Clark455

Some notes for the interim... I am looking for a Cadillac smooth run time experience with just a hint of "something's up here" with the exhaust note (540 cubes are kinda gonna give it away no matter what), so if the LS cam lobe profiles do anything whatsoever to help smooth out the engine just even that little bit further, then it's $200 additional dollars very well spent. Even a slight increase in fuel economy will pay for the additional costs of the custom billet roller pretty quickly. Yes, the engines I build are always fully balanced and smooth, but improvement from 21st century modernization is what it's all about with me. Spreading out bearing loads more evenly, stabilizing cylinder to cylinder temps and valvetrain harmonics are also big plus. Sequential Multi port fuel injection (MPFI) is going to go a long way towards twisting the key and listening to an old dog being taught new tricks. The flex fuel function will allow me to keep the engine alive and happy when I inevitably get stuck with a so so tank of fuel, unlike panicking in the past and pulling over to drop the timing way off temporarily and adding octane booster and babying it until I could donate off the junk fuel to my friends with stock cars (and also their lawnmowers) (!). Twin knock sensors will also keep me safe from any troubles I may not even be able to hear but will require a reasonably quiet valvetrain from setting off the knock sensors falsely, again speaking of the best possible cylinder to cylinder balance. Twin wide band O2 sensors will keep the fuel mixtures in the zone at most all times, unlike the crazy days of the past where a Holley carb would seemingly only run right only on Fridays and Tuesdays lol. Advanced block learn technology means that the computer can self-tune itself better and better with every passing mile (unless I choose to override it and shut the learn function off) (sometimes good to let it get you in the ballpark, and then you force finesse the tune the rest of the way). Overbuilding and then detuning will go a long way towards overall longevity, not having to keep 400 pounds of tools in the trunk as in days gone by (maybe only a 100 now haha). Drive by wire will allow me to tune just how much actual throttle occurs at any given point in the actuation of the gas pedal - smooth and docile in the first third of the throttle, progressively getting more and more actual throttle as per how I may choose to program it to do (by mapping out the drive by wire gas pedal response any way I want to with a quick edit of the programming). Setting the transmission to shift softly under 25% throttle for instance, but barking the tires like a full on shift kit at higher throttle input. I could go on, but you get the idea - the technology is here and now. You can save multiple tunes, radically changing anything you want in the run time experience without ever even popping the hood. I have spent sooooo many hours parked on the side of the road or in parking lots playing with tuning maps over the years, then bringing them into the house and fooling with them more on the PC in the den. WAY better than when I first started burning custom chips for Chevy Tuned Port swaps decades ago!

VERY cool stuff. Yes, complicated as hell compared to a basic carb and distributor, but wicked cool if you're up to the challenge. You can even e-mail various tunes back and forth between your colleagues. If I run into a problem, I could for instance ask cutlassefi to look at my calibrations and then have him tweak a bug out and then simply upload it and try it out. Or? get members on the Holley Forum to look at the tune settings and offer their thoughts and support. Have your cake and eat it too If you see one cylinder is running richer than another by reading the plugs, you can even individually tune each cylinder for timing and air fuel mixtures. Don't be scared of the drive by wire - it's a well proven out technology at this point, with the worst thing happening is a limp mode that just gives you a high idle to still be able to hit the hazards and go a few miles an hour... If it hiccups somehow into the dreaded sudden acceleration case, be ready to kill the ignition just like that time when your ol' mechanical linkage jammed up on you at one point or another.

Yes, will most definitely be keeping all of the amenities - I can't live without A/C here in TN June, July, and August! The alternator is a given. 160 amp high output is the norm for highly electrified cars these days, with optional 200's now also mainstream. PS for sure, as I am going to get crossed up sideways here and there and will need to reel it back in quickly with the stock 442 quick ratio steering gear. I am also the owner of Hydratech Braking Systems, so have to have a hydroboost handling braking duties - got to have a "1000 horsepower worth of whoa to match the 1000 horse of goa". I will now get the cams ordered, likely having the one 455 's run time documented and videoed at the tail end of June thereabouts.

