afr 185s

Holy sheet u two are like a married couple in need of a divorce lol


As for the cam, max lift has zero bearing on p/v clearance. When at max lift your piston isn't even close to the valves. It's lift at about 8-15 degrees it's closest, and that's fairly low in lift. I still don't think that setup will be making much power at 7500. Sure it can rev there but where did it make peak power at?

D.Hearne said:

Boyd Coddington ? That blow hard ? You seem to share personality traits with him, the way you put down what others have done.

Click to expand...

Kinda funny huh ? Like you. I call you out, and you run to hide behind a big name that has nothing to do with what is going on. Not knocking others, or what you did. I just don't believe you. And this I think is the first time I've called anyone out here. So there aren't "others." Your still getting off topic and running your suck to avoid the topic. Promise I'm not the only one. Everyone else just ignores your claims.

D.Hearne said:

You want me to repeat it again? OK, send me $2500 and I'l build another. Otherwise, I sure as **** wouldn't trust you to reimburse me for an engine you wanted built. Here's the address to send the money to: David Hearne 372 Ft. Hamilton Dr. Opelousas La. 70570. I'll be waiting for your Money order. And I'll let everyone know when I receive it.

Click to expand...

You don't understand engrish very well do you ? ROR ! I didn't say to build another one. I can not make an engine that makes power to that RPM with that cam. You are the one with the magic beans here. Dyno the unicorn you have in your truck. Again, it's your claim to prove. I'll send you money to dyno it, but you won't. Like I said, your too far in to prove yourself wrong.

Me sidestepping? What does any of this garbage have anything to do with your motor ?

D.Hearne said:

You seem to share personality traits with him, the way you put down what others have done. My point in bringing up Holman/Moody was their cam I used back in the 80's in a 427. But that went right over your head, didn't it ? That cam was a solid flat tappet with a lift of .515 and an advertised duration of 310. I don't recall the overlap and the duration @.050? I never found it. But many of the older cams like it when you convert the advertised durations to the @.050 specs are really shorter than you'd think. So point is the specs were pretty damned close to a B303 with 1.7 rockers. I got this cam with the 427 and only found the specs by accident. It was mentioned in a book that Hot Rod magazine published in 1966, there was a whole chapter on the 427 and another on the SOHC motor, along with every other engine of the period and what they were doing with each then.

Click to expand...

And your comparing your hyd cam with less duration, to a solid cam ? Come on, at least dodge the topic with a fair comparison. I'd love to hear those lifters crying at 7500 or the valves floating on the dyno. But you don't have the balls. So I'll send you dyno money.

blown65 said:

Holy sheet u two are like a married couple in need of a divorce lol


As for the cam, max lift has zero bearing on p/v clearance. When at max lift your piston isn't even close to the valves. It's lift at about 8-15 degrees it's closest, and that's fairly low in lift. I still don't think that setup will be making much power at 7500. Sure it can rev there but where did it make peak power at?

Click to expand...

exactly, all that is happening is over reving the motor

10secgoal said:

You don't understand engrish very well do you ? ROR ! I didn't say to build another one. I can not make an engine that makes power to that RPM with that cam. You are the one with the magic beans here. Dyno the unicorn you have in your truck. Again, it's your claim to prove. I'll send you money to dyno it, but you won't. Like I said, your too far in to prove yourself wrong.

Me sidestepping? What does any of this garbage have anything to do with your motor ?

And your comparing your hyd cam with less duration, to a solid cam ? Come on, at least dodge the topic with a fair comparison. I'd love to hear those lifters crying at 7500 or the valves floating on the dyno. But you don't have the balls. So I'll send you dyno money.

Click to expand...

But you DID want me to repeat it. So, since that engine no longer exists, then it's on you to pop for the cost of another, otherwise STFU. You're really getting tiresome to listen to. You're too ignorant to undertstand what one cam has in common with another and how it's not just the cam that limits power, but both the heads, intake and carb as well. You're too focused on the cam to see the rest of the story. Look at the Boss 302. Look at it's cam profile. Pretty damned close to the B cam's specs, even though it was a flat tappet grind. Ever wonder why Ford installed rev limiters on these motors? You had weekend racers blowing up motors, pushing them to 8 grand on the track. Oh, but wait, that's not possible with a .477 lift, 290* advertised duration cam. It won't pull that hard. Anyhow, untill you send the check, just be content to shut up about what you're too smart to figure out.

