# how to rebuild my 428



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Hi!

Maybe I need to repair my engine soon (reason can be found in another thread). I'd be interested anyway in how to rebuild this engine.
I don't know anything about internal parts of my engine. If I have to rebuild it, I'd like to know how to make it powerfull and reliable. (heads, camshaft..)
I don't need an engine that makes 6000rpm or more, if the power is "available" from idle to 5500rpm this would be best for my intentions.

The car:
428 from 1969
670 heads (will need replacement)
tri power setup
MSD ignition
manual transmisson
headers and a 2,5" exhaust system

I found these parts but don't know if they will be good:

- Edelbrock Camshaft and Lifter set: Edelbrock 2157 Advertised Duration 278/288, Lift .420/.442

- Edelbrock Cylinder Heads: Edelbrock 61575 with 87cc, 2.11" intake and 1,66" exhaust valves

This head is fully assembled and is available with maximum valve lift of 0.6" or 0.55".. I don't know which is better.
I remember that Bear told me to use bare Edelbrock heads and have them assembled by a professional, but I'd only like to do that if the Edelbrock assembled heads ain't good, because I live in Austria and buying parts in the US and have them shipped to someone else in the US who will have to ship them to me is a little bit expensive and complex.

I also found these heads: Tin Indian Performance - KRE Aluminum D Port Pontiac Heads

These might be the same? Kauffman Racing Equipment

Edelbrock or KRE? Or something else?? 
And do I have to buy some other parts as well? Only thing I know is I need a new head bolt set for the Edelbrock heads and probably new gaskets (I have a complete set from Fel-Pro at home).
I now use Accel 137 spark plugs and have set of new ones already at home. Can I use them on the new heads? And timing will be okay like before? It has been set to 18° initial and 36° max with my MSD Pro Billet distributor without vacuum advance. If a other dist. would work better I could think of buying something else as well, but I don't want to invest too much money, so if the old timing setup will work I won't change it.

Thank you for every comment on this, I'm curious about what the experts will advise me to use!

Chris


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Well now, this could get interesting very quickly 

There are a lot of cylinder head choices out there now that weren't there even a few years ago. 
People will probably tend to recommend to you what they "know" or have experience with. I know I really like the way my engine is built and can tell you all about it - but that's just one example. There are many ways to make power reliably with Pontiacs, so be leery of anyone who tries to tell you his/her way is the absolute best, especially if they can't back it up with logic and real results.
I like roller cams/lifters because you can get more power ("area under the curve") without having to go crazy on the amount of overlap and duration the cam has. Both overlap and duration have an effect on street manners - how rough it idles - and also how much idle vacuum the engine makes. This is important if you have vacuum operated accessories like power brakes. Another reason I like rollers is you don't have to lose sleep at night over whether your oil has enough ZDDP in it and whether or not you're going to be unlucky and have a cam lobe 'wiped' during break in. The down side is that roller systems are expensive, and if you choose a solid variety like I did you'll have to check and re-adjust the valve lash periodically (though not as often as some might suggest.)
One thing nearly everyone agrees on is that the Pontiac factory rods need to go. Replace them with some good quality aftermarket forged rods. You can get a set for not much more than you'd pay to have the factory rods reconditioned. The factory rods are always the weakest link in a Pontiac - with the debatable exception of the 455 SD rods --- but those things are awfully heavy. Plus, replacing the rods and pistons gives you the option of going with the longer 6.800" rod instead of the factory 6.625" rod. That's another 'debate topic', but the longer rod because of the geometries involved changes the piston 'dwell time' near top dead center, piston acceleration, and also the point in the crank rotation where the rod and the crank are at a right angle to each other. Some folks think a longer rod is 'better'. I'm one of them, but I can't "prove" it.

Cylinder heads --- now there's a topic for debate and you'll certainly find lots of opinions. In your situation I'd probably choose an aluminum D-port head, either Kauffman or the new Edelbrocks, just because your car is already set up for a D-port exhaust system and that would save you having to replace your headers (or manifolds - I forget what you have) also. The new Edelbrock D-port heads have some very nice looking chambers. The Kauffman's are similar. People have more experience with the round port Edelbrocks like I have, just because they've been out much longer, but a good head porter can do magic with either design. 

Either way, I'd still buy them bare and have Dave at CVMS in Virgina build them up for me. I understand that's not a trivial thing for you to do, but I know you'd be happy with the results. The problem with buying any head off the shelf and ready to run is that they generally come with cheaper springs, cheaper valves, and other hardware that's not necessarily top of the line.

You'll probably have to change your ignition timing some because of the heads. Different chambers, different materials, all effect how the combustion flame propagates through the chamber and that's what determines how much advance your engine will "want". The heads you choose will also in large part dictate which spark plugs to use.

Once you've chosen a particular head and combustion chamber, then that will determine which pistons you'll want to use in order to put the compression ratio where your engine will be happy. I'm not familiar with how octane ratings vary between "here" and "there", but "here" on 93 octane and aluminum heads, I'd shoot for a compression ratio of around 10.2 or 10.3:1 

Take your time, talk to people you trust. If you can, I'd recommend giving Jim Lehart a call (+1 434 767 9915). He'll tell you the truth and won't steer you wrong.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I found some cams with roller lifters.. but the set is 700-1000$. The edelbrock set (hydraulic flat tappet) will cost 170$. I really would like to have all the best parts for my engine, but I cannot spend that much money 
Same thing with having the heads assembled by Dave, I simply cannot afford it.. If you said the Edelbrock D-Port heads (assembled) are bad and use really cheap valves... I'd have to find a way to afford it. If the fully assembled Edelbrocks are pretty good but not perfect, I probably will use them as they come "out of the box" because of the fact that it will make it much easier to buy and afford them. (heads mentioned above cost 2200$ at Summit and with shipping and taxes they are 3100$)

I now have the 670 heads, they are D-Port heads I guess? 
If I use the Edelbrock D-Ports.. which is better? Maximum valve lift of 0.6" or 0.55"? 
And camshaft kit, what duration and lift are good for my intentions? The ones I found have Duration 278/288 and Lift .420/.442. But if I don't use Edelbrock there are lots of other choises available.

I have the 66 tri power manifold and the tri power carbs. They will work with the Edelbrock D Port heads?

I'm also not sure if I have factory rods, but I'll ask my mechanic to check them when he removes the cylinder heads. Can he see what kind they are? New ones are pretty expensive.. I'd only like to spend the money if the old ones are bad.
If I can keep the MSD dist. I have now and only adjust the settings this would be good news as well  
I really appreciate all the information about what I can/should change, but I have to keep the costs low (but I don't want to have bad parts, less power and a none reliable engine)


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Parts cost: Cry once when you build it or every time you use it. Up to you. X2 on everything Bear said. If you give Jim a call and have him map out a course of action, and use his services, you can't go wrong. Not cheap, but a reliable, pump gas friendly engine that will produce ample power and last for years. You get what you pay for in this game.


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I absolutely agree with that. I'm not a guy who doesn't care about quality.. it's pretty the opposite. But I simply don't have that much money.
I would be really interested in answers to the questions before, especially if 670 are D-Port heads, if Edelbrock fully assembled heads are any good, which valve lift is better and what camshaft specs. are best for my intentions.

As soon as I know what's the deal with my engine I'll probably give Jim a call to see, if I could afford the things he would suggest me to use. But no matter what, I'll have to take care of the problem and if I know that lets say the Edelbrock assembled heads are "good enough" I can feel a little better because I know that for 3000$ I can drive my car the next years until I have the money to completly rebuild it (and re-use the before buyed Edelbrocks but have them assembled by a pro)


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Yessir, 670's are D-port heads.

It's not that the fully assembled heads are 'garbage' -- they're not. It's just that they can be SO much better with a little attention.

There's also nothing wrong with doing things a little bit at a time.

That's one of the reasons I recommended you call Jim. He'll steer you right and will share honest information with you even if you don't 'buy' from him. He also knows how to fit a build into a budget and still hit reasonable performance goals - a whole lot better than I could.

A roller is not 'the only way' by any means. It's just the one I like the best. There are a lot of Pontiacs out there making pretty serious power with flat-tappet cams, even more power than I'm making with a roller in fact.

