Tim, the lower compression of the 351 heads is a challenge that I may try to
overcome, it is definatly not the goal. My reading up to this point
indicates I should have 8.7 to 1 with the stock heads & 8 to 1 with stock
351w heads. I also understand the heads can be milled at least 0.040". I
have yet to figure out what that would do for my compression ratio. I think
there is also room to deck the block 005-010". I would like to see
compression at 9 to 1. I got the heads off the 260 yesterday, its time for
some measurement to see if this is a workable plan.
BTW, I got lot of input that a 302 is the way to go, I'm sure that is
true, but I like the idea of using the original engine, & the idea is to get
a little HP in a reliable engine without spending a lot of money. OK, so I'm
cheap, but heck if I wanted a faster car with a 5 speed that handeled
better I'd forget the whole thing & buy a Mustang ;-).
Doug Leithauser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronak, TP (Timothy)" <Timothy.P.Ronak@akzo-nobel.com>
> Doug,
> Dropping the compression on a small cube engine is probably not a great
idea
> as the engines typically benefit from increased compression when you go to
a
> larger RV type cam. If you want to try the lower compression ratio
consider
> the comp cams hi-energy cams that play with valve timing by closing the
> intakes earlier to increase compression slightly. They were developed for
> the SMOGGER engines to provide a little more power with the OEM lower
> compression ratios. The idea cranking compression is 185-190 lbs.
Personally
> anything below 9.0:1 is too low unless you plan on running some form of
> forced induction or BIG nitrous system.
|