D.Hearne said:

I didn't use Ford roller lifters. I swapped them out for a set of Comp Cam's O.E. style replacements. These DO rev to 7500, I'm using the same set in my 331 and it gets rev'd to 7000 at the strip. You do not need 4 bolt mains nor a main support in a stock block to rev to 7500. You would need either for sustained rpms up there. The stock C8OE rods weren't weak, the stock rod bolts were the weak link in those rods, that's why I changed em right off.

Click to expand...

they must of made a special one off set just for you then. copied right of the compcams website......
Hydraulic rollers are excellent for many performance applications where RPM does not exceed 6250-6500 rpm. COMP Cams® Pro Magnum™ hydraulic roller lifters are engineered to perform at even higher engine speeds, and can increase maximum engine speed to 66-6800 rpm.

in every group of car guys, there is always one guy who swears his car can do the impossible

There are ppl running to 8k on hyd rollers but it's with diff cam profiles. Personally if I was turning those rpms I wouldn't rely on a hyd roller setup. A little maint and more hp out of a solid roller is worth it.

As for a b302 cam making power at 7500, I'll believe it when I see the dyno sheets.

bikefreak600 said:

.
Hydraulic rollers are excellent for many performance applications where RPM does not exceed 6250-6500 rpm. COMP Cams® Pro Magnum™ hydraulic roller lifters are engineered to perform at even higher engine speeds, and can increase maximum engine speed to 66-6800 rpm.

Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read what you posted. The rpm limit for any combination isn't limited to just one part only. If you had ANY experience with engines, you'd know that. Just as with 10secgoal, you're stuck on one aspect and fail to see the whole picture.

D.Hearne said:

But you DID want me to repeat it. So, since that engine no longer exists, then it's on you to pop for the cost of another, otherwise STFU. You're really getting tiresome to listen to. You're too ignorant to undertstand what one cam has in common with another and how it's not just the cam that limits power, but both the heads, intake and carb as well. You're too focused on the cam to see the rest of the story. :

Click to expand...

Ho hum. Ignorant is a word for someone who doesn't know. Now what your doing, knowing better yet still arguing about it, is the textbook definition of stupid. The funniest part about all this is not once have you mentioned the lobe separation for a single one of this other cams you have tried to hide behind. You have only mentioned lift and duration. Here's a 45 second research I did for you.

Simply put, the lobe center of a cam controls where the power curve is applied. The tighter the lobe center, the lower the rpm range; the wider the lobe center, the higher the rpm range. The rpm range is also known as, or refer to as the power band. In general, two degrees of lobe center is equal to approximately 500rpm. Therefore, if a cam with a 110* lobe center has a power range between 2500-6000 RPM, the same cam with a 112* lobe center would have a power range of 3000-6500 RPM. Conversely the same cam with a 108* lobe center would have a power range of 2000-5500 RPM.

Click to expand...

So what this means, if you don't understand it, is you can have a cam with the similar lift and duration, BUT different lobe separation, and the rpm range will be different. Maybe now you stop comparing apples to oranges when using the wrong numbers ? Probably not. But at least other people will understand if they didn't before, even if you still don't. This is why your argument with a boss motor is just moot.

Everyone else B-cam motor in the world drops at about 6k, but yours. Reminds me of a movie called "My cousin Vinnie." "Did you get this cam from the same guy who sold Jack his bean stalk beans ? Maybe the laws of physics cease to exist in your motor ?"

D.Hearne said:

Look at the Boss 302. Look at it's cam profile. Pretty damned close to the B cam's specs, even though it was a flat tappet grind. Ever wonder why Ford installed rev limiters on these motors? You had weekend racers blowing up motors, pushing them to 8 grand on the track. Oh, but wait, that's not possible with a .477 lift, 290* advertised duration cam. It won't pull that hard. Anyhow, untill you send the check, just be content to shut up about what you're too smart to figure out.

Click to expand...

Again, comparing the wrong numbers. I would imagine ford put rev limiters on it, for the same reason they still do today. Because there is always some moron who thinks because it revs that high, it's actually making power. It's a warranty thing. Any engine will always rev higher than it makes power.

D.Hearne said:

I guess you didn't read what you posted. The rpm limit for any combination isn't limited to just one part only. If you had ANY experience with engines, you'd know that. Just as with 10secgoal, you're stuck on one aspect and fail to see the whole picture.

Click to expand...

It's called a weak link. You gather MANY parts to get maximum power. Or royally screw up one part, and it's all junk. That being said, build a 408, monster heads, 2in primaries, and throw in a stock 289 cam. Kinda the same thing as building a 7500 rpm motor, and using hyd lifters and a cam that peters at 6k.But I guess if you didn't focus too much on that one part, it would still make power to 8k right ? Because believing in the wrong cam will make it perform. Com'mon Morpheus, this isn't the Matrix. Maybe your Neo and we don't know it. Guess that makes me Agent Smith huh ?

