Has anyone out there tried the Edelbrock 2022 E-Street Power Package for an upgrade to a C3 L48 engine; ballpark of a 78 or 79? If so, how do you like it and were there any issues with hood clearance? Lastly, what carburetor are you using?

 

315hp for $1,700?!?!?


Adam

 

I was thinking the same thing. Has anybody installed it?

 

Those heads have terrible flow numbers. The cam is old school with really slow ramps and the lift is pretty low. I wouldn't get that kit if you're looking for some power.

 

Yeah, I know the numbers aren't great but I was looking to bump up the low horsepower on a 1978 L48 without breaking the bank. If Edelbrock is correct and you can get 315 HP for $1700 and they will throw in a carburetor with their promotion right now, it sounds like a fair deal. Just thought it might be worth asking folks on the Forum for some opinions. I had actually been looking at some AFR heads, a Comp Cam and probably a Performer Intake but I'm watching any kind of budget I might plan on go out the window by going that route even though I know this is the better way to go. I also have to figure in a true dual exhaust system and a set of long throw headers. Guess it all boils down to how much I'm willing to spend right now.

 

Do it in steps. Get the headers and exhaust now. They can make some HP gains by themselves. Buy the heads later and put them on the shelf, then the intake, then the cam etc. When you have everything you need put it on.

 

just add the GM factory L82/LT1 parts

 

Flow isnt that bad really for the $
Did a similar build yrs ago used the Lunati 213/219 flat tappet those heads headers etc it pulled pretty darn hard passed smog idled fine felt it was worthwhile. That cam they give is so close to stock...

 

Jeg's version of the Profiler head: $499 a piece free shipping, ($200 off per head) no tax (depending what state you're in) right now $998 total
Voodoo Hydraulic flat tappet 262/268 with new lifters $181.63
Edelbrock Performer 2101 $144.95 on current sale after main in rebate
==Total = $1,324.58

I haven't modeled this combo in any engine tools but my rough guess is right at 400hp even and these heads are known for great air velocity / torque.

You'll still have money for gaskets, a couple new tools-which you'll need to open up the intake ports to Felpro 1206 (I think).


http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS-Performan...14022/10002/-1
http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=2324&gid=287
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-2101

Not sure whether the springs included with the heads are appropriate for the cam or not, though... (Pressure wise; lift wise they're fine)


Adam

 

Add the Summit 1 5/8" headers for $121 and you're still only up to $1,445.58.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/s...-summit-racing


Adam

 

Im thinking a good old comp XE262, performer intake, Slayer 600 carb, and a set of headers... presto

 

Not a Comp XE262. XE Flat Tappet Lobes == EWW! Lifter and valve destroying, valve bouncing, sewing-machine sounding EWWW.

Even the cam designer has slowly walked away from them with statements getting close to wishing he could disown them.
UD Harold Brookshire who designed the XE lobes designed the Voodoo lobes much later in life and they have lots of improvements. If you like the XE series, you should love the Voodoo line.

It's 2016 and in 2016 friends don't let friends use Comp Extreme Energy Flat Tappet Lobes...

Adam

 

The comp xe does have a reputation of being a little rough on the valve train, but it would also seem that Harold is not the designer of that cam FYI.

PS. I believe forum user BKBroiler used the xe262 in his car if I recall correctly, with excellent results.

 

From Chevelles.com

UDHarold
In Memory of Harold

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Senatobia, MS, USA
Posts: 1,796
Post
RapidRobert,

I can't be blamed for the XE line, Billy Godbold, their current designer, did those.
I designed, originated, etc, etc, etc, their High Energy line, such as the 268 High Energy cam, with 218 at .050 and .454" valve lift.
As I was leaving Comp Cams, I had a 413-cid SBC with a 278HE cam in it. THAT was a radical little dude! About 231 at .050, .454 valve lift again, and 108 LSA. It made my Don Hardy Vega fly........
I got rid of it after finding out that Scooter forget to drill the steam holes in the heads, and for other reasons, too. Mainly for the other reasons......
Even the Don Hardy-radiator couldn't keep it cooled down......

UDHarold

 

Thanks for clarifying, folks. I also just found a post where it also clarified that Billy Godbold designed the XE lobes; like others have said Harold was the even older High Energy line designer; not the XE designer- thanks for keeping me honest!


