![]() |
Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#26 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fall River California
Posts: 2,026
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Thanks everyone! I'll take into account all the suggestions! Going to play with the timing now. If I could just get a little more out of it i would be content. Living in the moundains it's nice having more power (than I used to) at higher rpms, I'm constantly slowed behind cars and trucks not familiar with curvy and steep hiways, it's nice to be able to pass them! Now if I could just get a little more on the bottom. Thanks again!
__________________
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v655/aaronhero/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Mickleton, NJ
Posts: 1,776
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
.480 Intake .486 Exhaust 224 Intake / 230 Exhaust duration @ .050 - 112 degree lobe separation supposedly 9.5:1 compression Engine dyno showed 381 with a 600 holley and long tubes. I run a street demon 625 and long tubes. I'd like to chassis dyno it but don't want to spend the money.
__________________
Shawn 1970 Chevy C-10 SWB, 350, TKO 600 5 speed My build http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=559881 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Glendale, Arizna
Posts: 1,642
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
I'll bet on that old of an HEI the mech adv probably isn't even working. You gotta check that out, just pop the cap and see if the rotor turns against the weights/springs and if it snaps back all the way. Let me know if it's sticking, I can tell you how to fix it if it's salvageable (the pins that hold the weights are probably acutely worn or worn clear through) or save yourself some work and just get a new one (if it's sticking). On top of that, other components that are old are ticking time bombs, like the module and the pick-up coil. EVERY time the vacuum pod moves the pick-up coil wires flex and are that much closer to breaking. This is the distributor I recommend: http://www.summitracing.com/parts/pro-141-682/overview/ This distributor, IMO, will be closest suited for your engine out of the box, but you still may need weaker advance springs. It has a steel gear, I would not put that on your cast iron flat tappet cam. You need a cast iron gear. Or get a cheap one like this: It also has a hardened gear so needs cast iron. http://www.ebay.com/itm/SBC-Bbc-Smal...605848&vxp=mtr Put the GEAR off your OLD distributor on either one as it's already been on the new cam so putting on a new one now would put more strain on it. If for some reason you want a new one, measure your shaft if it's .500" use this one. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/pro-141-682/overview/ BTW, line up the dot on the dist gear with the rotor electrode. Last edited by mechanicalman; 11-13-2014 at 04:23 PM. Reason: add-on |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 6,332
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
290hp with low compression that doesn't match the cam design will never be fast. But to be honest, a small block in these trucks with that much weight and a 4x4 to boot, plus tall tires, guarantee it will never be fast.
That's not a bad thing. It's just the way they are. If it makes you feel any better, the factory big blocks were only 310hp so you're only 20 short of that anyway, and FAR ahead of the small blocks of the day. There's no way you're going to get 375-400 out of a 350. Sure, with monster heads and an unusable cam and a single plane intake you can, but not for a street motor. Keep in mind the 1970s LT1 was (arguably) the most powerful small block made and it came nowhere near that in SAE net power. Gross was 370, but by the time they knocked some compression out of it and switched to net, it was more like 260hp. Yes there was a 327/375 but I'm not buying that number. If any questions remain, I'd get a dyno tune by someone who knows what they're doing. And don't be sad when you see 215hp on the rollers, that's to be expected. If you can unlock the front hubs (never had one of these in a 4x4 so I don't know) it'll be easier otherwise you'll need a four-wheel dyno, which is usually a Mustang dyno. Also 38 degrees is way too much total timing, IMHO. You cylinder pressure might be low enough that it doesn't detonate, but the piston is still likely working against a lot of initial pressure before TDC. Seems like you're happy now, but if it were me that's the route I'd go, and I'd get the vacuum advance put back together properly and the total timing set accordingly. You will need to run more initial than the sticker says, as you've found out. But that additional needs to be backed out of the total. At the end of the day, there's no replacement for proper basic tuning. Then you can go from there.
__________________
1970 GMC Sierra Grande Custom Camper - Built, not Bought 1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Coupe 1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Convertible |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fall River California
Posts: 2,026
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Just got back after six runs, seemed to get the best out of it at 12* with the vac advance connected. It idles very smooth and starts with just a tap of the starter which is nice. Still not what I was hoping for but it is a little better. I'm not after a hot rod, just want to be able to keep up with traffic! I live in the mountains so there's lots of long steep hills, it does great up the hills at hiway speeds, plenty of power, if I can squeeze a little more out of the low end I'll be content. I'm going to drive it awhile like this and see how it goes. Will probably get a new distributor anyway, no clue how many miles are on my 80s era HEI. The truck it came out of was in an old junkyard, who knows what it's been through. I replaced all the other accessories because I want dependable, I drive this every day. Thanks again for all the advice, I've learned s few things here today.
