f-body lovers, i think this is new thread worthy,

[Smittro]

Well patriot vortec heads are what will make it breathe. They will boost my compression to exactly 10:1 from 8.5:1 with a thinner head gasket to get .040 quench height. So the compression and breathing go together. But for now it'll probably just be a performer manifold because I have to do intake gaskets anyway. You can get em for nothing. I've heard that a manifold will really pick up even a stock long block because the factory one is so terrible. And the patriots are drilled for vortec and standard manifolds so it will work later. Aswell as swapping out my 2" ramshorns and 1.5 inch pinched downpipes to un crossed duals. Will go with a 3" single and headers or 2.5" crush bent duals with x. My truck has the "300hp 327 cam" stock, it's pretty anemic. 194/202 or close duration, 112 lsa, no advance I think, and .390/.410 lift. Adding a bigger modern cam (xe256 installed 4* advance i'm thinking) will actually boost torque even with more duration. xe256+4* advance at timing chain= 110/102 and 212/218 duration If not that, then some roller tip 1.6:1 rockers to help my stock cam out. It needs valve seals anyway so I might as well get some good springs in there...

You mean you don't like the octopuss tied in knots iron stock intake?
But yeah open up it lungs with the intake you mentioned it will thank you for it..

[wheeliE-maxx]

Old school trick: Stock Pontiac rockers work on a SBC and are 1.6 ratio...

Thank you for that! Didn't know and I was going to get some roller tipped summit rockers because they were only a little more than the summit stamped non-roller 1.6:1's. Is the ratio inaccurate like on sbc rockers?

[67CamaroRSSS]

First off sorry that I did not preface my comment with "I think that" and that I restated what I was told by someone else. I did not doupt anyone. So I'll just stand here -> for a while.

Tell ya what: I'll stand there when you quote the correct item I critiqued you on...

[67CamaroRSSS]

Thank you for that! Didn't know and I was going to get some roller tipped summit rockers because they were only a little more than the summit stamped non-roller 1.6:1's. Is the ratio inaccurate like on sbc rockers?

Probably. It was sometning we did back in the day to be able to use stock stamped valve covers as roller rockers didn't fit unless you dimpled the covers and that was a dead giveaway to those in the know.

BTW: This was a street racing trick...

[loasdrums]

First off sorry that I did not preface my comment with "I think that" and that I restated what I was told by someone else. I did not doupt anyone. So I'll just stand here -> for a while.

Tell ya what: I'll stand there when you quote the correct item I critiqued you on...

71 was the only year for the split bumper.

So doing what I should have done to begin with I found that the RS package, as stated several times in this thread was for 70-73. Though there for 73 the site I referanced say: "The front bumper covered the entire front grill as well as had rubber bumper pads now in place." I guess that means no split bumper. Also, 71 was the start of the high back rear seats and 72 was the year that "the grill had a more aggressive appearance with less slats." I don't like spredding babd gouge, information, and I prefer to be corrected when wrong. BTW, i like all of the inforation in the prior pages of this thread. That type of conversation is why I enjoy coming to forums like this one.

www.musclecardrive.com

"RS: This package was primarily cosmetic. It is identified by the with split bumper so the grill stood alone and parking lights between the headlamps. This option could be ordered with the SS and the Z-28."

EIDIT:
Well just to correct myself:

[fbod91]

It has to be either a 72-73 look at the dual lights. I belive the 70-71 had just the head lights up front

[justinmc978]

It has to be either a 72-73 look at the dual lights. I belive the 70-71 had just the head lights up front

wrong.

we already establised its a 71, 70-73 were basically the same, 4 tails, two headlights,

rs versions had a split grill and parking lights next to the headlights

1970 versions had low back buckets with headrests that were shared with the vega, like this one,

70-71 versions had a peculer design of up and down bars in the grill, that this one has. 72-73 has a different more agressive one,

[loasdrums]

wrong.

we already establised its a 71, 70-73 were basically the same, 4 tails, two headlights,

rs versions had a split grill and parking lights next to the headlights

1970 versions had low back buckets with headrests that were shared with the vega, like this one,

70-71 versions had a peculer design of up and down bars in the grill, that this one has. 72-73 has a different more agressive one,

Just to solidify this with evidence is this:


From here: http://www.nastyz28.com/camaro/1970/70broc.htm

[justinmc978]

So doing what I should have done to begin with I found that the RS package, as stated several times in this thread was for 70-73. Though there for 73 the site I referanced say: "The front bumper covered the entire front grill as well as had rubber bumper pads now in place." I guess that means no split bumper. Also, 71 was the start of the high back rear seats and 72 was the year that "the grill had a more aggressive appearance with less slats." I don't like spredding babd gouge, information, and I prefer to be corrected when wrong. BTW, i like all of the inforation in the prior pages of this thread. That type of conversation is why I enjoy coming to forums like this one.

www.musclecardrive.com

"RS: This package was primarily cosmetic. It is identified by the with split bumper so the grill stood alone and parking lights between the headlamps. This option could be ordered with the SS and the Z-28."

1973 rs's DID have a split bumper, the internet is not very accurate

but i see you corrected yourself so sir

[justinmc978]

i wish colleges had automotive history class, that would be my major

[cammed goat]

i wish colleges had automotive history class, that would be my major

If they did, I would go to night classes. That class would be great.

[justinmc978]

If they did, I would go to night classes. That class would be great.

for a music credit, i have Popular music of india, stupidest %#$@# class ever, and i sit there and think if we have this class in TEXAS, why cant we have an american muscle car history class, hate modern education systems

[cammed goat]

for a music credit, i have Popular music of india, stupidest %#$@# class ever, and i sit there and think if we have this class in TEXAS, why cant we have an american muscle car history class, hate modern education systems

I hear ya. Being in a politically correct society can suck. I guess anything automotive isn't really classified as "important" to some. To folks like us, it is complete fun.

[loasdrums]

i wish colleges had automotive history class, that would be my major

I believe there is a way to get it started. I have heard from a talk show that some colleges have had porno classes. I think that class lasted just last year as parents found out that their kids were watching porn for an elective credit.

[wheeliE-maxx]

for a music credit, i have Popular music of india, stupidest %#$@# class ever, and i sit there and think if we have this class in TEXAS, why cant we have an american muscle car history class, hate modern education systems

HEYA RIKI TIKI TAVI! Don't hate on the music from india That car class would be great. When it comes to true muscle cars I even love some fords

[justinmc978]

I believe there is a way to get it started. I have heard from a talk show that some colleges have had porno classes. I think that class lasted just last year as parents found out that their kids were watching porn for an elective credit.

hah and maybe i could be the prof. that would be saweeet