Here's a great post from Cliff Ruggles on the CompXE lobes and his experience with them (posted to the V8 Buick forum):


"Cliff R
09-12-2009, 05:59 PM
We have been following the Comp XE cams for some time, and even installed and tested one several years ago. My own test was a Pontiac 400 cid engine, about 10 to 1 SCR, 240cfm heads. We chose the Comp XE268 camshaft, which sports 224/230/110 specs and 268/274 degrees of off seat duration.

Prior to this, we had been using either the Crower 60916 (221/229/112) or the Crower 60243 (228/235/112) in these engines. Either one of the Crower cams will tear your head off to at least 5500rpm's, both have a LOT off off seat duration, they exhibit a choppy idle, strong mid-range, broad power curve, etc, complimented by a strong top end charge to well past 5000rpm's.

Right on the dyno we made 417hp/453tq (5500rpms peak), and 424hp/465tq (5800rpm peak) using those cams in a 400 cid engine, 10 to 1 SCR, unported heads.

Not ever being completely content with anything, I chose the XE268 cam mentioned above to see how it would do in a well prepared 400 engine.

The opportunity to dyno the engine never presented itself, so we just installed the engine in the car and did some street testing. Immediately, I noticed that the engine had no "lope" at idle whatsoever, somewhat "noisey" valvetrain. After break-in we did some street testing, and the engine was a TURD. Yes, one more time, TURD. It pulled OK off idle, and decent in the mid-range, but all DONE by 4800rpm's if not a tad sooner.

I ran the timing/fuel curves all over the place, ran better before I touched anything. The initial results were so poor, I never even attempted track runs with that car to see how much power it really wasn't making.

Jump ahead about 4 years. In my own 455, after having my engine and car in HPP and Popular Hot Rodding's Engine Masters addition, we decided to do a cam change.

The engine (very basic 455) had made 494hp on the dyno and pushed my car to 11.64 @ 116mph at the track. The cam we were using was a Crower 60919 (304/314/113), basically a copy of the "old" Pontiac RAIV cam. Yes, an old design with tons off off seat duration, and slow/lazy lobe profiles.

The cam chose to replace it was from Comp, custom XTQ lobes (very aggressive), 240/248/112. It sported less advertised duration, but .060" more lift than the old RAIV copy.

We figured it had to make more power, right? WRONG, we lost 10hp and 22 ft lbs torque, peak number, and a LOT of average power. The engine went "dead" right at 5200rpm's.

I tuned and tuned, even changed intakes and carbs, MSD billet distributor with locked out timing, etc, it made more power on the very first pull, every single thing I did just made things worse.

The cam came out, and a custom hydraulic roller cam was installed, 230/242/112, with .361" lobes. It made 514hp and 587tq, and improved by cars performance at the track from 11.64 to 11.52, almost exactly what the power difference should have.

OK folks, I'll add a couple of more examples, then tell you what I'm pretty sure is going on here.

455, 232cfm heads, XE274 camshaft, 414hp/487tq, DONE at 4900rpm's.

Another 455, 230cfm heads, XE274 camshaft, 412hp, 457tq, DONE at 4900rpm's.

Yet another 455, XE284 camshaft, head flow unknown, 400hp/499tq, DONE at 5000rpm's. (Yes, the bigger cam made LESS power).

I could list another dozen or so examples, but by now we should be able to see a "trend" here.

For the past 5 years or so, we have avoided the XE or any other "fast ramp"/short seat timing/more area under the curve flat cam like the plague.

All the while I'm thinking that the short seat timing is not allowing enough air to flow thru the engine to make up what the long duration lobes can do. Not so, the problem is actually caused by the ultra fast seating velocity of the lobes. This causes valve bounce and instability in the valvetrain ("lifter crash"), which not only limits upper rpm power production, but kills off power in the upper mid-range as well.

Jim Weise and I have spoken on this topic on several occassions. My conversations with him prompted me to contact a cam design expert, who fully explained what is going on here.

All the while I'm thinking the lobes are just too "small", when they are actually really good lobes, as far as technology goes, but just don't work very well in actual use.

Anyhow, I've taken considerable critisism for releasing this sort of information. There is always someone here and there that runs pretty good with this stuff, like most anything else. There are always a few that get "territorial" about parts that they use, whether they work all that well or not, anyhow.