__________________
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v655/aaronhero/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
It'll Buff Out!
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 603
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
I agree with Fitz on Tuning the Carb also. I think your biggest benifit would be a cam swap. I think Gm should have rethought that Cam when trying to build a low compression Run on 87 octane motor.
just my .02 Best of luck, keep us informed.
__________________
"Instructions are just another mans opinion" Become a Supporting Member http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/payments.php Man Card Rules http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=634550 72 Chevy Cheyenne Super 400 LWB |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Glendale, Arizna
Posts: 1,642
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
mechanicalman ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 200
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
I was wondering about this as my old 66 Buick wildcat had the advance hooked up to manifold vacuum where as all the later trucks Ive had always used ported vacuum (for smog Im sure).
What is your idle timing with no vacuum attached, idle timing with vac attached and total advance with vac? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fall River California
Posts: 2,026
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Just did! Thanks
__________________
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v655/aaronhero/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Mickleton, NJ
Posts: 1,776
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
All in at 2900 I get 34. I have the Jegs generic HEI with the lightest springs. I originally had the vac advance hooked to the timed port, and no matter what I did it bogged really bad at tip in. Had to pump the pedal to keep it going. Swapping to the manifold vac fixed most of that, the rest was getting more squirt from the accelerator pump. From everything I have read, the timed vacuum advance was strictly an emissions thing.
__________________
Shawn 1970 Chevy C-10 SWB, 350, TKO 600 5 speed My build http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=559881 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fall River California
Posts: 2,026
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
__________________
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v655/aaronhero/ |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Mickleton, NJ
Posts: 1,776
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
I had the same booster with the other engine, and that made 21" at idle, and I still had "just ok" boost.
__________________
Shawn 1970 Chevy C-10 SWB, 350, TKO 600 5 speed My build http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=559881 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fall River California
Posts: 2,026
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
__________________
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v655/aaronhero/ |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Mickleton, NJ
Posts: 1,776
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Measure it first and see what you have. That engine should make ok vacuum if the carb and timing are set right.
__________________
Shawn 1970 Chevy C-10 SWB, 350, TKO 600 5 speed My build http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=559881 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Glendale, Arizna
Posts: 1,642
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
For accuracy use a lead pencil and make a "carpenter's vee". Then on the 36 mark use something on top of it to make it easy to see like "whiteout" or something. The following link shows how a timing tape is installed and should give you some perspective. http://www.jegs.com/InstallationInst...1/121-8985.pdf |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#41 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UTAH
Posts: 353
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
In the past I had a large cam in my truck wilt little vacuum and the vacuum canister worked well. Plus you still have power assist after the engine is shut down for one or to stops.
__________________
Mike 1971 C10 350 1969 C20 396 1979 Corvette L-82 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UTAH
Posts: 353
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
After following and reading everything on this post I have to add a few things. Some of the info given is really good and some is just wrong. Not here to point out who is wrong or right, just want to make a statement and hope help. I feel for you on your disappointment on your engines performance and hope you get it to where you like it.
Here’s the thing, the truck is a system and every part has to match, a good build can be a screamer or a dog by having one part that does not match the system. Your engine, for the price is a good solid driver and in the correct application will perform well. Problem here is its not in the correct application. You have not given adequate information such as gearing to say what would work well for you. I can tell you this, too much cam for the weight, transmission and tire size. I know the cam you have has similar specs, and may be the same one as the 70’s corvette l82 that had a lot more compression and ran really well in a 3500 lbs car with a 4 speed manual, 3.55 gears and a 27 in tall tire. In a c10 that is a little over 4000 lbs with 10:1 compression maybe a 700r 4 transmission and a 3.73 gear and 28 in tires that engine would run really well. It would be a system thats matched(but still needs more compression). You stated your in the mountains, but at what elevation are you at? That is needed to know when tuning. You really drop a lot in performance at elevation. You need more timing and smaller jets at elevation. Lets say you have a 3.55 gear, you would want a cam around 204-210 degrees at .050 max if your looking for good off idle torque. Can you check the compression? That will tell you a lot about how the cam and compression ratio are working together by knowing what your cylinder pressure is.
