1979 L82 exhaust oil

[Michael W.]

Re: 1979 L82 exhaust oil

A problem for drivability............. or judging !!! ??

Yes! 56789

[Patrick H.]

Re: 1979 L82 exhaust oil

Two 500 cfm carbs on a 350? I think I see a problem right there.

I would suggest that the carbs are only one of the problems, but I'd like to confirm some of the rest of his information first if he's willing.

[Ron S.]

Re: 1979 L82 exhaust oil

Patrick, When I bought the car the engine had just been rebuilt by the previous owner in 2006. I have the paper work cam part # mc1991, no part number listed for the pistons just flat top. The car is a four speed. yes edelbrock carbs. Ron

[Patrick H.]

Re: 1979 L82 exhaust oil

Patrick, When I bought the car the engine had just been rebuilt by the previous owner in 2006. I have the paper work cam part # mc1991, no part number listed for the pistons just flat top. The car is a four speed. yes edelbrock carbs. Ron

Here is a link to your camshaft specs:

http://www.engineproparts.com/downloads/EPCatalogCams.pdf

In a nutshell (and I'm not trying to be "mean" with this), I think it's way overcammed and overcarb'ed. As a result you're getting a fair amount of unburned hydrocarbons out the end of the exhaust and this will not improve with the current combination. I will venture to say that the carbs, intake and cam would have to be replaced to correct this condition, not including any tuning that needs to be done with the timing, etc. You could still end up with more power than stock if everything is chosen as a system - and I'd bet you would end up with a lot more usable power than you have now.

You could get a long way just by going to a single 4 barrel intake and carb of reasonable, useful size and not lose a bit of power. However, that cam is going to keep it a dog a normal driving speeds unless you want to swap in a 4.11 rear end to keep the rpms up - and I would not advise that. New cams are cheaper than rear differentials anyway.

Patrick

[Joe C.]

Re: 1979 L82 exhaust oil

That's a nice, mild hydraulic cam with very similar duration as the L79 and L82 cams, with only very slightly more lift, and on a 112 LSA, which is 2 degrees tighter than that of the L79 and L82......both 114. This will give the engine a slight bit more lope than either because of the additional overlap. The tighter LSA will be compensated for (in the case of the L79 application) because of the additional 23 cubic inches over the 327 run with the L79.

[Patrick H.]

Re: 1979 L82 exhaust oil

That's a nice, mild hydraulic cam with very similar duration as the L79 and L82 cams, with only very slightly more lift, and on a 112 LSA, which is 2 degrees tighter than that of the L79 and L82......both 114. This will give the engine a slight bit more lope than either because of the additional overlap. The tighter LSA will be compensated for (in the case of the L79 application) because of the additional 23 cubic inches over the 327 run with the L79.

More lift but the lobes have also moved. If the heads haven't been touched and still run the original valves it's a waste. Mild compared to a roller cam, and he can "probably" get away with it, but a lot depends on the rest of the engine. If he's got even a 3.36 rear it will be a dog on the low end; 3.08 will be even worse.

First problem is the intake and dual carbs.

Just my thought.

[Ron S.]

Re: 1979 L82 exhaust oil

Thanks guy's for all your comments, I will continue to work on it. Ron