NCRS Standards

[John M.]

Re: Unreal

Michael,
I take exception to your comments regarding internal changes to an engine. If that is what floats your boat, then so be it, but do not impose your values on the rest of us. There are many of us who do not view the internal mechanical pieces of the engine to be "The essence" of what makes a Corvette, and I would submit that The Flight judging process agrees. If you would like to see a Judging class where the engine was torn down and all the internal components are verified to be correct, then I would suggest that you lobby to create such a class. I would think however,that participation would be very light. You berate Duke for offering his opinion, but then tell us that you opinion is what is correct. This is one of the biggest poblems with this hobby. You have all these little groups of people who believe that they and they alone are the true keepers of the flame. Bowtie guys look down on restored Top Flight cars as being something less the true Corvetes, Top flight guys look down on drivers as being something less than true Corvettes, and the list goes on and on.
The camshaft in question has not been produced for many years, so if you have a reproduction grind made by one of the cam makers, does that make your car a counterfeit? You and I both know people who would say that it is!
At this point, which is more correct a genuine GM camshaft or a reproduction? Everything is not as black and white as some would have you believe. We all have our opinions, and we should all feel free to voice them. If you feel a cam is not a good choice, you should say so, but not attack the person as undermining the entire corvette restoration hobby!
I happen to really like base engine powerglide cars, and am frequently get comments about this not being a "REAL" corvette, when in reality some of them are the most original and unmolested cars to be found. As long as we all like Corvettes and enjoy them in our own way, then we honor the Corvette. I am also in the progress of building a C1/C4 hybrid for a daily driver, and you would not even begin to understand the ammount of abuse that has been heaped on me for commiting such an act of heresy! The car was mosr decidedly not a candidate for restoration, and it's highest and best use was as a parts donor, but I still catch flak. I really don't care what anyone else thinks about my cars and would just as soon they keep their opinions to themselves. I built a Duntov car from a pile of parts and will probably do so again sometime in the future, but there are those who view such "assembled" cars as being unworthy of such an award. I can think of no better tribute to the Corvette than to put one back on the road when it has been languishing for years in a state of decay.
I will now climb down off my soapbox!

Regards, John McGraw

[Joe L.]

Re: LT1 Cam???

Joe------

It's possible that the profile of the 3972178 camshaft had something to do with impending emissions regulations and/or lowered compression. However, that does not explain why GM replaced the GM #3849346 in December, 1971 with the 3972178. GM was under no obligation or requirement to alter emissions performance of prior year engines via SERVICE part changes. Plus, consider the original applications for the 3849346 camshaft: 64-65 L-76/L-84 and 67-69 302 (Z-28). The Z-28 usage means that when the 3849346 camshaft was discontinued and replaced in December, 1971, some of the cars "affected" were only 2 years old. Rarely, if ever, would GM make a supercession at this stage of the service life of the car unless they considered the supercessive part to be equal to or better than the superceded part. I could see them making such a supercession several years later for parts consolidation reasons, but not within 2 years of the manufacture of vehicles using the original part.

Also, if "parts consolidation" or "emissions improvement for older models" was a factor, at all, here, then why not replace the 3736097 with the 3972178, too? They never did, though. As I mentioned, the 3936097 continued to be available until 1994.

[Joe C.]

Re: NCRS Standards

Terry:

I used Federal Mogul "Sealed Power" brand forged aluminum pistons, part number: L2166NF, whose dome volume is 5.3cc. I measured everything during the rebuild, and the calculated c/r for all cylinders fell between 10.45, and 10.62.

Joe

[Warren F.]

Re: NCRS Standards

Joe:

You are indeed very fortunate, that you DO NOT LIVE IN CALIFORNIA, for we have access generally to only 91 unleaded supreme. Sure there is racing fuel available sporadically around the state. That's why I own and drive one of Joe Lucia's favorites, the almighty LS-6, with its modest domed piston and 9 to 1 compression, it survives on our crappy fuel JUST FINE.

[Clem Z.]

to help prevent detonation when you rebuild

always polish the combustion chambers and remove all sharp edges from the piston tops. also break the sharp edges around the combustion chambers.

[Joe C.]

Re: Lt1 Cam???

