Hi guys :)

[Honky Kong jr]

That's the plan. Carb will likely be a 750cfm Q-jet



Okay okay, carbs4life I guess >.>

So go through the cam manufacturers and use their recommendation for springs. Thanks guys, kinda pumped. While I'm here may as well show my true lack of knowledge on big blocks and just chevys in general. This is planned intake: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-2161/overview/make/chevrolet

How bad am I

That intake will work..... but it’s gonna be sucking from both sides @RustyPile will concur. Lol what heads do you have? Big ovals or peanut ports? It really don’t matter big blocks will breath regardless if the ports match up perfectly or not. I have about 8 HRs in porting my Perfomer 2.0, which isn’t much different then that one. I run a 3/4” spacer on mine though for more intake volume. The porting wasn’t 100% necessary but I’m goofy like that.

 

[74 Shortbed]

Flat Tappet it is, yikes!

So Moving forward I think I'll be deciding between @RustyPile 's suggestions. Now the second one is "Smooth Idling" so does that mean the first one may not be?

Read your post about saying you do a lot of "idling", if you're going with a flat tappet(which is ok)use EDM lifters or cut the pressure groove in the lifter bores or even both, flat tappet cams gets lubricated by splash only, when idling there's minimum to no splash and cam and lifters wear quickly, you need just as much oil idling as you do going down the road.. As far as springs go, all you need are springs to accommodate the max rpm you plan to run the engine, in other words you don't need springs for 7800rpm when the most you run is 3500rpm, higher the spring pressure the higher lifter to cam pressure which adds quicker wear on the cam and lifters.. My 468 out of my dually has around 115,000mi on it and still runs the same as when I built it, after break in the only oil it seen in it's entire life was off the shelf Castrol GTX.. Of course I didn't use no cheap Chinesium cam and lifters either, this one is a Crower but I've used a lot of Lunati cams too and they are right up there in quality also since it's USA made... This is just my experience with this **** over the years, so go with whatever makes you comfortable with..

 

[Mr_Ryumaru]

That intake will work..... but it’s gonna be sucking from both sides @RustyPile will concur. Lol what heads do you have? Big ovals or peanut ports? It really don’t matter big blocks will breath regardless if the ports match up perfectly or not. I have about 8 HRs in porting my Perfomer 2.0, which isn’t much different then that one. I run a 3/4” spacer on mine though for more intake volume. The posting wasn’t 100% necessary but I’m goofy like that.

Got the big ovals. I figure'd I'd add a spacer. Engine masters did a thing where they showed that a small gap allowing flow between both sides actually runs better than no gap at all. I was also looking at the performer series q-jet intake. A bit more but not much. Thoughts between the two?

 

[shiftpro]

2” valid points.

I don

Read your post about saying you do a lot of "idling", if you're going with a flat tappet(which is ok)use EDM lifters or cut the pressure groove in the lifter bores or even both, flat tappet cams gets lubricated by splash only

I mentioned this above and it really should be done to every bblock that passes through the door of a machine shop...

 

[Mr_Ryumaru]

I don


I mentioned this above and it really should be done to every bblock that passes through the door of a machine shop...

So basically the process and tool on this page, correct?

http://garage.grumpysperformance.co...mps-lifter-bore-groove-tool-really-work.5691/

I've never done this before but it seems fairly straight forward. Only issue is that it's another $160 for the tool

 

[74 Shortbed]

I don


I mentioned this above and it really should be done to every bblock that passes through the door of a machine shop...

It does in mine, lol..

 

[74 Shortbed]

So basically the process and tool on this page, correct?

http://garage.grumpysperformance.co...mps-lifter-bore-groove-tool-really-work.5691/

I've never done this before but it seems fairly straight forward. Only issue is that it's another $160 for the tool

It's $143 here..

http://www.powerhouseproducts.com/ph/chevrolet-842-dia-pro-series-lifter-bore-grooving-toolhtml/

 

[Mr_Ryumaru]

It's $143 here..

http://www.powerhouseproducts.com/ph/chevrolet-842-dia-pro-series-lifter-bore-grooving-toolhtml/

thanks for the heads up. Since we're not doing anything crazy on this engine, the groove in the bore should be enough, right? I can only really afford the tool or the lifters

 

[RustyPile]

Got the big ovals. I figure'd I'd add a spacer. Engine masters did a thing where they showed that a small gap allowing flow between both sides actually runs better than no gap at all. I was also looking at the performer series q-jet intake. A bit more but not much. Thoughts between the two?

That "sucks on both sides" comment is a running joke on here.. Feel free to use it any time you feel like it.. We'll all understand..

If you're going for a cam with smooth idle qualities, I'd just stick with the stock manifold.. Because of the cam's limited "flow characteristics", the aftermarket manifold won't add much to the overall performance, but it will save a lot of weight. No need to spend the extra money on a flashy aluminum one. If you just want the "flashy factor", paint the stock manifold with aluminum paint. Personally, I never use a stock manifold.. But then none of the engines I build are stock in the "run department".

Somebody suggested for your application, stiffer valves springs aren't needed.. that's a good suggestion in more than one area.. Softer springs relieve the pressure on the cam and aid longevity.. Under any event, groove the lifter bores so that the cam lobes get plenty of oil during those long periods of idling. If you do the grooving yourself, put all the grooves on the passenger side of the bores and groove only the lower half of the bore.. The grooves only need to be .006 - .008 deep. Add plenty of zinc additive in the oil at each oil change.. Doing so means you have to remove the catalytic converter..