Sincere thanks for all that chimed in - we will all see how this turns out before all too long.

Paul...

Clark455

Building as much (if not more) power than Chadman does (for only 9 seconds at a time) reliably everyday in every way, with the ability to run cross country on the HotRod Power Tour on pump gas with the A/C blasting and cruise control rolling is something that tickles me. I don't have the chassis to even think about ever seriously running out on a dragstrip - this is a purpose built road racer / canyon carver / cruiser / multipurpose Pro-Touring build that I have been working on for years. I have people that will be shooting video of my little 403 in action over the next few days, which I will be posting up. Once the 403 is sold, then in goes the 11:1 455 with the 4/7 swap Howards cam - TORQUE INJECTION! After that engine sells, then the 455 with the LS firing order cam goes into the car. After that sells, then the 488 stroker goes in and then FINALLY the 540 with the twin chargers. Talk about VELCRO ENGINE MOUNTS! It's going to be a while before things all fall into place, for sure...

STAY TUNED!

CANADIANOLDS

would those numbers matter if it’s a hydraulic flat with something like .450” lift or a solid roller with .650” lift and completely different .200” duration with the same LSA?

Clark455

While this question seems to be posed to cutlassefi, it has been my experience that everything matters. You could take a cam with literally the exact same stats and figures from say Comp Cams, then another from say Howards, and find it to have a different character (of course comparing like to like, meaning flat tappet to flat tappet OR roller to roller - not a roller versus a flat tappet). One factor is of course flat tappet to roller - the lobes are shaped completely differently and will therefore provide a different actual run time on the same basic stats, so there is that. BUT solid roller to hydraulic roller or solid flat tappet to hydraulic flat tappet is still dependent on who ground the cam. The numbers, stats, and figures associated with certain cam grinds are only very basic figures. Where cam designers have latitude between those gross figures is a large area, which leaves a lot to how they may want to add their little spin on how the engine runs. The designers can implement little changes to the lobes that the naked eye would never catch in any side by side comparison. Slight increases or decreases in the acceleration or deceleration of a curvature in between the gross figures can make a difference in the way a cam runs.

Now having said all of the above, one thing a flat tappet cam can do that a roller just can't is slap a valve right open and then almost dead drop it shut, especially with mushroom lifters that have a larger head on them on the ends that interface the cam lobes. Mushroom lifters must obviously be installed from the inside of the cam gallery while the block is upside down while the cam is out. With mushroom head lifters, you can smack a valve open like RIGHT NOW. Since mushroom head lifters are rather exotic, I'll stick to standard types of lifters in the discussion.

Sooooo.... even if a cam had the exact basic stats as another, I've quantified that there will be differences. Now a little further to your question, it has been my experience that an engine builder / tuner can develop an ear for lobe separation angles (LSA). Lift doesn't change LSA, BUT the cam type - roller versus flat tappet will change how quickly / slowly a valve will be brought to its .050" lift point and its max lift point. Next, the higher the lift, the faster the valve has to be accelerated to its max lift point as there are only so many degrees of rotation to allow for this event to happen. With a high lift cam, you need to get that valve a movin' in a hurry at a much faster rate of acceleration, and then also deal with the faster rate of deceleration during the closing event.

And?..... a cam with the exact same type of lifter (roller versus flat tappet) is entirely one factor. So a cam with the exact same listed specs will be rather different between the two design types. Setting that aside, any cam type will have a big difference in how it runs when you talk about a .200" lift difference, as the valve train will have different opening and closing rates as it has that much more travel to make in a high lift cam while a low lift cam has that much less travel to make. It's what a lot of people refer to as "area under the curve" - that magic mystical area where cam designers can play around with the lobe designs while staying in the confines of cam card specs. That's largely why you see so many different cam companies in existence, as they all have put their own little twist on their cam lobe profiles. Since the cam lobes can only reliably handle so much angularity in relationship to the lifter, high lift cams typically have to put in some additional overlap, but bear in mind this is not LSA. Cam designers can offset overlap by widening the LSA - it's all a delicate balance though. The area below .050" lift is often ignored as only being "advertised duration" but it does leave a lot of room for valve train movements where the valves actually start being actuated and closed. Think of it this way - a soft start and soft landing can make a big difference in the longevity of a valvetrain, but that tiny area between .000" and .050" is where you can still put in some overlap without changing anything in the .050" to .050". A high lift cam starts ramping up in this .000" to .050" range typically much more than a low lift cam does from my observations.

So in my experience / opinion, the direct answer to your question is YES. But as mentioned, everything matters

I hope I have explained it in such a way that makes sense. If I am wrong, do please correct me, but please explain how and why...

Paul

CANADIANOLDS

Hard to respond to that …it’s like reading a book . If you can make one or two statements at a time about what you believe, it’ll help

and it will help others to learn.

Can you start over?

Clark455

Well, maybe it would be best if cutlassefi responded, as you quoted him with the question initially. He may be able to put it into a nutshell for you better than I can, as he is nowhere near as verbose as I have a tendency to be (!)

cutlassefi

Too much to digest but some of your cam “facts”, aren’t. Sorry.
The area under .050 isn’t that important, mainly because even if you multiply that with a typical rocker ratio. 1.6, there ain’t nothing happening there, no piston movement.
Thats just one aspect of your post that missed the mark a bit, sorry.

Clark455

There IS cam activity occurring below .050 as shown in this graph below:


There IS cam activity below .050" as shown in this graph, which IS what I am pointing out.

This graph was sourced from a good cam read in this article:

HOTROD - HOW-TO - ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN

CANADIANOLDS

yes, there is duration differences in that area. From zero lift to .050” between lobes from different grinders.

what would you choose for a BB Olds for a hot street cam ? More duration from zero to .050”, or less,, and what does that usually tell you about the lobe design itself?

CANADIANOLDS

Paul, can you post up your area under the curve for 4/7 swap cam?

per degree. Im sure you’ve done that.

Clark455

CanadianOlds - the only way anybody could give an accurate suggestion for a "hot street cam" for a BBO would be to determine all of these parameters below:

* Displacement - 455 or ?
* Cylinder head type (cast iron versus aluminum) If aftermarket, what brand?
* Valve sizes
* What possible modifications have been done to the heads (pocket or full porting)
* Spring rates / lift capability
* Intended rocker arm ratio (1.6 or 1.7) (1.6 is typically best)
* Compression ratio
* Intake manifold design (dual or single plane)
* Carb type / style or EFI? CFM?
* Exhaust system design (manifolds stock or high performance and / or headers / primary and collector sizes if headers)
* Exhaust system design downstream of the manifolds / headers (IE 2 1/2 or 3" pipe, muffler type, to axle down dumps or to tail)
* Fuel type intended - pump gas versus E85 or upscale fuel type

After the above engine mechanicals are nailed down, then comes the overall drivetrain design:
* Stick or automatic
* If auto, what general converter stall speed
* Rear axle ratio
* Tire height / general size
* Power brakes or manual brakes? (if power, what size / type of brake booster? 8" to 11" vacuum booster or hydroboost?)

With all of the above mechanical parameters nailed down, then it becomes a subjective discussion as to what you are looking for in a run time experience?
* All street use? Or street / strip use?
* Long highway runs or basically only local shorter driving distances?
* Type of "attitude" you are looking for? Well behaved, smooth mild mannered or a cackly crabby high strung fender shaker?
* Fuel economy a consideration or non issue?
* Ultra quiet valve train operation or some allowable resultant mechanical noise acceptable?
* Hydraulic "set it and forget it" or a solid lifter requiring periodic lash adjustments?
* Overall budget for the valvetrain?

