When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I am opening a can of worms but I don't want muddy Dave's thread further. We all know his current compression is too low and needs to be raised, hopefully everything else goes smooth in that regard. I am currently at 9.6 to 1 with the Performer cam at a 105 ICL. I ran into pinging issues on 91 with the same compression and advanced two degrees also at 105 ICL. That motor had #6 heads milled to 55cc and about .070" quench, a bone stock 76 Olds 350 short block. It had 175 psi cranking compression. It ran equal to high 14's in the 1/8 with more in it. I limited vacuum advance and slowed down the mechanical advance along with very cold NGK 5670-1 spark plugs to eliminate the pinging. Part throttle response suffered a lot Thi motor is much different to get about the same numbers. Different #6 heads at 66cc, 10cc 4.100" Mahle 1 mm forged pistons .003" below deck, Molnar rods, 330 crank at .0026" rods and .0028" mains. I also has a Canton 6 QT road race pan, Melling HV oil pump with the purple spring and Canton pick up. I am planning on purchasing the Holley Terminator X Max. I really don't want a 4L60E, so eventually a 4L80E, currently a 2350 flash stall 2004R with 2.78 gears, going to 3.08 posi next Winter. A TKX wide ratio would be nice but 6K+ CAD. I also have this hydraulic cam, Comp Evolution lifters and HS 1.65 true roller rocker arms for the new Edelbrock heads. If they come available at the 68cc with the Mr Gasket MLS 4.100" .040" head gaskets on my shelf would give 9.4 to 1 with this cam. The Holley SEFI with knock sensor enabled is more important currently and where my money is going first. Question is with Edelbrock's 198cc intake runner, the roller cam below with 1.65 ratio rocker arms on my 358 what is the ideal static or maybe more important, the dynamic compression on 91 octane non ethanol gas?
Last edited by olds 307 and 403; October 28th, 2023 at 02:08 PM.
Here Christian since your aren’t getting any responses.
this is what happens when the port volume/min cross section is too big for the cubic inches. This is Marks mule motor with iron heads compared to his new small block edelbrocks….the comp ratio was only .2 lower which doesnt make any difference.
at 3,400 the edelbrocks were down 53ft lbs.. that’s huge. I’ll bet the loss was way more than 53 under 3k. How to you think that would work in a street car with cruising gears and tight converter?
don’t ask Mark what the minimum cross section of the intake port is either..he doesn’t know what that means or where it is on these heads
Last edited by CANADIANOLDS; November 1st, 2023 at 06:28 PM.
Here Christian since your aren’t getting any responses.
this is what happens when the port volume/min cross section is too big for the cubic inches. This is Marks mule motor with iron heads compared to his new small block edelbrocks….the comp ratio was only .2 lower which doesnt make any difference.
at 3,400 the edelbrocks were down 53ft lbs.. that’s huge. I’ll bet the loss was way more than 53 under 3k. How to you think that would work in a street car with cruising gears and tight converter?
don’t ask Mark what the minimum cross section of the intake port is either..he doesn’t know what that means or where it is on these heads
The second sheet was with the new head AND a Victor vs irons and an RPM. I mention that in the text. Apparently reading comprehension is a challenge for you.
And inner port, outer port, at the pinch, at the intake surface? Could you be anymore vague?
And I’m still trying to figure out why you initiate criticism of me constantly.
Whatever.
Last edited by cutlassefi; November 2nd, 2023 at 05:05 AM.
I don't think there's clear answers or direct math to figure out this kind of stuff - at least not for hobbyists. If we were in a big 3 engineering shop then sure.
I had a huge number of problems with my builds when I switched to high compression (over 10:1) and daily driving. Switching to a 6al-2 programmable was the cure so I could actually control the timing curve. You'll need to very closely map how your distributor is actually responding (mechanical and vacuum advance), and how the engine is pulling vacuum, to see where the ignition is actually falling. The sad fact is it takes extra work to get an old engine architecture to run well on modern gas.
The second sheet was with the new head AND a Victor vs irons and an RPM. I mention that in the text. Apparently reading comprehension is a challenge for you.
And inner port, outer port, at the pinch, at the intake surface? Could you be anymore vague?
And I’m still trying to figure out why you initiate criticism of me constantly.
Whatever.
dont blame it being lame down low on the Victor. At 3,400 the Victor should make MORE TQ than an RPM. its runners are way longer than the RPM which does make more TQ around that RPM.
one day you’ll learn how a long runner is good for TQ, yes in a single plane
when me or someone else asks what the minimum cross section if the port is, it means the minimum cross section. Think hard about that statement and come back to me…when you learn what minimum means.
maybe you can google “how to figure out MCSA” of a port?