Rods though, are something I'd consider a necessity even if you have to save somewhere else. By the time you have a set of factory rods straightened, resized, reconditioned, replace the bushings, pin fit, ground and polished the cost will be very close to what a set of forged H-beams would cost but they won't be anywhere near as strong or reliable. Most of the time when a Pontiac engine meets an untimely demise it's because of a rod failure. Wouldn't it be a shame to invest in building a nice strong engine, then have it reduced to nothing more than a big boat anchor because a rod let go? It's just not worth the risk for the small difference in cost. Yes, on various message boards you will find people who will say "I've been running factory rods to 7000 rpm for 20 years and have never had a problem." --- but they are a very small minority. For every one person like that you find, you'll find several hundred ruined engines in the scrap yard that are there because of thrown rods.

Yes, your tripower manifold will fit any factory or aftermarket Pontiac head that has the 'stock' port layout - including round port and d-port. Exceptions I know about are the CV-1 heads and real (or repro) Ram Air V's. You might have a problem with round port Edelbrocks if they've been ported. All the bolt holes will line up ok, but the manifold might not be "tall" enough to completely cover the port openings in the heads. (I ran into this with my E-heads and my factory cast iron intake. That's why I'm running the Torker 1 now.)

I'm not a big fan of Edelbrock cams, just because I've got no experience with them. I do like Comp Cams, Lunati, and Crower. Increased lift vs. increased duration (or both) --- it's a trade off. With increased lift you'll need different springs and perhaps some machining on the spring seats in the heads in order to run springs that will work with the higher lift without going into coil bind. Longer duration is going to tend to have more overlap which has a negative effect on low rpm operation and also idle vacuum. (Overlap is also what produces that nice sounding lumpy idle we all associate with a hot motor.) You mentioned a 278/288 duration cam --- are those numbers for "seat to seat" or "advertised" duration, or are they for duration at .050 lift? If it's seat-to-seat/advertised, then that's a mild to moderate cam. If it's at .050 --- it's very nasty. (My solid roller is 236/242 at .050, 273/279 "advertised" --- but being a roller the opening/closing ramps can be steeper than on a flat-tappet cam so it "acts" like a much bigger flat tappet cam. It definitely idles with some attitude.)
.420 lift at the valves is also moderate, if that's with 1.5:1 rockers. (Mine is .565/.571 with 1.5's - or would be - I'm running 1.6:1 rockers so my actual valve lift is .603/.609). You actually have an advantage with the 4-speed because you don't have to worry about matching up the converter stall to your engine's torque band. You can launch the car at any rpm you choose. If you also don't have power brakes or a/c, then you can completely disregard any concern for idle vacuum and go as nasty as you want on the cam 

Bear

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Wow, thats a lot of information, but exactly what I need to know 
The thing with the "cam" is pretty complex, getting nasty with the cam will make more power and still be reliable with a little worse idle? I don't want the engine to make more than 5500rpm at anytime, I won't race it. But if it puts out some serious torque and hp at low rpm that would be great!

Okay so the Edelbrock heads would be better bare and assembled by somebody else, I'll think of it and calculate if I find a way to do that. If there is a company where they sell new and self assembled Edelbrock heads this would be much easier if they are not too expensive!

That I should really use new rods isn't a really good news, because they are expensive and it will be a lot more work (engine has to come off?).
Is it a very bad idea if everything seems in good condition except the heads to replace them and don't touch anything else? Maybe the rods are not factory originals, I don't know what has been done with my engine before, can I "see" this after the heads are off?


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

The topic of cam shafts is fascinating, and very detailed - complex. To try to simplify it as much as I can, what you're doing with a cam change is really just moving the rpm at which the engine is 'most efficient' --- peak volumetric efficiency (VE). Peak VE is usually the point where the engine makes the most torque - twisting force - because that's where it's making the most efficient use of its "lungs" -- the cubic inch displacement. This all has to do with the fact that air has mass and requires some time to start moving (and stop moving) when the valves open and close - it doesn't just instantaneously rush into the cylinder when the valve opens. An engine really is just a big air pump. The more air you can make it breathe, the more power it's going to make.

Horsepower is a calculated number. Horsepower is (torque X rpm)/5252. So, if we have an engine that makes, say 500 lb. ft. of torque at 4000 rpm, that's (500 X 4000)/5252 - or 380.8 HP. If we change the cam so that the torque peak now occurs at 5000 rpm, that's (500 X 5000)/5252 - or 476 HP. The engine is not "twisting" with any more force than it was before - it's still twisting with 500 lb. ft. of torque. It's just doing it at a 'faster rate' - 5000 rpm instead of 4000 rpm --- so because of the calculation, we picked up close to 100 hp. If you take a close look at HP and torque charts, you'll see that all engines always have equal horspower and torque numbers at 5252 rpm. That's because of the mathematical relationship between the values.

I know rods are expensive, but if your engine has been detonating it wouild be unwise to reuse the rods that are in it because the effects of detonation may have bent them slightly, and also may have 'elongated' the big ends of the rods so that they're no longer round. Even if you reuse them, you'd want to remove them and have them straigtened and the big ends resized and restored to 'roundness' anyway. It will cost you almost as much to have that done by a reputable machine shop as it would to purchase a set of good forged rods.

It takes presicion measuring tools to check the rods for straightness and roundness. It's not a job you can do with the naked eye. In order to remove the rods for this job, it's best that the engine be removed from the car. I'm not going to say it's impossible to do without removing the engine because it's not.... but doing it that way is so unpleasant and difficult that you'll wish you'd just gone ahead and pulled it.


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Thats really interesting! So if I pick a Cam that makes most power at 550rpm would be best, because I don't want the engine to run with more? How much rpm will be best if the engine still should be pretty reliable? 

So I wouldn't think of repair the old rods, thats for sure, better new forged ones!
To remove the engine is better if all this has to be done and in that case the clutch can be changed easy I guess  Another 500$ but I need to soon anyway!

If I change the rods, can I use the old pistons?


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Chris, I think you meant 5500 rpm, and you need to be aware of something that hasn't been mentioned: a 428 is a "big journal" block with 3.25" mains. Big Journal engines don't like high rpms (above 5000) or sustained rpm's above 3,000. They don't oil well due to the size of the bearing. That's why everybody (Bear included) is running a big inch motor based off of a 3" crank.....A 3" crank motor will withstand much higher RPM and sustained high rpm cruising. So, that said, you want your engine to do what a big engine does best: Make its power down LOW in the rpm range. You want a cam that comes on at 1500-1800 rpm and is pretty much done by 5,000 rpm. A 428 is a GREAT engine....it just doesn't need to wind way up there to make a ton of power.


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I have set my Tach. redline to 5000rpm from day 1. Almost never pushed it to 5500, I had the feeling that it doesn't like it very much and now I know the reason why.

I found this cam and lifter set: http://www.summitracing.com/parts/LUN-10510472LK/

Basic Operating RPM Range 1,500-5,000
Intake Duration at 050 inch Lift 218
Exhaust Duration at 050 inch Lift 218
Duration at 050 inch Lift 218 int./218 exh.
Advertised Intake Duration 284
Advertised Exhaust Duration 284
Advertised Duration 284 int./284 exh.
Intake Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio 0.458 in.
Exhaust Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio 0.458 in.
Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio 0.458 int./0.458 exh.
Lobe Separation (degrees) 110


Does that sound good for my engine? I now thing of using these parts:

- Edelbrock heads and head bolt set (let them be assamble by a expert if I can afford it)
- Camshaft and lifters as mentioned above
- New rods from Scat (there are floating and press fit style and alloy or chromoly steel connection rod bolts available.. what do I need?)
- New gasket set for the engine

Any other parts I should think of? Bearings? Pistons?


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Chris, again, please talk to Jim at Central Virginia Machine.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Good advice from GeeTee, as usual. Thing I'd say would be don't get in a hurry. Get used to the idea that you probably won't be able to buy all the parts at one. For instance pushrod length will need to be chosen after a trial assembly of the heads and rest of the valve train so you can ensure the contact pattern on the valve stems is where it needs to be. Likewise sometimes pistons come later too after you know for sure the chanber sizes in the heads. Best advice I could give you on choosing a cam would be (you guessed it) call Jim. 

(I like floating pins myself)

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I'll ask Jim. Now I know some good questions!
Maye I can contact him by e-mail. If I can read the answers I can take more time to think of it, there are always some words that I have to check in the dictionary if it comes to engine specific terms.

