Aaron,
The MP computer is not going to get you there. It will not compensate for
the vacuum. When I looked into programming, they wanted nothing to do with
the MP computer. They wanted the stock computer to work with.
Regarding the low end torque, forget about it. This cam is a 4000rpm plus
cam. I haven't dyno'ed it yet, but know the engine has lost its low end
performance. Knowing what I do now, hindsight tells me to have purchased
the 1418 cam. I still may pull out the 1428 and have it reground to remove
some of the lift.
If you're going all out as you say, I'd recommend boring the 318, or going
with a 360 block. The only real way to correct the vacuum problem is with
more cubes. Good-luck!
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Gasparich [mailto:acg302@ptd.net]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 1:53 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: DML: Re: RE: rocker arm ratio and cams
This is true. IT probalby wont act like the cam i put in the slant 6 a
couple months ago, on even the cam i put in my 68 firebird. i havent done
any really in depth mpi mods on anything, but i have had them apart, all and
all its gona br a fun learning experience I have allready purchased the mp
computer, hoping that that has a wider feul curve and will compensate for
the lower vacum. as for emissions i'm not really concerned, here in PA they
were just shot down again i heard. so i geuss it'll be another few years
untill its proposed state wide again , and i also have some connections for
stickers anyway. But what i was wondering about the cam is how its comapres
to stack in the way it pulls, low end tourqe, etc. And will that comp be
enough(is it programable?) For the most part i'm goin all out on my 318,
heads, intake, exhast, cam, inj, etc...... My goal is 350 at the flywheel.
wish me luck
-Aaron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wisotzkey, Rich" <Rich.Wisotzkey@gd-wts.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 1:20 PM
Subject: DML: RE: rocker arm ratio and cams
> Aaron,
> Your assumptions about the cam are correct. You'll be looking at no more
> than 11" - 11.25" vacuum. If you don't have the computer custom
reprogramed
> (approx. $500), you won't be able to keep it running on the street, and
> there are some computers that cannot be reprogramed.
>
> I'm currently running the 1828 cam in my 318, but only after modifying the
> computers MAP signal. It definetly doesn't have the characteristics of a
> more traditional cam. At least in ways you might be accustomed to. (The
> computer sees to that.)
>
> Also, something to consider is emissions. I have another year before I'm
> forced to take another emissions test. I'm hoping the 1828 will pass, but
> at this point I don't know.
>
> If you have any other questions about this cam, let me know.
> Rich - Ashburn, VA
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Gasparich [mailto:acg302@ptd.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 12:04 PM
> To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
> Subject: DML: rocker arm ratio and cams
>
>
> what is the ratio of a stock rocker in a 97mpi 318. I'm goin with the
hughes
> 1.6 rollers i think, but I would like to know if i have 1.5 or 1.6 stock.
> I've heard both. if its 1.6 i just may consider the set of crower 1.7's a
> little more(still way pricy) and i'm goin with the hughes HER1828AL cam.
> Has anybody else here used that cam? and if so, how did it react with the
> mpi and was it worth the purchase? I have a paranoia that the cams gonna
> make to little vacum and screw things up. also will the 1.7s vs.s the 1.6
> rockers cause other vacum problems
> -Aaron
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:03:01 EDT