The second sheet was with the new head AND a Victor vs irons and an RPM. I mention that in the text. Apparently reading comprehension is a challenge for you.
And inner port, outer port, at the pinch, at the intake surface? Could you be anymore vague?
And I’m still trying to figure out why you initiate criticism of me constantly.
Whatever.
from the guy who attacks every builder even if you don’t know them. I thought you would have learned your lesson after you trashed that guy on Facebook a while back…but nope.
there isn’t a builder you haven’t torn apart yet. you also just trashed the Nick guy from Nicks Garage on his nearly stock 350 Olds saying everything is wrong with it? you didn’t even explain what everything means
iron heads, low profile performer, little cam which made 390+ hp and excellent low end TQ. In fact, a LOT more TQ than most of yours lately. But everything was wrong according to you.
Last edited by CANADIANOLDS; November 2nd, 2023 at 08:02 AM.
from the guy who attacks every builder even if you don’t know them. I thought you would have learned your lesson after you trashed that guy on Facebook a while back…but nope.
there isn’t a builder you haven’t torn apart yet. you also just trashed the Nick guy from Nicks Garage on his nearly stock 350 Olds saying everything is wrong with it? you didn’t even explain what everything means
iron heads, low profile performer, little cam which made 390+ hp and excellent low end TQ. In fact, a LOT more TQ than most of yours lately. But everything was wrong according to you.
Yep, just didn’t a mild ironed headed small block as well, with the pistons you hate. 401hp, 428tq.
I only “trash” people for a few reasons, they’ve clearly ripped off someone, they don’t stand behind their work, or they’re an Internet builder that plays to the camera, like Nick does. Check out where he has his guy, with a CROWBAR, try to get the original intake to fit on that 350! And you wouldn’t fix the rocker adj nut on a 390 Ford that punched thru a VC baffle before you ran it again, really? And why wasn’t that checked in the first place? Nick pointed it out but kept running it! Like I said, he plays to the camera.
I routinely comment in a very positive way on many builds from Bill, Chad and others, because they deserve it. But I guess you missed those.
And I know what minimum is, but you still never told me inner or outer runner. They do differ you know.
PS I also believe there’s a Dyno sheet out there that shows the results from changing to just the new head only. You’ll see the tq loss was way less at the rpm you mentioned vs the Victor. Spin that however you want.
Last edited by cutlassefi; November 2nd, 2023 at 11:08 AM.
Yep, just didn’t a mild ironed headed small block as well, with the pistons you hate. 401hp, 428tq.
I only “trash” people for a few reasons, they’ve clearly ripped off someone, they don’t stand behind their work, or they’re an Internet builder that plays to the camera, like Nick does. Check out where he has his guy, with a CROWBAR, try to get the original intake to fit on that 350! And you wouldn’t fix the rocker adj nut on a 390 Ford that punched thru a VC baffle before you ran it again, really? And why wasn’t that checked in the first place? Nick pointed it out but kept running it! Like I said, he plays to the camera.
I routinely comment in a very positive way on many builds from Bill, Chad and others, because they deserve it. But I guess you missed those.
And I know what minimum is, but you still never told me inner or outer runner. They do differ you know.
PS I also believe there’s a Dyno sheet out there that shows the results from changing to just the new head only. You’ll see the tq loss was way less at the rpm you mentioned vs the Victor. Spin that however you want.
who does your machine work?
who does your head work?
do you port your own heads?
Or how about you tell us what you actually do…we know Champion does your heads because you let that out of the bag when something went wrong .is that what you call standing behind what you do? So they do all your block machining as well?
positive about Bill ? 😂😂😂😂 you’ve had a hard on for him for 20 years . When guys talk about how much bickering used to go on at ROP, one of the worst was you going after Bill non stop and anyone else.
don’t play dumb now about the inner or outer port MCSA ….that excuse can fool many on here but not me. After a couple of us asked multiple times, you finally gave the port entrance dimensions 😂😂😂😂right then and there you outed yourself for not having a clue.
and no, the min CSA is not different from inner to outer. Good lord,,the port volume is different but not the MCSA . your little white lies keep coming back to bite your ****…like how you had to admit that the new small block head does not have a redesigned int port like you bragged about initially.
