340 cam timing, 1.6 rockers?

-

Joe Darte

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
11
Location
Buffalo Bob’s basement
Throwout bearing on my 340LA / A833 OD was trashed, so I used the opportunity to pull the engine and trans for a good cleaning, re-sealing, repainting, and some fresh dress up.... well that got WAY OUT OF CONTROL.

The engine supposedly had 5,000 miles on it when I bought the car. I wanted to do some oil system upgrades. When I had the pan off, the cylinders looked brand new. The 1967 Dart it belongs in has always impressed everyone on the butt-Dyno. I knew it wasn’t stock, had a hefty cam, possibly some porting, obvious bolt ons. So I decided to lift the heads to really find out what I had.

So let’s get down to the meat of it and get to my questions. I’ll supply as much information as I possibly can.

The old running set up is as follows.

1972 340 block, bored 0.030” over for 4.070 bore.
Stock cast crank, 3.31” stroke.
Stock rods.
Mildly (although amateur appearing even though done by a “porting service “) ported 915 J-heads with 2.02 / 1.60 valves, unknown springs, and what looks like aluminum retainers (non magnetic, can scrape them with my knife) so doesn’t seem like titanium to me. Unknown if the heads were milled. Stock stamped steel rockers.
Pistons are cast, they come up 0.1045” shy of the deck. They have 4 valve reliefs cut in the flat top.
Double roller timing chain.
The cam is also a mystery. It sounds mean at idle. The car has no issues idling at 650rpm and has a choppy sound. I’m guessing 108ish degrees of LSA. The only measurements I could pull were .270/.299 lift on the lobes.
Headman headers, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, 1407 750CFM.

Looking to squeeze a little more power with just bolt-ons. I’m looking to get Edelbrock 6077 heads with 63cc combustion chambers to bump the compression a little, and some better flow. But I was also looking at a set of 1.6 ratio full roller rockers. Do you guys think 1.6 rockers would be safe to run with what appears to be stock cam timing? I didn’t see any means of degreeing the cam, looked like a standard double roller timing gear. Or am I crazy for thinking about increasing the valve lift without knowing my piston to valve clearance on my current set up? We are only talking about 0.027” - 0.030” more valve lift with 1.6 ratio rockers.

89399410-1948-46E2-834A-2C503ABEEF14.jpeg


721CA9E0-CAEB-4CC6-BDE0-D072DDCA4923.jpeg


The second photo is the engine currently. I was just about finished with the engine except for the rockers. That’s when I started toying with the idea of buying the compression with the 63cc heads and putting a higher quality rocker in it.
 
That cam sure is low lift......even calculating 1.6 rockers. Makes me wonder which one it could be. Erson made a line of low lift cams like that. Some of them got pretty nasty on the duration side. Have you taken the cam out yet? Maybe look on the back and see if there are some numbers on it.
 
That cam sure is low lift......even calculating 1.6 rockers. Makes me wonder which one it could be. Erson made a line of low lift cams like that. Some of them got pretty nasty on the duration side. Have you taken the cam out yet? Maybe look on the back and see if there are some numbers on it.

I didn’t pull the cam out. Wishing I did before I re-sealed everything up and painted the engine. It always ran great, gave passengers whiplash, cylinders looked like they just left the machine shop, cam didn’t look wiped out. So I figured, don’t fix what ain’t broke and closed it back up. I did find that 2 cylinders had the rockers installed wrong so they had a bad wear pattern on them. So I needed to replace the rockers, which lead me down the hole of just getting some better heads. Funny how these things happen.

You really think I should tear it back open to see if it has some grind numbers on it?
 
I didn’t pull the cam out. Wishing I did before I re-sealed everything up and painted the engine. It always ran great, gave passengers whiplash, cylinders looked like they just left the machine shop, cam didn’t look wiped out. So I figured, don’t fix what ain’t broke and closed it back up. I did find that 2 cylinders had the rockers installed wrong so they had a bad wear pattern on them. So I needed to replace the rockers, which lead me down the hole of just getting some better heads. Funny how these things happen.

You really think I should tear it back open to see if it has some grind numbers on it?

Hell no. If you're happy with it, slap that pup back in and drive it.
 
Hell no. If you're happy with it, slap that pup back in and drive it.

It is an awesome sounding cam! The car pulls like a freight train. I was just worried about valve / piston clearance having not known what cam it was, but at such a small difference from 1.5 to 1.6 rockers, probably not much to worry about I guess
 
It is an awesome sounding cam! The car pulls like a freight train. I was just worried about valve / piston clearance having not known what cam it was, but at such a small difference from 1.5 to 1.6 rockers, probably not much to worry about I guess

They'll never hit.
 
