Supposedly, the new Mike Maier bar provides more room for the exhaust, but it looks tight.  I definitely want to keep the exhaust routed thru the valence, so I'm not going to get one unless I'm sure that can happen.  Any chance for a picture?  Thanks.

Bentworker wrote:

I have a Mike Maier Panhard rod in mine. If you do the trig with a 35” long horizontal rod with 4” of total travel (2” up/ 2” down) pretty reasonable for a road car with stiff suspension) the side to side movement is a whopping 1/16”.

Watts link is cool, but not work the trouble imho on a street car.

I’d say the most noticeable thing is the reduction of the “post burnout wigwag” for lack of better terms. If you mash your foot into the go pedal and get sideways when you lift and the tire speed matches the road there is less of a side to side wiggle when you get traction. It feels more secure. No hard evidence but I do believe they make a positive performance improvement.

Exhaust routing is challenging. Find a great exhaust shop or install downturn dumps before the axle.

Haven't been on for a while but have been thinking about installing a panhard bar and wanted to see if anyone had any experience they'd care to share as to handling improvement, manufacturer and exhaust routing?  Thanks.

Thanks but my concern is just with whether any of you folks would reject this cam, based on the requested exhaust lift being 0.516" when I requested 0.530."  The 0.516 figure is from the cam card and I verified it when I degreed the cam.

TKOPerformance wrote:

BobE wrote:

I agree with Sal and MS.
I'll offer the following. 
How do know your measurements are more accurate than the cam grinder? 
I'm not questioning your, or his, abilities, but I've worked with difference machinists and their measurements are not always exactly the same even when using the same measuring instruments.  Also, when was the last time the calibration of measuring instruments completed?  
 

My thoughts exactly.  Its like checking your installed centerline.  If you're within 2 degrees I wouldn't try and adjust it.  There's enough hysteresis in your measuring equipment that you could be off by that much.  Plus a change of 2 degrees might move the powerband 100 RPM.

I know that cam grinders have to use pre-made patterns to grind the lobes and so are limited to what patterns they have (unless they want to make a new pattern).  So I asked him in advance  to contact me if he couldn't get pretty close.  He replied that he could get super close but clearly his definition is different than mine.  If this was an off the shelf cam and it came this far off I would definitely send it back.  Just irritating because of the lack of communication.

This is the second time I've tried and same thing - I attach the files (even tried one at a time), it says the upload is complete, but the pictures never make it into the message.

Nos681 wrote:

I’m able to add pictures by using desktop format on my phone and then by selecting “post reply” tab.

“upload image” tab …kinda self explanatory after that. Hope this helps.

Corresponded w/ Tenneco.com, which I believe brands Walker, Dynomax and other muffler brands, about the Walker quiet-flow mufflers (the "Cadillac mufflers") that I think MS used, which appears to be a 2-1/2" inlet and outlet muffler.  They sent me a couple of spreadsheets so I could compare mufflers.  Filtering on the basis of MS's Cadillac mufflers (Walker 21856), indicates that there is also a 2-1/4" version, which is Walker quiet-flow 21424.  This muffler has the same dimensions as MS's muffler:  Oval shape, 4-14" height and 19" body length (not including pipes), same pipe offsets, and connections, but 2-1/4" inlet and outlet.  I'm likely going to order these and install them.  Just wanted to post this info in case others like me (who aren't pushing 427 cubic inches of air thru their exhaust system) wanted the quieter sound but with a 2-1/4" inlet and outlet.  Will update post after installation.

Haven't been on in a while.  I have Dynomax 2-1/4" mufflers on my 65 FB and would like to quiet them down a bit.  Last time I checked, Walker Cadillac mufflers were recommended.  Any updates to that thinking?  Thanks.

Here are some more pics:
Note that in the first, I used wet strips of blue paper towels to keep the butt weld seam cool to minimize warpage.

I've been away for a while but just noticed that all of the pictures I previously loaded in my posts via tiny pic no longer work.  Is there a way to fix that?

Originally, for my hood, I'd bonded an old, cheaply made fiberglass hood skin to a metal frame and it worked for a time.  However, after a while, the ungelcoated thin fiberglass started to print through.  Plus, the flimsy fiberglass just made it untenable.  So I got an original steel hood for $100 and one of those new steel Shelby scoops and welded the two together.  The original steel hood was pretty clapped out and required a lot of body work to be usable, so I didn't feel bad about cutting a hole in it.  Below are a few pics about how I did it, using a Lincoln 140 MIG welder.  I butt welded the metal, using 0.024" wire and the usual 75/25 gas mix.  As everyone knows, the biggest problem is preventing warpage.  I took the usual approach of tack welding, skipping around the perimeter, but used butt clamps and kept wet paper towels around the weld.  The result was very little warpage.  The other thing I did was to extend the hood's sheet metal under the scoop until it met the bracing, unlike the typical approach where the hood's sheet metal is cut off right at the opening.

 

DC wrote:

I have one of the Innova's and a good old fashioned one. Both give same results on basic timing. The digital is sweet though because it makes re-curving a distributor real easy. 

Re-curving the distributor is what I got it for.  I have a Duraspark and I've been reading up on how to do it.
 

So I'm making a switch from timing tapes and and old school timing lights to an electronic dial back light that I can use to check timing advance.  Really like to hear what you folks favor.  Thanks.