|
|
|
Re: Advanced, Retarded, or Straight Up?
[Re: rowin4]
#949589
03/16/11 10:17 AM
03/16/11 10:17 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 877
ky
68roadrunner
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 877
ky
|
Quote:
It seems that every body wants to advance the cam to 104 but no one seems to have a comparison between setting up at 108 then changing to 104 without changing anything else to see if the engine liked the valve timing change. Of course each engine might have different results depending on the build but it would at least be some kind of comparison . I also run this cam, set straight up at 108. Inquiring minds want to know. 
dont have a good comparison on that, but i did tighten up the valve lash one time, what a pig that was, might work good for traction control.lol
|
|
|
Re: Advanced, Retarded, or Straight Up?
[Re: @#$%&*!]
#949590
03/16/11 10:27 AM
03/16/11 10:27 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
Taking time off to work on my car
|
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
Quote:
Best ET's 10.36, 6.53; mph 104, 128; 60' 1.40. All at around 3325lbs...
If that's as fast as you've gone w/ 499 cubes and under 3500#s, then I'm going to jump on the "it's too much cam for the combination" bandwagon. Unless you're going to consider putting a different cam in, ya' might as well advance it to 104, maybe even 102, ICL and see if it picks up any.
FWIW, I've known a couple of people who have run that cam in 440 combinations. Although it sounded bitchen' at idle, their cars didn't run any faster than (or even as fast as) my junk did running waaaaaay less duration. I'd think it would be better suited to at least 500" and some serious CR and converter stall, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
