might need to be addressed.



If you feel like you just have to have them........ just order ‘em up!
Be an interesting test for sure.

Put some clay in there, set the lash to.020.see what it shows.

At this point I think I can throw most of the previous numbers out since they are not correct. I will get a new valve in the head and go from there. Thanks

My thinking was new heads and Andy’s old cam, but it’s just a thought. I spoke with Harland Sharp today, they tell me my current rockers will bolt right up the the 270 heads.

Dwayne are you a Trick Flow dealer?

I’m not.
And the projected availability doesn’t look fantastic.

However, I saw Mike at B3RE mentioned he had some TF’s in stock.
I believe he was referring to the SB heads....... but it might be worth a call.

Assuming the 270’s don’t have raised ports, they look like the best replacement head for my application. Looks like everything will bolt up without buying a bunch more parts . I was hoping you were a dealer, was gonna order and get a full port job. I did see these somewhere offered with CNC porting from MCH.

Do you think a 325cc port is too large in a trick flow 270 on a 511 and 6800 shift points?

No. A 270 head should make a little over 700 hp at 6800 on a 511 short block. A ported intake manifold will pick it up another 15 or 20 hp. You'll need a good carb (big 4150 or 4500), decent compression (12:1 or higher) and a good cam. We've built a lot of 505 or 512 engines with 270 heads and they always make 700+ right around 6800 or 6900 rpm.

Flow is flow, I bet he doesn't pick up one bit with the trickflows. Nothing in the combo is really changing.

The 186 and 187 is the .200 lift numbers?

Andy, I use an Indy cast tunnel ram with 2 650’s from Dom.

Can't agree more. This thing could be doing wheelies by now with a few bucks invested and much less time spent than responding to this thread.

What happens if you buy new heads and the valves don't align with the reliefs? You waited 6 months and will be cutting the pistons anyway.

You mentioned being unfamiliar with it. Very easy. Cutter goes in place of the valve, piston is at tdc with the circumference taped off and you drop the cutter into the piston by a marked amount, usually takes a few seconds. Result is perfectly aligned valve clearance vs your cylinder head.

Of course do whatever you prefer, just an opinion

I'm not cutting those pistons. If i can't find the clearance another way i will simply put the flat tappet back in and run it. After all, it did run a 10.06 and pulled 1' wheelies. I was just looking for a bit more, but its turning into more trouble than i care to mess with at this point, but i will give my best. If i have to wait months for heads to show up, i simply wont buy any. These Victor heads are lame, i have never seen a combo with them that was impressive in any way. I dont have the answer why they dont make power, they just dont. I think its a velocity thing, but i dont think anyone has the answer. 600hp with Victor MW, no problem, 700 you are gonna work for it.

My 511 Victor motor made 686hp on the break in pull with a 4150 carb and ended up at 750na. Much more with nitrous.

Solid roller under .750 lift fwiw.

I still cant see how a smaller cam won't fit. Is this roller on a wider lobe sep?

This roller is on a 108 and the flat tappet is on a 110.

Thats the best combo yet with these heads. What does your combo look like if you dont mind posting? PM me the info if ya want. What has it ran with what weight and footbrake or t brake? One thing i can say is, this head seems to need compression to perform.

Hey Dave, I'm sure I have asked before but, what has your car run et & mph & race weight ?

Yes, best it did with flat tappet and foot braking was 10.06@134.22. The car weight at that time was 3380. My 60 was 1.42, My moroso slide rule shows 650hp at that weight.

Thanks, Moroso slide rule is NET FWhp, full exh,mech fan,ect ?? what is your set up, street car ?

I have always used wallace and thats fwhp with whatever set up you have for weight/mph, always comes out a tad more than the slide rule.....example>

Our '69RR, wedge motor dyno'd@695hp
3800lbs@line, through muffs to rear
all mechanical w/pump/alternator, street set up
with air cleaner.
Wallace shows 10.35@129 as 677fwhp on track...1.42 60's best so far.
Which is approx 20hp down from dyno no's which used same carb.

I will run it in a car this later summer. The engine and chassis dyno we use has shown corresponding numbers vs. 1/4 ET on everything else we have engine dyno's/wheel dyno'd and raced therefore I have no concerns that my red car won't run the number. I became sidetracked with my 68 GTS however the red car is next!



My motto is "never trust a torque converter" lol

700fwp with a SFT seems pretty good? I figured my setup would have gone 775 with the tunnel ram and two QFT 4150 based 1050's. I used the nitrous kit on my GTS so it's getting a turbo once the EFI is up and running.


Or a fogger lol...all that tubing is a lot of work.

What’s your compression and camshaft? My heads are 330cc port as well.

Dave, I thought the car that was running your heads before you bought them from Todd was in the 9’s ?

Here’s the way I see it.......
You’ve basically been whining about what underachievers those heads are since your car hit the track.

You’re convinced they’re what’s holding you back.
Maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not.

