I've a lump port head 59cc chamber for a 292 I'm going to drop into a 1939 Dodge 2-door fastback which I started building for my grandson. Yesterday, I purchased custom roller rockers for the head. I want the car to be a "responsive" street car. Any advice regarding what else I might do would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. George

What are planning to do for cam, induction and exhaust?

What are you planning on using for a tranny and rearend?

gearing?

Thanks, Gearhead. You have asked questions I have in mind. I want to put in a 700 R4 or 200 R4 tranny. As to the others, cam, induction, exhaust, valves, springs, etcetera, what are some suggestions?

As far as cams go, the Comp Cams 260H or 268H would be a good choice for a street engine if you want good throttle response and a lot of low and midrange torque. Comp Cams also offers kits to go with the cams that have valve springs, retainers, locks, seals, and timing sets. Be sure to use an aluminum timing gear. Header and intake choice is kind of limited to Tom Langdon's cast headers, or Cliffod tube headers, intakes are pretty much either Offenhauser or Clifford. Sounds like a fun project. Good luck with it.

Thanks, Zeke, for your valuable input. I already have an Offy 3 X 1 intake. I'm going to look into the 260H and 268H Comp Cams. Definitely, I'll use Langdon's cast headers.

George
Inliner #5355

George,

I really don't have much input, as I'm not to the cam buying stage yet. But Delta Cams on the west coast will custom grind you a cam, if you supply info. If I'm not mistakek, even without a core, it's only like $150? You'd have to do some research, call around...or maybe someone else will chime in.

The 3x1 Offy will be a challenge to tune, but when it's done, I think the look and spread secondaries will be well worth it.

Any plans for mufflers?

Also, have to say welcome to the inline community, to a fellow Wisconsinite.

-Sam.

Hi, Sam. Thanks for the added info. Rhinelander, huh? I haven't been up there for ages. As to mufflers, I'm thinking Flowmasters, but I'm still waiting to hear some more suggestions from fellow inliners. This seems like a great group.

I see that Gearhead is a fellow state citizen, as well.

We have quite a few inliners from Wisconsin, surprisingly.

I'd look into Porter Mufflers. Kinda old school, and I personally enjoy the sound - might fit your project? They have a website, if you want to check it out.

-Sam.

You don't want flowmasters. Delta will grind you anything you want, even a cam with specs suspiciously similar to a 268 Comp, quickly and cheaply. And, you don't want flowmasters.

Go Pack Go...

or is that cheese...

anyway,

Tripower. What kind of carbs? progressive or direct linkage? ever try to set up muliple carbs before? not the thing to do if you are easily discouraged. Best to run progressive. Lucky for you Offy does make a progressive linkage setup for the 194-292 intake.

You need to consider where the cam is going to make its power and where it's likely going to want to cruise at, and gear the car accordingly. Running an overdrive really helps to tailor the setup so that it will launch good and still cruise economically. Cam and gearing are a package deal. At 268 gross duration, I would start to consider that a slight increase in stall speed may become necessary, but I would put it all together and try it out first.

Why flowmasters? what are you trying to get for a sound? it will not sound like a V8, you're short 2 sound waves...
My impression of flowmasters is that they are trying to make the car sound "tinny" to imply it has more compression, etc... but they just sound tinny to me...
If you don't want the bumble bee experience of true duals with glasspacks, then get a pair of elcheapo "tubo" mufflers from Farm & Fleet, etc... Try those out. If it still has too much buzz, add a crossover... If you want some depth to the sound, a pair of 3-4" diameter tips about 10-16" long can work well too...
All just my opinion of course

Thanks again, Sam and Gearhead. I like to hear opinions other than my own because I learn from others. I'm definitely going to consider different mufflers. As to cam choice, I want it to be assertive, and the initial plan I've made is for a four gear 200 R4.

George

If you use an overdrive tranny you need to be aware that the overall final gear ratio will be pretty high unless you use a lower rearend gear ratio.

(Final ratio= rearend ratio X overdrive)

3.73 X 0.67= 2.50:1 final ratio
4.11 X 0.67= 2.75:1 final ratio

This will work to your advantage since the lower gear ratio will help acceleration while the overdrive will keep the cruise RPM low and help fuel mileage. I'd personally recommend the 4.11 rear gear since it will get the engine RPM more in the cams recommended cruise RPM.

Cruise RPM in overdrive at 70 MPH:
3.73, 26" diamater tire= 2261 RPM
4.11, 26" diameter tire= 2491 RPM.

There are better mufflers than Flowmasters. Walker Sonic Turbos work well and are much cheaper than the F'Masters. They also flowed about 40% better when tested by Jim Hand.

