Originally Posted by baddad457

The 95-97 EFI roller 351 is what you want. Just bolt a carb intake and carb on it and go. Use a high rise dual plane and a 600-650 carb, and get an electronic distributor with a steel gear to match the roller cam. Then take the heads on it and a porting bit and remove the Thermactor bumps from the inside roofs of the exhaust ports. Next replace the stock rockers with full roller 1.7 rockers to complement the cam in it.

Originally Posted by Fiveflat

Thank you! is it not that simple with a non roller block?

Originally Posted by baddad457

Why waste time and money with a non roller ? The cam in the roller is a really good cam, far better than than the flat tappet grind it replaced. Even better run with 1.7 rockers. It runs great with a carb as well.

Originally Posted by Beechkid

This sounds like a really cool project!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FYI- when you install a newer engine in an older vehicle, if law enforcement happens to check it out, they can enforce one of several federal regs....specifically if you install a newer engine in an older vehicle, the vehicle must then meet all regulations (smog) for that year of engine.......................

Originally Posted by xlt4wd90

I've lived in California since the early 80's and I remember days when I couldn't see clearly across the street, and my eye stung from the smog, and my lungs would spasm trying to take full breaths. I was told it was worse in the 70's. Many parts of California tend to collect smog due to their particular geographic characteristics, like having just the right shapes of canyons combined with on-shore flows. It's much better now, thanks to their rather strict emissions regulations, which was definitely needed. I suspect that if other parts of the country had similar problems, they would do the same. It turns out that whatever costs it takes to implement these regulations, they're still much cheaper than treating a majority of the population for chronic lung diseases, and other diseases that result from that. It definitely improved our quality of life. China realized this in 2008 when they hosted the summer Olympics, so now they're making big changes to reduce pollution. Are we both communists?.

Originally Posted by baddad457

Apparently so, judging from the news we see out of there. They go overboard on everything. That's why they earn the nickname. I've been there many times too. If y'all ever get rid of the extremists running the state, it would be a much nicer place.

Originally Posted by baddad457

Only thing you're missing is all the pollution and emissions from the mining of all that metal that's required to produce the Tesla and the infrastructure to support it. Not to mention the pollution that's also required to generate the electricity to power it. New infrastructure to replace what's already in place now.

Originally Posted by baddad457

California is also an energy importer. They've effectively shut off new power generation construction. No new coal plants, no new nuclear plants, all that's left is wind power, of which nobody's bothered to learn what effects that has on weather patterns. It well could be that all those turbines in the passes leading out of the Los Angeles basin are killing the air flow out of it that further exacerbates the smog problem.

Originally Posted by baddad457

The big problem with that state is they think that what's good for them is better for the rest of the country. Like the illegals they've been pandering to. It's gotten to the point where they have more rights than the legitimate citizens there do. Those illegals aren't driving the latest tech in automobiles. And they're probably exempt from emissions testing. So what does one vehicle owned by the OP have an effect on our air ? And lets not forget the thousands of vehicles exempted by that state (older classic cars and off road only vehicles) Those have a greater effect on your air quality than that one vehicle.

Originally Posted by xlt4wd90

Those are insignificant compared to the pollution and emissions generated from building fossil fuel cars and the infrastructure supporting them. Part of that is because the number of EVs are still so low. Production of electricity from a centralized location is a lot cleaner and more efficient than distributed generation. And when you need less than 1/6th the energy to go as far, you need a lot less of that generation.
Building fossil fuel cars produces no more emissions than does building a Tesla To think that is ludicrous. And where are you going to generate the power to fuel the Tesla ? Ain't gonna be in California.
Fossil fuel pundits like to point out how environmentally damaging mining for lithium can appear, but they conveniently leave out how damaging fossil fuel mining actually is, even if you can't see it because it's all underground.

Fossil fuel "mining" is no more damaging to the environment than all the other metals mined in producing the Tesla and its associated infrastructure. It's not just Lithium we're tall\king about here. :Lets also not forget how the plastics and other parts in the car are produced ? All that comes fro OIL and GAS production and refining. Plastics and chemicals aren't going to disappear with oil and gas. It's here to stay. Tesla's not going to eliminate all that. There is no replacement for it all.
Yes, California became an importer of energy back around Y2000 after energy lobbies, notably Enron, pushed through energy deregulation in 1996. But the rules of deregulation was such a complicated array of exceptions and requirements that they caused havoc in the energy market, including shutting down of many plants, forced electricity importing, rolling blackout, and sky-rocketing prices. Utilities should be properly regulated monopolies.
Bull**** ! California has forced energy generation out of the state. Pure and simple. Deregulation had little to do with it.
The claim that nobody's bothered to learn what effects wind farms have on weather patterns is simply not true. The biggest weather research centers in the US, including NASA's GMAO, NOAA's OAR, and UC-B's NCAR, have extensive data on weather, including air flow, and yes, climate change, of the world, including the US. Their findings show that the most measurable effects of wind farms are that they slightly increase near-surface temperatures at night, while sightly decrease them during the day. If you've seen those regions, that's actually a good thing. But in general, their effects are insignificant to overall weather patterns. Other weather research centers, such as ECMWF, have corroborating data. I've yet to see any studies done on the effects of wind farms, now that there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of these 500 ft tall monsters populating the Great Plains. I DO know our weather patterns have changed in the past three years with the electricity has begun to be produced from wind and connected to the grid. I've grown bananas in my back yard 4 out of the past 5 years running where my trees never did before. Our winters have been extremely mild for the past 5 years, with the exception of the past December/January . Energy is not free. All you need to know is the well known "for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction" Our weather patterns are driven by energy in the atmosphere, energy that's being removed to generate electricity. This is being ignored by those who have a vested interest in Wind power.

This touches on another aspect of using solar energy, which includes solar-voltaic, solar-thermal, and wind: The amount of solar power incident on the US is over 100 times more than what we use. Wind power can come from the ocean, so it's not limited to just the solar energy actually falling on us. If we can tap just 1% of that, our energy needs will be completely served, forever.



First of all, most illegals I've seen can't afford to drive, so the claim that they are the major contributors to pollution is simply not true. The industries that exploit their labor, the main reason they're here, certainly do not pander to them. I am all in favor of forcing them to be legalized, so maybe they'll be treated more like humans, by other humans, but not likely.
if illegals aren't driving, then how are they moving around ? They're not walking or riding horses.
The exemptions for classic cars were pushed through by hobby and collector lobbyists; mostly collectors, as they have the most money. I made a very small contribution to that effort some 30 years ago helping the Shelby American Auto Club to collect signatures for a petition. The reasoning was that the numbers of cars in these categories and miles driven by them are so small compared to the ~200B miles of total car traffic in California each year.
As would be the OP's vehicle. So that's a moot point.
Unfortunately, smog regulations go by model year of the car or engine, whichever is newer. So if you install a modern engine into an old car, CA DMV will want it to meet the requirements of the year of the modern engine, regardless of its actual effects on smog. I think they developed rules like that to prevent people from trying clever tricks to get around the intent of the rules.

In my 69 Mach is a 68 block, so it's not subject to smog checks. But I would love to install the EFI engine from my 87 Mustang, even if that meant having to do biannual smog checks. The newer engine is, again, more efficient, cleaner, more powerful, and generally much more usable than the old. As much as I tuned that Holley 4 bbl, I just can't get it to match even one aspect of the performance of Ford's EFI.