Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: 1969 Camaro cut away show cars

« on: March 19, 2021, 06:17:17 PM »

I can remember as a 10 year old boy seeing that at the Motorama traveling show. I watched it for a long time. In that part of life my parents only bought Chevrolet cars and trucks.
John

2

General Discussion / Re: AV Gas Warning!

« on: June 12, 2019, 01:29:52 AM »

I built racing engines for Unlimited Class Air racing for over 30 years, at one point I managed an aviation fueling facility at a major facility at Burbank airport. Don't ever think there is a difference in handling Av-Gas vs. automotive gasoline. Most likely smelling it or not by the time you compounded the mistakes the same result would have occurred. End of story.
John

3

Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Crossram manifold

« on: May 27, 2019, 01:19:22 AM »

John, what is the Holley LIST # for your Tunnelport carburetor(s)?

If you have trouble posting the pic let me know and I can help.

It is not a Holley list # carburetor, it is one of the special carburetors that FoMoCo had Holley make for the 302 Tunnelport engine program, as such it is a race only item. I have done a lot of searching on the internet and you guys were the only source I had seen of a good picture of the 2 step cam. (Thanks to you Jon.) I had been wondering about the cam on the 4295 and now I know that. But I feel it's only fair to share my side of the story, even if it is Brand X Blue. You guys seem really open to looking at both sides of the story of what was going on with T/A.
John

4

Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Crossram manifold

« on: May 26, 2019, 09:19:30 PM »

? Possibly post a pic of the 3-Step style for reference ?
I do not have real parts or carbs on hand, just past Holley experience.
? 1st Design 4210 had "1:1" basically constant radius slot, except a slight primary tip-in ?
? 2nd Design 4295 2-Step "W" Slot is a "staged" design, primaries 1st x degrees, then secondaries ?
I myself have not seen a 3-Step, would be interesting to see.
My grandiose ideas, lol, "I'll make a nice 3D Model animation of the 3 styles"... LOL

I just took a nice picture of the 3 step cam yesterday. It was too large to attach here, so I'll resize it and post it here.
John

5

Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Crossram manifold

« on: May 25, 2019, 04:55:29 PM »

Here you go...


Frank Dihartce photo

Thank you,
Do you know if that cam has three steps on the action? The first step would be primary actuation only, the second step would slowly bring the secondary butterflies along with the primaries open, followed by a third step that would be the change visible in the picture that would rapidly finishing opening both sets of butterflies. Do you know if that describes the action?
John

Hey John,
Are you thinking this type of carb linkage for the 'unicorn' intake?

No the carburetors on that intake are in line with each other. The Crossram linkage layout is absolutely not useable in that configuration. I was reading with interest on this site the development between the List 4210 and the list 4295 carburetors. As a result I asked about the cam slot timing on the 4295. With Jon's picture I can see a defined two step shape on the cam slot, my two carburetors have a definite three step cam slot. The cam slot on mine is not someone's regrind but a Holley part made that way for the 302 Tunnelport engine racing program. I was just wanting to compare and Jon kindly helped me out.
John

6

Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Crossram manifold

« on: May 25, 2019, 04:04:25 PM »

No, it does not have three distinct steps.

Jon,
Thank you.
John

7

Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Crossram manifold

« on: May 24, 2019, 04:46:58 PM »

Here you go...


Frank Dihartce photo

Thank you,
Do you know if that cam has three steps on the action? The first step would be primary actuation only, the second step would slowly bring the secondary butterflies along with the primaries open, followed by a third step that would be the change visible in the picture that would rapidly finishing opening both sets of butterflies. Do you know if that describes the action?
John

8

Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Crossram manifold

« on: May 24, 2019, 12:34:35 PM »

BRG Z28 - re-reading my previous post it is kinda a little unclear...