I'd be happy to tell you what I would reach for based upon your above specs if I was building this engine for you, but it is always good to also consult with a cam manufacturer (or 3) to compare notes as it is after all what they do for a living 9-5, M - F most with computer modeling software available to them to punch in all of your parameters.

As far as area under the curve for the Howards 4-7 swap cam, I looked at all of their offerings and chose the cam I did based upon the overall basic specs. I did not do a deep dive into the specifics of the cam lobes somewhat "shooting from the hip just to give one a rip" as I can tune my way into the run time experience I need through a wide range of the engine's needs to make it run the way I want it to run (custom timing parameters / custom fuel curves as needed to achieve the drivability I may want) - with the Rocket Racing billet two piece timing cover combined with the Speedmaster top sprocket adjustable cam timing, I can also monkey around with the cam timing as desired, though from what I have seen of its characteristics on the test runs on the stand it should be on point (as I did double check the degree on the cam during assembly). I know I have got the cam card stashed around here somewhere, though I'll have to see if I can remember where in the world I may have filed it. I will say that I am very pleased with my cam selection for my combination, though it's caught me a bit off guard with its rowdier than expected idle. This again points to all of the different cam manufacturers having their own little secret recipes for their cam lobe profiles. I am curious to see how this engine actually behaves in the car once the 403 is sold and this Howards 4-7 swap cammed 11:1 compression ratio engine goes in. I am expecting it to have a rather rowdy sound to it, but a reasonably civilized actual run time.

In the meantime, here is a read that may interest some regarding area under the lift curve:
Area Under the Curve
Opening and Closing Rates

One thing I would like to point out is that a hydraulic lifter cam will respond to areas of the lift curve below .050" more so than a solid lifter cam will, as the small area under .050" is largely impacted by how much lash is in the valvetrain (that has to be taken up by movement in the beginning of the lobe profile before anything actually starts happening at the valves), while hydraulic lifters run at zero lash (with the response to anything in the area under .050" lift occurring much faster at the valve as per the zero lash in the hydraulic lifter).

Paul...

CANADIANOLDS

When I get closer to picking a cam, I’ll let you know….I want something exotic 🤣

Clark455

Ahhhh... Ok, I see what you're doing here, you just tipped your hand...

CANADIANOLDS

why do you say 1.6 rocker ratio is best as opposed to 1.7 , or more for that matter?

Bernhard

Is your LS firing order camshaft single pattern or dual pattern?

Bernhard

The reason I asked if you are running signal or dual pattern cam profile is because, you also have 4 pattern cam profiles.

CANADIANOLDS

his lobes are standard ramp profiles. Howard’s have two more aggressive hyd roller profiles in their lobe catalog

nothing special or exotic…😁

here’s the specs on the intake.350” lobe, 147@.200” 225@.050 lobe profile #bhr2253050

ex .347” lobe , 150@.200” 229@.050 #bhr229347

oh…and more rocker ratio IS better if the valve train can control everything…always

Clark455

I have presented all of my data to Steve at LSM for both engines - the basic 455 comparison build (to compare against the 455 with the Howards 4-7 swap) and also the supercharged 540 Rocket block build. He now has the basic data, and I have given him some soak time to come up with what he believes will be the best for the two wildly different engines. Again, I am VERY curious to see if I can notice a considerable difference in the side by side 455 comparison build, with the only difference being the LS "C" firing order but otherwise very similar cam specs to the Howards roller. Yes, I suspect Steve will dual pattern the cam between the intake and exhaust, but I don't see him going into 4 corner cylinder optimization as this basic 455 just won't really benefit from it in my opinion. The supercharged MPFI 540? Maybe that one would benefit from a little bit of four corner optimization, but it's going to be force fed boost rather equally to all eight cylinders and the MPFI will be injecting fuel distribution very equally between all 8 cylinders also. The Holley Dominator system has provision for individual cylinder tuning, in as far as spark timing and fuel to each cylinder, unlike a carbureted "wet flow" build like Chadman is running, so I don't think any four corner optimization will benefit the 540 build...