If you’re that unhappy with them, stop driving yourself nuts.
Just sell them off and get something you have confidence in.

I’m sure someone would be happy to have cnc ported MW Victors.

Todd told me they were used on a 511 in a roadrunner and running 9.80’s. What I found later was someone who knew the car said it was a well sorted track champion for like 20yrs. If that is true, then that motor more than likely runs same as mine. Your right, it is hard to find the 270’s except on eBay. Not going there. Best bet is a pair of fully ported -1 with new headers. No whining here, just want people to understand the max wedge victor is not all that. Just talk to any Mopar shop that has tried them. I have.

I hate to see you struggle with this but I'm not sure I know how to help. I've found that sorting stuff out on the dyno works the best for me but I understand that not everyone has access to a dyno and/or the resources to do that. But if a person can afford it, testing heads, cams, intakes etc on a dyno really is the best way to figure out what is happening. It can also be done at the track but it just takes more time and work changing parts over the fender rather than standing next to the engine. The list of parts that you have should work pretty well but sometimes a combo just doesn't work for some reason and it can be tough to find the culprit.

For sure Andy, my dyno is the track and it takes me a while to get out there. The problem with new heads is they all seem to have 78cc chambers, so without shaving i will lose my 12.5:1 compression. If i do shave them i end up back with very little clearance again. Right now just getting opinions from others and weighting my options. I'm really not liking this roller already because it has the same lobe lift at TDC as the flat tappet, so a new roller is in order or maybe even a new flat tappet. My Mopar engine shop said they have a couple different flat tappet grinds that have made 800hp on their dyno. Also with the availability of the TF270 and the -1 requiring new headers and who knows what else i might just keep what i have. I'll have some time next week to get some accurate data. Thanks again

My 511 is 11.5:1, cam is a solid roller that has about .725/.700 net lift with 1.7 rocker arms. The heads were CNC ported from Hughes. It was a PITA to get the valvetrain geometry right at that lift due to a 2.00" installed height. It was way off and the rocker hit the retainer so Mike at b3 hooked me up. Immight have been the first guy here to use him come to think of it. Pistons are Diamond -12.5cc dish, hellfire rings. Oiling system consists of a Milodon road race pan and Milodon pump cover for external oiling. Other than that nothing really out of the ordinary. Blem PEP crank, Cordoba block, RPM rods with ARP2000's and a mile of side clearance and bcr aluminum caps.


Did you see my -1's for sale on FABO?

Thanks, Jeremiah. No i did not see those. Why did or are you selling the -1 heads? I think those are superior to what we are using.

I am moving to a 13 degree head. Hope you can get this figured out!

Ok, thanks Jeremiah. Have the -1 heads been ported at all?

Dave, I tried to PM you, but it said you were over the limit. Whatever that means. If you go with a different head I may be interested in your victors.

Ok, I have some others interested as well. It’s gonna be a week or so til I figure out what direction I will go. You could say I’m in the tire kicking stage right now.

I've said this before but in order to get the Victors to really make good power it requires a ton of work, most are not willing to do. These heads in the picture feature a 2* angle mill, dowel relocation, radical port work, 2.25" hollow stem valves, some epoxy work etc......I've made 780hp @ 466 cubes @ 12.4-1 with these heads in this picture. I recently purchased this engine back and am currently parting it out. Top end goes all together, and the shortblock is a really well built 471 cube low deck. J.Rob

Dave I know your at a crossroads with those heads but my 2 cents is keep what you have. You'll find the missing link to each your goals. As I been told having a street strip car I'm going to have to sacrifice something, whether is drivablity or performance. FYI a friend went 10.05 in the 1/4 and 6.25 in the 1/8th with those heads in a strictly race car. It's. a stock stroke 440

Plus the extra coins can be put towards your hemi

Jesse, thanks again for explaining how the Victors are not what they seem. What have you found in picking a cam for these heads, anything different from the norm in duration or lobe sep?

Yes they have. They did a nice job.

Ok, this is for the professional engine builders; what value would you put (hp wise) on a new set of pistons with a modest dome for compression, and good narrow rings for Daves motor? Set the compression height hi on the rods for thinnest good gasket. Think it could add 30 hp? Same everything else.

not worth it in my opinion, 134 should go 9's work on the 60 ft. Cam is too small need somewhere around 280 @ .050. make the valve pockets fit.

71 duster 500 cubes 11.5 compression, cnc max wedge Victor's , comp solid roller 264 in, 268exh, on a 110 .660's lift.. Super victor intake, prosystems 1050.
3460##'s withe driver. 4500 stall, shift 6600. Went best of 9.90 at 133. Typically ran 10.0's. Had a best 1/8 of 6.190 at 110. Typically ran 6.3's never dynoed it.