For your 4210 Carbs, I would consider getting another Pair of just Throttle Plate Assemblies with the
Staged or Progressive "W" Shaped Slot & Roller Bellcrank like on the 2nd Design 4295 Carbs
instead of the stock 4210 1:1 "Constant Radius" Bellcrank,
and save and leave your stock 4210 Bases unmodified.
But finding Throttle Plates with the "W" Bellcrank AND all 4 Butterflies in 1-9/16" Dia. may be difficult.
Vendors do sell only the SHAFT Assemblies with the "W" Slot Bellcrank, but for 1-11/16" Dia Butterflies.
As for getting Only Shaft Assemblies, understanding is a Throttle Plate from any ol' Holley List 1850
would be a workable Throttle Plate with 1-9/16" Dia. Throttles, but the Shaft End Pieces / Bellcrank
would need to be changed out for the "W" Slot and Roller Shaft End Pieces / Bellcrank Linkage.
But the swagged on Shaft Ends would have to removed from the purchased Shafts for 1-11/16" 'Flies,
the standard shaft ends removed from the 1850 Base Plate shafts, and the Staged "W" Slot and Roller
shaft end pieces attached / welded onto the 1850 Shafts which are for 1-9/16" Dia. Throttle Plates.
Unless, someone like Daytona Performance or Braswell Carburetion would make some up for you.
Clear as mud, right ? 

Do you have a picture of the "W" cam on the 4210?
John

Correction the "W" slot on the 4295.

9

Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Crossram manifold

« on: May 24, 2019, 04:48:25 AM »

BRG Z28 - re-reading my previous post it is kinda a little unclear...

For your 4210 Carbs, I would consider getting another Pair of just Throttle Plate Assemblies with the
Staged or Progressive "W" Shaped Slot & Roller Bellcrank like on the 2nd Design 4295 Carbs
instead of the stock 4210 1:1 "Constant Radius" Bellcrank,
and save and leave your stock 4210 Bases unmodified.
But finding Throttle Plates with the "W" Bellcrank AND all 4 Butterflies in 1-9/16" Dia. may be difficult.
Vendors do sell only the SHAFT Assemblies with the "W" Slot Bellcrank, but for 1-11/16" Dia Butterflies.
As for getting Only Shaft Assemblies, understanding is a Throttle Plate from any ol' Holley List 1850
would be a workable Throttle Plate with 1-9/16" Dia. Throttles, but the Shaft End Pieces / Bellcrank
would need to be changed out for the "W" Slot and Roller Shaft End Pieces / Bellcrank Linkage.
But the swagged on Shaft Ends would have to removed from the purchased Shafts for 1-11/16" 'Flies,
the standard shaft ends removed from the 1850 Base Plate shafts, and the Staged "W" Slot and Roller
shaft end pieces attached / welded onto the 1850 Shafts which are for 1-9/16" Dia. Throttle Plates.
Unless, someone like Daytona Performance or Braswell Carburetion would make some up for you.
Clear as mud, right ? 

Do you have a picture of the "W" cam on the 4210?
John

10

Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators

« on: January 12, 2019, 08:42:01 PM »

Thanks CrossBoss,

Indeed - you beat me to it given I thought of updating my message across the day that was.  The inlet runners underneath whatever carburetor configuration is employed pick up charge if you will from near the opposite bank of the vee - hence 'cross' and 'ram' too.  Besides, the Smokey Ram is appreciated as a single 4 bbl intake with a like large open plenum below, and more or less matching features from what came before.  Sorry for the sloppiness and thanks for your informed input!


-

...also and just in passing, a question for you.  Period race reports from Laguna Seca relate almost casually that Bud Moore Engineering showed up with the Cross Boss and Autolite inline carburetors, but that such were disallowed.  O.K., we all kind of know that, but what I'd be curious about is did they actually attempt to roll through tech with them in place, was it a conversation with anyone on the scene whereby the setup(s) quietly rested in boxes on the equipment transport, etc., or just what?  The David Friedman photo collection accessible via the Benson Ford Research Center, while huge and valued, doesn't have a single image of the inline setup in place on a car, so I'm thinking some editorial license was used by those scribes doing there duty in-period.

-

Oh - and do you think the Holley 'Name That Carburetor Contest' was fixed?  A total scandal then, while to those looking on - you read it here FIRST!