Ron

Thank you, Ron. That's very interesting regarding the gearing. Right now, I have a Ford 9" with 3.50. Will this be a problem?

George

George,

I'd run it and see how it works. It should be a pretty good hiway gear and you can always drop the tranny into 3rd gear around town.

Ron

I agree - 3.50 may work fine, certainly don't spend any money until you see how you like it.

george, i have the 700r4 in my 53 2dr supercharged 270 gmc with 370 gears and 24in. tires. it works great! i think i would use the 200r4. its smaller with less rotational weight and plenty strong. i allso run duel flowmasters dam they sound good!

george,i have a 700r4 in my supercharged 270gmc 53 2dr. with 370 gears and 24 in. tires. it works great! i think i would go with the 200r4. smaller with less rotational weight and plenty strong. oh and i run duel flowmasters dam they sound so good!

George, I would reccoment trying it with what you have.

But I have to ask (as when I looked I didn't see you mention it) how tall are your tires?

It makes an immense difference in how the numerical gear ratio behaves.

Thanks, Nexxussian. I haven't yet purchased the tires that will go with the car. Any suggestions will be helpful.


George

George,

I guess I'll add my 2-cents worth.
I have a 292 with a Wolverine 270 dual-duration cam, water heated 3x2 offy intake with Holley/Webers, Stovebolt headers, 3:55 10 bolt, 30" tall radial whitewalls and a Z-28 T-5. I just got back from the Indy GoodGuys Nats and I got 20.5 MPG @ 60-65 MPH. My Tach was reading approx 1950rpms @ freeway speeds. Having a 20 gallon fuel tank gives me a good range. If I venture to 70 MPH, the mileage drops to about 17 MPG. Car show cruising it gets about 14 MPG. Over a year ago, I installed a Vintage Air system and found that it has a negligible effect on the mileage and performance. It's sure nice in the hot & humid summer days!
Oh ya, I have chambered pipes as my mufflers. Zero restrictions when cruising, great tone but don't follow me on the freeway if your trying to listen to your radio!

RapRap
1940 ChoppedChevyCoupe

Tire size: if you can drive this on good borrowed tires I'd do that first before making a purchase. Start with something that gives the right ride height (total, and front to rear), and if the engine is dead (have to downshift for a hill) at cruising the tire can be shortened (1", less won't do much), if it "buzzes" go taller.

I wont say that 3.73 or 4.X rears aren't nice with an OD transminssion because they do work really well, But at the same time look at some of the newer vehicles that are running 2.8x gearing with OD transmissions, these cars and trucks may have a smaller tire diamiter but if you look at some of the tables changing from a 26.5" tire to a 28" doesnt change all that much. The biggest effect when choosing gears is the cam and how it performs. Most of it isnt the 260 or 268 duration but more on the line of the LC of the cam will play the biggest part or the how things will best work especially if its a cruiser. An example is in my 67 C10, I have over 500HP, 4.10 gears, 30" tires, the cam I was running 236/240@.050 Adv 286/292 on a 110LC didnt like running at baseline cruise of 65-70mph, basically my RPMS wanted to be at around 2500+, yet I swapped the cam to a larger 239/242@050 adv 290/294 but on a 112LC and now I can cruise at 65 without the truck bucking or needing to be cleaned out from what appeared to be loading up. The LC of 112 was the key to just a tad better idle quality and lower rpm cruise speed. Generally anything 114 and higer is also going to take away most any of the hotrod sound, the 113LC is also often used for marine cams and real popular with NOS cams and usually will have more of a choppiness to them. Choosing the wider LC will give a wider powerband vs the shorter hotrod cam 110LC which is more defined as to where the powerband is.

Your next issue is the transmission, the 200R4 is an excellant trans, (the later the better), as the early ones had there issues just like the 700R4 transmissions. Running trips may be an issue to properly setting up the detent cable, the other part is lockup converter, being you wont be running an ECM to control them and the opertion of the lockup generaly you can get around this by some of these kits that are available, the kits basically allow themn to lockup in 3rd & 4th gear or 4th only, going from 3rd non lockup to 4th lockup is a major rpm drop. There are kits available for most 4barrel carbs for the detent but not for a tripower setup using singles, although GM did use single barrel carbs on a lot of the 6's and they where produced through some of the era of the 200 & 700R4 transmissions. One reason why n my sons 50 build we opted to use highway gearing and a built turbo 350 trans.

