Speed-Talk is running on www.Speed-Talk.com

IMPORTANT: Update your bookmarks to https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/
(Right-click the URL and select "Bookmark this link")

BBC exhaust manifold performance

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

cfm
Pro
Pro
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:29 pm
Location:
Contact:

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by cfm »

I have not tested, nor even used, the following but thought I'd throw this out there.
Anybody try the 8.1L exhaust manifolds ?

Reason for stating this, in the marine world some people have been using the 8.1L exhaust manifolds from Mercruiser on their older Marine 454's for some performance gain. Mentioning this becuase apparently they bolt on. So I would think the truck 8.1L manifolds would bolt on to a normal big block.

I have absolutely no 8.1L experience, so again, I'm just throwing this out there as something to look into in case it could be a good possibility for you guys.

Here's a pick of Dorman's manifold - I'm not sure if the OEM is any better ?

Image
User avatar
dfree383
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1979
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:01 pm
Location: The Sand Box

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by dfree383 »

MadBill wrote:Re camming for manifolds, just my top of the head opinion and hopefully CamKing, dfree or someone will chime in, but I'd expect the engine would need less overlap via later IVO and earlier EVC to prevent backflow due to lack of scavenging, and earlier EVO to make up for the presumed flow restriction. Using standard cam nomenclature, this might translate to going from say a 230°/230° on a 108°LCA advanced 4° to a 226°/236° on a 112° LCA, advanced 6°.

FWIW if someone has the specs., the early Z-28 cam made more power on open headers than the late one ('70½ on), but less through the stock exhaust.
Very Little Overlap and a slow lazy exhaust lobe, you have no scavange to work with, so you need to let the exhaust work its way out, trying to force it only makes things worse.

F.A.S.T Racing is a good place to look, but they are very secritive about their cam profiles and those motors are max effort and not going to see 1000's of miles on the street, but you'll get the trend if you can get them to spill some specs.
User avatar
dfree383
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1979
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:01 pm
Location: The Sand Box

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by dfree383 »

gnicholson wrote:there are the corvette manifolds but they are hard to find ,expensive, probably wont fit and heavy. unless you have a completely original car then headers are allmost required. there are good ones available with thick flanges and heavy guage tubing
Cheap Repops are avaliable .
lucas bremer
New Member
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:59 pm
Location:

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by lucas bremer »

cfm wrote:I have not tested, nor even used, the following but thought I'd throw this out there.
Anybody try the 8.1L exhaust manifolds ?

Reason for stating this, in the marine world some people have been using the 8.1L exhaust manifolds from Mercruiser on their older Marine 454's for some performance gain. Mentioning this becuase apparently they bolt on. So I would think the truck 8.1L manifolds would bolt on to a normal big block.

I have absolutely no 8.1L experience, so again, I'm just throwing this out there as something to look into in case it could be a good possibility for you guys.

Here's a pick of Dorman's manifold - I'm not sure if the OEM is any better ?

Image
i was looking at those
from pictures look like they have a little longer runner
but have not look at them personally
lucas bremer
New Member
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:59 pm
Location:

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by lucas bremer »

dfree383 wrote:
MadBill wrote:Re camming for manifolds, just my top of the head opinion and hopefully CamKing, dfree or someone will chime in, but I'd expect the engine would need less overlap via later IVO and earlier EVC to prevent backflow due to lack of scavenging, and earlier EVO to make up for the presumed flow restriction. Using standard cam nomenclature, this might translate to going from say a 230°/230° on a 108°LCA advanced 4° to a 226°/236° on a 112° LCA, advanced 6°.

FWIW if someone has the specs., the early Z-28 cam made more power on open headers than the late one ('70½ on), but less through the stock exhaust.
Very Little Overlap and a slow lazy exhaust lobe, you have no scavange to work with, so you need to let the exhaust work its way out, trying to force it only makes things worse.

F.A.S.T Racing is a good place to look, but they are very secritive about their cam profiles and those motors are max effort and not going to see 1000's of miles on the street, but you'll get the trend if you can get them to spill some specs.
i havent been able to find anything from their
User avatar
af2
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 6707
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:42 pm
Location: Grass Valley, CA :Northern Foothills

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by af2 »

GURU is only a name.
Adam
lucas bremer
New Member
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:59 pm
Location:

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by lucas bremer »

dfree383 wrote:
MadBill wrote:Re camming for manifolds, just my top of the head opinion and hopefully CamKing, dfree or someone will chime in, but I'd expect the engine would need less overlap via later IVO and earlier EVC to prevent backflow due to lack of scavenging, and earlier EVO to make up for the presumed flow restriction. Using standard cam nomenclature, this might translate to going from say a 230°/230° on a 108°LCA advanced 4° to a 226°/236° on a 112° LCA, advanced 6°.

FWIW if someone has the specs., the early Z-28 cam made more power on open headers than the late one ('70½ on), but less through the stock exhaust.
Very Little Overlap and a slow lazy exhaust lobe, you have no scavange to work with, so you need to let the exhaust work its way out, trying to force it only makes things worse.

F.A.S.T Racing is a good place to look, but they are very secritive about their cam profiles and those motors are max effort and not going to see 1000's of miles on the street, but you'll get the trend if you can get them to spill some specs.
thanks.
would an x pipe be beneficial here
for scavinging what other ways could you use for scaviging
i know they cant use them in F.A.S.T Racing
but im not concerned about that
User avatar
dfree383
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1979
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:01 pm
Location: The Sand Box

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by dfree383 »

lucas bremer wrote:
dfree383 wrote:
MadBill wrote:Re camming for manifolds, just my top of the head opinion and hopefully CamKing, dfree or someone will chime in, but I'd expect the engine would need less overlap via later IVO and earlier EVC to prevent backflow due to lack of scavenging, and earlier EVO to make up for the presumed flow restriction. Using standard cam nomenclature, this might translate to going from say a 230°/230° on a 108°LCA advanced 4° to a 226°/236° on a 112° LCA, advanced 6°.

