Factory 396/427 chevy cylinder heads

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Rob R
New Member
New Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:55 am
Location: NEW JERSEY

Re: Factory 396/427 chevy cylinder heads

Post by Rob R »

tenxal
Expert
Expert
Posts: 804
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:48 pm
Location:

Re: Factory 396/427 chevy cylinder heads

Post by tenxal »

I don't personally have any experience with the Jesel setup. It would certainly merit a hard look, though. The Comp 1/2" stud setup is very reliable and stable...many use it with good results.
Diodedog
Pro
Pro
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 2:03 pm
Location:

Re: Factory 396/427 chevy cylinder heads

Post by Diodedog »

tenxal wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 10:31 am
Diodedog wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 10:21 amUnlimited spring pressures and shaft mounted roller rockers on Chevies along with the aftermarket blocks was a huge gain for them.
Rocker mounting must remain as produced in Stock Eliminator. In short, you can't run a shaft rocker system on any engine that originally came with stud mounted rockers. Like small/big block Chevies. ;)

The unlimited spring pressure rule applies to all engines in Stock Eliminator, not just the Chevy stuff. And there are replacement blocks allowed for other makes, as well. :)
There are no blocks readily available for BBM and our blocks aren't nearly as bad as the stock Chev blocks, they went from the worst blocks to the best overnight and the BBM gained nothing. The Chevs are running a shaft type rocker on studs, night and day over the junk they came with, my 426 came with adjustable rockers that work just fine at 57 years old, once again the BBM gained nothing. The 426 came with double springs which were quite good until the spring rule opened up to help the Chevs and cams got crazy, they went from junk to anything they want and I gained a little. The BBMs didn't need aftermarket rods and cranks, the GMs did and they got them. I love the class but it's so biased in favor of the Chevs it makes me sick, sorry for the rant.
pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9841
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm
Location:

Re: Factory 396/427 chevy cylinder heads

Post by pdq67 »

Diodedog wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:48 pm
tenxal wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 10:31 am
Diodedog wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 10:21 amUnlimited spring pressures and shaft mounted roller rockers on Chevies along with the aftermarket blocks was a huge gain for them.
Rocker mounting must remain as produced in Stock Eliminator. In short, you can't run a shaft rocker system on any engine that originally came with stud mounted rockers. Like small/big block Chevies. ;)

The unlimited spring pressure rule applies to all engines in Stock Eliminator, not just the Chevy stuff. And there are replacement blocks allowed for other makes, as well. :)
There are no blocks readily available for BBM and our blocks aren't nearly as bad as the stock Chev blocks, they went from the worst blocks to the best overnight and the BBM gained nothing. The Chevs are running a shaft type rocker on studs, night and day over the junk they came with, my 426 came with adjustable rockers that work just fine at 57 years old, once again the BBM gained nothing. The 426 came with double springs which were quite good until the spring rule opened up to help the Chevs and cams got crazy, they went from junk to anything they want and I gained a little. The BBMs didn't need aftermarket rods and cranks, the GMs did and they got them. I love the class but it's so biased in favor of the Chevs it makes me sick, sorry for the rant.
What are you ranting about??

BBC's are favored??

Please come back and explain.

Thanks,

pdq67
User avatar
af2
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7014
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:42 pm
Location: Grass Valley, CA :Northern Foothills

Re: Factory 396/427 chevy cylinder heads

Post by af2 »

pdq67 wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:27 pm
Diodedog wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:48 pm
tenxal wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 10:31 am

Rocker mounting must remain as produced in Stock Eliminator. In short, you can't run a shaft rocker system on any engine that originally came with stud mounted rockers. Like small/big block Chevies. ;)

The unlimited spring pressure rule applies to all engines in Stock Eliminator, not just the Chevy stuff. And there are replacement blocks allowed for other makes, as well. :)
There are no blocks readily available for BBM and our blocks aren't nearly as bad as the stock Chev blocks, they went from the worst blocks to the best overnight and the BBM gained nothing. The Chevs are running a shaft type rocker on studs, night and day over the junk they came with, my 426 came with adjustable rockers that work just fine at 57 years old, once again the BBM gained nothing. The 426 came with double springs which were quite good until the spring rule opened up to help the Chevs and cams got crazy, they went from junk to anything they want and I gained a little. The BBMs didn't need aftermarket rods and cranks, the GMs did and they got them. I love the class but it's so biased in favor of the Chevs it makes me sick, sorry for the rant.
What are you ranting about??

BBC's are favored??

Please come back and explain.

Thanks,


Another Cry sler cry baby.


pdq67
GURU is only a name.
Adam
Diodedog
Pro
Pro
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 2:03 pm
Location:

Re: Factory 396/427 chevy cylinder heads

Post by Diodedog »

All the Chevy criers is why the aftermarket rods, cranks, blocks, rockers, lifters, carbs, springs and more were accepted in Stock. If you don't know that then it's pretty obvious that you don't build or run Stock Eliminator cars, engines.
Post Reply