Mike K./Swede70

Mike,
Bud Moore did test the CB and Inline, I believe it was at Riverside with George Follmer at the helm. Lap times were pretty good, the only reports that I have heard were of a lean stumble coming out of the turns. This was a problem that can be 'fixed' with the one of the internal mods that I referred to. Bud, the ever cautious and creative man he was, heard rumors that SCCA was going to ban the CB and Inline and had a back up plan: The Mini-Plenum intake ready in the wings. That said, I believe IF the SCCA allowed the CB and Inline legal, I'm sure more R&D time would have made it perfect.
BTW, It is my opinion, Chevrolet's Cross-Ram was a 'better design' out of the box, and a superior performer on the street than the Cross-Boss intake.
Lastly, do I think Hot-Rods contest was fixed? Well….magazines are advertising generated, so you can come to your own conclusions.

Scott,
As you know Bud did not feel stuck with the Mini-Plenum at all he preffered it. FoMoCo developed the CROSS-BOSS for the BOSS 302 and also the Autolite inline carburetor for several engines. Bud never wanted to run that intake. I got that straight from Bud Moore when I called him years ago. He had already by the first race in the 1970 developed the Mini-Plenum, even though there were additional port changes done during the season. The ramps were in the intake because he had to sell them to anyone who wanted to buy one, however Bud's intakes had them removed....his son Greg told me that they were a "flaw" cast into the intakes on purpose because Bud knew he was going to be racing against other people who had bought his intake.
John

11

General Discussion / Re: Distrubtor raised to high?

« on: January 10, 2019, 01:01:44 AM »

I am just going to suggest buying a 350 Chevrolet short block from someone. They are cheap, you can put your 327 on a shelf for posterity.
John

12

General Discussion / Re: Distrubtor raised to high?

« on: January 08, 2019, 07:17:46 PM »

As an engine builder for many years, trust me. Stop the train. Pull the motor and go through it. Don't go back to that old school guy, he'll just tell you it was your fault and he will learn nothing. Move forward.
John

13

General Discussion / Re: New guy question

« on: January 07, 2019, 06:57:54 PM »

Wow, there is so much more Camaro research than I initially thought. This website has tons of great information, thanks to everyone that contributes to the pile. I'm reading about "early NOS vs. Later NOS parts differences, necessary stampings, I of course would prefer date coded take offs compared to even earlier NOS. But you look for the best car you can find and go from there. There is a lot of reading to do still, the learning curve will be steep. I don't understand why the trim tag is being witnessed as a saleable item on eBay. In the BOSS 302 world it is understood that even possession of a VIN tag that is used for registration purposes while removed from a car is a felony. The rosette rivets are a felony possession as well.
John

Here is a link to the BOSS website and the VIN legalities page.
http://www.boss302.com/legal.htm

Okay, nevermind after a little more research I see that the "Trim Tag" is like the "Buck Tag" or "Door Tag" on the Mustang, so not the "VIN tag"...... Still reading.

14

General Discussion / Re: 1967 Z28 options

« on: January 06, 2019, 06:20:54 PM »

The OP has not clearly stated the way the car was ordered and you two guys interpreted it differently.
1. The car was ordered with a radio and the heater was deleted.
2. The car was ordered with the radio and heater both deleted.
We all know there is no such thing as radio delete but newbies don't so he probably meant #2.
1967 RPO Z28 was for racers and most of the heater delete option cars that went to racers probably did did not order a radio as well.

FoMoCo documentation has shown that nearly all of the Mustangs shipped to Hawaii were heater delete cars, so that information may be useful if you have a number of Camaros shipped to Hawaii.
John

15

General Discussion / Re: New guy question

« on: January 05, 2019, 11:40:43 PM »

Wow, there is so much more Camaro research than I initially thought. This website has tons of great information, thanks to everyone that contributes to the pile. I'm reading about "early NOS vs. Later NOS parts differences, necessary stampings, I of course would prefer date coded take offs compared to even earlier NOS. But you look for the best car you can find and go from there. There is a lot of reading to do still, the learning curve will be steep. I don't understand why the trim tag is being witnessed as a saleable item on eBay. In the BOSS 302 world it is understood that even possession of a VIN tag that is used for registration purposes while removed from a car is a felony. The rosette rivets are a felony possession as well.
John

Here is a link to the BOSS website and the VIN legalities page.
http://www.boss302.com/legal.htm