I don't suspect it will be all too much longer before Steve at LSM Engineering lets me know what he proposes to grind for me.

Your friendly Ukranian Mad Scientist,

Paul

cutlassefi

How are you going to decipher the difference for trim among all 8 cylinders? I would hope you at least have 8 EGT’s. But 8 widebands would obviously be better. And most of that I would think will be for off boost/part throttle tuning. If you’re building heat in any given cyl it doesn’t matter how or when it gets there. Once it’s there it’ll be your tuning wall.

cutlassefi

So, what do you with a head, like an Olds, where the inner runners actuallly flow better than the outer ones? AND how much more duration etc do you do for the 4 corners? 4 degrees, 8 degrees? Without good info it’s a crap shoot however you look at it.

Clark455

Not being a Formula One build in a mega million laboratory environment, I may never know exactly what each cylinder is doing besides just reading the plugs, using my many years of experience... I know the Holley Dominator software is continuously evolving with further and further advancements into cylinder to cylinder activity when using highly accurate and sensitive crank triggers, so I will probe just what data I may be able to log and scrutinize it once it hits the road. Reed Grant's dyno has run many Oldsmobiles over the years, as he also is an Olds specialist. I doubt he has 8 wide band O2's set up on his Olds dyno pipes, but he definitely has EGT's so that we can at very least base line this engine in a few pulls. While the flow matched Holley 220 lb injectors will be squirting the exact same amounts of fuel into each cylinder, it is going to come down to how well I end up massaging the ancient Offy low rise dual quad intake for air flow dynamics, how well you do in preparing the cylinder heads for me, even being crammed in at 15+ PSI. Boost IS the great equalizer though, as you are no longer dead reliant on the engine's ability to suck its air charge in equally between differing length runners and intake ports - it's being crammed down its throat instead. This is also not going to be a "wet flow" induction system as a carbureted system is, with fuel being introduced right at the cylinder head intake ports instead, vastly improving cylinder to cylinder equality. The engine is not going to be on boost the majority of the time though, so of course the cam dynamics, cylinder head port locations / volumes, intake manifold characteristics are always going to be a factor in the overall drivability and manners I am going to be expecting of this build.

As far as rocker ratio, my 540 twin supercharged Rocket block based build is not going to be a max effort drag racing engine, so I do not intend to run higher ratio rockers unless Steve at LSM specifically designs the camshaft for them. Generally speaking, say you have a 400 pound valve spring. You multiply that by 1.6 = 400 = 640 pounds of load on your pushrods, lifters, and cam lobes. Now take that 400 pound spring and multiply that by 1.7 = 680 pounds. Yes, that's only 40 more pounds of load, but it is also magnifying what the cam profile is affecting lift and effective duration (which can be a very good thing in the right circumstances). I agree with you that a higher rocker arm ratio is beneficial in many circumstances, but as you mentioned, this places more stress on the valvetrain which requires machinery that can take it. I have used all kinds of various rocker arm ratios over the years, even experimenting around with mixing and matching between intake and exhaust as a tuning measure. There is a time and place for everything. Our general readers following along in these discussions need to know that you don't just run out there and grab a set of 1.7:1 ratio rockers without knowing that this brings the pushrods inward towards the centerline of the cylinder heads, which means that you may have to modify the pushrod pass through holes in the heads depending upon what diameter pushrod you are running. The additional stress placed on the valvetrain with higher ratio rockers can also come back around and bite you if you don't have components that can handle the additional stresses placed on the entire valvetrain (valve float threshold and possible parts breakage) (you don't want to drop a valve into a cylinder, that's for sure!). If you have reached the point where you cannot introduce any more lift in a cam lobe due to base circle constraints, then yes, a higher ratio rocker will magnify what the lobes are maxing out at providing more effective lift at the valve. Wild builds bore the cam tunnel open for a larger camshaft journal / bearing size to allow for larger cam lobes to be used as this allows for a larger "base circle". Translated, the cam lobes cannot be any larger than the cam journal sizes, so the only way to increase cam lobe sizes is to bore the engine block to accommodate a camshaft of an overall larger diameter - max effort drag racing stuff that gets pretty far off the beaten path, that's for sure!