__________________
Mike 1971 C10 350 1969 C20 396 1979 Corvette L-82 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 | |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Victoria, B.C
Posts: 3,794
|
![]() Quote:
I think a lot of guys get caught up in the 'horsepower number' game....never a good thing, but it happens all the time....pretty much every week here in one thread or another. I think better results would come much from what MAC71 has stated here and to look at the application from a standpoint of Torque rather than horsepower. (ie: oversize tires (33"+), 4wd. 4000+ lbs, and a standard 3:07 rear diff.....very difficult to move quickly off the line with a small block unless very well thought out and specified) Torque in a heavier vehicle generally rules the day in most situations....yet its the hp number that people often chase. My two bits. Coley
__________________
....for some men, there is experience, skill and effort....for the others...there is visa and UPS LOL 1966 Chevy 1/2 ton (Florida- Red/white) 1972 Chevy 1/2 ton (California- Blue/white) 2005 Chevy Silverado HD2500/Duramax 2000 Dodge Ram 1500 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: New Bern, NC
Posts: 177
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
I would not buy a engine based off of HP. I'd be asking for the torque figures. I'd rather have a 280HP/400 ft-lb engine over a 325HP/340ft-lb engine.
__________________
1971 Cheyenne Super - Factory Big Block - Second (1987-89) & Fourth (2014-) Owner - To be restored 1978 Turbo Malibu - Owned since 1986 1987 Grand National Aerocoupe -1 of 1 1988 LeSabre T-Type - Supercharged |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fall River California
Posts: 2,026
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Thanks guys! I have to admit I fell for the hp rating! I'm really not kicking myself for buying this engine, it really does run nice, smooth, sounds good and I am getting more power after playing with the timing. I am going to invest in a new distributor for reliability of nothing else and hopefully a bit more power. I've had to call a tow truck twice this year, in my 51 years I've never had to be towed and being towed sucks! I think once I get the timing and carb dialed in I will be perfectly content, I'm not looking for a hot rod by any means, thats what my future Chevelle will be for! I will try as you suggest mechanicalman, I'll let you know what I come up with! Thanks again everyone! Appreciate the help!
__________________
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v655/aaronhero/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fall River California
Posts: 2,026
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
__________________
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v655/aaronhero/ |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UTAH
Posts: 353
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Yes you need a check valve. Look on summit and they have a few
__________________
Mike 1971 C10 350 1969 C20 396 1979 Corvette L-82 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
Moderator
![]() Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern Cal
Posts: 20,005
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Have you done a compression check to confirm the rings have seated?
__________________
1972 C/10 Cheyenne Super SWB. Restored, loaded, slammed. 1968 C/10 50th Anniversary LWB. Unrestored, stock, daily driver/work truck. RIP ElJay RIP 67ChevyRedneck RIP Grumpy Old Man |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Center City, MN, USA
Posts: 3,254
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All stock diffs are 10% different from the next one. So if you have a 3.08, the next gear would be a 3.4something (GM skipped this one in our trucks). 10% more is 3.73. Then 4.11. There even was a 4.56. My buddy had them in a '66 or so 4x4. That thing was a beast off the line but literally was done at 50 mph. The reason I bring this up is those 33" tires. Stock tires are approximately 28". Add 10% (2.8") to that (28") you get 30.8". 10% more of that is close to 33 inches. See where I'm going? If you have stock 3.08 gears and 33" tires, you effectively have a 2.5 or so final gear ratio. If you have stock 3.73s, you made them 3.08s. You would need GOBS of power to spin those tires with 2.5 or 3.08 gears. Long story short, I think you engine is fine. Get it all dialed in tune-up wise and drive it. You ain't ever spinning those tires on dry pavement.
__________________
'70 cab, '71 chassis, 383, TH350, NP205. '71 Malibu convertible '72 Malibu hard top Center City, MN |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fall River California
Posts: 2,026
|
Re: Not thrilled with power from new 350
Quote:
Thanks! My old engine would fry the same tires, I was hoping this one would be as strong if not stronger, it is at higher rpms. I'm not actually looking to spin the tires, just want decent power. I'll live with it, it's running better now, going to play around with it more when I get my new distributor.
__________________
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v655/aaronhero/ |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|