L-72 Dyno Test

[Chevy454]

Pete:

I would be VERY happy with 12s, and I honestly feel anything better than low 13s (from my car) is GRAVY.

Stan:

Well, I unfortunately(!) went with the 291s. I talked it over with several people (even Pete and JJ!), and they all gave me the thumbs up, as they are legal. I say "unfortunately", because the set of 840s that I ended up with need ZERO work, and would have even been cheaper to build than the 291s I used. But, I had to keep the 840s so they could be documented...kind of a shame! Colvin is supposed to be checking for some paperwork, but as of yet, all I have is the info from his book and info from talking with him and others on the phone. So far, the scenario I went into detail about in another thread seems viable, and isn't as far fetched as I had originally thought.

This engine turned out really well, and is about as close to factory as I could have made it. It would have been done about 2 months ago if I had not been worried about factory specs! For instance, the stacked height+gasket thickness is equal to that of what the factory would have been. The only difference is the .030 overbore, which could not be avoided due to a couple of bad cylinders. I had to shave the heads .010 (another extra thing due to NOT being able to use my 840s!), but when I cc'ed them, they came out big (as expected). Like around 111cc average, where they are supposed to 108cc. Well within what you could have gotten straight from the factory. When I plug all of the #s into the compression calculator, I come up with 10.9+, so it is almost dead on the AMA spec. Our next engine may take these specs to their extreme and see what happens !

[Edited by Chevy454 (09-06-2001 at 11:54 AM).]