Joe, Joe, Joe:

I wish that I was a fly on the wall during some of those board meetings of the mid-to-late sixties. Do you really believe that many of the "improvements" of the era were really inspired by technology? Or, rather by the bottom line, DICTATED by the Go***m bean counters. Let's face it Joe, if the engineers had had their way, then we would never have lost our edge to the nips(sorry, Japs).

Joe

[Joe C.]

Re: to help prevent detonation when you rebuild

Clem:

Actually, I cc'd all the chambers. Got them all as close as possible without opening them too much.

Joe

[Joe C.]

Re: NCRS Standards

Warren:

You are talking about ratmotors, and I have very little experience with the rats. I do recall hearing repeatedly that the big blocks are more prone to detonation than the smallblocks.

Joe

[Terry F.]

Re: NCRS Standards

Was the shape of the dome the same as original pistons? I believe that when I put the new pistons in my 68 427, the replacement TRW piston had a different dome shape. Long time ago, I asked why the shape change and they told me it was an improvement over stock. Truly, my memory is not that clear on this. They stated that original configuration type pistons were no longer available at that time. Thanks, Terry

[Jack H.]

Amen, John!!! *NM*

[Jack H.]

St. Louis Air....

Well, we test that by taking a sample and running it through a gas chromatigraph. You see, DDT pesticide has been banned for a LONG time, but original St. Louis air will have a specific parts per million content of DDT (as formulated and distributed in the 50's and 60's) and absent the correct spectral fingerprint and concentration factor, you lose 20% of the originality points allocated for tire air on the Flight Judging sheets and take an automatic FAILURE for a Star/Bowtie candidate.

Now, there's a BOOMING business out here in the Colorado Rocky Mountains in 'mining' original tire air.... We 4-wheel up to the glaciers in the high country, dig down a prescribed number of feet into the glacier and electrically melt the snow/ice while vacuum capturing the residual air molecules trapped at that specific layer level. Yes, it's a labor of love, but the prices for 'original' air are TOP DRAWER and the 'product' only sells to the 'true' segment of Corvette restorers.

Take a number & get in line. Soon, it'll be winter and our air mining operations will have to cease to safeguard against loss of life/limb due to avalance season!

[Terry F.]

I loved it! Thanks, Terry *NM*

[Michael H.]

Yes, I Agree

John,

I agree with your first paragraph completely.

"I take exception to your comments regarding internal changes to an engine. If that is what floats your boat, then so be it, but do not impose your values on the rest of us"

This was and is my point exactly. This is what the whole debate revolves around. However, it works both ways. The decision should be up to the owner, not the person responding to a post. I'm not trying to convinve anyone to use a correct cam in their car. I really don't care one way or the other but if someone wants a source for the correct cam, we shouldn't tell him that he shouldn't want it and really should have an LT1 cam instead. This was exactly what happened here a few months ago. A new menber asked for information and a source for the correct cam for his 65 365 HP car and our response was something like; "Don't bother with that original cam. You need the LT1 cam instead". There's a classic example of just exactly what you are talking about in your post, only in reverse. He never asked if there was a different cam available and never said he wanted better low end torque. He wanted the correct original but we steered him to a non original instead, and for absolutely no reason. Why didn't we just tell him his correct original cam is currently being reproduced and available, give him the information and wish him luck with his project?

If someone wants to have opinions on which cam is better, that's a completely different story and the debate could be interesting but to have this thing shoved down someones throat when they really only wanted the correct original is insane. I'm not interested in which cam is better and will not get involved in any discussions about it. Everyone already knows my preference. I just think that in all fairness to all involved, the entire board has to accept the fact that there are several different opinions on what these cars are and what they should be but we have to respect the feelings and opinions of all. If they want originality, there's nothing wrong with it. If they want aluminum 406's in their 62's, that's fine too. Just don't try to force your preferences onto other members. Isn't that the same as saying: "Don't impose your values on the rest of us?"

Michael

[Joe L.]

Re: to help prevent detonation when you rebuild

clem-----

Yup! That's one of the key "secret weapons" in the fight against detonation. It's VERY inexpensive, too.

[Loren Smith]

Re: Unreal

John - if anyone saw pics of the 59 hybrid you are building, I couldn't see how they would heap abuse on you. They ought to stop by the other forum and pull up your pictures - the car looks like a work of art.