Same short block with heads milled .070, a little hand work on heads and a jones solid roller 268 276 on a 112 with 720's lift Same intake,, Same carb has ran a best of 9.75 at 137 Best 1/8 6.090 at 111mph. Dynoed 762 or 3. Last race of the season last year we did have our best 60. 1.34.
I am not a proffesional, but I thought it would make a good comparison. I apologize for punctuation and format. I don't have my glasses on. This phone screen is tiny.

What is your compression since you shaved .070 off? Jones spec a cam for my 511 awhile back of something like 277/287 on 112 with .700ish lift. Maybe that is what mine needs.

Bingo!
I like the numbers. What spring loads did he recomend? Getting that right is critical to getting the most out of the cam. A combo of too little seat and open pressure can rob you of a lot of the expected gains,
Not to mention tearing up the whole valvetrain . AMHIK!
I was told 225 on the seat for an Isky roller, and Monte (rip!) Advised me to put some serious spring in it.
So i went up to 330 on the seat and picked up .08 et in the 1/8 th mile! The big thing to consider is, how much load can your current parts take. The whole thing has to be engineered inside your chosen valvetrain. I had already gone to Jesel rocker system and that is why those big springs could produce results. The rockers, pushrods, and support system were up to the task.
But as you can tell from a previous reply, i put a lot of value on "getting it right" with enough compression and clearance for a bigger cam. That is why i made the comment asking about rhe value of newer pistons with a moderate dome. I think it is worth the change, just to get you the right base to work with here. But then each budget has its' limits.

i would strongly consider these heads, as i have made 926 hp with worked -1 heads. 800 hp on a stock block build is easy to reach.

I will have to look at my notes when I get to the shop today. The compression ended up being 12.2-12.3. I used a PAC spring that Jones recommended. I will look at the notes. I am going to indy show today, so it will be later. The hardest part of my build was getting the springs right. A lot of trial and error. The valves aren't long enough IMO.

I would love to see north of 14-1 compression in mine. Maybe next refresh we will have some dome pistons made. Interesting note: with the old cam I used to run 36 degrees total timing. With the new cam on the dyno power fell off at anything over 33. I never tried any other timing at the track. Just left it at 33.

Peter Wille has a YouTube video of his VIctor head 555" cranking out 1000HP. Hard to believe.

I don't like wide lobe seps in a wedge.

I agree. I have always specced my own cams. I was thinking 272/278 on a 108 for ours. but I went with what jones specced. It wasn't all rainbows and butterflies. The car initially went slower. I thought Jones screwed up, but we eventually got it to run good.

You are doing well with those heads. There are now a few more good builds using those heads than there were a couple years ago, aleast what i found. I spoke to a mopar shop in North Carolina yesterday, they said they made over 1000hp with the Victor head on a 540 they built. He did say the head likes compression, but i think any head with a large intake port is gonna like compression. I'm now seeing promising reasults with the Victor head making me want to give it another go. It also looks like this new roller is in the range on specs to get it done according to others results. I have always left my timing at 36*, i will have to check that next time at the track. Now that the head is off, i will check the timing scale too. I will revisit the lame lobe lift deal as well. Bullet can give me the lobe lift spec and i can double check it.

I haven't found anything odd related to the heads, I've run 3 different cams all on a 106 LSA and they all made over 700hp with ease. J.R.

Yes the -1 is a great head. It was on my build list when i put this combo together, Todd offered these to me knowing nothing about them, bought them thinking they would be close to a -1.

That is great info. Thanks and if you have anything else related to these heads, i would appreciate it.

Me Too

There is always debate on that it seems. I will keep the 108 in that case. It does get a bit confusing at times thou because pipemax does call for a 112-113 lobe sep in my combo. I have been told heavy cars need narrow lobe seps. To me, it would seem best to pick lobe sep in accordance to convertor stall and duration to rpm between convertor stall and max shift point. Always a learning curve.

The simulators always seem to show more power with a wide lobe sep. But the track shows different. Maybe some go by simulators, others by et.

Results speak louder than theory, correct

Is LSA not a result of valve events rather than the other way around?

IMO everything has to be taken into consideration but as a combination requires more duration generally would seem LSA would get wider so overlap wouldn't get out of hand.

Or, another way of looking at it is, 112 lsa with 230 @.050 or 280 @.050. Overlap quite a bit different

The highest depression occurs during overlap. I think 2 valve wedge race engines like that.

With my early data being incorrect, I have the degree wheel correctly zero'd and now using my lifters for measuring as Bullet says its more accurate because of the roller wheel. Dwayne was correct about the lobe lift at TDC being in the area of .150, I now measure .154.5 and that looks to be right on with the cam in at 105. I'm still trying to figure the duration at .200 lift. The open close points look to be where they should as well on the intake. Once i get the head back i'll check with clay and again with checking springs. Hope to get this back together asap.

If the cam card says the duration at .200 is 190 degrees then that means the two points should be almost straight across from each other on the wheel. So just pay attention to the point where it opens to 0.200 and then note the location where it hits 0.200 when closing. The two points should be almost straight across the wheel from each other.

Thanks Andy