I have valve a lot clearance with this combo;

360 cid
Zero deck Hyper-U Speed Pro slugs w/2 valve reliefs.
(Super similar as the KB-107’s)
Trick flow heads w/1.6 rocker
Comp Hyd. Roller @ 224/230@050
1.5 lift .538 - .534
1.6 lift .573 - .569

After using clay to see what I had for clearance, I was surprised. Much room left over.

However, I will say a lot about clearance is also the cams timing. More so than the actual valve lift itself. Always check even after you degree the cam in.
 
Yeah, you've got a country mile of piston to valve clearance.
I would definitely put the 1.6s on. It will liven up the torque curve and make up some of the lift deficit you have.
 
However, I will say a lot about clearance is also the cams timing. More so than the actual valve lift itself. Always check even after you degree the cam in.

Exactly. Piston to valve has nothing to do with total lift, its duration @ .050 and lobe center.
I've had cam profiles with less P/V clearance at 10° ATDC than at the top.
 
I once used a Comp solid 296S, 248*@050 w/.525 lift. Stupidly installed in on the 4* (IIRC) advanced key way on the crank. When I disassembled the top end, the valves were super close that it didn’t allow carbon to build up on the piston.

I retweaked the timing, later on another disassemble the carbon equally coated the piston top. Which I had pictures for this thread.
 
I once used a Comp solid 296S, 248*@050 w/.525 lift. Stupidly installed in on the 4* (IIRC) advanced key way on the crank. When I disassembled the top end, the valves were super close that it didn’t allow carbon to build up on the piston.

I retweaked the timing, later on another disassemble the carbon equally coated the piston top. Which I had pictures for this thread.

One way to find out where you're at ;)
 
Zero deck Hyper-U Speed Pro slugs w/2 valve reliefs.
(Super similar as the KB-107’s)
Trick flow heads w/1.6 rocker
Comp Hyd. Roller @ 224/230@050
1.5 lift .538 - .534
1.6 lift .573 - .569

Ever think of sticking your .590 in that?:)
 
A couple of cranks in storage.... gotta build the toy fund back up some...
image.jpg
 
Look at all of those toys !
 
1.6 rockers are a waste of money
roller rockers are a waste of money
loooks like a white box cam diven the lift
change the cam
or just tune and drive
 
Exactly. Piston to valve has nothing to do with total lift, its duration @ .050 and lobe center.
I've had cam profiles with less P/V clearance at 10° ATDC than at the top.

Exactly. It's not the "how much" but "when" the valve is open.
 
longer duration cam as the valves open more before and after tdc
lift has nothing to do with it
fast acting longer cams have more open than just longer but i doubt you have that
still you should be fine
but roller 1.6 rockers are just marketed to seperate you from your money
only of like Krooser's circle track motor where he has maxed the duration are they worth it
changing cam is not tough
post up your cranking compression when you get it on the road and go from there
need more? advance your cam 4 degrees and retest= do you like it better?
get a cam 8 degrees shorter with more lift/ area
worse? go the other way and retard it (not likely)
 
longer duration cam as the valves open more before and after tdc
lift has nothing to do with it
fast acting longer cams have more open than just longer but i doubt you have that
still you should be fine
but roller 1.6 rockers are just marketed to seperate you from your money
only of like Krooser's circle track motor where he has maxed the duration are they worth it
changing cam is not tough
post up your cranking compression when you get it on the road and go from there
need more? advance your cam 4 degrees and retest= do you like it better?
get a cam 8 degrees shorter with more lift/ area
worse? go the other way and retard it (not likely)
Totally disagree with the 1.6 rocker statement though there is a point where I would question why?

Valve lift has a direct impact on horse power IF you combo can use it. While I’m sure Wyrm (or others) will point out and say, “Well you the choose the wrong cam!” IMO, it is to easy to arm chair quarterback that issue. Even more so when your not eyebrow deep in knowledge of cams and how it should work on YOUR combo.
 
I don't get the statement that lift has nothing to do with p-v clearance. It might not have everything to do with -pv clearance but it surely has something to do with it.
 
It is an awesome sounding cam! The car pulls like a freight train. I was just worried about valve / piston clearance having not known what cam it was, but at such a small difference from 1.5 to 1.6 rockers, probably not much to worry about I guess

As far down in the hole your piston sits,you have nothing to be worried about with valve to piston clearance.
 
-
Back
Top