I want to rebuild the engine during winter, money isn't longer the big problem, I won't go on holiday and invest the money that is needed to make it good. I don't like the idea of investing a lot of money but save on some important things that also need attention (rods, maybe timing gear since I read that Edelbrock recommends that..)

I'll plan carefully what to do, starting with this topic!  Your comments help me a lot, so don't reserve any good ideas of what to do to get more power and a reliable pump gas engine. But even if I use my holiday money, the budget is limited. So a good compromise between the "wanted" things and the "necessary" things has to be found. I hope Jim can fit this into my budget (3000-3500$ for parts max. because I need to ship them and pay our taxes which are 20%)


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I've asked Jim and got a reply with some good basic information. Now he knows what I want to build and I'm waiting for his comment on this.

For sure until now:

- new heads and head bolt set
- new camshaft and lifter set (roller)
- new timing chain and gear
- new rods
- engine oil cooler
- gasket set

If I can keep the old pistons and don't have to machine the cylinders I would be able to afford that and I guess the right parts could build a powerfull and reliable engine.
My mechanic said he'd like to see a bigger oil pan and/or a oil cooler. This shouldn't be a big problem I think. I'll go for the oil cooler and use my old pan because a new one is pretty expensive and can be changed later (after I have saved some money again). For now I think it's better to invest in the rollers instead of the hydraulic flat ones like you and Jim told me 

If we talk about horespower.. do you mean engine power or wheel power?


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

... it depends. Usually I quote engine (flywheel) torque and power figures for my engine because those are the numbers I actually have from when I broke it on in the engine dyno.

I've never had it on a chassis dyno, but if I did, that would give me rear wheel figures.

Don't get too obsessed with either set of numbers though. They aren't absolute. The same engine will produce different results on different dynos because no two dynos are exactly the same. Plus, some shall we say "less than scrupulous" operators will intentionally "recalibrate" to yield higher numbers because they know their customers like getting big numbers.

The real value of a dyno is the ability to make changes while you're there and find out if those changes make things better or worse, on your engine, on that day.... beyond that, it's still just an approximation.

Bear


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Oil capacity in a Pontiac is generally a non-issue, IMO. They hold 6 to 7 quarts of oil with filter. You can add a cooler if you like. I've never run one. Big aftermarket pans can be problematic with clearance and quality control issues. It sounds like you are on the right track. Research and planning done now will save you big $$$ and give you a much better performing end product.


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I'm happy that I get so much help from everywhere. The idea with oil pan or oil cooler came from my mechanic (the one who will finally do most of the work), but he has no special experience with Pontiac. He has worked on some Chevy I think, but mainly Ford.
I never had problems with oil pressure or temps, thank you for the information about this. I won't spend money on parts that are not needed. Also I don't race the car or drive big distances on the highway.

After my mechanic has removed the engine and checked it I will order all the parts needed from Jim (and Summit if I have to buy the heads there) and with all the collected information I hope the end product will be pretty good. 
If I can reach the 400-450hp (flywheel) that would be really nice!


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

It should make those numbers no problem - not even breathing hard.

I'm using a Mildon pan on my car, their part number 30355, along with their pickup - 18425. The pan has a baffle and a kick-out on the drivers side so that it holds more oil than stock (helps with cooling). If you're running the factory style starter and headers though, it's a pain to get the starter in and out with this pan - probably requiring loosening the drivers side header a little at the heads so you can move it up and out of the way a little. I'm not running an oil cooler.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I use a factory style starter. Removing the starter is almost impossible with the headers in place.

Will it be difficult to remove the engine from my car?
66 GTO with power brakes, power steering, AC (not installed)..

Something I should know when we try to remove it?!


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

There's are lots of opinions on the 'how to'. Personally I think it's easier if you go ahead and separate the transmission/bellhousing from the engine. If you're doing it yourself, support both the transmission and the rear of the engine with jacks (small hydraulic bottle jack plus a transmission jack or similar). Use them to take the weight off the crossmember, remove the crossmember, then lower the engine/transmission enough with the jacks just enough to give yourself good access to the bellhousing bolts. (Connect your engine hoist first and take the slack out of it as a safety precaution). Slide the bellhousing/trans back enough to disengage it from the clutch (you'll need to disconnect the clutch linkage too, and probably the shifter linkage as well). Then you should be able to lift the engine up and out without too much trouble. Of course everything needs to be disconnected, coolant drained, etc. first. 

Bear


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Drain the coolant and the oil, and disconnect ALL ground straps and wires. Mark the hood hinges with an awl or marker and remove the hood. Pulling the radiator is a good idea....I do it. You can do it without removing the hood (I have) but the hood off makes it easier for a novice. Take your time and be SAFE. Use as short of a chain as you can, and go from the back of the pass. cyl head to the front of the driver's side head with the chain. Pick up from the middle, and go easy. Like Mr. Bear said, much easier to manuever without the trans or bell housing in place.


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I'll give this information to my mechanic. Better I don't try it by myself  Thank you!

The big question now is, if I can keep the pistons. Otherwise I now got a list of parts that I will use and which will create the engine that I wanted.. what do you think?

edelbrock cylinder heads 87cc
head bolt kit
forged connecting rods "press fit"
timing set
camshaft and lifter kit solid flat tappet compcams xtreme engergy (600-4800 or 1000-5500rpm)
pushrod set
high volume oil pump and shaft
gasket set engine
camshaft, rod and main bearing set
piston rings


Another question...

What will be the difference in "power" between a 9,5:1 compression ratio and the 10,5:1 that I probably have now or would have, if I rebuild the 670 heads instead of using the 87cc Edelbrock?
Which is better? Because rebuilding the 670's is cheaper and Jim also told me, that it is possible to use this combination, but I need a matching camshaft and/or pistons.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Edelbrock heads are better than 670's. 670's can be used, but: you will need to get special dished pistons to use them. No real difference in power between 9 and 10 to 1....maybe 2 or 3 percent. It's peanuts. The main thing to know is that an aluminum headed engine can and should run at about 10:1 or 10.5:1 compression, as it is less thermally efficient, and can do so without detonation. That said, it needs to because, being less thermally efficent, it produces less power. But that's apples and apples: Edelbrock heads are a better design than the 670's, and have much better flow. Not only that, they are about 100 pounds lighter for the pair (weight loss= free power), and you will NOT have to have custom pistons made, usually. I personally would not run 670's on a 428 in this day and age. BTDT. About 4 years ago, I spent about $1400 getting and rebuilding a set of iron heads for my '67 GTO.....I _should_ have just ponied up and bought the Edelbrock heads. Live and learn.


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

So I will open the engine before I plan which parts to use.
The Edelbrock heads are available with 72cc and 87cc... If I use the 72cc I would have the same compression ratio that I have now (if I use the old or the same new pistons). Bear told me that I have about 10,75:1 right now. So there are some things I have to think of:

1. if the pistons are good and stay in place = should I use 72cc oder 87cc Edelbrock heads?
2. if the pistons will be changed I probably should use 72cc Edelbrocks and use pistons that are machined to give me a 10:1 compression?!

What would you suggest is better? Because if you say that 87cc and 72cc Edelbrock heads will give me about the same power (2-3% doesn't matter) but the 87cc will be more pump gas friendly, I will take the 87cc for sure and nothing else.


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I found a shop 200 miles away that will do the rebuild. They will replace everything and repair things that can be used again. For sure I will get new pistons, rods, bearings, cam, timing set and heads. They will calculate which heads to use to get the best compression ratio. 
They say that I can have 6x heads that are rebuild or Edelbrock's, but they are more expensive.
When I think about what you told me, I should take the Edelbrock's and get a compression ratio of about 10:1.
I hope this will be a good investment!
The shop also will remove an mount the engine back in, something I would not have liked to do on my own. 

Maybe I also will replace the clutch, I have started a "clutch thread" a year ago, so I will try to use that information, or should I use something else now as the engine will produce a little more power?


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Another question.. If I try to create an engine that produces power from idle to 5000, smaller intake runner volumes are better I guess?
Will another intake manifold and carburator give me more power than my tri-power does?

If you have the time, could you check the "Tour" on this homepage:
Eingangskontrolle?Tour-Yankee Motors

This is the shop where they will rebuild my engine and use the heads, cam... that I like the most. You can switch to the next page by clicking on "vor" (=forward). They forgot to translate it


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris-Austria said:


> Another question.. If I try to create an engine that produces power from idle to 5000, smaller intake runner volumes are better I guess?