FWIW if someone has the specs., the early Z-28 cam made more power on open headers than the late one ('70½ on), but less through the stock exhaust.
Very Little Overlap and a slow lazy exhaust lobe, you have no scavange to work with, so you need to let the exhaust work its way out, trying to force it only makes things worse.

F.A.S.T Racing is a good place to look, but they are very secritive about their cam profiles and those motors are max effort and not going to see 1000's of miles on the street, but you'll get the trend if you can get them to spill some specs.
thanks.
would an x pipe be beneficial here
for scavinging what other ways could you use for scaviging
i know they cant use them in F.A.S.T Racing
but im not concerned about that
Not sure I've never dynod an X pipe with stock manifolds, maybe somebody else has???
lucas bremer
New Member
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:59 pm
Location:

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by lucas bremer »

anybody have any ideas
User avatar
af2
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 6707
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:42 pm
Location: Grass Valley, CA :Northern Foothills

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by af2 »

GURU is only a name.
Adam
lucas bremer
New Member
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:59 pm
Location:

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by lucas bremer »

af2 wrote:
af2
that will world on the passenger side
what would i use on the driver side
cjperformance
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3592
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:20 am
Location: South Australia

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by cjperformance »

MadBill wrote:Re camming for manifolds, just my top of the head opinion and hopefully CamKing, dfree or someone will chime in, but I'd expect the engine would need less overlap via later IVO and earlier EVC to prevent backflow due to lack of scavenging, and earlier EVO to make up for the presumed flow restriction. Using standard cam nomenclature, this might translate to going from say a 230°/230° on a 108°LCA advanced 4° to a 226°/236° on a 112° LCA, advanced 6°.

FWIW if someone has the specs., the early Z-28 cam made more power on open headers than the late one ('70½ on), but less through the stock exhaust.
Hi Bill, interesting topic the stock manifold and cam spec thing. I have not had to do anything for a restricted racing class that requires manifolds but have had to do plenty of street performance type engines that have had to keep manifolds either for origionality or room etc. Most of my experience here also is Ford- windsor-cleveland-B/block based.
What I have found to work best is lowish o/lap figures, intake opening around the same as with extractors but erring to the later side by a little, slightly earlier intake closing, definetly earlier exhaust closing and the biggest improvement , later on the exhaust opening and using a fairly high velocity exhaust lobe.
Trial (and error :oops: )IME lead me to the thinking that with the restrictive nature of the manifolds work with this cam timing style because opening the exhaust later but with a quicker valve action gives less chance for the possibility of any reversion flow into the cylinder before BDC due to any backing up of gasses in the manifold or just having had an exhaust pulse near the outlet of a log type manifold(outlet biased toward the end of the manifold), I notice EX lobes like having a much sharper exhaust note(with manifolds), and low/mid range being noticably stronger but not hurting top end when compared to an earlier opening lobe with less velocity.
The reduce seat to seat o/lap definetly makes them happier down low and less peaky on the tq curve and the faster ex lobe for the closing event just helps keep the HP but also really improves the tq/feel.
Please bear in mind that these are NOT big rpm restricted race engines with manifolds, these experiences have been on street performance engines, trying to make the most TQ and best possible HP with as flat and as useable as possible performance curve and often using power steer and aircon too. Just TQ'y good performing and very street friendly performance engines that work great at low rpm but also run very strong in the 2500-5500maybe 6000rpm area. So Its not going to compare to a track engine.

Someone mentioned H/X pipes with manifolds, I DEFINETLY always use a H pipe with manifolds (and extractors btw) and in actual fact I find more gain with a H pipe on manifolds than with extractors when compared thru the same rpm range. Im thinking this is due to the manifolds more stacked up (for loss of better words) EX flow as they usually have WAY different length paths for ex flow and the fact that when you get a gas pulse at a port near the outlet then a pulse from a port just upstream of the outlet you end up getting a far more uneven pulse/flow in the manifold outlet pipes/engine pipes, so having large dia engine pipes and as big as possible H pipe as close as possible to the manifolds helps even out the ex pulsing as soon as possible. I will use an exhaust system sized to suit the HP level but as big as possible on the engine pipes leading up the the H pipe. Seems to work quite well.

I would be interested to see those Z-28 cam specs too.
Craig.
User avatar
MrBo
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1373
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:59 pm
Location: Ontario Canada

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by MrBo »

I have some specs. Looks like they were measured ae the valve.
The first pic is from Chevrolet Power 2nd ed. The second is from a "Special Chevrolet Equipment" book from the 1970's

Image

Image
"I promise you Sheriff, I won't throw one more rock... Didn't say nothin' 'bout no brick!" --Ernest T Bass
User avatar
MadBill
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 14845
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:41 am
Location: The Great White North

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by MadBill »

Nice work with the "Way-back Machine", MrBo!
The early Z28 cam isn't listed there, but this seems to be correct for it, unfortunately only with the 0.050" durations:
Standard 302 (30-30) cam, P/N 3849346
Casting #3849347
254 duration @ .050" (intake & exhaust)
.485" lift (with 1.5 rockers)
114 deg. lobe separation
Exhaust Max lift @ 116 deg. BTDC
Intake Max lift @ 112 deg. ATDC
Felix, qui potuit rerum cognscere causas.

Happy is he who can discover the cause of things.
cjperformance
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3592
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:20 am
Location: South Australia

Re: BBC exhaust manifold performance

Post by cjperformance »

MrBo or MadBill, which one of the cams listed were also used with manifolds?
Craig.
Post Reply