Typical pricing for a rebuilt 200/700R4 on Ebay is $1200 w/o mods.
Turbo 350 rebuilt with good shift kit & shipped $500 Plus most average used rearends out there have the gears usually around 3.08-3.55 which work good with these. The 3.55's not so much if you like cruising the highways.
Used 200R4 and 700R4 your on your own as they have been out a while and may or may not have been propery taken care of, taking them to the local trans shop for repairs usually around $1800

The reason the newer cars can get by with the high ration rearends is the computer controlled fuel injection. I personally recommend the 350 tranny with a 3.08-3.55 rear gear unless MOST of the driving is on the hiway. The gear ratios in the 200/700 trannys are terrible and the only thing you get is the overdrive. Plus...as you say, their expensive.

Ron

Personally ,
I think the 2004R has great gear ratios,much better than a TH350 or a TH400.
1st 2nd 3rd 4th Reverse
GM
Powerglide 1.76 1.00 1.76
TH350 2.52 1.52 1.00 1.93
TH400 2.48 1.48 1.00 2.00
200r4 2.74 1.57 1.00 0.67 2.07
700r4 3.06 1.62 1.00 0.70 2.29
4L60E 3.06 1.62 1.00 0.70 2.29
4L80E 2.48 1.48 1.00 0.75 2.08


I am interested in why the gear ratios are worse in a 2004R?

I agree about the 7004R,lousy gear spacing.

MBHD

Thanks for all the ideas, guys. Keep 'em coming. I really appreciate your helpful posts. The automatic transmission expert in town says the 700 R4 has better gearing than the 200 R4 and is much stronger. Langdon, however, recommends the 200 R4. I respect both men's opinions, but Langdon is a stovebolt expert. So, I still lean in his direction.

George

Depends on what "better" means.
Pulling stumps: tallest gear wins.
Driving on the street: not so much.

I have had friends build up nice 406 SBC's & run a 700R4, & they all came to the same agreement, the gear spacing sucks A$$ & they were running a real torquey 406 SB.

I personnaly do not noctice the big gear spacing when it comes to my Syclone w/a V-6 ,but then again my V-6 puts out 550 ft lbs of torque to push it through the the gear gaps.

On a normally aspirated inline 6 I would not use a 700R4,,,sure it takes off good in 1st,but then it would not push through 2nd all that great.

When running a normally aspirated inline 6 ,you need to keep the engine in the toruqe band more & w/the gearing of the 700R4 it will fall out of the torque band worse than it would w/a 200R4. All IMO.

For a plain jane daily driver,any trans will work fine,you just need to know what you are really looking for in a trans,performance,dive the freeway ,city only driving,,etc???.

I always advise a trans w/a OD,,,you can run pretty low gears & still cruise on the highway.

MBHD

I have to agree Hank on this one. Walt Pearce (an Inliner from Washington state) runs a '32 Chevy coupe with a 250 and a 2004R behind it. He says that the 2004R is lighter and has better ratios than the 700R4 and is plenty strong. His 250 has been dynoed at 250 hp at the rear wheels, so it's a pretty healthy motor. And by the way, I've noticed that there seems to be a little confusion about what these two transmissions are named. I recently did some research into shift kits and discovered that for whatever weird resaon, known only to God and GM, GM flipflopped the R and the 4 between the 200 and 700 transmissions. So they're the 200-4R and the 700-R4. OK, you're right, I'm a detail freak........lol

The 700R4 is a little over kill on a 6cyl even if it runs real good, there is also more loss than a 200R4. Look at Bowtie overdrives for any info on these overdrve transmission, there is some real good information on there sights about modifications. Another problem really frequent is the use of stall converters, choose the wrong one or get a cheapy and you will wish you just put a stock one in and in most cases on most mildly built setups that is all that is needed. The 200/700 transmissions both have a low first gear so unless your at the dragstrip there really isnt any need. There is more heresay about these transmissions due to inexperience and listening to others about there so called issues, and in most cases are usually self inflected. Unless you have driven a good hotrod and spent the time tuning and tweeking them as most transmissions are needed when putting behind something other than stock form and purpose. Being I am not that experienced on inline 6's at this point, my understanding is that you will see modest HP gains but the real increase will be in tourque when modding the engine, cam, compression, good cylinder head work, carburation, exhaust, etc. etc. This is the primary concern that is needed when you decide on which trans you decide to go with and how hard you plan to abuse it and how much you are willing to spend to make it last. I beat the snot out of my 700R4 with over 500HP & 550TQ and has held up well over several years, My tranmission has also been modified to handle this abuse. Cost of this trans was something like $1800, dont expect a stock transmission to handle more than about 300ft lbs of tourqe and constantly abuse it and expect it to last.

The 700 has higher torque capacity, larger case, heavier.
Here's the split between the 200 and 700, based on RPM change.