Generally speaking, yes - but engine displacement also plays a big part in this. What you really care about is the velocity of the air flow through the runners and ports in the heads. Too big and velocity is too low, and you lose the benefit from the inertia of the moving air column through the engine. Too small and the engine can't get its "lungs" full. The bigger the "lungs" (displacement) the bigger the runner and port volume the engine can use efficiently.



> Will another intake manifold and carburator give me more power than my tri-power does?


Not likely. Contrary to popular belief, the factory engineers knew what they were doing when they designed these systems. You'll find (and read) opinions from some who believe that a large single 4-barrel will outperform the tri-power. You'll find others who disagree. I'm not sure what I think on the topic myself. I'd either have to conduct a test myself, or see the results of testing from someone I trust.



> If you have the time, could you check the "Tour" on this homepage:
> Eingangskontrolle?Tour-Yankee Motors
> 
> This is the shop where they will rebuild my engine and use the heads, cam... that I like the most. You can switch to the next page by clicking on "vor" (=forward). They forgot to translate it


I couldn't read all of the pages (not all were in English), but what I did see looked like what I would expect from a good machine shop. 

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Thank you Bear. I checked it and yes, they stopped translating after some pages 
This is the only shop near me I could find. After calculating I knew that making everything on my own and bring the parts that need work to them will cost me almost the same. But if they sell me all the parts needed and do the work, it will only be about 1000-1300$ more and they will give me service and guarantee (and I can't buy parts that won't fit or forget about something).

I'll ask them to rebuild the engine and use matching Edelbrock heads and a CompCams camshaft, so that the engine will make power from idle to 5000. 
(He told me that they can rebuild the 670's to fit my engine or change without charge to 6x heads... he believes that there is not much more power with the Edelbrocks but they are more expensive.. not sure what I should think now)


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

> (He told me that they can rebuild the 670's to fit my engine or change without charge to 6x heads... he believes that there is not much more power with the Edelbrocks but they are more expensive.. not sure what I should think now)


Those two statements raise red flags with me. Ask them what, exactly, they would do to the 670's to make them "fit your engine" and see what they say.

The second statement about 'not much more power with the Edelbrocks' I'm not sure about either. I know for certain my Edelbrocks definitely make quite a bit more power than even my Ram Air IV's did, but then mine have been worked over by Dave. Due to the port design of even the out-of-the-box Edelbrock heads I'd expect them to be a significant improvement over any iron D-port head.

Also, if they won't guarantee their work if you supply the parts, I'd be concerned about that too. Sounds to me like they just want to make some more profit off you via the markup on their parts.

At some point it might turn out that working with Jim might not be a bad idea even with shipping costs. I know there's a guy in the Netherlands (I think) who refuses to deal with anyone else. Here's a few links to videos of his 68 Firebird. Jim built the motor in this car.


















Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

It's not that he will not use parts that I give to him, but he wants 2100 Euro for the Edelbrocks and I can get them at Summit for 2080 Euro... Same with the CompCam camshaft and timing set. (250 Euro vs. 280 Euro)
I'll ask him what kind of pistons and connecting rods he uses (pistons come new for sure, connecting rods will be overhauled if it's cheaper he said). But I could surely say that I want new connecting rods, instead of the old ones. If we use new ones I'll order them from Jim.

He said that 670's can fit if he uses the correct kind of pistons and a camshaft that will prevent detonation. Or I could go with 6x heads... but I don't think I want to change from 670 to 6x.. I'll ask him to use bare Edelbrocks and do some port work like you told me to make them flow really good. In Germany he said 10,5 to 11:1 is "driveable" with premium gas. But they have 102oct (Austria 100) and I want to use our 98oct that is a lot cheaper (would be about 93-94oct US)
If I can use pump gas, create more power, prevent detonation and will get along with less timing with the aluminium heads (I read that more than 32° total didn't create more power at some engines like mine) than I will pay the 1300 $ more, that's worth the money. I don't like to change the engine after that any more.. Build it once but right.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

I too am raising an eyebrow, at least at the terminology. A lot of that may be due to the translation, though. It sounds to me that the machinist is a general, universal machinist that doesn't really do a lot of old fashioned, crude, American v8's. He may indeed be a first rate technician, just unfamiliar. SInce you have very limited options, you must do the research and homework and educate the engine builder, Chris. Again, 670's "will work", but are far down on the list of choices for several reasons. I think, in your situation, you are safer with 87cc Edelbrocks, and you'll have a nice driveable engine that will indeed run much better than a stock iron headed one. In spite of what your machinist says, Edelbrocks are a pretty big upgrade in the power department. Ask anyone who is running them. Heck, I've been thinking of putting a pair of them on my '65 GTO.....I'm sick and tired of the cost of race gas for a _maybe_ 400HP engine!!


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I will tell you what "we" do, as soon as my car arrives in his shop and we have discussed what to do. I'll use the Edelbrocks for sure!!

Another question.. if I buy a 455cui from him.. would this be a much better engine? Would not cost much more.. And how about getting more cui?!  Difficult? Expensive? Worth the money?


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris-Austria said:


> Another question.. if I buy a 455cui from him.. would this be a much better engine? Would not cost much more.. And how about getting more cui?!  Difficult? Expensive? Worth the money?


I can see the bug has bitten you :lol:

You don't need to replace your block with a 455 just to get more inches. Both your 428 and a 455 have the same 3.25" main journal size. The differences between them are the bore (4.120 vs. 4.150) and stroke (4.000 vs. 4.210). Bore your 428 +0.030 and it's the same bore size as a standard 455. Drop a 455 crank in it (and it will drop right in) and you've got a 455. you'll also have to replace the pistons due to the fact that the pin location in a 455 piston is "higher' than on a 428 to compensate for the longer stroke.

However --- if you want more inches, why stop at 455? Take your 428 and bore it +0.035, install an aftermarket 4.250" stroke crank and you've got a 461 (same displacement as my car). Or go +0.045 / 4.250 and you have a 463.

If you're going to change blocks, then I'd recommend starting with a 400 block - they have 3.00" main journals and as a result they're stronger than the 421/428/455 blocks because they have more metal in the main bearing webs. Take a 400, bore it +.035, put in a 4.250" crank - and you have a 461 with a block that's stronger than any of the 421/428/455 blocks. (Unless you use one of the 'wrong' late model 400 blocks, but Jim wouldn't do that).
That combination, plus the solid roller cam, the "Dave'ed" E-heads --- is what I have. I promise you'll love that engine in your car. Your car is several hundred pounds lighter than my car, and my car has run a best of 11.86 @ 133 at the track so far. To put that in perspective, that's anywhere from 0.1 to 0.8 seconds _quicker_ than the new ZL/1 Camaro (depending on whose magazine article you believe). Each 100 pounds of weight equates to about 0.1 seconds in the quarter mile - my car with me in it is just a tick over 4000 pounds. Put my engine in your car, and you'd most definitely be in the low 11's - far into the zone where NHRA here would require you to have a roll bar in the car. It would be _seriously_ fast. 

And, truth be told, I probably _should_ be running more compression than I am in order to get the most out of this engine. I'm still running the pistons that were optimized for the cast iron heads so right now I'm at 9.9:1. It'd make a few more ponies and still be plenty safe for pump gas up around 10.2:1 with these heads.

So.... You've got lots of options 

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

That's something I will think of for sure. An aftermarket crank will be pretty expensive because of the weight if I ship it, but a 455 crank is surely available even in Germany. They want about 400$ for a "as good as new" one. 

Cylinders bored to 4.150 will be done even if I only want to rebuild it, so if I use a 455 crank I have a 455? Nice  That's one thing that seems possible and not very expensive.

Now I know what I want him to build:

- complete block rebuild with bearings and gaskets + paint
- 455 crank and a 4.150 bore to get 455cui
- compcams camshaft
- edelbrock 87cc heads (ported, maybe by Dave.. just have to check the price)
- new pistons and connecting rods
- rebuild tri power carbs

I'll let you know what he tells me when I tell him my (our) plan 
And because I won't tell anyone near me what I want to do, that will be a big surprise to some guys at the next 1/8 mile race.. (we don't have a big airport, they cannot make a 1/4mile... sad but true)


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

My car is now in the shop and the engine will be removed and checked before we plan what exactly to do. I only have a short list of things that he could tell me:
He thinks my camshaft may be bad and the cylinder heads will be faulty too and the tri-power is not working perfect, the outer carbs don't open at the same time (but almost).

