Author Topic: Small intake port head with a " better" combustion chamber and 2.02 intakes? (Read 6710 times)

blykins · « **Reply #30 on:** March 13, 2025, 04:43:53 AM »

Hydraulic roller?

Barry_R · « **Reply #31 on:** March 13, 2025, 08:38:46 AM »

One of each

Solid roller on 469 with Victor
Had roller on 482 with RPM

Both pump gas
Surprisingly similar results

Two engines don't make a trend - but it's a start...

mbrunson427 · « **Reply #32 on:** March 13, 2025, 11:09:38 AM »

We have seen the same results from 2 TFS combos as well. My 465" engine, and a friends 482".

I'm uncertain what is being done differently to get them to keep pulling, I'm suspecting it's the cam design.

blykins · « **Reply #33 on:** March 13, 2025, 11:17:27 AM »

How much duration split are you guys running? My cams for TFS (and a lot of other FE heads) usually start at about a 10° split and go up from there depending on the rpm and horsepower. The exhaust port is at about a 68-69% ratio of the intake port.

News:

Author Topic: Small intake port head with a " better" combustion chamber and 2.02 intakes? (Read 6710 times)

blykins

Re: Small intake port head with a " better" combustion chamber and 2.02 intakes?

Barry_R

Re: Small intake port head with a " better" combustion chamber and 2.02 intakes?

mbrunson427

Re: Small intake port head with a " better" combustion chamber and 2.02 intakes?

blykins

Re: Small intake port head with a " better" combustion chamber and 2.02 intakes?