What a wonderful valvetrain discussion this has turned into. If there are any readers that would like any further clarification on any of the points presented here, please don't hesitate to ask. I think there is a saying to that effect? The only dumb question is the one that isn't asked or something like that LOL

Again, your friendly Ukrainian mad scientist, stating Slava Ukraini !
(incredible that a Patriot missile ended up taking out one of Putin's supposedly unstoppable hypersonic missiles this week!)

Paul...

cutlassefi

Not sure why you’re going to use such a large injector unless you plan on making over 2000hp.
And the Holley software isn’t the cats meow. It doesn’t do anything other systems haven’t done for years. And again without proper sensors you’ll be shooting in the dark. Just sayin.😎

Clark455

The reasoning for such large injectors is that I spoke in great detail with one of the Holley EFI tech gurus who stated that their injectors do very well at small pulse widths without any injector bounce or flutter while still providing an excellent spray pattern (patented Holley injector technology). Since this is going to be set up as a flex fuel vehicle, it will need approximately 30% more fuel volume running E85 as compared to pump gas, hence the wider range of fuel system output and capacity depending on what the gasoline to ethanol ratio happens to be as detected at any given point in time by the sensor in the fuel line. The rational provided was that you could reduce the fuel pressure some to ease up on the fuel pump load (essentially how many amps it is drawing and how much heat it would build under load keeping the fuel temperatures down in the circulating fuel system) (circulating constantly from the tank to the engine and back at all times), ease up on the pulse width (how long the injector is actuated), essentially detune their operations as per being their super wizbang high impedance injector technology. Then if needed, you could very easily uptune the pulse width and fuel pressures, providing a very wide range of tuning mechanically (via fuel pressure) and electronically (via pulse width). They also recommended a PWM (pulse width modulated) twin pump run by a fuel controller, because if I ever ran into the "lean death rattle" under boost, it would likely cause serious engine damage. With such a large displacement engine running from a no load vacuum in the intake manifold while not under boost (requiring much less fuel) then instantly being placed under boost (requiring up to double the fuel instantly), these large injectors would be able to provide a quick shot of fuel like a large accelerator pump would in a carb, and also quickly respond to high output when commanded under boost - a much wider range of overall injector operations. This also would cover me for any possible uptuning in the future if I ever decided to intercool it and jack the boost pressures way up. Modern nitrous oxide systems can also simply command more injector output when you may hit the "spray", without having to also separately introduce fuel as with older carbureted tech - the injectors would simply ramp up into triple dump fuel mode LOL. I can't picture ever setting up a "scramble button" as they refer to it these days, as this car is just not set up to handle much more than a 1000 horse. Heck, it's crazy to think of wheel spin at a 100+ MPH = I do strongly believe I will be incorporating traction control at some point.

Soooo, as per the Holley tech guru's input, 220 lb injectors would cover me properly for my displacement and potential boost outputs in my flex fuel scenario...

Loads of tech - sometimes it really sounds overwhelming, but it all makes sense once you gain a full understanding of the systems and how they operate. Its just what today's everyday flex fuel vehicles are doing, except on a much larger high output twin supercharged 540 cube big block scale!