But if I want to use a 455 crank, what parts will need replacement as well to be able to use that crank? Only the pistons? 
Can I re-use the balancer and flywheel from my 428? I guess I can because of the same main journal size?

So if there is nothing to change except pistons I will ask if he has a 455 crank available. This is something special to Pontiac engines? So maybe not everybody knows this if he never did something like that.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Swapping to a 455 crank would require the crank and also different pistons. The crank for obvious reasons, the pistons because the "compression height" (distance from the pin to the piston top) is shorter on 455's than on 428's. 428 pistons with a 455 crank would very likely be smacking the heads, with unpleasant results.
Everything else, including the balancer and other parts. Will work fine.

Bear


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

I would be inclined to keep the 428 crank. Personal preference. More cost effective, too. But, you would be giving up cubic inches. Your call.


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Would there be a noticeable difference in torque/power with the 455 crank and matching pistons? It's a pretty cheap upgrade because new pistons will be used anyway... but I'm not saying that a 428cui is not big enough 
Do you know if "Speed Pro" camshafts are good? He will first make a plan of all other parts that will be used, calculate the compression ratio and use a matching camshaft after all.. but what I read about the CompCams Xtreme Energy sounds very good. Would be nice to know what to prefer when I have to decide it. I also could see a Lunati camshaft at the shop.. 
The strange thing is that the Speed Pro has a range from 2000-5000 and the CompCams Xtreme Energy goes from 600-4800 or 800-5000. That sounds better to be, or am I wrong?


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

More inches = more torque/power. Its that simple. Be careful reading cam "advertisements" like that. Most are slanted towards small block Chevy's. Pontiacs are different all over, so unless you're keen on someone experimenting with your engine and your money, I recommend following the advice of someone who has experience building Pontiacs. If it were me, I'd get a cam recommendation from Jim then insist on that.
Your call...

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Jim recommended a CompCams XS, but to say which one exactly he might have to know, what other parts will be used. So probably I'll ask him anyway when I have to decide it. On the CompCams page they list all effects of each camshaft in the Pontiac section.. there are 2 that sound really good to me, but like you say.. someone with experience should say if it's true or not.

Will there be a lot more power with the 455 crank in my 428? Only thing I know is the compression ratio will be too high, even with the 87cc heads if I don't use pistons that give me more cc's. (about 10)
With +5cc pistons, my 428 crank, 0.03" oversized pistons and zero decked block I calculated 10.2:1 with the aluminium 87cc heads. That sound pretty good to me, but I was told that I have to chose the cam matching to the compression ratio, because some are best with 9,5 and less and some or good for 9,5 to 10,5 and so on... (he had a list there but only with Speed Pro cams.)


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

10.2 sounds to me like the sweet spot for aluminum heads, and a cam withe some moderate "rumpity-rump" should put a big smile on your face. I don't remember if you have power brakes? With a 4-speed, the brake question becomes the only cam-limiting question to be concerned about. When I get back to my home computer and have the time I'll run some simulations to get some estimates.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I have power brakes, yes. 
Some estimates would be really interesting, so I can argue when he talks to me about the best camshaft. After knowing the setup I'll also ask Jim what he would prefer and what he thinks about the suggestions that I got.

These 2 cams I thought might be good, but I have to add.. I have no idea of camshafts, only the rpm range and descriptions sound nice to me 

1. 51-220-4 - Xtreme Energy? Hydraulic Flat Tappet Camshafts

2. 51-222-4 - Xtreme Energy? Hydraulic Flat Tappet Camshafts


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Ok Chris, I ran 6 models for you. 3 of them were for a +0.030 428, using Comp Cams XE250H, XE262H, and XE274H grinds. On the 428 the XE274H made the most torque and power (no surprise) but it also had the least idle vacuum at around 14 inches. That might be a little low for power brakes. The other two cams were fine on vacuum. Next I ran all three cams on a std 455, which is what you'd have if you bored your block +0.030 and installed a 455 crank. On a 455, the XE274H made just over 15 inches of vacuum, which is borderline for brakes but might be ok. The other two were of course, fine.

When you look at the charts, don't get too hung up on the exact numbers. I did have to guess at some things, like the heads and port flow, and that will have an effect on the results. However, all things being equal, if you just pay attention to the relative difference between the results instead of the absolute values, they should be a reasonably accurate representation of how your engine would respond to the various cams and displacements.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Bear, I cannot thank you enough. 
The simulation is really good, I like the XE262H most, no matter if with the 428 or 455. 
Also the difference between the different cranks is interesting.. hp is almost the same, but the 455 will create (a lot) more torque and that's what's important.
I remember that the Speed Pro 3000 that he showed me had about the same intake and exhaust duration at .050" lift and lobe seperation was also the same. Other specs I can't remember...


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris-Austria said:


> I remember that the Speed Pro 3000 that he showed me had about the same intake and exhaust duration at .050" lift and lobe seperation was also the same. Other specs I can't remember...


You're very welcome. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I sort of enjoy messing with this stuff 

One thing that will be different between the Comp and the Speed Pro cams, even though the numbers are close, will be the actual shapes of the lobes. Some grinders use symmetrical lobe shapes (opening and closing side of the lobes are the same) and others use asymmetrical lobe shapes. That's how cams can have the same "numbers" but still behave differently in an engine.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

The strange thing is, that Speed Pro says rpm range is something like 2000-4500 and CompCams says 1300-5500.. But now I'm pretty sure a Cam like the XE262H would be a good choise for my car, a lot of torque from 3200-4800, the most hp at 5000rpm and a good vacuum for my power brakes.
Speed Pro says that a 210-225° duration at .050" is good up to a 10.3:1 compression ratio and best to use with a performance manifold, 4 barrel and headers. Sounds like the thing I'm searching for... Idle quality is not perfect, but the more cui it has, the better it will be (not my theory, they say so). I'd even like it if you can "feel" the power a little at idle 

Edit:
The setup I will have at least is: Edelbrock 87cc Heads (out of the box), 0.03 oversize pistons, headers, dual exhaust, pro billet dist. and msd ignition, 428 crank, power brakes, power steering, no ac, refreshed tri power carbs and manifold, camshaft probably something like the XE262H
If I can reach those numbers from your simulation I'd be more than happy


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Again, don't pay too much attention to the marketing verbiage, stuff like rpm ranges and the like. Most of it is "geared" towards the small block chevy crowd. Also even though the cams have similar 'numbers', the actual shapes of the lobes won't be exactly the same - for example one might open and close the valves at a faster rate than the other even though the timing of the events is similar. 

The simulations were very accurate for my engine, but they may not be for yours. Also, those numbers are measurements at the flywheel, not at the rear wheels. 

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Tomorrow my engine will be removed from the car he said. It will take a few days to know the price for the rebuild and exact information on my engine, but I feel prepared for the "what to use" discussion and after knowing all the specs I could ask Jim on his opinion on what camshaft to use. But I'm pretty sure that the XE262H would perform very well.
That the numbers are measurements at the flywheel is what I thought, but those numbers are pretty good anyway  Your simulation showed me the differences between the cams. With all this help I'm sure to get a very nice great performing engine.
The bad thing is it will take until end of November, so I can't drive very much after that because it's getting damn cold outside...


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris, here are the simulator runs that you asked for on the SpeedPro cams.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Thank you very much Bear!
I have got the news from the engine rebuilder... So this will be my final setup:

1. 428 crank (rebuild) 
2. speed pro oversized pistons (flat-top)
3. speed pro camshaft 1022 probably
4. edelbrock 87cc heads
5. all engine parts new (rod, oil pump, gaskets..)
6. rebuild tri power intake and carbs
7. new paint and some new parts to make it look nice
8. new clutch kit and rebuild flywheel

I think compression ratio will be at about 10.3 with this setup. I'm curious of how it will perform on the street, can't wait to get the GTO back


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I have a carb-question...
What jet sizes should I use in center and front/end carbs with my tri power (66).
And what sizes have been used stock?

I will have the carbs rebuild after I get my engine back.. but I'm not sure if I can use the old jets with the new engine or if I should have larger jets?! (especially in the front/end I guess)


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

What do you think of "Scat" rods?

I would buy these if they are good... http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sca-66625p
Are Pontiac stock rods "press fit"?