 

[Mr_Ryumaru]

That "sucks on both sides" comment is a running joke on here.. Feel free to use it any time you feel like it.. We'll all understand..

If you're going for a cam with smooth idle qualities, I'd just stick with the stock manifold.. Because of the cam's limited "flow characteristics", the aftermarket manifold won't add much to the overall performance, but it will save a lot of weight. No need to spend the extra money on a flashy aluminum one. If you just want the "flashy factor", paint the stock manifold with aluminum paint. Personally, I never use a stock manifold.. But then none of the engines I build are stock in the "run department".

Somebody suggested for your application, stiffer valves springs aren't needed.. that's a good suggestion in more than one area.. Softer springs relieve the pressure on the cam and aid longevity.. Under any event, groove the lifter bores so that the cam lobes get plenty of oil during those long periods of idling. If you do the grooving yourself, put all the grooves on the passenger side of the bores and groove only the lower half of the bore.. The grooves only need to be .006 - .008 deep. Add plenty of zinc additive in the oil at each oil change.. Doing so means you have to remove the catalytic converter..

"catalytic converter"
Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft
Yeah that **** is long gone, and if it weren't it would be shortly. Hello non-emissions testing state

And I'm actually going with the first of your two suggestions, the Lunati's BareBones (Part# 10110101LK). Besides, the stock intake is broken right by one of the bolt holes so yeah.....may as well upgrade. And I actually seen the difference a decent intake makes over a stock one on even just a bone stock motor, the stock 454 intake looks kind of like a pretzel. Its enough of a difference to me for it to be justified, but I also know it's not gonna make her a racer. Just helps a little.

As for springs, I know I could get a softer set but my understanding is that if I do that It'll sort of "Limit" me to a certain rev, such as the one suggestion for springs that would support 3.5k. But I dunno, even though I may not always take advantage of it, I would like the ability to rev it a bit higher. So I'll probably contact the cam manufacturers and get their suggestion, then work from there.

Another note, I don't think I really need 7/16 rods do I? Wouldn't a set of 3/8 be sufficient?

 

[74 Shortbed]

thanks for the heads up. Since we're not doing anything crazy on this engine, the groove in the bore should be enough, right? I can only really afford the tool or the lifters

Either way works good but I would just get the tool, you'll have it for the next one and you can charge all your buds to do theirs and pay for the tool, that's what I did..

 

[RustyPile]

Another note, I don't think I really need 7/16 rods do I? Wouldn't a set of 3/8 be sufficient?

Some of the "weaker" BBCs came from the factory with 5/16" pushrods... I never could understand that logic???? In your case, 3/8 molly would probably work, but for the difference in cost, why chance it.. The 1.7 rocker ratio puts a terrible strain on the push rods, and increased spring pressure just amplifies that strain..

Now I'm gonna throw a hand full of mud in your canteen.. BBCs by nature, are expensive to build.. There are safe areas where money can be saved, but relative to the overall cost, not much can be saved.. For much less money, and in your case, not much sacrifice in performance, why not build an SBC 383. It's the small block that acts like a big block. Most people build these engines using the shorter 400 rods because this allows the use of "over the counter" pistons.. I build mine using 350 rods which are 5.7 inches long.. The pistons cost slightly more but the increased torque is well worth the price.. Most of my race 383s have 6 inch rods, but that combination puts the wrist pin pretty close to the rings..

 

[Honky Kong jr]

Some of the "weaker" BBCs came from the factory with 5/16" pushrods... I never could understand that logic???? In your case, 3/8 molly would probably work, but for the difference in cost, why chance it.. The 1.7 rocker ratio puts a terrible strain on the push rods, and increased spring pressure just amplifies that strain..

Now I'm gonna throw a hand full of mud in your canteen.. BBCs by nature, are expensive to build.. There are safe areas where money can be saved, but relative to the overall cost, not much can be saved.. For much less money, and in your case, not much sacrifice in performance, why not build an SBC 383. It's the small block that acts like a big block. Most people build these engines using the shorter 400 rods because this allows the use of "over the counter" pistons.. I build mine using 350 rods which are 5.7 inches long.. The pistons cost slightly more but the increased torque is well worth the price.. Most of my race 383s have 6 inch rods, but that combination puts the wrist pin pretty close to the rings..

Look at the puny cams those newer 454s had. That’s how the got away with 5/16 push rods.

 

[RustyPile]

Look at the puny cams those newer 454s had. That’s how the got away with 5/16 push rods.

I never have been able to understand the logic behind designing an engine with over 450 cu. in. and then saddling it with soda straw port runners, a puny cam, and other devices.. A 396 --- yeah, maybe.. But a 454.. Makes me smh.. Makes as much sense as hitching a thoroughbred race horse to a kids circus ride..

 

[Honky Kong jr]

I never have been able to understand the logic behind designing an engine with over 450 cu. in. and then saddling it with soda straw port runners, a puny cam, and other devices.. A 396 --- yeah, maybe.. But a 454.. Makes me smh.. Makes as much sense as hitching a thoroughbred race horse to a kids circus ride..

So putting the opposite in a .060 396 is mocking the newer 454s? Lol