Paul...

cutlassefi

The “instant shot” you’re looking for is aided by using a vacuum referenced regulator. You don’t need to up the injector size for that.
And not sure who you talked to there, but I can tell you categorically that most of the Holley tech guys have never even seen an injector much less actually tuned an engine. Just an fyi, they’re paid on the amount of calls they answer in a day, and was the issue that was presented to them resolved. Next is, did they sell somebody an additional piece of some sort.
Based on my experience you’re headed in the wrong direction, just sayin.

fleming442

https://www.vaporworx.com/pwm-contro...election-tool/

CANADIANOLDS

for a given valve lift you want more rocker ratio and less lobe to achieve that. Not the other way around…more ratio reduces mass movement and improves valve train control….especially as lifts and ramp rates increase

next time you talk to any of the cam grinders your are dealing with, ask them if that’s true.

as far as valve spring pressure is concerned…rates can be reduced with higher ratios(if the rpm is the same) because the spring has more mechanical leverage while returning the valve train on the closing ramp…it see less mass

Clark455

Mark, the fuel injection info has been carefully reviewed and documented by an acquaintance of mine who goes by the name of Dr EFI on the Holley forums. This guy is GOOD, real good, so it's not just some Holley tech spouting off information that isn't accurate. Keep in mind that I am also a tuner, having been doing EFI since I first started doing custom L98 Tuned Port conversions back in the late eighties, custom burning chips way back then. I also hold GM Tech Center Certified Master Technician status along with ASE Advanced Engine Performance / Master Technician status. I get what you are saying and DO appreciate your input. I fully understand how supercharged and turbocharged fuel boost reference works, having built more T-types, GN's, supercharged Buick 3800's, Typhoons and Syclones than I can count...


ASE Advanced Engine Performance

ASE Master Technician. The recertified notation means I have held Master Tech status a LONG time...

Fleming, YES, definitely dealing with VaporWorx on the fuel supply system.

I was in Detroit over the weekend visiting my daughter for her 40th birthday, along with the rest of the family for Mother's Day. This placed me only a short few miles away from LSM Engineering, so I stopped in to talk to them about my LS firing order Olds cam design Monday morning. They had stated that since I am doing a direct side by side comparison build to the Howards 4/7 swap engine, that I should order in another one of the Howards 4/7 cams to ship into them. They will directly pattern off of this Howards 4/7 swap "A" firing order cam then only changing the firing order to the "C" firing order = 4/7 and 2/3 swap. This way it provides the best side by side comparison between the two otherwise identical engines. The Howards cam is now ordered, and will be shipped to LSM Engineering, where they will then make it happen. I am curious to compare the two engine's run characteristics - it may amount to nothing or could be something. Both engines will end up in the 442 for comprehensive road testing. If I feel inclined to do such, I may put them on a rear wheel dyno and see if there will be any measurable difference between the two. If I like the 4/7 - 2/3 "C" firing order, then I will work with LSM to whip up a "C" / LS firing order cam for the 540 twin supercharged build. As per my conversation with CanadianOlds, I asked them what they thought of the 1.6:1 versus the 1.7:1 rocker arm ratio and they said that there is merit to it, but their very first comment was that you have to really watch the piston to valve clearances when working with the 1.7:1 ratios along with the general time and the place for everything mentality that I have regarding this...

Another entry from your friendly Ukrainian mad scientist -

Paul

New2oldsw30

So Paul, WHY the fascination with twin torque storm?? Twin 78mm turbos will SMOKE the tstorm in the power department, will idle Cadillac smooth and all the while run on gas, not meth? Then you add into the factory of pull on the crank snout the superchargers have whereas the turbos don't?

Just curious.

cutlassefi

All of that has little to nothing to do with the type of blower. It’s cam, compression ratio, and boost that’ll determine that.
And your Holley Tuner is wrong. You don’t upsize the injector for the reason given. That’s a band aid at best. If you need to do that then there is something wrong elsewhere.

New2oldsw30

Mark, I know that. I just want to see the rational Clark has with this? AND seeing he has all the experience with GM and T Types, wonder why he's going this way? Is he just buying into the advertising hype on the twin Stroms like he did with the Speedmaster head flow #'s???

