<VV> The 304 cam's intent!

[tony.underwood at cox.net]

---- BobHelt at aol.com wrote: 
>  
> In a message dated 7/22/2008 10:08:05 PM US Mountain Standard Time,  
> tony.underwood at cox.net writes:
> 
> Sure the  180 turbo wasn't really in the same category as the other hipo  
> cars,
> >but the Corsa was doing ther best it could with what it had  available.
> 
> 
> ...too bad they had to saddle it with those mediocre  heads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tony, 
> I beg to differ. 
>  
> I believe that they chose the open chamber heads purposefully for two  
> reasons.
>  
> First, and most important, is that they just plain got more horsepower  
> (torque actually) from the open chamber heads.


If this was indeed true, why do the people who modify these engines like to go with different heads, such as the 95hp heads which work out quite nicely on a late turbo engine?     I have some small personal experience in that area and I won't be running those bowl chamber heads again.   


  
> AND, secondly
>  
> They had really high octane gas available (and cheaply) to support these  
> heads.

I agree there.   However, it seemed for all the world that if they fitted detonation-prone heads to the engine, logic would have suggested that there would be more issues than with another head that would make as much (if not more) power and not be so prone to detonation, regardless of how cheap hi-test might have been then.     

Then again, GM used to do a few other things that didn't seem to make all that much sense unless it was simply for expedience.   

One example is that odd initial ignition timing setting for turbo engines, which isn't necessary if heads with better chambers are used.      

Myself, I fondly recall the days of Sunoco-260, when these issues weren't issues...  


tony..