Any suggestions on were to buy and what brand?

Thanks
Rick

 

Federal-Mogul/Speed-Pro #CS-118R (cam only), #KC-118R (kit with lifters), GM #12364052 with lifters, Crane #969551 (cam only).

 

My memory is that there is basically an exact GM part # (modern #) cam kit that is sold with lifters that is the 30/30 but manufactured by Crane actually. I have one at home that I will not sell. You might try the GM parts dealer out of Ohio and the name is not coming off the top of my head. They have a catalog with that same GM part # cam. Also in the PAW catalog they had Muscle car replica cams listed a few catalogs back that had these same basically Crane cut cams. Please remember that alot of factory parts were manufactured by aftermarket suppliers like TRW, Centerforce, Kelsey Hayes, Crane, etc.. I will check on you on monday and if you haven't found what I am talking about, then I will get you the that part number to see if still available. The last performance parts catalog I have is dated about 2004. I am at work and don't have the stuff here. I thought I owed someone at least one good deed today!

 

PLEASE TAKE MY ADVICE ON THIS ONE LOL

go to ebay, and search for 30-30 duntov..

a company called Midway Performance, or Predator Cams sells them routinely...

I replaced both an LT-1 in my Corvette and a Federal Mogul 30-30 in my 1969 Z28 with this camshaft.

Why?

they have slighly improved the design, and it makes all the difference in the world. Apparantly, faster flanks on the camshaft. The specs are 254 at .050 with .485 lift on a 114.. which is what every part book will tell you for the 30-30 duntov...

predators cam has a slightly shorter duration at .020 and more at .200 valve lift.

There are people on this board that will tell you that this is BS and that I'm full of it, but I can tell you from realworld expereriance that it isn't bs... and anyone who wants to come to allen park, MI to feel what that cam is like in a 302 DZ motor in a 69Z, or in a FI 327 motor in my 64 Coupe.

I woudln't put any other cam in my cars...

The Z, has headers, and at 4000rpm, it will blow the tires off the car and pin you into the seat until 7500 rpm. Its unreal..

The FI isn't quite as strong but it has manifolds on it.

the idle is dead on, and i've put over 10k miles on each cam and the valve lash stays right where it should.

Thanks

aaron

 

You've still never produced any chassis dyno charts...

Rick - search the archives for a thread titled "327 LT-1" by Mark Johnson, last July.

Duke

 

Thanks for the imput.
I can not seem to find the post in a search and I'm
not sure how to access the archives.

 

I believe this is the thread Duke was referring to:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1444006

 

Yes, that's the thread. Sorry, I should have said to search posts started by "ghostrider20". Click search at the top of the index page, then advanced search. Spend a little time getting to know how to search the archives. There is a wealth of information, and most common questions have been answered many times.

Duke

 

Don't need dyno tests.

With the predator 30-30, tne car will simply blow the tires off the car from 4000 rpm on up... it isn't a torque montstor by anymreans, but it pulls like crazy and is an absolute joy to drive... with even with this seemingly "unstreetable camshaft"

With the LT-1 cam, it just won't do it. It ran good, but not like with the 30-30. I' have predators LT1 also, which is their updated version of that cam also, that i was going to try in either the corvette or the Z, but it runs so good as is, i don't want to fool with it.

I wouldn't agrue if the difference weren't so obviously apparant in the drivability and performance of the car.

Aaron

 

Yeah, who needs dyno tests? Who cares about torque bandwidth? Heck, what IS torque bandwidth, and who needs to know what the power bandwidth really looks like as long as my SOTP says it's better than any engine whose full torque and power curves from 1500 to 7000+ have ever been tested and posted.

I don't need no stinking dyno test because I'm a genius and my engine is better than any engine ever built.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Duke

 

geeze, must of hit the right button

duke, you have been talking about 80-90% of peak torque through the entire rpm range with the LT1 cam... which sounds great...

but if you only achieving 80-90% of a poor peak torque, then that isn't that impressive to me.... I don't recall what McDuffords torque numbers or Ghostriders were, but they didn't impress me at all.

SOTP as you refer to it...(seat of the pants) for those who weren't sure...
obviously isn't a measureable entity, but you seem to feel that any thing designed and manufactured other than the LT-1 camshaft and the 2006 LS7 motor is a waste of time and money and just myths promulgated by camshaft manufacturers... furthermore, you state things like "Headers make little to no difference."

when you take a car like my Z, (which by the way is a bone stock restored 1969 Z28 with its original DZ302) and change one piece at a time for comparison sake... the changes in performance, (or lack there of) can be easily measured.... whether you feel that it is perception or not, I can certainly tell a difference in the performance of my own car.

as stated before, I went from the stock 30-30 cam to the predator 30-30 while keeping all of the stock componants and the difference was clearly noticable... it is easy to roll out of a stop and had plenty of stop light to stop light power..... when i added the headers (which you said would not reduce backpressure) the car totally came to life across the rpm band... you no longer need to keep the revs up to roll out of a stop, and the car will blister the tires anwhere from 3500 rpm on up in 1st 2nd or 3rd.... this is something that it wouldn't even think of doing with the OE cam. And I've owned other header equiped 302s with the OE cam, same gearing, and I've never experianced the type of performance that this motor is capable of.

In my 64 L84, I went from an OE LT1 camshaft to this predator 30-30 and I experianced the same exact results.

If you need Dyno sheets to prove to you what is obvious to me, then I'm sorry but i'm not gonna pay 75 bucks a pull to tell me crap that I alrady know.... i know my a/f ratio is fine after checking plugs multiple ways, i have no detonation, and I get great gas mileage.

Bottom line. The cars run better and that is all there is too it.

I would like to believe that the LT1 shaft is a better piece, but i've not had that personal experiance.

So I will continue to reccommned this camshaft without Dyno sheets.
And I offer anyone an opportunity to ride in my cars with this cam and they or you can be the judge.

Thanks

 

BS piled on BS! All of McDufford's and Johnson's torque and power curves (the peaks and entire curves) - and those of several others - have been posted on this forum.

All you offer is BS, which seems to be the rule, rather than the exception on this forum.

Duke

 

What are you talking about? I never denied that those weren't available... and I admit that i've seen and read them thoroughly... and quite frankly, i'm not impressed.

And unlike you, my experiance comes from doing real cam swaps in real cars and driving them on real roads.... not Desktop Dyno or Engine Analyzer. Which I'm sure are great programs, but you've only theorized negatively on what happens when you make changes that the entire automotive world recognizes as sucessful.

For instance, this issue of Modern Cam Design... which you maintain is nothing more than a myth...

I wholeheartedly agree that if using OE parts, especially exhaust.... you will likely not find a better cam than the SHP cams and I have verified this 3 times by installing similiar (smaller and larger) camshafts than the 30-30 or LT1 camshaft... however, the second you go to aftermarket parts (headers, and better flowing exhaust systems)... you are in a whole new world... that you yourself have stated that you have no interest or experinance in.

So lets agree to disagree and be done. I"m not going to go get dyno pulls for the sake of an argument, unless anyone on this board has access to a dyno in the Detroit area... i'll gladly bring both cars by for baseline pulls.

Until then, i'm maintainging what my intellect and experiance tells me.

 

Aaron
with EVERYTHING you've said....
Bill

 

Me too, 100% aftermarket parts DO WORK
George

 

I'm certainly not looking for a battle here...

but you can't argue with real life experiance...not only mine, but clearly others.... do some other research on other forums with guys who actually run cars on the street and not on a computer, and guys who also have run OE cams and swapped to aftermarket... with appropriatly matched componants.

Someone asked for a reccommendation on a 30-30 and I, having great experiance with the predator version (which is an aftermarket (NON BLUEPRINT VERSION) reccommended it.

Getting to the issue of BS,

80% of peak torque sounds great.... but when peak torque is 265 ft/lb Is that all that impressive???? not to me.

that sounds about right for a 2005 Honda... LOL

I use this reference, because i'd loose stoplight street races with my Lt1 cammed 64 coupe... It would eventually pull OK, but was not impressive at all.

Since I swapped cams.. (and I went through 3 others in this very motor before arriving at the Predator 30-30) not any more.... dyno or not.

What I will agree with, is that no matter how trick your camshaft is, if you are bottlenecked with cast maniofolds or a high backpressure exhaust, don't waste your time with aftermarket parts.

if you match things properly you can make a whole ton more power across the entire rpm range.

but not everyone wants an altered underhood.

The mistake I was making was trying to use a tight LSA camshaft with cast manifolds and alot of back pressure.. Duke has preached on this a ton and he is absolutely correct.

Now, putting headers on and a good freeflowing exhast, opens up a world of performance and leaves the stock cams behind.

my Z or Vette might not make 80% peak torque across the same bandwidth that the LT1 cam does, but I guarantee that the peak torque and HP are much higher than that motor with the LT1.... I also have a 2005 GTO that will loose it a$$ to my 69Z from either dead stops (with some clutch slippage) or from a 30 roll.... trust me... i've done this dog race a ton of times with friends at 2am.... and we know that the 05GTO will turn low 13s if not high 12s, and is a proven 400hp/400 ft/lb LS2 motor. - and a damn good one i might add.

That being said, would you rather have 80% or more of 265 peak torque across the rpm range? or say a 60% or more of 400 peak torque across the range... if you want to use this formula... do the math.

So, while I can't verify with Dyno pulls that my Z28 or Corvette make a peak torque of 400 ft/lb, but I can assure you tht the Z will will outrun that GTO (which is a fast car to say the least) gearing is similiar and the goat has much better rubber on the back end, so driving the old car can be a bit of a chore.The vette falls back a bit, but it holds its own pretty well. It makes a ton more usable power than it did with LT1 camshaft,,, even at low rpms. Now I have an FI on the car, and that is supposed make less torque than the stock 4bbl.

 

No, I use Engine Analyzer as a system engineering tool to develop engine configurations. Then the owners I work with have their engines tested on either lab or chassis dynamometers, and this provides feedback on whether the simulation models are accurate. Dave McDufford's tests caused me to change the SHP inlet manifold model, and this resulted in excellent correlation with Mark Johnson's test results.

Unless you take a legitimate engineering/scientific approach to engine development - test the completed engine and have a baseline for comparison, you are just another backyard bubba parts swapper.

As far as you not being "impressed" with reported torque figures, unless you have a test baseline to compare - like your own engines - you are just blowing BS into the wind.

Peak torque is basically a function of displacement and compression ratio, so peak torque on any configuration of the same CR and displacement is going to be in the same ballpark. Cams and head work will not significantly effect peak torque, but will affect the engine speed at which peak torque occurs and also effect the shape of the torque curve as expressed by various torque bandwidths, and this is the key to engine flexibility, but bubba just doesn't understand this concept and probably never will.

Headers will increase peak torque somewhat, but to achieve the full benefits header and tailpipe design must be carefully matched to overlap, but significant exhaust backpressure will negate the effects.

Your claim of 400 lb-ft of torque from a 302 and every other claim you "gurarantee" is just a pipe dream. Pure BS!

Get the car tested on a chassis dyno and quit making ridiculous claims.

Duke

 

I really appreciate everyones imput.Now I'm really confused.

 

These must still be a "super-popular" grind. I personally sell 5 pieces per year myself and I just had a phone call this morning for 10 pieces all going to the same store. I believe it was from another local resto-shop. Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. We recently "broke" one in on the dyno and I have to admit it still sounds "nasty" to this very day. It's got that certain "ring" to it!

 

Question.... why would you use EA to configure engines that have already been configured???

In both of these instances, the motors are entirely stock aside from using an LT1 camshaft in an otherwise OE engine combination... this is hardly rocketscience... and yet you cal me a backyard parts changer??? come on.

And, my not being impressed has nothing to do with baseline numbers... as far as i'm concerned, those are baseline tests as you are using entirely stock and unmodified componants.

So here are some real dyno numbers to chew on.

Page, 72 and 73 from Wayne Guinn's book,
"camaro - untold secrets"

dyno results from the 1967 302 Z28 Motor.

they are using the offroad Camshaft (140) and starting the pulls at 2400 rpm,
2400 rpm - 240 lf/lb
3000 rpm - 260 ft/lb
3600 rpm - 315 ft/lb
4000 rpm - 330 ft/lb
4400 rpm - 5200 rpm - 340 ft/lb
5200 rpm- 6000 rpm - 335 ft/lb
6000-rpm - 7000 rpm falls from 335-325 ft/lb
7000-rpm - 7400 rpm fall from 325 - 315 ft/lb

meanwhile, HP
at peak torque of 340 ft/lb @ 4800rpm, the pull starts at 410hp
and climbs to 441 max hp at 7400 rpm.

Tuned headers, and full vehicle exhaust.

the smaller 30-30 cam would likely move that torque curve down some... but at peak torque , the 302 is making more hp than the other two 327 LT1s you list (even figuring in driveline reduction)

these numberrs ARE at at the flywheel.... so take out the 10% driveline factor... and that takes 40hp out of the motor... bringing to to 400hp,
and take 34 ft/lb out and that brings that down to roughly 310 ft. lb.

that is still better than these other LT1 cammed 327s, and this is using that OFFROAD camshaft, I believe what you refer to as an Unstreetable camshaft.

this dyno test was done using pocket ported 461 2.02 heads, 800cfm holley vac sec. in 1967, which used the earlier design corvette aluminum intake... not even the Z28/LT1 style.

in my discussion with Wayne Guinn, he personally shared that in the engines he builds today, he doesn't use the OE grinds as they are not accurate and by tightening up the lobe centers, you can put more torque in these motors. He has updated the :Lt1 lobe, the 30-30 lobe, and the offroad camshaft lobe, and has done extensive testing with all three cams in 302 motors. All finding that his cams, with tighter lobe centers,shorter seat duration, and more agressive flanks out perform the OE camshafts all across the board.

Wayne Guinn is hardly "bubba"

So, sure. and I'll agree that while 400 ft/lb probably isn't achievable from a 302, it shouldb't be far off for a 327, and certainly attainable with a 350. Yet with the OE LT1 camshaft, both of your dyno results aren't even close.

So call me bubba all you like, i never guaranteed that my 302 makes 400 ft/lb... i just said it would outrun a car with a confirmed 400 ft/lb LS2.

By the time the torque peaks, the HP is way up there to take over and pull the car.... so if you focus entirely on torque bandwidth, you are missing the other part of the equation.


Of course this is entirely BS also i'm sure.