340 short block cam decision help!

-
19scamp72

19scamp72

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
69
Reaction score
2
Location
canada
I have a early 1968 340 short block high conpression block. Looking to find out what my best bet for choosing a cam, using1969 X heads, I have a 2800 stall and 323 gears, I want something lumpy but something that will increase performance something I can use with the stock bottom end at 10:5:1 compression. Please let me know your thoughts on what cam i can use. I am new to mopar :) and love them already
 
id use something in the [email protected] 108-110lsa .480-.500 lift area. not real aggresive but will make good streetable power with a broad torque curve. my .02
 
The smallest Thumpr cam would be good.
 
Ok so the small smallest thumper cam is 20-600-04 can i use stock pushrods and rocker arms withthis cam. It says it required adjustable valvetrain? And head machining why is this?
 
txstang84 said:
Hey Rob, I thought I read commentary in posts before you didn't care for the thumpr line of cams, or did I read something incorrectly?
Click to expand...

No, for people who are interested in sound, they are fine. Those same people just need to know that there are probably more optimal choices for performance. If you're not really looking for every ounce of power for your combo but want it to sound good, what's the harm.

And on the cylinder head machining, they say that because of the springs they recommend. But I see no reason at all why the Comp 901-16 could not be used. I am sure some forum geniuses will be along to tell me how frikkin stupid I am, but that's my opinion. They will work fine and not have to machine anything. I also see no reason why you cannot use the stock rockers. But you need to make SURE as you assemble, because if the cam is ground on a reduced base circle, as some are, it may require custom longer pushrods. however, it would be better to run with adjustable rockers so you can get lifter preload dead right. that's pretty critical.
 
That's a good one. Won't hit like the thumpr but will probably perform better.
 
RustyRatRod said:
No, for people who are interested in sound, they are fine. Those same people just need to know that there are probably more optimal choices for performance. If you're not really looking for every ounce of power for your combo but want it to sound good, what's the harm.
Click to expand...

Gotcha-kinda what I figured, but thought I'd ask all the same.
 
I would think the 901 springs would work fine, right up to the point where you run into guide to retainer interference.
 
txstang84 said:
I would think the 901 springs would work fine, right up to the point where you run into guide to retainer interference.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was taking for granted the OP would be checking and correcting that as necessary. Maybe that was assuming too much?
 
txstang84 said:
Gotcha-kinda what I figured, but thought I'd ask all the same.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've never said the thumprs were pieces of crap. I don't like to see people jump on the bandwagon when something with a new flashy name comes out, when there have been cams that do the exact same thing that have been out 40 years or more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top