it are not a vortex head, it are 487x heads.

 

Here Richard,,,, this is a build with 'FAKE' dbl-hump aluminum heads. Most don't notice,,

 

That's EXACTLY what I'm talkin' about! I have some finned valve covers with no holes, a six deuce setup, and a Spaulding Flamethrower distributor(if you know what that is), would look perfect in a T roadster with no hood or fenders, wide whites on chrome reverse wheels...but this is not the H.A.M.B. Thanks for those pictures!

 

Those could even fool or local technical inspection! (Very strict, made me sell my yellow 79 because the bottom CA arm rails were welded).

Back to cams, what's your opinion on the melling 22234?
MELLING 22234 Specifications Advertised Exhaust Duration 291 Advertised Intake Duration 283 Basic Operating RPM Range 3000 Cam Type Hydraulic Flat Tappet Computer Controlled Compatible No Exhaust Duration at .050 inch Lift 230 Exhaust Valve Lift (in) 0.486 Exhaust Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio (in) 1.50 Intake Duration at .050 Inch Lift 224 Intake Valve Lift (in) 0.480 Intake Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio (in) 1.50 Lifter Type Hydraulic Lobe Separation 110

It ll be either the melling, summit k1103 or k1104 or the XE262 (with the XE262 probably winning)

 

You may find, on a 9 - 9:5:1 350-350, that ≥ 222* Intake duration w/ flat tappet can be a little sluggish in normal traffic conditions.

* especially so w/ an auto trans

suggest 218* - 220* Intake duration @ 0.050"

 

Solved this problem a decade ago. Took $1 worth of JB Weld. see my post up top.
My 61 has a 355 4spd- when it had a 3.36 rear a crane 218/218/114 it got 20 mpg.
with the comp magnum 270 224/224/110 it only got 14 mpg, and with a 4.11 it only got 11 mpg. NOW with the true dual plane mod- no more internal leakage, it gets 16 mpg 14-18 around town is fantastic with a 4.11 rear and 224/224/110 cam Never sluggish

 

Isky 270 mega cam works real well in a 350 with that C/R; their 264 is a step down from that one.
Makes very strong torque, enough vaccum to work power brakes
Not a fan of the XE series

 

Guys,
you can't just throw a cam in an engine and not re- tune it. XE cams need a very fast curve kit, plus full isolation of the dual plane.
Way over your head.

 

Also, regarding break-in & durability ... Hi-intensity FT cams (those with fast, aggressive ramps) are much more prone to fail (both during & post break-in) than Lower-intensity FT cams' profiles (slower, more gentle ramps). Physics & Practical Fact, not just opinion.

 

True. valve springs can't be too stiff or the cam may wipe quickly. Need to use old school oil, like Valvoline VR1.
Had an old Crane gentle ramp cam wipe once, not hardened properly. No problem so far with CompCams xe or magnum.
I'd say while they will idle at 500, it is not a good idea. i shift to neutral when stuck at a light more than 3 seconds.

 

Damn! if my math's right, that's about $7.20 USD / gallon. I know Europe led the world in diesel passenger car usage/production ... but, in recent years, I've been under impression many European jurisdictions are aggressively enforcing newer environmental laws; intended to end diesel use. Is that so?

 

Think they are supposed to be 100%EV by 2025? id be leaving Europe.

 

I tried the XE cams WAY back when they first came out, there is NOTHING waiting for you there except that they REQUIRE strong valve springs to keep things in check at high RPM's due to the excessive seating velocities (lifter crash). I even did a "back to back" dyno test with one and it was a complete "turd" compared to a factory cam I was using at the time. Comp grinds all their "low" level cams on tight LSA's for one reason...."bling". Who is going to pay your car any mind when it rolls into a car cruise idling like a 1985 305 powered Chevy pick up truck? Despite their marketing genius those lumpy little cams don't do anything else they claim aside from a little "attitude" at idle speed, stinky exhaust, and require more timing and fuel to keep things happy.

If you could get the compression up some you'd be a lot happier with a CS-179R cam or something close to it instead, 222/222/114LSA. Seat timing is up around 290-300 degrees if memory serves me correctly. It's pretty much a duplicate of the old 327/350hp cam, but an excellent choice for a 350 build with moderate compression if you want decent idle quality, no ping on pump gas and a broad/smooth/flat power curve to about as far in the RPM range as you feel like shifting it at.

The 487 heads are about as good as it gets for factory offerings with the larger combustion chambers but they don't make enough compression with flat top pistons to allow for a lot of camshaft to be used, at least if you don't want the engine to be a little "soggy" at lower RPM's as mentioned above. I like to see at least 10 to 1 compression with a well thought out 350 build and done correctly with tight squish and well chosen camshaft it will manage pump gas just fine with "normal" timing/fuel curves. I actually build mine here around 10.2-10.6 with flat top pistons and around .035" squish to allow for more camshaft and still idle well and more power at every RPM than dropping the compression a point or so and trying to run a "whiz-bang" fast ramp short seat timing cam to bring all the power back (torque).......FWIW......Cliff

 

I ran the Isky 264 mega cam in my 76 L82 with 3.36 gear and T400. Much better low and midrange than the L82 cam.

 

Cliff makes a good point, that with over 10:1 you can use a wide LSA cam. But if it is under it can be a real turd in ordinary driving.
I'm at 9.7:1 with a steel shim HG. 175 cranking compression, yet likes 87 octane (w/cold air intake).
Numerous Hot Rod, Car Craft tests showed the xe262 makes more power, BUT in dyno tests of the xe268, it often was a turd like Cliff suggests. Bigger is NOT better. Notice how Cliff says he tried the XE cams. NOT the xe262. He got a too big cam and didn't like it
And the rough idle is cured by stopping the huge vacuum leak between the 2 planes. When you have a 3.08 and TH400 and it lays down rubber with a stock converter, like mine, it is tuned right.

 

1974 to 1980 was not a good period for the L-82 engine. Crappy heads, too much squish area and "low" compression combined with too much camshaft equals a "turd" at every level. GM built another one with the 290hp 350 crate engine option. Once again too much quench area and too much camshaft for the compression ratio. I quit taking either of those in here for "custom tuning" years ago as you really don't have anyplace to go without digging into them and installing a smaller cam to yank to power down where you need it the most......Cliff

 

"Numerous Hot Rod, Car Craft tests showed the xe262 makes more power"

Don't get caught up in the propaganda with Magazines involved with aftermarket parts, especially camshafts. I have some EXCELLENT stories about that deal, but they are for another day. Dyno testing doesn't give you an idea about how the engine will behave for idle quality, normal driving, efficiency in the "normal" driving range, and real street and track performance.

The other fly in the ointment is that 99 percent of the testing done by customers is "seat of the pants", with comments like "pulls harder", or how much further it spun the right rear tire in a hard right hand turn leaving Dairy Queen, etc. Since I street and track test just about everything I've determined that the "butt meter" is not to be trusted and lies to us just about every single time.

I've had quite a few troubled engines (Buick, Olds, Chevy, Pontiac) brought here over the years where the owner was somewhat and often horribly UNHAPPY with the end result, and a common denominator for many of them have been Comp XE, precluded by the Thumper and Thump-Ya-***** stuff.

I built an engine with an XE268 cam (400 Pontiac) decades ago when they first came out (I just had to find out what all the "hipe" was about). NOT the first bit impressed anyplace so removed it and went back to a Crower grind we'd been using. The XE cam idled much better than expected looking at .050" and LSA, but that's the FIRST clue it's not going to make big power because you can't get past the laws of physics with N/A engines. It had a "quirky" idle, thru some power at you early, then faded away to nothing and DONE by 5000rpm's.

A few years later I did some back to back dyno testing with some Comp custom ground cams and found out that the "fancy" lobes with less seat timing, quick ramps and ultra-quick seating velocities will NOT outrun a longer duration (.006" tappet lift) with softer ramps and similar .050" numbers, not even close really. Comp tells us that the lost seat timing or time the valves are off seat is made up by more "area under the curve", but it just doesn't work that way with flat cams due to the limitations imposed by the lifter diameter vs the ramp profile.

Anyhow, not meaning to be negative in any way, "menacing" idle quality is typically one of the desires of the end user so the cam companies steer in that direction with tighter LSA. I don't mind that, but telling us about how much more power we make at every RPM, improved vacuum, stronger top end, how much more water they walk on, leaping taller buildings, tucking us in at night and cooking breakfast for us in the morning is nothing but fancy marketing to help sell those parts........

Anyhow, for the number crunchers here are the dyno number of the three cams I tested back to back in one of my 455 engines.

Factory RAIV, 308/320, 231/240@.050", 113LSA ICL at 109.......496hp/567tq

Comp custom ground with the XTQ lobes, 284/296, 240/248@.050", 112LSA ICL at 108.....484hp/544tq.

Comp custom ground HR cam withe 284/296, 230/242@.050", 112LSA ICL at 108. 499hp/570tq.

The roller was left in the engine and a couple days later I put it back in the car and did some track testing. Best ET/MPH with the RAIV cam was 11.64 @ 116mph.

The HR cam went a best of 11.52 @ 118mph so there was more going on there than the dyno showed us........Cliff

 

I found the melling alternative of it, 22220 iirc,
think I can get the comp up to 10:1 without too many problems

 

the xe262 is a patch for low compression engines. it works well, as tested by many cf members, both at the drags, on the dyno, and on the street, back around 2000- 20+ years ago.
i built my 72 in 1999- back then the advice was 9:1 as a street max. This proved to be bad advice, and if i were building it now, i'd go 10.5. then there are many cams that should work well- there was a solid cam i'd try, not suggesting this for you, just saying that there are many more choices at 10.5:1

 

I'm not sure who first stated on the Internet that the proverbial "brick wall" for pump gas with these engines is 9.5 to 1. That is the most inaccurate statement ever made in association with this hobby and not a day goes by it doesn't get regurgitated by someone in a thread someplace.

Compression is your friend with these things. Higher compression allows for more camshaft to be used with less negatives. Dropping compression to around 9.5 to one or limiting it to 9.5 to 1 then installing a short seat timing camshaft on a tight LSA leaves a LOT of power on the table. I've even seen several engine builds that pinged with compression that low when the cam was too small, LSA too tight and intake closing too early.

It's also rare when someone building one of these engines even knows exactly what the compression ratio is? When I'm asked to help the owner and even the engine "builder" seldom knows either.

Since I tune for a living I get to meet a lot of nice folks and get to work with a lot of engine combo's. Most 350 SBC builds for example end up with THICK head gaskets on them where the factory used a .020" steel shim. The pistons are often WAY below the deck at TDC instead of around .015-.018". So instead of the quench being .035-.038" it's typically in .050"-.090" range instead. NOTHING good comes from all of that and many of the owners of these engines believe or were told they were around 9 to 9.5 to 1 (for pump gas) when they are really a LOT lower.

If they were simply higher in compression with tighter quench I probably wouldn't be asked to help them in the first place, but in the same sentence I wouldn't be in business either if folks made good decisions with this sort of thing!........Cliff