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Scat rods are good. So are Eagles, and some others.

Factory rods are indeed press fit. I tend to prefer full floating myself, just because I'm reluctant to "trust" someone else to propery assemble press fit pins for me. (Doing it right takes more than just ramming them in with a press).

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I need the new rods within the next 2 weeks. Summit has the Scat rods ready to ship, so if they are good I'll buy them. If there is another source where I can get them fast and "cheap" I would also consider buying Eagles or something else.
But can I be sure that they will be a exact replacement of the stock rods? It's my risk to get the correct parts if I want the engine builder to use "my" parts.

He wants to use the same style like stock, to match perfect to the pistons he already has (Keith Black if I remember right) so I will have to buy "press fit".

Should I use SRP 8740 chromoly steel bolts or ARP 2000 alloy bolts? I guess the chromoly steel will be strong enough for my application, but want to be sure


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Nobody ever lost an engine because the rod bolts were "too good". It's cheap insurance in my opinion. 
Be firm with your engine builder. You do NOT want to use factory rods! 
You can use Scat, Eagle, RPM, (or others like Crower or Oliver - but those are big bucks)

The important dimensions to get are:
6.625" length
2.250" rod journal diameter
.980" pin diameter (and set up for press fit pins)
4340 forged steel
Any rod that has those specs will be a direct replacement for stock.

Can you find out exactly which pistons he's planning to use? (which specific KB part number?)

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I ordered the Scat rods from above. They have these dimensions, only "Big End Bore Diameter is 2.2490 in." But if I check application they are to use with the 400 from 67-79, the 428 from 67-69 and 455 from 70-76. I guess they have the proper rod journal diameter?! This dimension is not listed directly.
I had to think a lot about the connection rod issue.. almost everybody I know here in Austria and also the engine builder (from Germany) told me I can use the old rods with new bolts.. but I won't.. I trust you more and like you say.. it's a cheap insurance and if I ever plan on using a roller cam with more rpm and power.. I can 

I will ask him about the exact number of the pistons, probably these are the ones: http://www.summitracing.com/parts/uem-skb304-040 as it's the only piston I could find with 4.160" (cylinders+0,04").

He also uses new rocker arms and pushrods for the valvetrain he told me today, so everything except of the block and the crank is new 

I made a quick overview about everything on my GTO now.. you can have a look and tell me what you think.


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I've got another question 

What if I use rocker arms with 1.65 ratio instead of 1.5? The valve lift will be higher I guess.. but can I just use these rocker arms and get more power? New pushrods will be used anyway.. but do I need different pushrods for these rocker arms? Which ratio should I use? Edelbrock says max. valve lift = 0.55" and the cam has 0.443"/0.465" with 1.5 ratio and 0.487"/0.512" with 1.65 ratio. So I can use either of them, correct?
(rocker arm example: http://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-1452-1)


----------



## leeklm (Mar 11, 2012)

I went through a short rocker arm dilema recently because I had a good set of 1.65 rollers that came on another engine. I found that it was more challenging to find the "right" cam, since most are designed for 1.5 rocker arms. I ended up spending something like $150 on a set of roller tip 1.5 rockers. I will keep the 1.65 for some experimenting at the dyno.

The main thing with 1.65 is to be sure your pushrod holes are elongated on iron heads, or the pushrod will rub.

If your cam is already spec'd out to fit your application with 1.5 rockers, putting in 1.65 could hurt your intended performance. I would buy 1.5 rockers and go with the appropriate cam. You can always play with differnt rockers later if you feel the need.

By the way, you will have no shortage of power with the engine specs shown in your document, probably more than what you can use! My new 455 will be somewhat similar, but I am staying with iron heads that are pocket-ported and RAM Air style manifolds, and a 800cfm quadrajet. It will be interesting to compare dyno results!


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

You can never have too much power in my opinion  But okay, I wanted a street engine that will not frustrate me when I push the pedal and I think this setup will do the trick anyway like you say.
If I don't tell the engine builder to use 1.65 ratio he will use the 1.5 ratio. Because I've got Edelbrock heads the pushrods would probably not rub? Hard to decide, if I knew for sure it would be safe and make more power I would buy some but therefore I will first try it with the standard 1.5.

I can provide you the dyno results after the engine is finally build and has been tested (with the components I listed). 
It will take about 4 weeks from now on until the engine is in my car and after that I will drive it softly for some hundret miles until I drive the car on the chassis dyno. I also use a new clutch and don't want to hurt anything because of the dyno testing being too early. The results will show rear wheel horsepower and engine power.

Do you know how much cfm the tri power can provide? I read something like 650 some time ago and I hope this is enough  The carbs will be rebuild and proper jets are used like Mike from tripower.com recommended.


----------



## leeklm (Mar 11, 2012)

should be a minimum of 750cfm, and maybe higher, depends on who you ask. It will flow plenty. Here is a good thread on the discussion...

http://www.gtoforum.com/f12/tripower-vs-quadrajet-31224/index2.html


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

This is very interesting, thank you!
I really like the look of the Tri-Power so I never really thought of changing to a single carb. The sound is also great, especially after the end carbs come into play 
I also have the sealed pan and open hood scoop to give the engine some cool air:


----------



## leeklm (Mar 11, 2012)

I am with you there, the tri power has a high "cool factor". I was looking for a tri power for mine (it is a tri power coded car) but did not like the cost, and was having good results building my qjet with Cliff Rugles book. I am trying to keep my car fairly stock looking, but it is not a show car.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris-Austria said:


> I've got another question
> 
> What if I use rocker arms with 1.65 ratio instead of 1.5? The valve lift will be higher I guess.. but can I just use these rocker arms and get more power? New pushrods will be used anyway.. but do I need different pushrods for these rocker arms? Which ratio should I use? Edelbrock says max. valve lift = 0.55" and the cam has 0.443"/0.465" with 1.5 ratio and 0.487"/0.512" with 1.65 ratio. So I can use either of them, correct?
> (rocker arm example: http://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-1452-1)


Sorry I'm late with a response...

1.65's will do two things because of the increased ratio: 1) increase valve lift, 2) increase the duration @ .050 figures. Swapping rocker arms is an easy way to effectively add a slightly "bigger" cam without actually changing cams. 
It's not a huge change - it's something you can do if you like, or "keep in your pocket" in case you want to step it up a little later. As long as you stay with the same manufacturer and style of rocker arm, switching them "shouldn't" require a pushrod change but it's always safer to check the contact pattern on the valves just to make sure.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Thank you for your response Bear 
The engine builder sells me the pushrods, rockers, lifters and cam. I will know which parts are exactly used in January, until now I only know the specific camshaft and that he uses the stock ratio. Maybe I'll ask him to sell me a set of 1.65 rockers as well just to be sure to have the correct parts that I can change if I feel I want to try it. Probably after the engine has been driven a while and I go to the dyno I'll ask for 2 runs and change the rockers for the 2nd one.
I sometimes read that people like to "overcam" their Pontiac engines and for example Speed Pro recommends to use the smaller cam if there are 2 choices that look good. So I'm happy with my choice because I can't easily go smaller if I install the bigger cam, but with the rocker ratio I can go a little bigger after I installed the smaller cam.

The Scat connecting rods have already arrived, they look nice  I will have a much better feeling everytime I reach higher rpm's now.. no matter if stock ones would have worked.. the $ 500 are a good investment for a comfortable feeling instead of being afraid to crush a "almost" new engine.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Sounds to me like you've got a good plan going. Can't wait to hear how it all turns out.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Bear, do you know if the pushrod holes are large enough for the 1.65 ratio rockers?
(edelbrock d-port heads)
I tested it with a software called "desktop dyno 2000" and the results with 1.65 ratio rockers and my cam are a little better over the whole rpm range. 
CompCams offers a set of pushrods and 1.65 ratio rocker arms (roller tip) for a good price. I'm wondering if this will fit just fine?! (high energy pushrods and magnum rockers are included). A set of full roller rocker arms is much more expensive.. probably they will reduce friction, but I'm not sure if this is really necessary for my street application?!


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

the heads have finally arrived, now he can start putting things together.. there have been some changes again (heads are now 72cc, cam is now a compcams..)
the static and dynamic compression has been calculated.. it's 10.52 static and about 8.61 dynamic.. it should work just fine with 93 octane I guess



















and here the final .pdf


----------



## ALKYGTO (Mar 29, 2010)

Looks like a nice build up! :cheers


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Good deal, Chris.... you do realize that a video of it running is a requirement, right? 

