TA288-96H Buick 455
Uploader Comments (AGuyNamedSteve)
All Comments (12)
-
Very nice!
-
thats good, i think i was wrong, for a 455 it was 10 to 1, for a 350 it was 10.25 to 1, anyhoo 1.6 to 1 good, engine sounds great
-
Did you honestly get that kind of a track time with such a cam and rear end thats crazy.
I just bought a Lunati streetmaster for my olds 350 but im thinking of buying a 70 455 it's inexcellent running condition i'll of course change the oil pump, and have the heads rebuilt. The cam has a lobe seperation of 110
Duration @ .050 (Int/Exh): 217/221
Gross Valve Lift (Int/Exh): .485/.485
LSA/ICL: 110/104
RPM Range: idle-5500
What kind of carb did you have cfm?
-
i have a crower cam in my 1970 455.its only 464-488 lift with 214-218 @ 050.but it ran a 13.10 12.95 with 350 turbo no stall and factory 2.28 open rear end and 245-60 14 street tires.had to baby it bad for 250 feet.but mph in quarter was 115.pull like a freight train.this cam would be awesome for 8.5 comp.street drive quiet sleeper.
-
buick sounds good...
-
Thanks for the information.
Too bad about spinning a bearing, but it's typical with the bad oiling system on these motors, as I'm sure you know.
Actually, narrower lobe centers are better for lower compression motors because they increase dynamic compression and cylinder pressure. Of course, you end up with a narrower power band in exchange, so it's a trade off. I'm still debating whether to go with something a little more radical, but your ETs say a lot about the potential of that cam.
u should raise the compression ratio to original 10.25:1
tadeh3 3 years ago
The original compression ration in 1972 was 8.5:1. The motor is a 1976 block with 1972 heads on it. This was an original block with heads/cam/intake/carb/headers added to it. It also spun a rod bearing on my second pass.
AGuyNamedSteve 3 years ago
i was talkin about original compression ratio in 1970 when it was at full power
tadeh3 3 years ago
Ok, gotcha.
Since this wasn't a 70, it was at full compression for its year. After the rebuild, it's around 9.6:1. To get it higher would have required more machine work to the deck surface, taken from the heads, or a complete change of piston. To get another .5 of a point wouldn't have been worth the extra cost to do so and wouldn't provide much return on the investment. If I were going to go with a lot more cam, it would have been a good idea, but not for the one I eventually ended up using.
AGuyNamedSteve 3 years ago