200R4: 2.78:1 1st gear recovers 56% shifting to 1.57:1 2nd gear, recovers 65% shifting to 1.00:1 3rd gear, recovers 67% shifting to .67:1 OD.

700R4: 3.06:1 1st gear recovers 53% to 1.63:1 2nd gear, recovers 61% to 1.00:1 3rd gear, recovers 70% to .70:1 OD.

The 700 has 10% more torque multiplication in 1st, and 4.5% higher RPM in OD.

200R4: 2.78:1 1st gear recovers 56% shifting to 1.57:1 2nd gear, recovers 65% shifting to 1.00:1 3rd gear, recovers 67% shifting to .67:1 OD.

700R4: 3.06:1 1st gear recovers 53% to 1.63:1 2nd gear, recovers 61% to 1.00:1 3rd gear, recovers 70% to .70:1 OD.


200r4 2.74 1.57 1.00 0.67 2.07
700r4 3.06 1.62 1.00 0.70 2.29
Must recalculate .;-)

MBHD

No, I don't think I'll bother - wouldn't want to keep you too busy.

Not sure what you mean,but you are into numbers I would think you would want to correct yourself & give us correct info .

Two cents thrown.

BTW,do you even own an inline? Lets hear about it.


MBHD

Which ratios are correct?
Depends on who you believe. I read about 30 different sites, and the numbers shown are the most frequently quoted. Many "big names" disagree with each other, and even factory literature rounds off numbers. I couldn't find any with the actual tooth counts (which is the basis for my transmission calculator programs: http://victorylibrary.com/TRI-4.htm etc.).

Here's a screenshot:

BTW,do you even own an inline? Lets hear about it.

Hmmm...
My neighbor's 15 year old son has a 1967 Dart 225 up on cinder blocks - I guess he's qualified to speak... but I'm not?
Is this the reason I'm always wrong - but I'll be right if I rush out and buy one?
My first in-line: 1960 Valiant 170 3-speed, 1966?
(not my first car: 1958 Impala 348 3 × 2 convert, 4 speed, 1964, or my first vehicle: 1949 AJS 500cc single, 1962).

George,

Getting back to the issue of tire size, you pick the rims and tires that you think will look good on the car, period.

Build the engine to suit the performance level that you are trying to achieve.

Gear it so that the car will behave like it should when you are going down the road.

There is more than one way to put it all together and make it work. Have you read Leo's book? have you done a performance build on anything before, so that you have some baseline experience to draw from?

Very helpful and much to think about. Thank you, guys. I've a lot to learn but this group has a lot of knowledge and has been extremely beneficial.

George
#5355

At the risk of hijacking this thread, please allow me to jump in with an observation and a question.

It would seem to me that when selecting a transmission to begin with, that one should consider not only the horsepower and the tire size, but the entire package: engine horsepower, torque characteristics, anticipated driving style, axle ratio and tire size, but also vehicle weight, windage, towing needs, useage, and the need for economy.

That said, it should be noted that no engineering process is based on absolutes; it is instead a series of compromises and trade-offs, and availability of off-the-shelf components is a factor because the strengths of one component can make up for weaknesses in another.

The debate between the 700R4 and the 2004R sounds to me much like the old arguments between close-ratio and wide-ratio four-speed manuals we used to hear years ago... Sure, the close-ratio four-speed was better for performance once you got it rolling, but the wide-ratio trans was simply easier and more pleasant to drive in realistic day-to-day situations. Massive engine torque and clutch-slipping made up for the lack of a low enough starting cog in the CR trans. A wide torque band made up for wide gear spacing in the WR trans.

To me, it all seems to come down to a realistic appreciation of vehicle usage as an entire package.

I'm about to start on a restoration/repowering of my '69 Chev 3/4 ton pickup, currently equipped with a 350/TH400, and with a 4.10 axle and 16" wheels. I plan on installing a turbocharged EFI 292 in front of a 700R4. This truck will continue to be a working truck, generally driven only when loads are to be hauled. Most loads are small, but it is not unusual for me to put 3000 pounds of rock or lumber on board, or to pull a 10,000 pound trailer.

I hope to acheive somewhat better economy when lightly loaded despite the non-aerodynamic shape, but don't want to give up the ability to handle heavy loads when necessary. I've picked the 700R4 for the overdrive, but also for the 3.06 first gear to help get this 5000 pound truck moving and to get the turbo spooled up. I've also picked a turbo with a 1.10 A/R because I don't want tremendous torque below the middle rev range or want large exhaust restrictions at higher RPM. Because of the 3.06 first and the 4.10 final, I'm not seeing a need for an elevated stall speed on the convertor. I also assume that the engine's mid-range boosted torque should allow it to handle the large speed variation between gears, making the truck reasonably quick and fun to drive when unloaded.