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I'll record one, I promise 
The static compression now is a little higher as intended, but the engine builder says that 10.5 will work fine with the aluminium heads..
I read that 93octane is good up to 8.5 dynamic compression.. mine will be 8.61 (if I would use a roller cam I could decrease this number to 8.2). I would like to use 93oct because it is 15% cheaper than 95oct (called 100oct where I live). What do you think about it?


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

10.5:1 with aluminum heads is getting close to the limit (in my opinion - others may differ) but you'll probably be fine on 93 octane. Make sure the tune-up is correct on the carburetors, you don't want to let it go lean. I looked at the specs for the cam (Comp 265DEH) and it's going to be pretty mild in a 428. I expect it to have a dead smooth idle and be very well mannered. You might be tempted to run the 1.65 rockers soon, or maybe go with a little "more" cam later if you find yourself wishing for more "attitude". 
The good news is that there's lots of room to "move up" if you ever get bored with it 

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

The other cam (Speed Pro 1022) will not be used because he had problems with those since Nov 2012. Some had to be replaced so he don't want to use it. I remember that the 274XE might have too less vacuum and the only one with "more" cam would be the 268XE.. Best would be the 274 roller cam I guess, but I cannot spend that much money at this point. Don't you think the 265DE (LSA 110°) will be a little rougher than the 1022 (LSA 112°)? The valve lift of both is identical, even if the adv. duration is a little different.
What HFT cam would you prefer?

Do you know this article? http://www.pontiacpower.com/Compression.htm
I'm a little bit confused.. some say 10:1 is the limit, your experience is 10.5:1 with aluminium and his is 11.5:1
My engine builder thinks it's safe to go with 10.6:1... and the 87cc heads would only make 9.3:1 which is too low with alum. heads.
I hope it will work just fine.. even if it's at the limit. Do stock Edelbrock heads tend to have more or less CC in "reality"? So if the 72cc really have 73cc or even 74cc the compression ratio would be exactly at 10.5:1 

edit:
I tested all cams with "desktop dyno" and this is what I think: The (basic) 265DE makes good torque and power at low-mid rpm. The 275DE will make 30hp more at high rpm (5800) but have less power until 4000rpm. Same is with the 268XE and the 274XE could cause troubles with vacuum and generate good high rpm power, but as I use the car basicly for street use, I don't really like it's power range. So I can only decide between 265DE, 275DE and 268XE. The one I have now with the 1.65 ratio rockers might be the best choise in my opinion, but I'm open for other opinions!


----------



## mrbill (Jan 5, 2013)

Great thread... it's right where I'm at. I have a question: I have a '67 Lemans with a 400. I am building a '69 428 for this car. Will my 400 motor mounts work or will there be an issue? Seems I've read somewhere that its not a straight bolt up. 

Don't want to break the flow of the thread... just needing that little info. Thanks!


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

What about this Cam? http://www.summitracing.com/parts/crn-283802

It is recommended for high CR's up tp 10.75:1 and it may be a bit bigger than the 265de. But will it have enough vacuum? I guess the high LSA will help with that? But I'm not sure... Maybe this cam would help to avoid detonation...


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

The thing is, CR isn't universally exact. What might be fine in one combination might rattle like a boxcar load of spray paint cans in another. That's because there's a whole lot more that goes into it besides just the CR. Chamber shape (sharp edges), deck clearance, cam timing, cooling system, fuel mixture, all have an influence. For a street engine, pushing the limit on CR in my opinion isn't worth the risk. On my 461 the difference between 10.5:1 and 11.0:1 would be worth approximately 8 hp - that's all. In an engine that's already making over 500 hp at the flywheel, to me it's just not worth it to push the limits. In your situation, the best cam recommendation I can offer you is to check with Jim and see what he says. He's built a great many of these engines with all different combinations and all different power levels. I trust him.

Bear


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

mrbill said:


> Great thread... it's right where I'm at. I have a question: I have a '67 Lemans with a 400. I am building a '69 428 for this car. Will my 400 motor mounts work or will there be an issue? Seems I've read somewhere that its not a straight bolt up.


If the motor mounts bolt to the block in the right places, they'll fit in the car. There were some variations over the years in the number and locations of the mount bolt holes in the block, but more than likely between 67 and 69 it'll plop right in.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

My engine builder told me not to use Crane.. do you know something about their quality?
He also says out of his experience it will be fine with 10.6:1 and the Edelbrock heads.. He also gives a 1 year warranty on his work and parts.. so if the engine pings it will be changed anyway without high costs for me (the chamber shape and finish of the edelbrock's are perfect in my opinion.. the 87cc would end with 9.28:1)

What do you think about these cams?

1. CompCams 265DE: 211/221 .442/.465 110 1200-5500 (dcr 8.62) 
2. CompCams 275DE: 219/228 .462/.480 110 1500-5800 (drc 8.29) 
3. CompCams 041: 231/240 .516/.516 114 1800-5700 (dcr 7.37) 

I really like how the numbe 3 works out. Looks pretty big, but the rpm range is confusing "low" for such a high duration @ 0.05. If I test it with Desktop Dyno the true rpm range is only a little bit higher than with the 275DE.. it makes lower power at low rpms, but not much.. and at about 4000rpm it's starting to be better in any way than the 275DE. Can this be possible?!


----------



## mrbill (Jan 5, 2013)

*static compression*



BearGFR said:


> If the motor mounts bolt to the block in the right places, they'll fit in the car. There were some variations over the years in the number and locations of the mount bolt holes in the block, but more than likely between 67 and 69 it'll plop right in.
> 
> Bear


Thanks, block is still at machine shop so I'll check it when I get it back. Thanks for the reply. 
And I'd like your input here as well. Nice to chat with someone who understands these beasts.

My 428 build is .060 over KB -10cc (dished) pistons. 
Cam is a Lunati 
•Advertised Duration (Int/Exh): 276/284
•Duration @ .050 (Int/Exh): 243/251
•Gross Valve Lift (Int/Exh): .518/.530
•LSA/ICL: 110/104

I have some fresh mint 670 heads (72cc) with SS valves... or
I have some 6x or some 96. (~96cc)

The online calculator I'm using says I'll be at 10.3 CR static and 8.0 dynamic using the 670 heads.
Cam desires 9.5:1 compression or better. An 81cc chamber calculates to 9.5. Would I be better to mill my 96 heads to get closer to the desired cc? Your thoughts?


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

I've got a spreadsheet I built for calculating compression ratios. It takes into acount all the variables, such as piston dish, compressed gasket thickness, gasket bore size, deck clearance, chamber volume, etc.

On a +0.060 428 with factory nominal values for everything, 72cc heads and 10cc's piston dish puts you at 10.4:1. My opinion is that's too high for 93 octane and iron heads. That's a pretty "big" cam you've got so that's going to help some, especially if you install it slightly retarded. There are some (but very few) people who can run that much compression with iron heads successfully, but I can tell you I wouldn't try that personally. 96 cc's puts you at 8.52:1 --- too low. The most you can mill a late model 6x head safely is between .040 and .050, which will remove just under 10 cc's of volume - and once you do that the decks will be paper thin with nothing left for future rebuilds should you need to clean them up to make them flat again. Milling them that much means you'll have to mill the intake too, otherwise it won't fit. So let's say we take the max off those 6x's and get them down to 86 cc's. That puts you at 9.2:1, which is actually a pretty good spot to be in with iron heads.

The thing about compression is that even as much as 0.5 in ratio will only make a difference of 6-8 hp in these engines, so unless you're building a race motor where every drop of horsepower counts, it's usually not worth the risk (in my opinion) to try to push the limit on compression.

I'm running a solid roller (236/242 @ 0.050) in my car with aluminum heads and it's just barely a tick over 10:1 compression. Best pass to date is an 11.86 @ 113, and I'm still learning how to drive it.

Bear


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris-Austria said:


> My engine builder told me not to use Crane.. do you know something about their quality?


I've heard things about their quality too. I'd hesitate to use one myself.



> 3. CompCams 041: 231/240 .516/.516 114 1800-5700 (dcr 7.37)
> 
> I really like how the numbe 3 works out. Looks pretty big, but the rpm range is confusing "low" for such a high duration @ 0.05.


