When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Guy's. I have noticed since my engine rebuild that it doesn't feel as quick off the mark. When I'm Highway driving at say 70mph and hit the gas up to 100mph there is a lot more power than I used to have but from the lights if I floor it, it's like your waiting for it all to happen. I had it tuned on a rolling road yesterday and he said that although my compression readings were all pretty much the same they were lower than before I changed the cam, heads and rings etc. meaning that was why I am losing some low-end grunt. All the readings were around 130/135 psi. Is this right? :confused: VettePaul
What cam did you use? The cam is what controls where you engines power band is going to be. A cam that is for high rpm's won't perform at low end as well as a cam made for low end power. Cam specs will state what rpm range it will have its power. A cam rated 22000-5500rpm won't take off as well as a cam with a 1500-3000rpm. The engine, cam, trans, and rear end have to work together.
Unless your "quench" piston to head clearance is already .040 you can get back some lost comp by thinner head gasket. This improvement will help! Redwing is right about cam bleed off. Tighter quench will decrease detonation and improve combustion!
One thing that you could have done was to advance your cam 4 deg. Lot of work now that your motor is back together. First I could can that holley and get a 650 Speed Demon, get lars to recurve your dist, go with a elect cooling fan. All of that maybe you can get about 25 low end horses.
Thanks Guy's. I was told by the makers of the cam (federal mogal) that it is a marine application. I was also informed by various forum members that it is in fact an L-82 spec. Does that explain anything? :confused:
Also, at the time I was going to advance the cam but I was told I would need high duration lifters etc so I didn't bother. :cheers: VettePaul
VP If its a automatic you could go with a looser torque converter. Stock is around 1800 bump it up to 2200 to 2500.
Or you could get nitrous for a little off the line boost.
Enjoy.
From what you said about the cam being a "marine cam", I would say that the difference is in the cam. Marine engines don't see much of a load so they build rpm's quickly, a car needs to pull a lot more. I agree with changing the torque converter will help. You will run higher rpm's on the highway though.
I agree with changing the torque converter will help. You will run higher rpm's on the highway though.
:cheers: I think we may have hit the nail on the head with this cam then. With the price of gas here(approx $4.60 a gallon) and a lot of highway driving, to shows etc I don't really want to be using higher rpm at cruising speed. Is there nothing I can do that is a little less drastic ? :cheers:
If your signiture is correct than it may not be the cam. It might be the RPM intake. The Edelbrock RPM manifold has larger runners and is designed to provide more power at higher rpm (2500 - 6500 rpm) for the track. Therefore you lose low end power. The L-82 cam makes it's power from idle - 5500 rpm which is not matched to the RPM intake. All the pieces must work together to achieve good torque and horsepower. You need to check the rpm range of each part you plan to use. Also the RPM flows more air so you will have to make sure the carb, heads and exhaust can flow more air otherwise you will hurt performance. So you might want to try an air intake that matches the power band of the cam and heads.
I also noticed you had dual exhaust. If the exhaust is wide open, 3" pipe no cats, you will hurt low end.
Also, you could try a 3.55:1 gear ratio. This helped my low end torque.
That's interesting drives61. I've only covered 1800 miles so far.
vettesite, all I can say is that the performer rpm I already had on before rebuild. So basically all I have changed since is cam, heads and rings. Thanks for reply, VettePaul.