<VV> The 304 cam's intent!

[BobHelt at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/23/2008 1:21:35 PM US Mountain Standard Time,  
tony.underwood at cox.net writes:

I'm not  so sure that the open heads  
> are worse than as delivered 95  heads.

They're partly to blame for the BIG static timing increase and  they do 
present inefficiency what with lighting the charge from one side of  that bowl and 
waiting for it to walk across the rest of the chamber by which  time the 
piston is already getting set to drop down the hole before the entire  charge has 
even finished burning.    Lighting the charge earlier to  compensate for the 
bowl chamber's (relatively speaking) inefficient flame  travel is partly the 
cause of the detonation issue that late turbos have to  deal with.   And, it has 
been my experience that late turbos tend to  ping worse than early turbos, had 
dealings with 'em both.  

Now,  IF you have access to some good premium fuel you can deal with it well  
enough...   ;)  


tony..     



Tony,
All of the Corvair turbo engines used the same static timing setting of 24  
deg. And the centrifugal adv was very similar. So I disagree with your  
contention that the open chamber heads were partly to blame for the big static  
timing increase.....as you said above.
 
In addition you seem to be agreeing with my position that the open chamber  
heads were OKay (really better) as long as you had premium fuel (which was  
exactly the situation during the middle 1960s).  Is that your  intention?
Regards,
Bob Helt



**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for 
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.      
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)