Yea, bench racing like you're doing here ? You're conviently omitting the fact that your supposed "redline" isn't a fixed thing. It's affected by the intake, carb and the heads. With good heads, that figure goes up. And yes, it was pulling to 7500, not just reving. That same motor topped with ported E7's did quit pulling at 6000 (give or take a few hundred rpms) with the B cam. It started pulling just off idle. With the Vic Jr and the Canfields, that all changed to 3000-7500. And I did not use the stock roller lifters, I replaced those with a set of Comp Cams hydro rollers, the same ones I now have in my 331, which has no problem reving to 7 grand. In fact I've never floated the valvetrain with these lifters. Go build your own and see for yourself, instead of bench racing here.
I'm "bench racing"?? I'm not the one who's making claims of 10-second quarter miles and 7500 RPMs with a mild hydraulic roller cam (which are notorious for their limited RPM capabilities). I don't believe a word of what you're claiming (not that you should care). The math and physics just don't compute. Edit: I'd love to see a dyno sheet of how much power your motor is making at 7500 RPM with that cam.
Yes, you ARE bench racing. I never claimed 10 sec 1/4's, someone else did that. But that too, depends on the vehicle, it's weight and coefficient of drag. You're thinking in static terms here, not taking into account all the variables. You're not even close to being right here.
Yes, someone else claimed 10-second quarters, however it was you who claimed "pulling to 7500 RPM", which is hilarious. "Not even close to being right"? Show me the dyno sheet. I am running a Schneider hydraulic flat-tappet cam in my 302 Maverick. The specs are similar to the B-303 but with less intake duration. It's a .470 intake/.495 exhaust lift, 214° intake/224° exhaust duration, and 112° lobe separation. This engine is .030 over, has 9.5:1 compression (forged flat-tops), stock ported & polished heads, full-length headers, Performer-RPM intake, and 600 Edelbrock carb. It is a stump-pulling little monster, but no 10-second, 7500 RPM phenomenon. I doubt it's making anything beyond 6200. The B-303 is a single pattern .480/.480 and 224°/224° (with the added weight of roller lifters). So am I to understand that the additional 10 degrees of intake duration would allow my motor to "pull" to 7500 RPM? Don't think so. Not even with AFR heads. It's not happening. Back on topic though; the AFR 165s would yield a significant performance improvement, even on a stock 302 with a 2-barrel. Of course to gain the full potential, a good carb, intake, cam, and headers would be necessary.
Now in this last sentence, you actually change sides in the argument ? What's up with that ? At least be consistent.
Not with the Stage-1 cam and probably not the Stage-2(TFS give specs on their web site)... I used the #1 on a set of flat tops without valve reliefs and getting ready to use same on a 331 with std inline valve relief pistons...
I'm pretty set between the n-41/n-51 cams, and it looks like those heads will hold up to .550 lift, and the n-51 has something like 228/238 @.050 and .497/.499 lift. What effects the ptv clearance the most?
You really need to either use a cam recommended by TFS OR measure piston to valve clearance on the one you choose... I went with their cam as it's supposedly flow matched to the heads... I know a guy who did run the Stage-2 on the 170cc but the stock valve springs can't handle the extra lift on the exhaust side... He wound up busting a spring but luckily no damage to engine...
How do you figure I "changed sides"? One has nothing to do with the other. As for the "back in time" comment; people were running solid lifter cams, which can rev higher than hydraulic. Roller lifters are heavier and as previously stated, notorious for limited RPMs. I wasn't comparing my heads to yours, just telling you what I was running. Your heads are awesome, but there's no way the B-303 is gonna breathe like that or rev like that. And wow, a whole 50 more cfm for a carb? As if that's really gonna make that big of difference. A Victor Junior will certainly flow more at the top-end than an RPM, but not that much more, and certainly won't compensate for the limitations of the cam and valvetrain.
Where'd you read that about hydro roller lifters being incapable of higher rpms ? I know you must have read it somewhere, because you CLEARLY have never tried them. As for the heads making the difference, they make ALL the difference in rpm capability. There are many ways to get an engine to make power in the upper rpms, first and foremost is the heads. Look at the Boss 302's, These engines breathed so well, that Ford put rev limiters on them to mitigate warantee claims from over zealous owners who wanted to spin the snot out of them, and they did this with the factory installed..............................(drum roll please)......................477 lift cam. :16suspect Compare the numbers on the original Boss heads and they're likely not much different than the Canfields. Next in the equation is the cam. You can put a bigger cam in with crappy heads and you'll get some increased rpm potential, but the opposite is true in using a smaller cam with better heads, with the right heads, you don't need as much cam. Then there's the intake, the Vic Jr's advertised powerband is worlds away from the RPM. If you've got the right heads and cam, removing the bottleneck in the intake can drastically change an engine's behavior. Now you mention the 50 cfm difference in the carbs. You're basing this on what ? The advertised cfm rating ? That's ALL that is, an ADVERITSED rating based on a set pressure differential drop. What any carb actually flows depends on what's sucking the air thru it. The 250 cfm primary carb on my 331 actually flows about 350 cfm's at 4500 rpms just before the secondaries are opened. Edelbrock's carbs fall notoriously short in actual cfm flow as compared to a Holley. EVERYONE (but you) knows this. Yes, it was rated at 650 cfm at 28 in/hg, but what it actually flowed is another matter. OK, I calculated the cfms drawn though a 40 over 302 at 7500 rpms at 100% VE, that works out to be 667.656 (if my math is right) So now tell me that a 650 Holley (that's also been modified by removing the choke horn and the top blended in) won't support 7500 rpms ? Now once again, you're thinking in terms of one dimension here in your argument, it's not the individual differences in our two engines that allows mine to make power to 7500, but the combined parts that is the key. Heavy roller lifters holding you back ? Use stiffer valve springs and better lifters than the stockers. And once again I submit this: I'm running the very same Comp Cams hyd roller lifters (and springs) in my 331, these are riding on a Z303 cam (and have been for the past 9 years now) Although this combo quits pulling at 6500 (give or take a hundred) it will still rev to 7 grand without floating the valvetrain. How could that be, if what you say is true of hyd roller lifters ?