Clark455

There's a number of reasons why I have decided to go with the twin TorqStorm package. The first is that it is so easily tunable by simply swapping pulley sizes. Next, I don't have to go through all of the trouble to build a custom exhaust system to feed the turbos, then doubling back with downpipes dealing with all kinds of under hood radiant heat issues. Past that, I like how linear the boost response is with superchargers as compared to laggy / spiky turbos. As mentioned before, I also like how it's going to lay out - one charger feeding each throttle body on the low rise Offy dual quad intake, all just hanging off of the front of the engine nice and neatly. Asking these chargers to only build 15 or so lazy amounts of boost for now running E85 also means that I can stay out of the excessive plumbing required to intercool it as these chargers won't be working hard at all, which will also keep belt loading on the front of the crankshaft down rather low. Mark is working up the heads for me, so it ought to flow well on the 540 base cubes before even getting into boost. What you don't know is that this engine is very likely going to end up going into another car, as I don't want to cut this 442 up more than the narrowing of the rear frame rails that I have already done - I don't want to twist this clean little G body into pieces, A pillars cracking to hell and back. This engine going into a vastly more capable chassis will have me turn the wick up on it dramatically, intercooling it, recamming it, swapping cylinder heads, shooting for all the horsepower I can possibly wring out of this Rocket Racing block build (hence the large injectors). Speaking of large injectors, here are some E85 calculations on some easy peasy low fuel pressures:


Hmmm, looky there - now my guy Andrew's recommendation of the 220 lb hr injectors aren't that far off on E85 usage.



Yessss... keeping the injector duty cycle on the lower side, as it just *might* be fed some methanol at some point, and / or some "dry nitrous" where the additional fuel for the N2o will be provided by the existing fuel injectors, cranking the fuel pressure and injector duty cycles up.

BTW - I NEVER said anything about running this on meth. This is going to be set up as a flex fuel car. Primarily E85, but I know I will get caught out on the HotRod PowerTour without access to E85 at times. There was some other guy that posted earlier who was mistaken as to what C16 was referenced in the one dyno pull video. VP Racing C16 is a very high octane leaded race fuel - NOT methanol. I mentioned possibly getting into methanol injection, in reality just injecting windshield washer fluid into the chargers if needed to introduce some intake air charge temp cooling on hot summer days...

Capeesh?

Please, call me Paul - thanks!

cutlassefi

If you put 220’s in it I’ll bet you’ll have idle issues.

Duh

No one cares what you smoke in your spare time.

Clark455

Read between the lines "faxer"...

What else would you expect from a screen name so aptly named "Duh"...

Clark455

Here are a couple of new video clips of this 11:1 Olds 455 with the Howards 4/7 swap roller cam, now with the new Edelbrock 7551 RPM Air Gap intake manifold installed in place of the previous Mondello low profile Toronado dual plane custom intake manifold - enjoy!



FYI - While this manifold appears to be a vastly taller intake, it is more of an optical illusion as per having the deep cast in valley flat area. According to Edelbrock's online specs, this manifold is just shy of 5/8" taller than the standard Olds Big Block 2151 Performer.
Center Maximum Height - CARB PAD HEIGHT 5.540 in (7551 RPM Air Gap Intake)
Center Maximum Height - CARB PAD HEIGHT 4.950 in (2151 Performer Intake)

What I also found interesting is that when you first light the engine off, the carb base is noticeably cold as per atomizing the fuel right there are the butterflies, but you can now also feel the bottom of the intake manifold's plenum area get rather chilled too - this makes this engine a little bit more cold blooded to warm up, not too bad though. The runners feel a little cooler, but not as cold as the central plenum area. My thermal temp gun was having trouble picking up the temps as per the shiny metals throwing off the readings (intake was clear coated and oven baked). After it warms up, the bottom "valley flat" is definitely much hotter than the intake plenum area. It did not require any adjustments to the idle mixtures as I had expected it might.

Your friendly Ukranian mad scientist,

Paul