Not bad for me, do a search for "Ls1 lid on an lt1" I made a post when i finished it.
Yes those are 1.7 RR
You will need , rockers, springs, pushrods, gm guide plates, 7/16 studs,AND you have to modify your valve covers to make them fit!! They are too tall and too wide to clear the stock valve covers , you much cut and hammer to make them fit,

Good luck

 

Thank You.

 

StrockerAce,
So you think it is possible to see some real gains going with the cam Lloyd had you spec for my Impala. I am sure the tighter LSA is for low end torque for the weight of my car but why the smaller duration cam? I just want to make sure its worth going through the swap. The heads are on and will be going to the track with the CC503 still in the car just to see what happens. I do have some questions about the cam but dont want to give specs here.
HVY SS

 

Not sure if this has been brought up, but when racing from a roll weight becomes much less significant. Also if I'm not mistaken the "306" grind has been around alot longer than 10 years.

 

Yes there is more too it that duration numbers.... your heavy car doesn't need a big cam to run. Just e-mail me on it. I've had many guys wonder how will this new cam will work, or their engine builders tell them their cam will not work... next thing you know motor is on the dyno and that naysayer engine builder is buying cams from me.

I think I remember those specs and that cam you have will make more TQ from your stall to 7000rpm (or wherever you shift) compared to the CC503. The regular LE2 would make a lot more top end HP but heavy cars need more midrange TQ so we sacraficed a little power up top (not much maybe 5-10) to get you more TQ. Your still going to see 15-20hp more than the CC503 with a "smaller" cam.

Weight always matters. F=MA , with the same F less M always helps. When did physicis not matter?

Bret

 

At my weight 4460 with me in the car rolling into it wont work. I stall to 3400 and it gives me consistant 1.7 and some 1.6 60ft times. Rolling into it off the line just blows the tires off.
HVY SS

 

Of course it matters. However that equation is much more significant when accelerating from a stop. If you are going to be thorough you should also include wind resistence.

 

I do like those 100 mph punches against the 'Stangs. The ol' Impy must have a better Cd than a Fox bod, because they poop out early, long before the Impy terminal velocity.

Ya'll getting me confused, SS. That's sometimes a short trip, but not usually when physics is concerned. A = F/M is more important when launching than when punching from a roll? Please explain.

 

Simply put, it takes more force to move a mass that is potential energy than it does if that same mass is kinetic energy. Potential energy in this case has to overcome more friction (ie tire/drivetrain) as well which requires more force. The larger the mass the more friction force has to overcome?
Are you saying because it was a "short trip" then wind resistence doesn't come into the equation?

 

well if you think about newton's laws a object at rest remains at rest and a object in motion stays in motion.

I thought terminal velocity only related to free falling objects.

oldsstroker: what's Cd?
-b

 

Cd=coefficent of drag

 

Wut up HYYSS...good to see some more SS (B-body guys) on here..heck, Brett is doing a Cam for my 96 as well, but going 396 route will also have LE2 set-up and ported/polished intake manifold...I am curious as to how your new set-up is going to roll...I see you post on the SS forum..I am Rod HarriSS on there.

 

4-RILLA
Love it so far. Will be going to the track Friday barring rain to see how it does. Will post on the SS forum on how she did.
HVY SS

 

If we are talking about acceleration of mass (or change in velocity divided by change in time) initial velocity, be it 0 or 100 mph, doesn't matter. What does matter is resistance to that acceleration, friction and aero drag, as you said.

Starting from rest there is very little aero drag unless there is a headwind. There is very little tire rollling friction, which is pretty much proportional to speed. That all leads me to believe that it takes more force to accelerate a vehicle from 100 mph to 130 mph than it does from zero to 30 mph if we assume the same acceleration.

Typically, a car with good bite gets it's highest acceleration in first gear, especially right after launch. This all seems to follow Newton's Second (F=M*A or A=F/M) because the "F" is tire thrust at the road which is wheel torque divided by tire radius. Max wheel torque is a product of engine flywheel torque x first gear ratio x axle ratio x torque converter multiplication (on an automatic). IOW, overall gear ratio times engine torque = axle torque (minus driveline losses).

A computer simulation of a 15.5 sec 90 mph stock Impala SS showed the following gs.

1st gear: .57g @ launch to .42 g @40 mph
2nd gear: .37g @ 1-2 shift to .18 g @ 80 mph
3rd gear: .17g at 2-3 shift to .12g @ 90 mph.

FWIW: My "short trip" was in reference to me, not the car. IOW, if one is easily confused, it implies that they may be very close to the border between the state of unconfusion and the state of confusion. It's a "short trip" for them to cross the "state line". That's just my way of describing a "state of mind". Sorry for the confusion. Words are fun to play with.

I was attempting a little subtle humor, SS, in my disagreement with your interpretation. Very little, I guess. No offense intended.

If I really thought someone had the wrong idea about something, and they were being pi**y about it, I might suggest they suffer from CRI (Cranial Rectal Inversion). Not the case here.

I suppose terminal velocity could be the max speed any object achieves, whether the force propelling it be Ma Nature's gravity or an engine. That's how I look at it anyway.

The way all this dribble relates to the topic is that the engine needs to produce more torque in the rpm range it spends the most time if we are trying to increase acceleration.

 

Not offended at all. I apprecitate the info.
But how fast were these two going? Sorry, but I'm still not convinced that weight of a given mass plays just as much a factor from a roll than from a stop.