Kinda confusing what you will be using for trans and gears?
is it the 200 with 308’s later but 2.78’s now? I see the converter will be 2350.
if that’s it you will still need as much low end TQ as you can build…the ign curve will have to be tailored anyway to come in gradually..a programmable ignition box would be a big help. Your old combo that had .070” quench didn’t help any with the pinging...that’s not good at all. Run as close as you can, .035” is safe.
with 3.08’s your overall 1st is still only 8.44 If you end up running a tall rear tire, it’ll hurt that. I have to ask, why only run 3.08’s when you have overdrive? a 3.55 would up that to 9.73, a huge difference. You have to remember…it may not even go in to overdrive at normal highway speed with 3.08’s, and if it does, the rpm’s will be so low, it won’t be smooth.
not only that…if you end up going with the edelbrocks, the very low rpm and big port will not be happy
Last edited by CANADIANOLDS; November 2nd, 2023 at 02:45 PM.
I guess I didn't realize you wanted both ports. Miscommunication on my part I guess. And just an fyi, the dyno sheet exists, clearly showing that the RPM made more TQ than the Victor. But who cares at this point right?.
So with that said, no matter what I do, it won't make a difference as to how you'll react to anything I post, so I won't waste my time arguing with you anymore. You do things your way, I'll do things my way, simple.
And just an fyi, I haven't questioned Bill's way of doing things in a VERY long time. And it was always just one thing, why dyno a STREET build at 130*. Just didn't make sense to me, especially tuning wise. But if you want to hang onto that forever go right ahead. I'm sure there's no way I'll be able to change your mind at this point anyway.
Sorry Christian, proceed.
Have nice day.
No problem Mark, always appreciate your input. The current combo is a 9.5 to 1 Olds 358, piston to head .045", 204/214 cam .448/.472 114LSA, dot to dot 1CL is 105. The trans is 2004R with 2350 flash stall, rated is 2200 to 2500. It currently has a 2.78 open Olds 12 bolt cover, 10 bolt ring gear 8.5 Type O rear. I was going to go 3.42 or 3.90 Richmond gears, you gave me way to good of a deal Dale for the 3.08 gears, have the horrendously priced Yukon modified 8.8" clutch posi to go with it. I currently have 28" tall 275/60R15 Cooper Cobra's. I have three 205/70R14 BFG's on factory 14" aluminum G body rims. I will probably pick up two 25.6" tall BFG Radial T/A 245/60R14 tires for the back it will help improve the under gearing. I will probably keep the iron heads and Performer cam in this 358. If I can find a 95 GMC or Chebby Z71 with a good body, it would make a perfect truck motor. I have a Performer intake and 454 670 TBI base, Olds CCC distributor and would also pick up a 454 Qjet to TBI 1" tall factory adapter and TCI trans adapter and crank up the fuel pressure. Getting close to paying off the Challenger and Lund boat. I also have a good standard bore 403 block, new cam bearings, new standard 2" sbc FM bearings, new .010" FM main bearings, 1/2" longer ARP main studs, 1/2" thick 4 main Halo, a 330 forged crank 3.5" stroke with 2" sbc cut and widened rods, .010" mains done by Ohio Crankshaft. Smitty got them to do it, I was about the last person to actually receive what I paid for before everything went South. Also have used 21cc dish 4.390" used Venolia custom forged 2618 pistons, .043" top, 1.5 second and 3mm oil rings on Scat sbc 6" long, 2" journal rods and Mr Gasket 4.410" bore .040" thick MLS head gaskets. Plus the hydraulic roller 218/218 .541/.541 on a 112 LSA, Comp Evolution hydraulic roller lifters, HS 1.65 true roller rockers designed for the new Edelbrock heads and a Cloyes 9 way billet timing set. With the 68cc Edelbrock heads, it would be at 9.6 to 1 424ci motor with the hydraulic roller cam above. What do you think of milled Procomp or the new Edelbrock heads with that combination? It either has to wait in line for a year minimum at ABC in Regina or send it down to Dale in Ontario to wait a year, I probably wouldn't get it on pallet till spring to send it.
Last edited by olds 307 and 403; November 2nd, 2023 at 04:52 PM.
I guess I didn't realize you wanted both ports. Miscommunication on my part I guess. And just an fyi, the dyno sheet exists, clearly showing that the RPM made more TQ than the Victor. But who cares at this point right?.
So with that said, no matter what I do, it won't make a difference as to how you'll react to anything I post, so I won't waste my time arguing with you anymore. You do things your way, I'll do things my way, simple.
And just an fyi, I haven't questioned Bill's way of doing things in a VERY long time. And it was always just one thing, why dyno a STREET build at 130*. Just didn't make sense to me, especially tuning wise. But if you want to hang onto that forever go right ahead. I'm sure there's no way I'll be able to change your mind at this point anyway.
Sorry Christian, proceed.