FWIW, customers engine, linked comp hyd lifters, popped the clips out of 4 lifters, revving to 6800. But now we have your engine, that revs, I mean, pulls to 7500, doesn't collapse the lifters, or ruin them, and doesn't have valve float. Your eyes have actually turned brown because your so full of **** David.Like I said, I may be the one who has gotten tired enough over the years of seeing you spew this garbage from your mouth enough to say something, but not the only one laughing. Maybe we can have a mod put a disclaimer in your sig, then you can continue to tell stories of grandeur and run your suck anyway you like.

Ok, genius, you just linked a statement saying: "the tighter the lobe center, the lower the rpm range". Now you're going to get the uninformed confused here. It SHOULD read, the lower the INTAKE center angle is, the lower the powerband will be. The way it's worded is clearly going to confuse LCA with LSA. Which are two different things. Could it be that the cam I had was installed more with the LCA higher than others ? That would change the rpm band, according to what the paragraph you linked to implied. Or do you want to back off from that now? I cannot tell you where the LCA was set, I never degreed the cam. Neither could you tell you wern't there. So you're shooting in the dark here claiming it couldn't have pulled up to 7500. You seem to make a lot of statements that way here. Just because you haven't done something, then that means no one else can either. OK, bud, I read you loud and clear. I'll make sure I send everyone who needs questions answered your way. Since you're the worlds foremost and knowledgeable engine builder. Maybe since your THAT good, why don't you contact Ford about doing some consulting work in their engines for them too ?

D.Hearne said:

Could it be that the cam I had was installed more with the LCA higher than others ?

Click to expand...

No, then it wouldn't have been a B-cam. Not to mention that has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever seen on this board.Then you would have had another cam "close"to a b-cam. Ooooppsss, I did confuse the two when I typed it out. My bad. I did make that mistake. Kinda like PVCR, remember ?<------See how that's done ? I can admit a mistake. But the argument still stands.

So what your saying is now the cam pulled "somewhere around 7500", "the LCA may have been different, I don't know and neither do you because you didn't degree it. But it was a B-cam." Ford Motorsport cams are always SPOT ON. Just degreed another X-cam, and it wasn't more than .5 deg off. And now you think their machine ground X amount of cams that day, but on the 85 cam, screwed up the angle on your cam just enough to make it rev higher, everything else was OK, then went back to grinding every one else's correctly ? "I'll believe that when my **** turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbert." I call shenanigans Once you line up a cam, the other aspects of the cam don't magically change. Quite back tracking to make your lies mysteriously fit.

So what you really should have stated from the get go was," I have a 302 that pulls to 7500 using a cam that has similar specs to a B-cam. But some minor changes here and there." That I would be much more likely to believe.

Just because you haven't done something, then that means no one else can either. OK, bud, I read you loud and clear. I'll make sure I send everyone who needs questions answered your way. Since you're the worlds foremost and knowledgeable engine builder. Maybe since your THAT good, why don't you contact Ford about doing some consulting work in their engines for them too ?

Click to expand...

Again, your just running your mouth to run your mouth. Never said I was the best, or better than anyone else. I DO NOT like to build engines. It's tedious, extremely boring work.Quote me saying any of that smart guy. I already told you once I can't do it with that cam. But you can,....so maybe your the one who thinks they can do something everyone else can't ? Or hell. Maybe you can open up your own shop. Make a living selling $2500 engines that don't last with mismatched parts. The warranty will only be 3 months, but no one will care right ? You could clean up. All those other dumb people using good blocks and solid cams. So dumb. All they need is a stock block and a B-cam, right ? If only they knew you only need higher spring pressures and a X cam to go to 9k.

D.Hearne said:

I guess you didn't read what you posted. The rpm limit for any combination isn't limited to just one part only. If you had ANY experience with engines, you'd know that. Just as with 10secgoal, you're stuck on one aspect and fail to see the whole picture.

Click to expand...

actually i do have experience, and in the real world dyno's tell the true story. and a engine is limited to its weakest link, which in your case is the whole valve terrain, which WILL limit the output. we are talking about pushrod engines, they dont build power at 7500 with conservative street parts lol

im done with this thread, its like talking to a friend of mine who claims his "one wheel wonder" 350hp 81 camaro with stock rearend & stock suspension, & 235/55 radial ta tire can do wheelies. he wont wont race anyone, or bring it out claims it always broken