284/484 mopar cam for 340

-
A

akehurst89

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2013
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Location
Washington
Can u run stock 1.5 rockers and valve train with this grind cam? I have a 1970 dart swinger with a 340 with x heads. 10.5:1 comp and all forged internals.
 
Stock rockers will work, I would upgrade the springs though. Comp 901-16 would probably fit the bill.
 
MoPar has the correct spring for this. It is a bolt on deal, no hassle.
 
good cam use the correct spring, probably wont have much vacuum if you have power brakes maybe 8" if your lucky
 
EL5DEMON340 said:
good cam use the correct spring, probably wont have much vacuum if you have power brakes maybe 8" if your lucky
Click to expand...

I ran one with Rhoades lifters and got it to idle at 800 and 13"...

Yes, stock rocker arms will work.
 
Buzz it up around 6000 on a regular basis, and you'll make one of these now and again.

IMG_0461_zps7801e080.jpg%7E320x480
 
I'd install it at 102-104 if it's the 108 LSA model to get some low end back in it. I wouldn't touch the wider LSA model.

Cam works well with plenty of initial advance to get the idle manners tamed.
 
so best way to go replace springs and retainers. Anything special pushrod wise? factory ones work fine? Also I have a 214/464 in it now and was look for alittle more performance as well as more of a loup to the cam. Is the cam very street friendly?
 
akehurst89 said:
so best way to go replace springs and retainers. Anything special pushrod wise? factory ones work fine? Also I have a 214/464 in it now and was look for alittle more performance as well as more of a loup to the cam. Is the cam very street friendly?
Click to expand...

As long as they're straight, they should be fine. As far as street friendly, look at the comments above...you have a couple options. Yes it will certainly lope compared to the one in there now...

Are you running a stick or auto? Gears?
 
Unless you have a true blueprinted 10.5:1 compression, that cam is too big by a good bit, IMO. The early 340s may have been rated at that compression, but they all came in a good bit lower because of Chrysler's machining tolerances. They usually came in around one full point lower.
 
I ran that same combo in my 69 swinger 340 4 speed, 3.91 rear back in the early 90"s, factory replacement trw pistons, stock rockers, headers, torker 2 intake, it loped pretty good. Pulled hard to 6k but didn't really start screaming til about 3k. Showed a lot of 5.0 Mustangs and Camero's my tail lights.
 

Attachments

  • swinger.jpg
    54.2 KB · Views: 571
The motor in the car was built by a company in Michigan before I bought the car. I have all the resets and the engine builders spec sheet on the motor and it says 10.5:1 but I don't know that to be the gospel truth...honestly who knows that all I have to go off of. So another question, if the car isn't 10.5:1 and it's actually lower what problems would I have with the motor and having lower compression?
 
I have used that cam many times, its a pretty good cam when set up right,but there are a lot more better choices out there now, back in the day we didn't have many choices........Rhodes lifters really compliment that cam, so if u already have it u may as well use it..............less compression makes less low end torque.....kim.....
 
I ran this cam in my all stock 69 340 swinger 4speed 3.55's in the late 70's and it was a rocket.
 
I used that cam in the mid 1980s. Good cam. A lot of duration however. My set up included the recommended Mopar performance valve springs, stock rocker arms and Rhodes lifters. My cuda also had a 3000 converter and 4:10 rear gear. The car ran 12.8-13.2.

The cam worked well with my setup because a had a true 10.5 compression ratio. The X heads I used were milled. The combustion chambers were 63 cc. I would not use the cam for an engine build with low compression and/or highway gears or stock converter.
 
I have that cam in my car now. Not much vacuum at idle, but pulls hard. But i do have eddy heads and tti headers.
 
Like was said - your compression is iffy unless the receipts you have say it was blueprinted to that (meaning it was measured - and you should have the measurements on record somewhere...). If you have less, the cam may be a little doggy below 2500. You should degree it regardless, but you should also listen to Cracked and install it advanced a little. It will help with the idle and low end issues.
Personally - I'd stick in the XE268 with 901-16 springs and call it done.
 
moper said:
Like was said - your compression is iffy unless the receipts you have say it was blueprinted to that (meaning it was measured - and you should have the measurements on record somewhere...). If you have less, the cam may be a little doggy below 2500. You should degree it regardless, but you should also listen to Cracked and install it advanced a little. It will help with the idle and low end issues.
Personally - I'd stick in the XE268 with 901-16 springs and call it done.
Click to expand...



I used Rhoades lifters with my 484/284 cam and got it to idle at 800 rpm over 11" vacuum. Runs great!

Advancing it a little may help also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top