Smile, yeah --- that's a reproduction of the original Ram Air IV cam. I bet you'd like that one. One thing to really remember when you're looking at cams - those rpm ranges that the manufacturers quote are only (very) broad generalizations. It's a fact that the more displacement you have, the more cam an engine can tolerate and still have good manners. It all has to do with flow velocity. Putting a Ram Air IV cam in a 326 or 350 turns it pretty much into a high-rpm 'race only' engine. It's going to have zero bottom end torque and all the power is going to be way high in the rpm range. Put that same cam in a 455 (which is what the 455-SD was) and you've got a nice, aggressive street engine that makes good power but still has plenty of bottom end. The Ram Air IV was 'borderline" for a street engine in a 400, but in a 428 I think you might like it a lot - especially with a 4-speed. Oh, and the Ram Air IV engines all had 1.65 rockers from the factory 

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

The Comp 041 grind has a valve lift of .516 int/exh, I will use the stock ratio of 1.5:1 on this because the valve springs maximum is .550 int/exh. Nevertheless this is more lift than all others would have had even with 1.65:1 rockers.

I called CompCam and they told me that I should use this one. It doesn't act such radical as for example the 274XE would (which has also a high duration) because of the difference in lobe seperation. I'll order this one and test it.. probably 435cui is big enough and it will help with preventing from detonation. 

Idle quality will be a little bit worse than with the 265DE? That's good news.. I don't want it to act like a new engine.. I want to feel it


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Yessir, I expect you'll be able to feel this one 

There are several videos out on youtube of what Ram Air IV GTO's sound like. The 428 won't be quite as rowdy as a 400, but it will have some "personality".

Here's a clip of a 70 GTO Ram Air IV





Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I love this sound 
I had to order another timing set, I could choose between the Comp 2112 and 3112 and will use the 3112. Do you think this is a good timing set?


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Looks good to me.
I'm running this one:
http://www.compperformancegroupstor...=CC&Product_Code=7112&Category_Code=AdjTiming

It has provisions to allow different settings for advance or retarding the cam. Accomplishing that is also possible with a "regular" tmiing set through the use of offset keys.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Should I first try without advance or retarding the cam? If I use the advance I could move the power range a litte bit to lower rpm's I guess?
Maybe this would be a good idea since the cam is pretty big..


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

I'd install it exactly as Comp recommends to start with, then move it later if you've got a specific reason. to.

You've got it correct - advancing the cam tends to shift the power band lower in the rpm range, retarding it does the opposite.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Okay thank you! I only thought if any change is required it would probably be to advance it to get more power from lower rpms, but I'll install it like Comp recommends.

Could you please make a simulation with this cam like you did previously with some others? I don't trust my testing skills with Desktop Dyno that much  
Would be really interesting how the curve will look like with your skills and your program!
(maybe you can also change to 72cc heads and 10.62 scr)


----------



## mrbill (Jan 5, 2013)

On a +0.060 428 with factory nominal values for everything, 72cc heads and 10cc's piston dish puts you at 10.4:1. My opinion is that's too high for 93 octane and iron heads. That's a pretty "big" cam you've got so that's going to help some, especially if you install it slightly retarded. There are some (but very few) people who can run that much compression with iron heads successfully, 

I'm running a solid roller (236/242 @ 0.050) in my car with aluminum heads and it's just barely a tick over 10:1 compression. Best pass to date is an 11.86 @ 113, and I'm still learning how to drive it.

Bear[/QUOTE]


Sweet... well, I know it's "borderline" but I'm gonna build it, retard the cam if needed (timing) because one day I will get some aluminum heads. I think I'll be alright if I can keep my running temperature down. A good cooling system is next... thanks for the input.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris-Austria said:


> Okay thank you! I only thought if any change is required it would probably be to advance it to get more power from lower rpms, but I'll install it like Comp recommends.
> 
> Could you please make a simulation with this cam like you did previously with some others? I don't trust my testing skills with Desktop Dyno that much
> Would be really interesting how the curve will look like with your skills and your program!
> (maybe you can also change to 72cc heads and 10.62 scr)


I ran it - if reality matches the prediction I think you're going to like it. It predicted 460 HP @ 5650 RPM, 470 lb.ft @ 4000-thru-4700 RPM, 16.6 inches of idle vacuum 

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Thank you Bear!!!
This really looks nice! I thought a lot about all different cams the last days and it is tough decision to make. No matter who you ask, everybody will have another opinion on that.. I aked CVMS earlier but did not get a response. Today I asked them again with a more specific question... XE274H or 041H. I believe that the 041H is better for high compression engines and the XE274H is better with lower compression. I'm curious what they will tell me.. but after all I think the 041H will be nice (+ DHL delieverd it already)


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

It's like Christmas in January! Are those K&N filters? If so, great choice. Been using them for over 30 years on my '65.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

When I saw that nice flat torque curve with the 041, it sure made my mouth water. If reality matches the prediction, that thing is going to be an extremely formidable street engine.

I just ran the simulation again, and extended the "run" down into the lower rpm range. This thing is gorgeous! It's making 400 ft. lbs. by 2600 rpm and just keeps on pulling. It's still over 400 ft. lbs at 5800 rpm. I don't know what your car weighs, but it's lighter than mine. With everything "right" and if you can hook it, you're probably going to be capable of very low 12's, maybe even high 11's.

Bear


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

...and since I was curious, I did a side by side comparison of 1.65:1 rockers vs. 1.5:1 rockers.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Wow thats very interesting!
The 1.5 rockers make more torque up to 4900rpm?? Never would have thought of that, so it may be better to keep them or get 1.5:1 roller rockers. The 10 more horsepower with the 1.65:1 rockers is something I don't need at all 

The car weights about 3800lbs (1810kg last time with me in the car incl. 10 gallons of fuel.. but now the heads wil reduce weight for about 40-50lbs?)

Glad you ran the simulations!! 
I also asked "Butler Performance" and in summary they say that on the street the difference between the 041 and xe274 will not be very noticeable. But since I know that the 041 will provide a good vacuum, little better idle and such a nice curve.. I'll keep it 
I may think of give the 041H 4° advance.. that should make even more power from low rpm's to make it even more streetable. I won't race it very much...

@geeteeohguy

Yes, they are K&N filters. How often do you buy new ones? Or did you always wash them? I couldn't get my old (very dirty) ones really clean and the red color is almost gone... so I choose to buy new ones for $ 80 or something like that... didn't really make a big difference with the other parts.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

K&N makes a kit for cleaning the filters. In truth you can use just about any old household spray cleaner to get them clean. The red color comes from the sprayed on oil (from K&N) that you re-apply after the filters have been cleaned and thoroughly dried.

I was curious too, so I ran another side by side comparing the cam "straight up" to 4 degrees advanced, both with 1.5 rockers

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

I like the 4° advance, more power up to a pretty high rpm. Most times I will not need more than 5000rpm..
So that's what it's gonna be.. 4° advance and 1.5 rockers (maybe I'll get some roller rockers)

What do you think which cam will give better HC and CO?
XE274 or 041H? The XE268 will be better I guess (the smaller, the better?!)
Do you think any of the cams will make less than 4,5% CO and 600ppm HC?


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

Hi!

My engine rebuild is almost finished.. but the carbs are in pretty bad shape so we had to rebuild them before we start the "new" engine.

this is the engine (some things are still missing like the carbs):









this is the center carb that we rebuild first:









I guess in two weeks it will be complete and I will show you more pics with all parts in place and make a video 

Chris


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

:cheers Good deal, Chris. Can't wait to hear it run and to find out how you like it.

Bear


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

The carbs have been extremely dirty and had very small jets. (68 outer carbs and only 58 center carb). Almost unbelievable that the engine did run "good" before with these carbs. Maybe the car will feel totally different now, I'm very curious! 
I had a bad clutch and bad carbs.. I guess even if I hadn't replaced the 670 heads with edelbrocks and used the same kind of cam than before, the difference would have been like day and night. 
I feel like a little kid waiting for christmas at the moment


----------



## silversport (Mar 23, 2007)

looks great...looking forward to your report when done...

Bill


----------



## Chris-Austria (Dec 23, 2010)

now my engine is finished.. only need to adjust the carbs better! a video will be made after it runs perfect  here are some pic's:


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Now that's nice looking. Can't wait to hear the video ---- and to imagine the big grin on your face after the first time you get to really hammer it.

Bear


----------

