If there willing to learn teach them old or young im 62 I know a bit and I certainly got a lot of learning ahead of me but what I do know I pass on.
Stimpy, just wondering, if the heads are like LT-1 heads from the 80s then the Edelbrock Performer I have should bolt on fine shouldn't it? I'm thinking about this vacuum leak I believe I have and if the manifold could possibly not fit or if it was just wrong gaskets. I did not work on it today as the weather is just nasty and I plan to run it once more and double check to be 100% positive of vacuum leak before I tear it down.
Yep, agreed. I don't think 8 degrees initial advance is enough for you and I would bet that the idle smooths out a bit with more initial timing (once you have the vacuum leak fixed). Just make sure that you limit the amount of mechanical advance so you don't end up with too much total advance (and if you have vacuum advance as well, don't forget to plug it while you are setting the timing).
Thanks guys, The Blueprint company instructions say to have no less than 10 degrees advance at idle and no more than 34 degrees total advance. My problem is, it idles so rough it is really hard to see a clear number with my light. I'm hoping that it is a vacuum leak and I can fix it and then it will idle better so I can do a better job of checking timing. Knowing what I know now, I wish I would have titled this thread anything else but what I did because I really like hot rod engines.
A vacuum leak will drive horrible and I have seen it many times. Fix that first. I build hot rods for a living. So many of them that come in are over carbed and run way too rich to the point of nearly having unburnt gas dripping out of the tail pipes. The cam is another place that people go crazy on thinking bigger is better. You want your cam matched to the rpm that you are using it at so it pulls like a freight train instead of one designed to come on at 3000-7000 rpm range. A well thought out set up is way more fun than over the top cam and carb.
Hi 55willys.When I first started this engine I had no idea it had a vacuum leak, I just thought, well this is the way it runs and this is not so good. I thought it was way too much engine for nice street cruising due to the cam, so the title "Too much engine". I have tested the engine twice now and am sure it has more than one vacuum leak. Yesterday I took the intake off and I could see where it was leaking. I read earlier in this thread about measuring the ports and getting the right fitting gaskets, so I carefully measured the ports and went to my local Sturdavents and sure enough they had Fel-Pro "performance engine" 1204, 1205, and 1206 intake gaskets. The Fe-Pro 1205 is a very good fit, much better than the ones I had on there before. Today I am going to scrape off the nasty "goop" I had put on there. The pics below show the clean spot is where one of the leaks was. You can also see how poorly the gaskets were fitting.
Just to add , 30 foot pounds , tighten from the middle out ,circular pattern , at least 2 steps i.e.15 - 30 dave I've had good luck using blue loctite on the bolts to prevent oil creep up the threads
Wondering about the Locktite, I've been told to put steel bolts into aluminum with never seize because of dis-similar metals. Anything to worry about there?
Don't worry about antiseize, don't use loctite because its best to retighten the intake bolts after you've had a few heat cycles. I also follow felpro's instructions to apply your sealant around the water jackets, end rails etc and set the intake on but just snug it overnight. The following day is when you torque it. I've done it every way imagineable with good luck but for some reason I now follow the reccommendation and feel better about it.
The loctite acts as a "never-seize" AFA retorquing , w/ those gaskets , alum. heads & manifold , you should not have to , in my experience. dave
Another problem I seem to have is I don't think this manifold fits the heads the best, it nearly does not cover the ports. Above the ports the manifold extends above the ports only about 1/16 of an inch. Seems to me that is not enough, the picture below shows my caliper set at 1/16 to represent the manifold overlap. Blow the pic up and you can see the outline of the manifold pressed into the gasket.
2racer, it is an Edelbrock Performer 2101. the pic. below shows the problem really well. An inch and 1/32 is not wide enough I don't think.I would like to see about an inch and a quarter from bolt hole center to outer edge.
That Performer manifold is your problem IMO, because it's very plain in your pics that the intake ports simply are too small, fact is, the outside of the casting at top of the ports doesn't adequately cover the ports in the head. Are they also like that on the underside? If so, then you prolly have leaks under there also.
I looked back in this thread and didn't see anything about where the intake came from. If it was with the engine I'd contact Blueprint. If it is a new Edelbrock that you purchased, contact Edelbrock. There is definitely something wrong with at least one port pictured on that manifold. One port seemed to fit well and the one next to it is way off. The gasket seems to fit the head well. I suspect the mold shifted when the manifold was poured but it should have been caught in inspection. It looks like somebody used a die grinder on the ports of the manifold. If you bought this manifold used, It could be a knock off. The Chinese will copy every detail including labels and numbers. Aluminum shrinks when it's cast so that has to be taken into account. In any case, Edelbrock would likely be interested in it. Set the manifold on the engine with a few bolts in it and spray some paint on to see where it fits on the head.
Put your gaskts in place set ths manifold on , if you can see the blue , you need a different manifold ... I would NOT use a cast iron manifold on alum . heads dave
Engine man, I bought the intake from Summit at the same time I bought the engine. I actually was on line and asked one of their tech guys on line what they suggested for an intake to use with this engine and the carb I intended to use. 2od2fast, I can see blue when I set the intake on, just a sliver peeking out but, it is there none the less.
dirty old man, I think that is exactly the problem, too small. It surprises me too because the guy from Summit recommended this one. The imprint on the gasket shows there is plenty of overlap on the bottom side. I wish I had another intake to set side by side to compare casting for shifting, or maybe the guy from Summit didn't know what he was talking about and gave me bad advice.
I went on Summit website and asked what intake is best on my 383 and they again recommended Edelbrock 2101. I went to Summit's Professor Overdrive and described my problem, so now I wait for a reply. I may try calling and see if I can talk to a tech on the phone, this e-mail stuff may not be the best way to communicate this stuff.
Well, it appears that your supplier of choice has not once, but twice given you very poor advice. You have proven by your measurements, and by your photos that the manifold is a mismatch to the cylinder heads. It is not surprising that your engine ran poorly and had a vacuum leak. You need a new supplier to help you get the right manifold to go with your engine. I think you will be very happy once you get it back together and running correctly. It will have good manners and have a lot of Zoot (to steal Pork N Beaners line!) Best of luck, and please keep us posted on your progress!
I suggest a phone call to Edelbrock with the port measurements handy. It just might be that specifying use of a Quadra-Jet is throwing the not much over minimum wage guy @ Summit off base to the Performer manifold, which is their street, lower end performance manifold which may have smaller ports and castings than their other higher performance manifolds, which most likely won't accept the Quadra-Jet without an adaptor, which I wouldn't use, BTW. Also, check what engine man says about the one off size port in manifold, and if it is off, also report that to Edelbrock.. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a properly set up Q-J, but the thing is that they are so different in flange requirements that there are few manifolds to fit them on and also few people who can set them up. If Edelbrock confirms my suspicions about an incorrect manifold recommendation then it's time to have a "come to Jesus" talk with Summit.
The Jalopy Journal
