429 issues !!

Well I hope ya get it all straightened out it will be nice for sure , but might be a good time to find another builder and cam grinder who's in tune with these motors , and again good luck with it.

nuclearcobra wrote:Well I hope ya get it all straightened out it will be nice for sure , but might be a good time to find another builder and cam grinder who's in tune with these motors , and again good luck with it.

.

Ill try and get it apart this week and post up some pics of everything. As we go through it . Checking cam timing, checking ptv clearance, making sure shits not bent up. . Sucks to know that both. Comp cams and bullet. Spec'd me a cam similar to each other and are both. Not even close .

rmcomprandy wrote:Given all the information which has been presented here ... if it is all correct, I suspect that the camshaft is installed VERY retarded.  
But, would that big of a camshaft even run at a tooth retarded...?

I know of a cam that was bigger and was retarded over 18* that ran

Well look at the bright side ya got a killer set of heads and a roller cam paid for already for the next upgrade , heck I just bought ported A460 heads and a ported intake to match just for future plans , and that's the only A460 parts I have so far.

You said you had SCJ heads you sure you don't have the FMS A429 they are CJ heads and will work where the Iron head was but the SCJ has different valve angle.

nuclearcobra wrote:Well look at the bright side ya got a killer set of heads and a roller cam paid for already for the next upgrade , heck I just bought ported A460 heads and a ported intake to match just for future plans , and that's the only A460 parts I have so far.

.


Thats what im sayin ! If i have to Buy a Nice stroker kit to make these parts efficient. Then thats what ill do ! Ill just have to push some extra work through my shop

69F100 wrote:You said you had  SCJ heads you sure you don't have the FMS A429 they are CJ heads and will work where the Iron head was but the SCJ has different valve ang

Duh Look at the pictures he posted.... Super cobra Jet right on the end of the head I am pretty sure he has a set of Super cobra jets....

69F100 wrote:You said you had  SCJ heads you sure you don't have the FMS A429 they are CJ heads and will work where the Iron head was but the SCJ has different valve angle.

.


Well thatd be pretty shitty of them to engrave super cobra jet on the front of them and sell them as scj heads . Haha . Unless thats how. They do the heads ur talking about ?

I just hope there is something wrong. Whether the cam timing is wack. Or the pushrod length is wrong. Or all the valves are bent. Or there is 2 reliefs like there should be . Or what ever the case .. because if i pull this thing apart and. It all checks out (with only one relief ) and i can back it ... U all owe me 5$ via paypal .!!! Hahahaha

linearfab wrote:

69F100 wrote:You said you had  SCJ heads you sure you don't have the FMS A429 they are CJ heads and will work where the Iron head was but the SCJ has different valve angle.

.


Well thatd be pretty shitty of them to engrave super cobra jet on the front of them and sell them as scj heads . Haha . Unless thats how. They do the heads ur talking about ?

I missed the page where you had the pic of the engine in the car

And please get rid of the fram filter the things are junk.

dfree383 wrote:And please get rid of the fram filter the things are junk.

Ditto X2 Dave we's gonna haves to tech him's gooder thans some of dem uthers

dfree383 wrote:And please get rid of the fram filter the things are junk.

No worries . That filter was on it when we got it from the builder back in the late 90s. That pic is way old .( if u look u can see it has flat tappet lifters . Probably hydrolic at that time )I just use wix filters on it .. in the pic of the motor actually in the car u can see it

I am sure the differences I researched when I was looking at the SCJ heads was an increased pushrod length of .350 int and .600 exh that WOULD reduce the cam spec proportionately - .350 makes a .700+ cam in the .400 reigion hence the lower ET with the new heads, it also explains why the valves aren't making contact with the pistons...Put the right pistons & pushrods in this motor and it will ROCK!

FalconEh wrote:I am sure the differences I researched when I was looking at the SCJ heads was an increased pushrod length of .350 int and .600 exh that WOULD reduce the cam spec proportionately - .350 makes a .700+ cam  in the .400 reigion hence the lower ET with the new heads, it also explains why the valves aren't making contact with the pistons...Put the right pistons & pushrods in this motor and it will ROCK!

.


I think the push rods are 8.850 and 9.100

What is common ( if such a thing ) with these heads . Does that sound off ? .

I have a set of 9.300s we tried in the motor because that was brought up before . So for What ever reason we called. Kaase and just asked what they recommended as a starting point. They sent us the 9.100 and the 9.300s. But the geometry. And the pattern on the valve tip from the roller Was terrible. So we ended with whats in there now ( which could be wrong ). But i had 3 other sets of eyes check them .

Ummmmm.

Pushrod length alone would not alter valve lift..
Only things that control the amount of lift are.. The cam lobe and the rocker ratio..
It would screw up the geometry big time

QtrWarrior wrote:Ummmmm.

Pushrod length alone would not alter valve lift..
Only things that control the amount of lift are.. The cam lobe and the rocker ratio..
It would screw up the geometry big time

Ya i could see it effecting to an extent because of the geometry being wierd throwing the arc of the rocker off in its movement. . But id think the pushrods would have to be way off to lose .300 lift . ?

QtrWarrior wrote:Ummmmm.

Pushrod length alone would not alter valve lift..
Only things that control the amount of lift are.. The cam lobe and the rocker ratio..
It would screw up the geometry big time

So why hasn't this motor smashed the valves and the push rods, the valve terrain goemetry has to be wrong, it can alter the lift IMO if it is the wrong length ie: too short, at peek lets say 6000 rpm when it misses the rocker lifts off the pushrod, the cam has enough in it, as do the springs and lifters so it doesn't float but it also never reaches maxium lift.

Could i just throw a dial indicator on the valve and spin the motor over and measure the valve movement. Minus the lash numbers. To get valve lift ?

If your at the valve it's actual and no need to subtract lash.

Not to hijack the post but Dfree your new profile pick ...did you end it and how big was is nice hog!

dfree383 wrote:If your at the valve it's actual and no need to subtract lash.

Ya . Doh haha some reason i was thinking rocker .    But  the actual lift  of the valve will still be  the lift of the cam minus the lash right ?  Or no

FalconEh wrote:

QtrWarrior wrote:Ummmmm.

Pushrod length alone would not alter valve lift..
Only things that control the amount of lift are.. The cam lobe and the rocker ratio..
It would screw up the geometry big time

So why hasn't this motor smashed the valves and the push rods, the valve terrain goemetry has to be wrong, it can alter the lift IMO if it is the wrong length ie: too short, at peek lets say 6000 rpm when it misses the rocker lifts off the pushrod, the cam has enough in it, as do the springs and lifters so it doesn't float but it also never reaches maxium lift.

Ahhh No...

The pushrod only transfers movement.. If it is short enough to lose lift.. It would have spit it out by now..