It's easy to do money on engines.the question is.How fast do you want to go? You will have to factor in some machining costs in that you may need re-bores and crank polishing or grinding, plus new shells, pistons, rings and cam bearings, which isn't cheap any where. fit new timing set, most go for the Cloyes double roller/ sprocket type and you'll need to get the engine balanced and fit a new Harmonic balancer.That will get you well over 400 horsepower! May work better with a spread of sparks during the firing cycle but I never bothered. Use them, and heavy duty pushrods that match the cam and will work with a higher ratio rocker.įor ignition I found that the Mallory dual point with out vacuum advance works absolutely fine without the need for MSD. ![]() I'm not sure if the 62 heads had threaded rocker studs or not offhand, but I know the Edelbrock heads DO. A set of new lifters will definitely benefit the valve train but keep to the hydraulic type if you dont want to make some changes in the valve train area. It'll work fine with your stock transmission and rear gears.That cam found its way into the tri-power 421's and a lot of other HO engines. Start with a lighter head and intake section.Įdelbrock performer, or performer RPM intakes on top of a pair of Edelbrock performer RPM heads, a set of forged or Hyper-eutectic pistons(quieter and with better heat expansion properties IMO) a studded bottom end, a set of Eagle rods, a set of 1.75 higher ratio roller rockers and a 250 to 280 degree cam which is near enough to the number 68 grind cam I favour. What's your budget and do you intend to lighten the car? So.the jump has been made to square bore carb and manifold.you have 62 Heads, with big valves i.e., 2.11 intake and 1.77 exhaust valves.has any porting and or port matching and/or flow testing been done? It isn't possible to overcarb your engine since the Rochester will only flow the required amount you need at any time.Pontiac did make aluminium HO intakes.part number 483674 is a good one to get but will be rare and expensive to buy. The stock Rochester will supply all your fuel you will want up to 750 cfm reliably.VERY reliably, based on the Pontiac stock intakes produced at the time. So, for my money, a manifold somewhere between the two, that is to say, a good torque generator and one that will respond in the lower rev ranges, and one that will make use of better heads, cam and carb. ![]() That's a given.The Edelbrock Torker Manifold was in the high performance manifold category, intended for lighter weight cars which accelerated quickly through the lower rpm ranges, and had the internals to rev to higher rpm levels around the 6,000 mark, and flowed better through the higher rev ranges. Now if you have a car that weighs in at around the 3,500 lb mark then you need low rpm torque to get you off the line efficiently. You will find that the stock performance manifolds work best on engines with8- 9.5:1 compression ratios and usually rev to around the 5,000-5,500 range, i.e., Pontiac. I would adventually like to have 400-475 horsepower. Any pointers or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Is this a good decision or to much carb and will this carb work well with the edelbrock performer rpm manifold? I was thinking of putting in a Holley 770 cfm street avenger also. Also, I assume the carb is a little undersized as I know Pontiac put 750 q jets in as a stock carburetor. ![]() Should one or both of these be changed? I have heard a lot of people say the orginal torkers didn't work well, and to go with an edelbrock performer rpm. It has an edelbrock torker manifold and a Holley street avenger 670 carburetor on it now. I am still trying to figure out the engine vin number very tough to read in the rear of the passenger side. ![]() I know it is not a numbers matching engine as it has wt stamped for an engine code and it has 62 heads so I'm pretty sure its a 68 to 70 engine if I where to guess. At higher rpms everything seems fine, it will even squeal the tires between first and second. I just put a 3:73 rear end and it has the original automatic 3 speed transmission in it. The take off seems a bit sluggish and has a hard time spinning the tires even. The question I have is it seems to run ok, but not like I remember of a 1968 I once rode in. I am a new member to this site as I just recently was able to purchase my dream car that I wanted for years.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |