Great Article on detonation/preignition
10-30-2013 | 11:21 PM
#42
Registered
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,439
Likes: 94
From: yorkville,il
This thread is like watching turtles bang.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pyorz7iIwA
10-30-2013 | 11:33 PM
#44
Registered
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,439
Likes: 94
From: yorkville,il
rumor has it icdedppl used to hunt turtle,s when he was a kid,when he got one he would turn it on its back and walk away!when reggie got wind of this he said,kid you will own baja,s cigs etc,but you will never own a fountain.
10-31-2013 | 12:08 AM
#45
Registered
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,480
Likes: 43
From: Tennessee
Here's a dyno sheet I posted here a couple years ago, I can dig up some more examples for you later if you need. This particular sheet is on 89 octane with Imco manifolds, running the raw water pump and power steering pump, stock 502 mag bottom end, rmbuilder cam and valve train. With headers it made about 20hp more and 10 lbs/ft less
What induction was on this engine? Carb or efi? 502 Mag intake? Just curious. Thanks.
Eddie
10-31-2013 | 02:22 AM
#46
Registered
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,306
Likes: 1
From: Between A Womans Leggs in IL
I don't know, I think correcting misinformation posted by wannabe engine builder / tuner's like you is definitely a help to anyone who doesn't take your bad advice.
I'll let you argue with yourself on that one..
Here's a dyno sheet I posted here a couple years ago, I can dig up some more examples for you later if you need. This particular sheet is on 89 octane with Imco manifolds, running the raw water pump and power steering pump, stock 502 mag bottom end, rmbuilder cam and valve train. With headers it made about 20hp more and 10 lbs/ft less
I'll let you argue with yourself on that one..
Here's a dyno sheet I posted here a couple years ago, I can dig up some more examples for you later if you need. This particular sheet is on 89 octane with Imco manifolds, running the raw water pump and power steering pump, stock 502 mag bottom end, rmbuilder cam and valve train. With headers it made about 20hp more and 10 lbs/ft less
your just a trouble maker posting negative comments on here..now go away.......................
10-31-2013 | 07:04 AM
#48
Registered
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,640
Likes: 4
This thread has become way too scary.
10-31-2013 | 07:12 AM
#49
Registered
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,640
Likes: 4
i guess i should say why i would have went with the 290 instead of the 265.i like the idea of a cnc intake&exhaust port as the repeatability with the cnc machines is exact.if the build was on a tighter budget,i would not hesitate to use the 265s.in my opinion the hp&torque figures would not be very different with either of these heads.i also believe the 290s will make more power if useing a cam with more lift&duration and will be run to a higher rpm.
MT, thanks for sharing the article. There is some excellent info on there that is good food for thought. I hate the fact that we can't discuss some of the technical parts of the article without things degenerating into people getting upset with each other. This has always been a good forum for info, but in the last few years it seems like it always leads to this - personal attacks on each other. I sure never intended for it to come to this.
10-31-2013 | 08:12 AM
#50
Registered
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,989
Likes: 6,484
From: Chicago