I think that all too often we give advice based on a single point of view, whether that be strip performance, bragging rights, grocery-getting, or cruising main street or whatever else and forgetting that vehicles will be expected to be many things at different times. Based on the entire package then, do my choices seem reasonable? Based on George's plan for a responsive 3000 pound (or so) street car, what seems reasonable?

Fire away, gentlemen...

the entire package
I agree, of course.
IMHO the 700 is the better choice for your project for the reasons you mentioned, especially torque capacity and 1st gear ratio.
Although both will handle any power a mild or warm L6 will produce with only a good selection of parts (typically from Corvette, V8, diesel etc. as to clutch pack), if you anticipate major mods in future the 200's safety margin gets thin and it's cheaper to start with the 700.

One range where the 200 has an advantage is where the original axle is numerically high (3.73), so the lower 200 1st gear is harmless and its steeper OD (.67 vs. .70) is helpful.
The reverse: a vehicle with a very tall axle (3.00) will need as much 1st gear as possible, and less OD so the 700 wins here.

More input, more data, more discussion = better choices.

I have a 41 Plymouth with a built 250 six (260 comp cam)and a 700R4 hooked to a 9" ford 3.50 gears and 27" tall tires. I built this car to drive. Last year pulling my roadster on a trailer from the convention in Iowa I avg 20 mpg. last weeek I attended the NTBA nationals in Lenoir North Carolina. Towing the roadster I averaged 14.2 Mpg and pulled many hills with 8 and 9 percent grades. The most important thing about either of the O D transmissions is getting the throttle pressure set properly.

Yeah, That's what I've been saying...

douge,
i would suggest starting a new thread. better for you and others to review later also.
the 1.10 a/r of the exh housing is probably a wise choice from my experience. give me more particulars in the new thread. tom

There were or are Co's that made a 1st & 2nd gear swap for the 700 that were the same gear ratios as the 200 ,,,( I wonder why?,,,could it be a better gear choice/ratio/gear spacing ? )

There are also Co's that make the same gear swaps for the TH350 & TH400,1st & 2nd gears,,,guess what those gear ratios are,,,,you guessed it ,,about the same as the 2004R,,,see a pattern here?

Also, a A/R of of 1.10 in a 292 will run like a pig ( depending on trim wheel also )At low RPMS,,,,Unless you are looking to get some boost pressure after 3500-4000 RPM,then thats a good choice of A/R..

Running a low first gear ratio will not put as much load on a your engine & will not get the turbo to spool up faster,actually just the opposite.

IMO

MBHD

( I wonder why?,,,could it be a better gear choice/ratio/gear spacing ? )

Yet again: substituting "my preference" for "better".
Vanilla is not "better" than chocolate regardless of how many people prefer it, or who they are.
Does anyone here understand what "subjective" means?

I don't think so

Just a guess: there are probably people here who would like to know what justification there could possibly be for ratios other than "as close as possible", because close is better.
Given: GM had some idea what they were doing, and their purpose in selecting parts for what would be essentially a main-stay auto transmission - why wouldn't they just provide closer ratios?
Because closer is not better, closer is different. "Better" depends on the entire vehicle.
Example: a diesel is designed to have good torque with not much peak power. Why bother? A gas engine can have equal torque, and even higher power.
Because diesel torque occurs at low RPM that you use all the time (which is not possible with a NA ignition engine), that's available in any gear without downshifting, that "feels like" a far bigger motor. For engines with a broad and low speed torque curve, losing RPM on shift is less important than covering the widest range of vehicle speeds in MPH.

But vanilla IS better than chocolate.

I would run whichever you can get cheaper and quicker. Remember to factor in driveshaft mods if required. We're cutting cheesecake with a chainsaw here. The differences in performance aren't going to be that noticeable with the power levels we are discussing here.

You can read it however you like.
You sure do like to argue I'll say & many others will agree..

The subject we are talking about pertains to what trans is better his 6 cyl ,not diesels & so on,you just like to ramble & ramble ,bla,bla,bla,bla.

You should get a six cylinder & understand what the torque curve is ,6 cyl's,need a close set of gears ,as not to drop out of the power band,as it does with the crappy gear spacing the 700 does,but you would not know because you do not even own any items we are discussing here,let alone any 6 cylinders.

Just keep reading,maybe you will learn some good info to pass onto us here.
I'm done,waste of time here.

MBHD

[quote=panic
Yet again: substituting "my preference" for "better".
Vanilla is not "better" than chocolate regardless of how many people prefer it, or who they are.
Does anyone here understand what "subjective" means? [/quote]

what the torque curve is ,6 cyl's,need a close set of gears ,as not to drop out of the power band but you would not know because you do not even own any items we are discussing here,let alone any 6 cylinders.

You're right - what's the point. After saying something that ridiculous (every part of that statement is wrong) why would I explain... again.

Thank you, maybe we can get some good info now if your quiet.

get some good info?

Please - take a moment, and explain exactly what mistakes I made.

i have run 2 different 292/ 700r4 combo's. the 1st gear of the 700r4 is too steep for me. if i could get a 200r4 that was built tough, that would be the trans for me.

another good option is to use a th350C and bolt a USGEAR V2OD unit to it. tougher and good ratios with a lockup convertor. tom

the 1st gear of the 700r4 is too steep for me

I know what you mean, the stock 1st gear of my Sportster is way too steep for me, too "nervous", across the intersection and shift, so I "de-tuned" it by raising the axle.
If you never use it in traffic most people are happy with a close ratio box, since the biggest compromise is less 1st gear torque multiplication - and you don't see it frequently enough to be annoying. I drove an L6 250 4 speed Camaro back and forth from Long Island to upstate New York every week (450 miles R/T), and it was a pleasure on Route 80 but a misery in town, swapped it out for a TH350 (I got rid of the A833 in my Belvedere in favor of a 727 for the same reason): if you get stuck in George Washington Bridge traffic on Labor Day even once (10 miles uphill at 1 mph, stopping and starting every 5 feet) you'll wish you had compound low so your left foot could take a break.

GM makes 6 speed auto trans now for a while ,otherwise why not just stay w/a 4 speed w/large gear spacing..,,,why,well,,, to cover the torque bands closer.

Why do they make CVT trans,,to keep the engines in there peak torque bands.

BTW,,,I never like using a close ratio 4 spd trans"(was not happy"),the take off is just too weak for small 6 cylinders.

Wide ratio was better suited for day to day driving & 1/4 mile racing.

The Muncie 4 spd was a wide ratio,but nothing like the gear spacing of a 700.
Approx same gear spacing range as a TH350 ,,but had 4 gears to fill in the gaps closer instead of just 3 gears..
Again,IMO.

MBHD

How about a pole,

(1)
who would like a auto trans w/wide gear spacing,it would be able to pull tree stumps,take off great in first gear but fall on it's face upon every gear change (fall out of the torque band)& get worse gas mileage.

(2)
Or a trans with not so low a first,does not take off quite as fast as the other trans mentioned, gear spacing is closer ,engines stays in peak torque band ,accelerates faster & gets better gas mileage.

(3)
have a trans that gets the car from point A to point B & really no performance @ all or gas mileage A.K.A. P.G. just kidding,they have they place also.

Just curious.

Thanks


MBHD

M.B.H.D.
I think your above comment is rude and out of line. You are interested in drag racing and I will agree with you that close gear ratios might be better for that purpose but you are short sighted if you think that that is the only way to go, I don't know how many inlines you own or have built but I have been playing with inlines since the 50s, I have raced them, drove them on the street, pulled trailers with them, and I know for a fact that different setups require different ratios, As an example your cam choice, weight of vehicle,and or desired use all play a part in transmission selection. I realize that you think the 200 is the best choice for you and that is fine but it is not the best choice for everyone and this is what most people have been trying to tell you for several months. If you are the only person with good info then why don't you sit down and publish a book with the exact details on how to build the best possible vehicle for every purpose, it would make you very rich. You have some good knowledge to share on this board but you are not the absolute king of six cylinders to my knowledge, so lighten up. Also I have been wondering are you even a paying member of Inliners International or do you just use our Bulletin Board?

I am sorry that the rest of you had to read this but I felt it needed to be said.

M.B.H.D.

Thank you, maybe we can get some good info now if your quiet. [/quote]

This is the comment I am talking about

Foolish error on my part, and not helpful.

Hank was referring to the wide ratio muncie versus the TH350 when he made that statement, both of which have approximately the same 1st gear ratio.

Ooppsss - thanks, and yes, that makes more sense.
Yup -
I apologize, and will remove the mistake.

This is the comment I am talking about [/quote]

Don't understand what this means??

Your comment about drag racing, my car is not a drag race car it is a street car,I never want to make a race only car.

What I am into is fast street cars ,that gets good/desent gas mileage & can take long trips w/it.

I never said I know everything about 6 cyl's.

Not sure what you are talking about rude & out of line??

