Anyone else work on their own vehicles?

We have a 2017 SUV and it has over two dozen computer chips in it. So no, we don't work on our car. Love to look at old classic cars, but have no interest in owning one.
 

Magna-Carta said:
I'm not familiar with the phrase, "stout cam". Maybe I'm from the wrong part of the world. But anyway, is this in reference to lobe separation and or the valve overlap period? Causing that slightly erratic idle I like to hear. Maybe more lift too?

454ci, would that be from the 70's?

Interesting what you have done to the front end. Do you feel the rear might need some form of a better location, an A-Frame perhaps to stop sideways movement of the axle on the springs? Or do you feel it's not necessary?
Click to expand...
The 454 is an LS-6 from a 1970 Corvette. In stock form, it produced 450hp and 500 ft lbs of torque. However, I installed a Lunati " LS6 Replacement Cam." It's a solid lifter cam, 238/238 duration @ .050 lift and .550/.550 lift with 112 deg lobe separation. That plus a set of headers should have upped the HP a bit. On this side of the pond, we call that a stout cam. :)
As for the rear end, It's pretty hard to beat parallel leaf springs for simplicity. I could go all out with a triangulated 4 link coil over, but, we're not looking to race the car, so, maximum traction isn't an issue.
Looking to the future, I'm going to install a decent 2 carb tunnel ram on the engine. But, I'll have to find another hood as I don't really want to cut a hole in this one. ;)


hood 2.jpg
 
squatting dog said:
The 454 is an LS-6 from a 1970 Corvette. In stock form, it produced 450hp and 500 ft lbs of torque. However, I installed a Lunati " LS6 Replacement Cam." It's a solid lifter cam, 238/238 duration @ .050 lift and .550/.550 lift with 112 deg lobe separation. That plus a set of headers should have upped the HP a bit. On this side of the pond, we call that a stout cam. :)
As for the rear end, It's pretty hard to beat parallel leaf springs for simplicity. I could go all out with a triangulated 4 link coil over, but, we're not looking to race the car, so, maximum traction isn't an issue.
Looking to the future, I'm going to install a decent 2 carb tunnel ram on the engine. But, I'll have to find another hood as I don't really want to cut a hole in this one. ;)


View attachment 288740
Click to expand...

14mm of lift (.550) now that's significant. I used to be confused by how duration is quoted in the US, until I realised its usually quoted at 0.050.

Camshafts I'm used to fitting in the UK have duration quoted from point of opening to point of closing. The last cam it selected for someone else's car had a duration of 285° (the point when the valve first starts to open and when it finishes closing, not at 0.050). It was a Piper Cam with asymmetrical opening/closing ramps. As I understand it, to open the valve faster and close slower for any given duration. Meaning the valve is open for longer in its higher half of the lift area, but induces more stress on the valve train as a consequence. I forget what the valve overlap period was, but it was significant enough to cause a 'lumpy' idle.

I would estimate that the 238/238 duration that you mention is at least 270 as I understand it in the UK. I've fitted 272's to some cars including a couple of my own, which gave a good balance of increased power and reasonably smooth idle -- very drivable in traffic or in town, unlike the 285 I mentioned earlier. The 285 I mention was in a 2.0 Pinto engine, fitted to a "Caterham 7". A car that only weighed about 600kg (1300lbs)

UPDATE: Your 454? Would this be from the era when US car manufacturers underquoted engine power for insurance purposes. The reality being they were more powerful straight off the showroom than the 'official' figures suggested?
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top