'67 El Camino H/SA

goinbroke2 · 10-24-2017, 11:16 AM

Dave, you're running a Cleveland though and milled or not the open chambers have slow flame propagation and poor mix. I would think that would add a new dimension into the whole thing compared to a smaller chamber chev.
Compared to a Windsor, the bigger chamber Cleveland liked more timing all through the rpm from what I remember too.

For comparison sake, I built a 289 with 260 heads and it was quickest with 28*. Small efficient chamber required little advance (didn't breath worth squat even with the 1.78/1.48 valves put in) Would nose over around 6000 regardless of cam/carb/exh/etc but man it would go from idle to 5800 like a fuel motor!

Dave Noll · 10-25-2017, 04:49 AM

I had an 11:1 351 Windsor in my car before I decided to try Stock. With the timing at 36 it slowed .2 on 110 Sunoco. I raced it @ 40. It had 215lbs cranking compression.

goinbroke2 · 10-25-2017, 06:55 AM

Wow Dave, that's abnormal for a sbf. I'm assuming you were using 69-70 351W heads? I had a 2 4bbl 302 I built which liked 38* which seemed a lot, when I pulled it apart the pistons were washed clean around the circumference of the piston and the centre was black. I chalked it up to something I did wrong while porting and chamber work and that was why I needed 38. 40 though, that to me seems pretty high.

Course they all ain't the same are they? Lol!

Dave Noll · 10-25-2017, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goinbroke2

Wow Dave, that's abnormal for a sbf. I'm assuming you were using 69-70 351W heads? I had a 2 4bbl 302 I built which liked 38* which seemed a lot, when I pulled it apart the pistons were washed clean around the circumference of the piston and the centre was black. I chalked it up to something I did wrong while porting and chamber work and that was why I needed 38. 40 though, that to me seems pretty high.

Course they all ain't the same are they? Lol!

Yes on the 69-70 351W heads.

Around the circumference? Can't say for sure but sounds like a Ring issue to me.

Can I ask what fuel you were running that your sbf liked just 28*?

goinbroke2 · 10-26-2017, 11:34 AM

Dave I was running 110-140 Av gas from the airport. You'd think more octane and slower flame front would want more but I just used what was available at the time and adjusted to its quickest. It is what it is I guess?

Chris, sorry for derailing the thread.

Dave Noll · 10-26-2017, 04:22 PM

I don't think we got too far off subject from what Rich was talking about. I had a similar experience to the timing being Really advanced on his car, I just have a different application.But we didn't have any help with his trailer issue, hope he gets it resolved though.

goinbroke2 · 10-28-2017, 11:51 AM

Oh I know Dave, I was just concerned because we were talking Ford and you know how sensitive those chebby guys are....LOL!!!!

10-24-2017, 11:16 AM	#1
goinbroke2 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NS CANADA Posts: 902 Likes: 1,718 Liked 405 Times in 158 Posts	Re: '67 El Camino H/SA Dave, you're running a Cleveland though and milled or not the open chambers have slow flame propagation and poor mix. I would think that would add a new dimension into the whole thing compared to a smaller chamber chev. Compared to a Windsor, the bigger chamber Cleveland liked more timing all through the rpm from what I remember too. For comparison sake, I built a 289 with 260 heads and it was quickest with 28*. Small efficient chamber required little advance (didn't breath worth squat even with the 1.78/1.48 valves put in) Would nose over around 6000 regardless of cam/carb/exh/etc but man it would go from idle to 5800 like a fuel motor!

10-25-2017, 04:49 AM	#2
Dave Noll Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Div. 6, Eastern, WA Posts: 710 Likes: 2,710 Liked 240 Times in 112 Posts	Re: '67 El Camino H/SA I had an 11:1 351 Windsor in my car before I decided to try Stock. With the timing at 36 it slowed .2 on 110 Sunoco. I raced it @ 40. It had 215lbs cranking compression. __________________ Dave Noll, EF/S ,?/SA 6526

10-25-2017, 06:55 AM	#3
goinbroke2 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NS CANADA Posts: 902 Likes: 1,718 Liked 405 Times in 158 Posts	Re: '67 El Camino H/SA Wow Dave, that's abnormal for a sbf. I'm assuming you were using 69-70 351W heads? I had a 2 4bbl 302 I built which liked 38* which seemed a lot, when I pulled it apart the pistons were washed clean around the circumference of the piston and the centre was black. I chalked it up to something I did wrong while porting and chamber work and that was why I needed 38. 40 though, that to me seems pretty high. Course they all ain't the same are they? Lol!

10-26-2017, 11:34 AM	#5
goinbroke2 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NS CANADA Posts: 902 Likes: 1,718 Liked 405 Times in 158 Posts	Re: '67 El Camino H/SA Dave I was running 110-140 Av gas from the airport. You'd think more octane and slower flame front would want more but I just used what was available at the time and adjusted to its quickest. It is what it is I guess? Chris, sorry for derailing the thread. Last edited by goinbroke2; 10-26-2017 at 11:37 AM.

10-26-2017, 04:22 PM	#6
Dave Noll Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Div. 6, Eastern, WA Posts: 710 Likes: 2,710 Liked 240 Times in 112 Posts	Re: '67 El Camino H/SA I don't think we got too far off subject from what Rich was talking about. I had a similar experience to the timing being Really advanced on his car, I just have a different application.But we didn't have any help with his trailer issue, hope he gets it resolved though. __________________ Dave Noll, EF/S ,?/SA 6526

10-28-2017, 11:51 AM	#7
goinbroke2 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NS CANADA Posts: 902 Likes: 1,718 Liked 405 Times in 158 Posts	Re: '67 El Camino H/SA Oh I know Dave, I was just concerned because we were talking Ford and you know how sensitive those chebby guys are....LOL!!!!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode