MiguelsC2

Hydraulic flat tappet


Gross intake lift .490 exhaust lift .475

Duration@ .006 intake lift 287 exhaust 305

Valve timing @ .006 open: intake 40 BTDC exhaust 80 BBDC

Close: intake 67 ABDC exhaust 45 ATDC

Cam installed @ 102.0 intake center line

Duration @ .050 intake 235 exhaust 249

Lobe lift Intake .3270 exhaust .3170

Lobe separation 107.0

All opinions welcome.

AZDoug

You need to also indicate how many cubic inches the motor is, intake and exhaust methods and compression ratio to make a meaningful comment.

Doug

JohnZ

That's a pretty radical hydraulic cam, with a late-closing intake valve and narrow LSA; would be a lousy cam for a street engine. Have no idea what it is.

Donny Brass

it's going to pull reall hard from 4000 up

MiguelsC2

MiguelsC2

John, your opinion is always respected.
Could you be more specfic why it's not an appropriate grind? My knowledge on cams is limited.

1-2-b-67L89

Is the intended use of the cam primarily for the street, and have you taken into account what vacumn needs if any you may require? Doug made an excellent point stating more info to more correctly answer your question is needed.

MiguelsC2

I am not looking for application advice. I want a person of true knowledge to tell me what application this best fits .Not conjecture. But the facts as they relate to this cam profile.

64_365

Application advice is what giving camshaft advice is all about. Now why do you want specifics about this one camshaft profile? There are thousands of camshaft profiles, why are you interested in this camshaft?

AZDoug

Answer my questions and maybe you will get an answer.

That cam would be awful in a 283 with stock exhaust and original intake and fairly mild in a 454 with aftermarket heads. It may not run at all with the wrong compression ratio.

Doug

MiguelsC2

Fair enough. I was short on my details.
I was considering the above cam to replace my 365hp mechanical cam.

Small block chevy 327ci +
3000lb car
2.02 - 1.60 valves
11.25 to 1 compression
3.70 + rear end gearing.

FYI on compression. The LT-1 in '70 was 11 to 1 with mechanical cam. The 72 LT-1 was lowered to 9.5 to 1 with the same mechanical cam as the '70. Magazine tests at the time show the 72 ran neck and neck with the 70 LT-1.

Kensmith

Here you go, download this free from Comp Cams and run it with your cam and see how you like it?

http://www.compcams.com/camquest/

MiguelsC2

Great idea. But the link to the free download is dead.

Kensmith

You clicked on the free link and it didn't work? I have it on my home computer. Scroll down to the bottom and try it again.

AZDoug

The cam you spec'd sounds like a typical hot rodder magazine engine build cam, used to generate a cover splash like "Get 550 HP out of your 327!" What they don't tell you is the cam is a dog on the street under 3500 RPM, but it does make great power with the right heads at 6000 RPM.

The specs are probably better suited to a flat solid cam, or maybe a hyd roller, where 7000 RPM is more attainable. If the LSA was 110-112, it would be better down low with wider torque band, and minimal high RPM power loss.

I would also suggest the cam as spec'd would be best with 1 5/8" 4 into 1 headers and a tall single plane manifold, or a tall 180 degree manifold of recent design,and not suitable at all for cast iron exhaust and typical mid 1960s factory manifold, as it still won't run down low, and the stock manifolds will choke the cams potential at higher RPM.

My slightly educated opinion.

Doug

MiguelsC2

No dice. Try it yourself. They must have taken it down.

aaronz28

that cams looks alot like the new Voodoo grinds which have very very agressive ramps... it will make alot more noise (even as a hydraullic) than the 30-30 or LT1 cam does.. and probably require heavier spring pressure and require more frequent valve adjustments.

if you are going to an aftermarket head and headers.. then i too would stay away from the OE factory grinds..

if you are keeping the fuelly heads, and ramshorn exhaust manifolds, stock OE intake...

stick with the 30-30, LT1, or even the old Duntov 091 cam.

also, with 11.25:1 compression (if it is actually blueprinted as such) then that cam is gonna create alot more cylinder pressure (because of its smaller seat duration) and create detonation problems unless you are willing to 110 no-lead in the tank.

I've tried several aftermarket flavor of the day camshafts in my otherwise Stock SHP Corvette Engines,... and as long as you are bottlenecking the engine with the stock heads/intake/exhaust.... you aren't going to improve much on the Original SHP cams...and if you find something that makes better low end, you are gonna give up something on the top end, and or be stuck with heavier springs, more frequent valve lashes, etc. etc.

Best of Luck

A

Kensmith

Send me your email. I will email it to you and then try to download the 20MB file.

65tripleblack

The inlet valve closes relatively early @ 67 ABDC (J604D). As an example: your 30-30 cam inlet valve closes @ 79 ABDC (J604d), and the LT1 cam's inlet valve closes @ 82 ABDC (J604d). Your engine will develop too much dynamic compression with a SCR @ 11.25:1 to run detonation free on 93 PON fuel. Without lengthy calcs, I'd guess that max SCR to run on 93 PON would be around 10.0 - 10.5.

Overlap is a whopping 85 degrees @ J604d! By comparison, the 30-30 has 67 degrees and the LT1 has 68 degrees. This cam will give you very poor vacuum at idle.

This could be a circle track cam. Certainly not a street cam.

63 340HP

Compared to the 30-30 in a EA3.2 model using your specs:

The selected cam has too much advance for the 11.25:1 static compression, working better if retarded 6-degrees from the recommended 102 ICL. This selected cam is more suited for a 9:1-10:1 static compression ratio.

With double the overlap, the selected cam pulls @10"hg at idle compared to @15" for the 30-30 (more than a rough idle for your cam choice).

The 30-30 with exhaust manifolds also bests this cam by about 7% in power and torque.

Headers help counter the extra overlap of the selected cam, but headers also really wake up the 30-30 (although the 30-30 still bests this cam, the spread is more like 5% with headers).

If you were starting out with a lower compression late 70's L48 the cam may be a step up in high rpm power and performance "sound quality" but compared to your engine's combination with the 30-30 it comes up short for street usage (and that is not saying much to recommend the selected cam, considering the 30-30 is considered mildly radical o the street unless you run a 3.70 or lower axle ratio).

All of the above is free opinion, take it for what it's worth.