That 270 Magnum is a mean-sounding son of a gun. I ran a pair of L98 heads on my 40 Ford coupe streetrod's 355" SBC,along with a Comp HE hyd roller cam and S&P tune port set-up with Big Mouth runners and intake. That thing ran like a big block,with monster midrange torque. I had a chance last week to pick up a pair of freshened-up L98 heads for $400. The only reason I didn't buy them was I was a little concerned with the 58cc chambers and angle plugs. Now that I think about it,the compression would have probably been ok but the angle plugs were the bigger worry. Just wasn't sure I could keep my present Hedman headers. I'll probably regret not buying them,though. Clint Hooper H&H Custom,owner 1969 El Camino ProTourer 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene's General Restoration Parts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi Clint. > This engine is really not what I had planned, but I needed something that > ran. It is basically parts from two engines I was working on. The 6 inch rod > short block was intended for my 67 Malibu and was going to be topped with 67 > double hump heads w/ 2.02's and lots of porting and a big solid flat tappet > cam. My intent was a sleeper looking engine with Chevrolet script valve > covers, factory air cleaner, original accesory drive and all. The aluminun > heads were originally on the 350 I had in an S-15. Honestly it may only stay > together for this season and then it may get some better aluminum heads and > the bigger solid cam I already have. Then the L98 heads (which I drilled > steam holes in) will be going on a 400 based engine destined for my S-15. > > I bought my 69 Chevelle last fall and it supposedly ran and drove but the > trans was mysteriously bad in it when it got here hence the ''well I have it > apart let's put something that runs in it thinking'' so I built a Turbo 350 > with all the good stuff and stuck this small block together with a smaller > cam since the heads are stock other than pocket porting, .050 higher keepers > and better springs. > > The present cam is actually a Comp Cams X-treme 4x4 270 hyd flat tappet cam > which is a bit bigger on the exhaust side than the car version. Rhoades > lifters and comp's roller tip 1.52 rockers. I take it to about 6500-7000. > While I agree the new dual plane might run as good, I like the look of a > single plane and by using a Torker II it has smaller ports than the victor > even with some port match grinding it is very responsive from idle to > redline. Plus Torker IIs can be found all day long for around $100 > > I agree that the solid flat lifter is better, I have to watch every penny > when I build something so my engines tend to be budget minded although I > spend the bucks on internal stuff. That is why I think a guy should go with > the L98 heads, not only are they lighter, they can be bought right > especially when you can buy an intake cheaper or maybe already have one. The > vortecs are a good deal too though, but the L98's already have screw in > studs and use a regular small block valve spring. All in all the cost is > about the same. > > My 388 project will be running vortecs and a GM dual plane since I got a > good deal on the parts, but it will not be built as a powerful engine, it > will be more stock and will most likely end up in my 55 chevy pick-up so I > can drive it alot. Or maybe it will go in the 67 or 70 Chevelle...decisions, > decisions!!! > > Gene > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Clint Hooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "The Chevelle Mailing List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:43 PM > Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Vortec heads > > > > As you mentioned,Gene,a Holley Street Dominator is basically 70's > > technology. Edelbrock's Performer RPM and Air Gap dual planes will > > outperform a Victor single plane up to around 7,000 rpm. One of these dual > > planes would be a very good match for your L98 heads. Just curious but > > what > > kind of cam & valvetrain are you running? What kind of revs are you > > spinning > > the motor to? > > Running solid rollers on a pure street car is just asking for trouble. I'm > > not going to spin my 350 high enough to need them and the need to pull the > > intake to inspect them for excessive wear every 3-5000 miles isn't worth > > it > > to me. With a good matched valvetrain,hydraulic rollers will work very > > well > > up to 6,000 rpm or so. That's all my engine combination requires for a > > daily > > driver. FWIW,I would be more inclined to run solid flat tappet lifters > > before solid rollers because I know they would be more reliable. If the > > hydraulic lifter quality nowadays wasn't so hit & miss,I would definitely > > prefer them. If the cam deal I'm working on falls through,a Comp or Lunati > > hyd flat tappet cam will probably be bought. > > Clint Hooper > > H&H Custom,owner > > 1969 El Camino ProTourer > > 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger > > http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Gene's General Restoration Parts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >> Hi, > >> I have also ran a Holley Street Dominator II dual plane (patterned after > >> the LT-1 from early 70's) with them and the Torker breathes much better, > > or > >> at least doesn't lose bottom end. I know current vogue is dual planes, an > >> open plan (conservitivly sized) is going to run better numbers. > >> > >> Not sure what my curve is but I have always believed that a more > > efficiant > >> engine won't need alot of advance. I run the best pump gas I can get > >> locally. > >> > >> The Edlebrock heads are also a good choice but why go with heavy > >> hydraulic > >> rollers? Seems like for the money a solid roller would make more power? > >> > >> Gene > > > > > > > > >