It sounds like you don't want me to post @ all here.

I have been a paid inliner before a couple times.. So what does that matter?
I have been into 6's since 1982.

I first started membership in about 1984.

I do not have any free time to work on my projects so I just hang out here,if that's OK w/you.

At least I have 6 cyl projects going on & talk about it & post pics when I do get something done.

All IMO,,which means it's my opinion & it also means,it's not the law,I am not the king of 6's.

Hank I am talking about your comment to Panic at the bottom of page 5. I do not want anyone to stop posting here this is why I feel that we should be polite even if we disagree with what is being said. You have shared a lot of good info but you appear to believe that your way is the only way.
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings but I was just stating my opinion.

big bill,

I think you are picking on the wrong person here.

I have never ever said my way is the only way.

I will state my opinion ,I have tried many many different combos.

I never ever said the 200 is the best 6 cylinder,or a 250 for that matter.
Mostly all of my experience is on 250's

I do not see that I am the impolite person here.

Like I said,I will state my opinion,& even try to reinforce my opinion,especially when I am concerned to trying to help another inliner here,if someone has another idea,that's fine, I do not argue w/that person,I just do not like personal attacks torwards myself.

As far as my post goes sorry if you are offended by it,but it seems many people here feel the same that person,including the moderators & administrators,he just likes to stir up the pot,ramble on,give for the most part useless info,& what authority/actual real world experience on inline 6 cylinders does he have,,0,,,he seems to have problems on some other forums as well, he also seems to be an unhappy person & brings the greef over here as well.
Snyed sarcastic remarks are endless.

Also again,my way is not the only way,you can listen to me or you cannot ,either way it does not matter.

I just try to be as helpfull as I can, as so the new guy does not spend thousands of dollars as I have to see what combo works & what does not & all inbetween.


You guys can delete this post,, I spoke my peace.
Thank you

Sincerely MBHD

824 views...seems to have garnered some interest!

mbhd, I agree - "that guy" is a jerk. I was on the receiving end of his comments a couple months ago. I said it then and I'll say it again - I think its time for him to go.

Always refreshing to see those responsible for rude comments defending themselves ("I never did that, I'm a nice person"), and using, again, personal remarks (""that guy" is a jerk") to do so.
Please - take a moment, and show me exactly when & where I ever made a comment like that?

Hypocrisy is also a favorite: complaining about "Snyed sarcastic remarks", while making one "he seems to have problems on some other forums as well, he also seems to be an unhappy person".

What else? It's a long list.
"the new guy does not spend thousands of dollars"
1. is that relevant?
2. and he knows this because.... how? I made no such statement, and how could he possibly know anything about me other than what I said? In point of fact, R&D is "my day job", and I've spent far more than that - but it has nothing to do with whether you should listen to me - or are we buying subscriptions?
3. "ramble on,give for the most part useless info". This one is easy - he's referring to factually accurate information that is completely beyond his competence such as the entire F head thread (which is why he didn't instantly attack it). How does he reconcile the statement that I talk too much with his other statement that I don't contribute?
4. there are also easily 20 other remarks that disagree, find fault etc. with things I simply did not say ("you would not know because you do not even own any items we are discussing here,let alone any 6 cylinders") - but this distinction was overlooked in the zeal to criticize.
5. "get a six cylinder & understand what the torque curve is ,6 cyl's,need a close set of gears ,as not to drop out of the power band", "A gas engine can have equal torque
,not true/A.K.A. wrong " I'll just leave those hang in the breeze - those here with some engineering background already know what's wrong with it.

Now, we could move on to how "rude", and "bad manners", actually mean in effect saying things you don't like - but this isn't really a discussion, is it? It's a social group, practicing xenophobia.

Hey Panic, remember that the first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole is to quit diggin'

Meaning: "when me and my friends want to say unpleasant things about you - you should agree with us"?

We should just have a poll here to see if you should be here or not.


MBHD

NO, Panic. What I mean to say is that anytime there is controversy about how things are said (not what is said) you are generally involved. Take that to mean that I find you just generally obnoxious.

Hey MBHD My vote is to boot Panic

M.B.H.D.,

The useful torque band range of the engine in rpm for your referencing engine would be very helpful in this discussion. Of course camshaft, head porting, valve sizing, intake and exhaust configurations are important.

I agree,all are important areas to consider when building a engine & selecting good gearing for a particular application.
Every combo is different also no two engines will be exactly the same.


MBHD

M.B.H.D,

More specifically, for what engine rpm operating band are you optimizing the gearing in this discussion?

We need to know the camshaft specs,compression ratio.

As far as I know, George does not have a cam picked out,we do not know the weight of the car,or rear gear ratio.




MBHD

Hi, everyone. Thanks for all the ideas. I still don't have a cam picked out because I'm busy fixing other projects. I suspect the car's going to weigh 3,500 lbs when finished. It has a Ford 9" pumpkin with 3.50:1 gears. I want to drop the 292 in its engine bay because I want this car to be different from other SBC street rods but still have some grunt.

George
#5355

Do you want to be able to hear the cam lope a little, stock smooth idle,,,or?? So far I am leaning on a camshaft duration between 210- 218 range so far.

You will be just under or right @ 9:1 compression ratio?

MBHD

Hi, Hank. Is the 9:1 compression ratio met, using stock pistons? I'm thinking of using flat marine pistons but I don't know if I really need them since the vehicle is going to be my grandson's street rod, a car with attitude. I don't mind a lope.

George
#5355

Hi George,
we need to know what stall or what type of performance you are looking for.

Good take off,,mileage will suffer a bit around town,but not on the open highway w/a lockup converter.

Low stall,does not take off as good ,better mileage in town driving.

Any info you are hoping to get out of this car is info needed for get a better overall good performing package.

Soo,,basically,,,we need as much info as you can please on what you hope to have.
This was mentioned already,this is for a 194 -250 but Comp will grind whatever you want for a 292.
http://www.compcams.com/Cam_Specs/CamDetails.aspx?csid=61&sb=2

Not sure you feel about running a solid cam,(need to adjust rockers every once in a while) They do make more power & are a faster acting cam,faster ramping on the lobes,& so-on.
Well in general you can get away w/more duration w/a soilid grind.
About 10 degrees you can get away with.

Example: a solid cam with 220 degrees duration will idle about the same as a hydraulic cam with 210 degress duration.

Thanks

MBHD

MBHD, Your 220 solid vs 210 hydraulic example above does not make sense to me. Seems backward. If the 220 solid has faster acting lobes then it should act like an even longer duration (say 230) hydraulic slower acting lobe.

What am I missing? The solid duration figure assumes zero lash?

As a general rule of thumb, for your typical street setup, it is typically recommended by multiple cam manufacturers and turbo installers that I have spoken with that a turbo cam should have a max of about 220 @.050 and an LSA of about 114. That should give you some numbers to shop around with.

strokersix,
I am not that good @ explaining camshaft traits. But I have tried more agressive soild camhafts over the hyd cams I have used & could always get by w/more duration on the solids. More streetable.

I believe that is why they made Rhodes lifters,people did not want to adjust there solid lifter cams that often,but they wanted the top end power still.

I have had sets of those also BTW (Rhodes lifters) ,,trying to make good streetable power,having good top end,& desent vacuum.

When all the trials I have had with camshafts,it was worth it for me to have to adjust the valve lash once in a while to get the power I was looking for while still getting desent vacuum (I got all of this with solid lifter camshafts)

I said it correctly though. It's not backwards.

If you have a soild camshaft of 220 degress duration & a hyd cam with 210 degrees duration, w/all other specs being the same,lift,lobe center line etc,,they (the camshafts will idle close to the same as eachother. Pull the same amount of vacuum.

But,,,you will make more power & have a quicker reving engine w/a solid lifter camshaft.

Therefore ,you can get away w/a more agressive camshaft profile w/a solid lifter camshaft..

Soild lift cams has faster ramp rates,& solid roller camshafts have even a faster ramp rate than a solid cam.

Another thing you can do w/soild lifter camshafts is you can play around w/the valve lash,,,to give you less bottom end,more top end etc,sorta like adavancing or retarding your camshaft w/an offset crank key or the three way keyed gear sets or the fully adjustable ones that are made in Argentina IIRC?

BTW,,,
I did not know George was looking to turbocharge his 292????
I thought it is a N.A. engine.

I must have missed it.

MBHD

Duration figures are tappet lift, not valve opening. Solid must take up lash before the valve opens, hydraulic opens the valve right away. This would explain how a 220 @.050 solid will idle like a 210 @.050 hydraulic.

Do I have that right?

I give up.
Any one else care to explain? I'm no good @ this. Sorry

MBHD

I think that is a fairly close comparison. If both cams, a hyd. and solid cam have 220 @.050 duration, you would check each with zero lash. At the lobe they would appear to be the same with 220 @.050, but once you would add the lash to the solid cam, it will loose some amount of duration, because of the slack you have now introduced into it. The hydraulic cam will still retain its original "as checked" duration readings, since it was checked in the same manner of lash that it runs in. Hope that helps explain a little better....