Mr Smith, I just read an article of yours in motortrend about a 460 big block. In that article you said lower compression would be better with the smaller cam. I'm speechless actually. What you stated could not be farther from the truth. . How can someone that knows so little about how a engine performs be employed by a magazine that is suppose to be an authority on anything related to the motorsports world.
Perhaps we should speak less in terms of generalities. Would you suggest 11:1 static compression ratio on a small-block Chevy forexample with a short duration cam (under 210 degrees of duration at 0.050) on 91 octane pump gas? If so, it will perform miserably and will detonate. But a short duration cam with 10:1 compression might work - depending upon several factors - the efficiency of the chamber, quality of fuel - etc. On a 460 Ford with a chamber desinged in the 1970's - I would not want to run high compression with a short durtion camshaft. But again - generalities - give me a situation where you specify "high compression and a short camshaft" and then we can discuss it. Plus, I will not question your knowledge as an engine builder nor your professionalism nor your journalistic qualifications. Let's instead talk specifics - give me a specific engine combination and then we'll discuss it.
@@jeffsmith2003 perform miserably and detonate? Maybe one should define perform miserably. Your article was talking about 9.6:1 and 8.6:1 so I really don't care about 10:1 or 11:1. I would much rather take a 9.6:1 engine over a 8.6:1. It will perform much better with 9.6:1
Hello Jeff, your one of my favorites, I read and kept all your articles that you made on those magazines you made. Totally awesome and full of valuable info. Thanks for all you do. I have a curious question about one test session you and brule did on awhile ago. Was this dude there and part of this test? Here's the link. Thanks!!!!! ruclips.net/video/QD0vPaCaMio/видео.html
Mr Smith, I just read an article of yours in motortrend about a 460 big block. In that article you said lower compression would be better with the smaller cam. I'm speechless actually. What you stated could not be farther from the truth. . How can someone that knows so little about how a engine performs be employed by a magazine that is suppose to be an authority on anything related to the motorsports world.
Perhaps we should speak less in terms of generalities. Would you suggest 11:1 static compression ratio on a small-block Chevy forexample with a short duration cam (under 210 degrees of duration at 0.050) on 91 octane pump gas? If so, it will perform miserably and will detonate. But a short duration cam with 10:1 compression might work - depending upon several factors - the efficiency of the chamber, quality of fuel - etc. On a 460 Ford with a chamber desinged in the 1970's - I would not want to run high compression with a short durtion camshaft. But again - generalities - give me a situation where you specify "high compression and a short camshaft" and then we can discuss it. Plus, I will not question your knowledge as an engine builder nor your professionalism nor your journalistic qualifications. Let's instead talk specifics - give me a specific engine combination and then we'll discuss it.
@@jeffsmith2003 perform miserably and detonate? Maybe one should define perform miserably.
Your article was talking about 9.6:1 and 8.6:1 so I really don't care about 10:1 or 11:1. I would much rather take a 9.6:1 engine over a 8.6:1. It will perform much better with 9.6:1
I have propane bobtails with big block 494s in them... the parts for the heads are over 3 grand..... but they last a long time.
Hello Jeff, your one of my favorites, I read and kept all your articles that you made on those magazines you made. Totally awesome and full of valuable info. Thanks for all you do. I have a curious question about one test session you and brule did on awhile ago. Was this dude there and part of this test? Here's the link. Thanks!!!!! ruclips.net/video/QD0vPaCaMio/видео.html