Have nice day.
I didn’t want both ports …never asked for it. either one would do because the min CSA is the same on both.
you really need to figure out what min CSA means , where it is on an Olds head and why it’s important. Not only that…the other port measurements/area and why it hurts TQ on smaller cube motors using those edelbrock heads , which has the original port design.
the Victor can make big TQ down low, and smoke the dual plane RPM when it’s cross section is right for the cubes..from 2,500 onwards. I proved that with the 307.
Jon Kasse once said that the Olds Victor is a beautiful intake and one of the best he’s ever seen, with its long sweeping runners….it would be perfect for the EMC. He planned on doing an Olds solely because of the Victor.
does anyone remember the Chrysler dual 4 cross ram intake? That was using two 4 barrel carbs with runners about 2 feet long ..it was used in HEAVY full sized Chrysler 300’s to make big TQ around 2,500 to 3,500. That was the long ram..there was a short ram for the perf engines
Don’t want to confuse anyone..Christian is better off with the dual plane because his will be operating well below 2,500 during cruise .
but, and a big but…if he goes to the much bigger port Edelbrocks, it won’t make more TQ in that very low rpm range than the factory irons…it will be down significantly
Last edited by CANADIANOLDS; November 3rd, 2023 at 02:13 PM.
You mentioned the 2.07 intake is determental on the Procomp and Edelbrock, what about a #6 iron head? The guy I bought these #6 heads from added a 2.07" intake but left the 1.56 exhaust for some reason. They opened the bowls with a cutter, new guides, positive seals and supposedly upgraded springs, they were new at any rate. What about the Edelbrock's on a 403 or 403 stroker? I also have a TH350 as a back up, just put in Transgo shift kit and has a 2000 to 2200 stall converter. That would put me in the 2500 rpm cruising range.
Last edited by olds 307 and 403; November 3rd, 2023 at 06:30 PM.
You mentioned the 2.07 intake is determental on the Procomp and Edelbrock, what about a #6 iron head? The guy I bought these #6 heads from added a 2.07" intake but left the 1.56 exhaust for some reason. They opened the bowls with a cutter, new guides, positive seals and supposedly upgraded springs, they were new at any rate. What about the Edelbrock's on a 403 or 403 stroker? I also have a TH350 as a back up, just put in Transgo shift kit and has a 2000 to 2200 stall converter. That would put me in the 2500 rpm cruising range.
a 358 cube engine has no need for a 2.07” intake valve in the rpm range you want to run…I would say even a full on high rpm 358” race engine wouldn’t need a 2.07” valve.
sticking a 2.07” valve in a stock iron small block head serves no purpose other than killing the air speed going across the valve and hurting low end TQ.
even worse is a bigger port cross section on a 358” engine…with a 2” intake, the port air speed isn’t good for TQ. You can see it yourself by the builds on here using a bb edelbrock head with a 2.07” int or Marks own small block head with a 2” int. The port is just not right to make any decent low end TQ until 3.5 to 4k
youll need lots of rear gear and or a low 1sr gear to get the car moving. I wouldn’t run les than a 9.5:1 plus overall 1st gear ratio with those heads on a smaller cube motor…
here’s the stock TQ/hp curve for a 1970 350 factory 310hp small valve engine. 1.875” intake valve
it makes 390ft lbs at 3,200 and 350 ft lbs under 2,500.
Last edited by CANADIANOLDS; November 7th, 2023 at 03:01 PM.
They were planning on putting these #6 heads on a 403, it never happened. With a 9 to 1 compression 350 with these heads and this 2350 flash stall converter and 2.78 gears with short 25" 235/60R14 tires, it launched hard, 1/4 block burnouts. I will go down to the 26.3"tall, 225/70R14 tires, from the 27.9" tall 275/60R15 tires. It will be useable with the 2.78 and ideal with the 3.08 gears for cruising. Yeah, I will try and get the 403 and parts on a pallet and send it to Dale in the spring, a year plus wait is fine. Then either milled Procomp or the new Edelbrock 69cc head if they come out with the roller cam. I am going to try and track down a Muncie 330 3 speed manual from a truck, even NOS is available, 3.09/1.75/1.1 gear ratios. It would need a car bearing retainer, available and car tail shaft, more of a challenge, will require some luck. They are supposed to be strong as hell. Ironically, we probably had one sitting in our yard for years. A 72 C10, 250 straight 6, 3 on the tree. Dad got it hauled away for scrap 30 years ago.
Last edited by olds 307 and 403; November 7th, 2023 at 04:14 PM.
October 28th, 2023, 08:23 AM
