Cam question ?

rmcomprandy wrote:

rmk57 wrote:   With the shaker hood you won’t be able to fit any other intake other than stock. Even a 3/4” taller intake it really pulls the seal tight, too tight for my liking. Years ago I had a 1970 SCJ Ranchero and this is my experience.

That is an incorrect statement ... A "Torquer II" will fit easily and even needs a short spacer to make the height correct.

Randy how much power do you think the OP could pick up with a Different Carburetor the Torker II Intake and Headers? I'm just thinking of ways the OP could pick up power without tearing into the engine since it only has a little over 63,000 miles on it.

Mark Miller wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

rmk57 wrote:   With the shaker hood you won’t be able to fit any other intake other than stock. Even a 3/4” taller intake it really pulls the seal tight, too tight for my liking. Years ago I had a 1970 SCJ Ranchero and this is my experience.

That is an incorrect statement ... A "Torquer II" will fit easily and even needs a short spacer to make the height correct.

Randy how much power do you think the OP could pick up with a Different Carburetor the Torker II Intake and Headers? I'm just thinking of ways the OP could pick up power without tearing into the engine since it only has a little over 63,000 miles on it.

I have had that exact combination on a dyno when doing some "Torquer II" dyno tests.

Without digging for 10 year old results, I have retained some vague things.

1. Just changing the manifold with also using a 1/4" 4 hole phenolic spacer and stock production vacuum secondary Holley carb with the secondary side wired to 1 to 1 mechanical ... peak torque remained about the same although the amount of torque BELOW the RPM of the peak number was down; the lower the RPM the more it was down. But, horsepower was about 15 more at around 4,500 RPM and higher.  There was much less torque loss down low when the carb had fully vacuum secondary operation.

2. Porting to CJ size to just the greatly mismatched runners, ( 1, 3, 6 + eight), gained even about 5 more horsepower everywhere above about 4,000 RPM with no loss anywhere else.

3. Fully porting all the runners to CJ size gained a slight amount more horsepower at the very top but. power remained about the same everywhere except it lost a little bit down low below about 3,500 RPM.

This was a manifold test so, we never tried any different carburetors; I am sure there may have been something better.
The cam being stock limited the top end power numbers for certain.

rmcomprandy wrote:

Mark Miller wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

rmk57 wrote:   With the shaker hood you won’t be able to fit any other intake other than stock. Even a 3/4” taller intake it really pulls the seal tight, too tight for my liking. Years ago I had a 1970 SCJ Ranchero and this is my experience.

That is an incorrect statement ... A "Torquer II" will fit easily and even needs a short spacer to make the height correct.

Randy how much power do you think the OP could pick up with a Different Carburetor the Torker II Intake and Headers? I'm just thinking of ways the OP could pick up power without tearing into the engine since it only has a little over 63,000 miles on it.

I have had that exact combination on a dyno when doing some "Torquer II" dyno tests.

Without digging for 10 year old results, I have retained some vague things.

1. Just changing the manifold with also using a 1/4" 4 hole phenolic spacer and stock production vacuum secondary Holley carb with the secondary side wired to 1 to 1 mechanical ... peak torque remained about the same although the amount of torque BELOW the RPM of the peak number was down; the lower the RPM the more it was down. But, horsepower was about 15 more at around 4,500 RPM and higher.  There was much less torque loss down low when the carb had fully vacuum secondary operation.

2. Porting to CJ size to just the greatly mismatched runners, ( 1, 3, 6 + eight), gained even about 5 more horsepower everywhere above about 4,000 RPM with no loss anywhere else.

3. Fully porting all the runners to CJ size gained a slight amount more horsepower at the very top but. power remained about the same everywhere except it lost a little bit down low below about 3,500 RPM.

This was a manifold test so, we never tried any different carburetors; I am sure there may have been something better.
The cam being stock limited the top end power numbers for certain.

Thanks i'm guessing you were using headers?

Mark Miller wrote:

Thanks i'm guessing you were using headers?

NO ... Cobra Jet cast iron exhaust manifolds with about 4 feet of 2 1/2" pipe ... no mufflers.[/quote]

rmcomprandy wrote:

Mark Miller wrote:

Thanks i'm guessing you were using headers?

NO ... Cobra Jet cast iron exhaust manifolds with about 4 feet of 2 1/2" pipe ... no mufflers.

Thanks, any guesses on what a set of headers would have gained on your test engine or on the OP Car?

If the engine is all original then I would not start adding aftermarket parts. If the performance has deteriorated, you should start with a professional tune up. Have everything checked over including running a compression test, a leak down test and pressure check the cooling system. Pull the valve covers to see how much gunk and varnish is inside the engine.
Older engines, especially ones that aren't driven a lot have problems with stuff gunked up. It might be nice and shiny on the outside but inside the engine is a bunch of problems. Fairly common to see a flat cam, a bent pushrod, a coked up crossover, an oil pickup full of gunk, etc., in older engines. Especially if they are rarely driven and not gotten up to temp. Had an original 1967 big block come into the shop this week. Looked okay on the outside but the inside was full of issues. Multiple lobes on the cam were flat, two pushrods were broken, several valve springs were broken, timing chain was very loose, etc.