I try to stick to facts, and the facts are, that I keep seeing folks running near identical combinations of parts as I do, but using these sort of cams instead, and coming up WAY short of the power we are making, and the track numbers we are running.

As a disclaimer, I've seen a few exceptions. Most recently, a customer of mine used the XE274 cam in a 455 for pure stock, and he must run the stamped steel rockers. He installed really light retainers, and pretty strong springs, along with stiff thick-wall pushrods, with perfect valve train geometry. His engine made up near 480hp, and his car runs much better than any other set-up I've seen using that particular cam. He may be onto something there, not sure?

In any case, I apologize for the long post, although I left out about 20 pages of specifics, etc, just wanted to let the Buick folks know that quite a few Pontiac engines have not responded well to this sort of cam technology.....Cliff"

I recall a post from Isky that the XE lobes break some sort of rule-of-thumb for ramp rate and longevity with flat tappet cams, too.

Friends don't let friends use XE FT lobes.

I also remember seeing a post, that I believe was from UDHarold talking about the ideal range of speed that a valve should close at and the various rates of the OEM and aftermarket cams showing that the XE close speed was far outside of the safety zone- this is why we see a deceleration in close speed for modern roller cams like the Voodoo and even advertised in Lunati's new Bootlegger series. -My understanding is that you want the acceleration rates to be rapid to make good power-especially on the open side, but you need to slow things down on the valve close side to prevent valve bounce -and my guess is that there's a safety margin baked in for the max RPM the cam is rated to and higher ratio roller rockers, which will accelerate the valve movement even more, right?

I've seen 3 different discussions from 3 people very much in the know- some cam designers, and others very experienced engine builders with well-calibrated dynos, and obviously huge #'s of reported failures and wiped lobes -and all these things make me fear the XE lobes. Personally, I don't think they should be sold now that more reliable cams exist that produce more power.



Adam

 

Done plenty of swapping with those same ones when they came out in the 90s to see what the rage was about and concluded the exact same thing. Isky Crower Crane etc made some real good stuff back then it flat worked.
Really who cares about mileage or an inch of vacuum, if youre hot rodding that comes wiht the territory. Want a baby smooth idle and 30mpg go buy a C7

 

I never used a comp cam in my life but had very good results with Crower,Isky, Lunati and my favorite for Mopar and small block Chevys Racer Brown.I've never really seen a comp cam that I could say ran better than expected. I liked Racer Brown in the small block because the were more Mopar oriented and I always liked running the chrysler lifter in them. it allowed the cam to work a little better and I suspect last longer. the larger diameter lifter seems to cut down on wiping a lobe on break in.that may just be a perception on my part but it likely has merit.
contrary to popular opinion I'm not a big fan of hydraulic rollers I don't like the extra valve train weight or the stiffer springs they require. but being older I resist change, things have a learning curve and I'm generally in no hurry to accept conventional wisdom. I find using high zinc oil as no big hassle.

 

Wow! Thanks for the input from everybody! Been doing more research and as everybody knows there are as many threads and posts on this subject as Carter has liver pills! Many opinions and a ton of excellent advice. I came across a post from several years ago where one of the forum members had tried a set of 180cc /64cc Dart Iron Eagle heads, Lunati Voodoo Hydraulic 262/268 cam, Performer 2101 Intake, stock headers and true dual exhausts. Also a 2000 stall convertor. He was very happy with the results and felt like he was getting somewhere between 350 and 400hp torque. Other people have used similar combinations and are happy as well. This sounds like something like I could live with and within my budget. Maybe a set of the Summit headers as well. I have an Edelbrock 1406 carburetor still in the box I'd like to use but was wondering if instead of the Edelbrock 2101 intake, use the 2701. Carburetor pad height on the 2101 is 4.05" and on the 2701 4.27". .22" isn't a lot of difference but in the end it may be too much. Not sure of the height on the 1406. I know hood clearance is an issue so I was wondering if anybody has used a 2701 intake with a stock C3 hood? Could a 2701/1406 combination work? All advice and opinions are appreciated!

 

I have an RPM air gap with a half inch spacer and with a dropped base air cleaner it fits under my stock 79 hood

 

I could've sworn I've found at least 5 posts on here where people said that an Air Gap would never work on a 79.

What size air filter are you using?


Adam