Cam sheet doesn't match advertised cam numbers

[1MeanA]

Call Jim and see what he has to say. His lobe library is far different than just about everyone. Especially at .200"!

I do not believe than Ken creates cam master patterns. If you look at his lobe catalog and then go to comp you'll see where a lot of the hydraulic lobe patterns come from.

I was curious as to which cam RRR was referring to.

I have chosen a couple cams out of his catalog and spoken with him about them....the 1410 and 1179. They have the same numbers as the XE262 and XE268 although the 1410 is on a 112 LSA not 110 LSA although that could be changed.

 

[340six]

I was curious as to which cam RRR was referring to.

I have chosen a couple cams out of his catalog and spoken with him about them....the 1410 and 1179. They have the same numbers as the XE262 and XE268 although the 1410 is on a 112 LSA not 110 LSA although that could be changed.

I would have to find the thread.
There was a guy who did say he had a 68 four speed can and was going to work with Jim at Racer Brown to remake them.
It like always had guys saying same cam as Ken's ect. That newer design was better.
All he wanted was to see was interested party's wanted it. Or was going to be a waste of his time and money.
As was going to have to foot the bill to have a minimum amount made.
(IE) Did not want to get stuck with them.As more costly than other off the self available was.

 

[1MeanA]

I would have to find the thread.
There was a guy who did say he had a 68 four speed can and was going to work with Jim at Racer Brown to remake them.
It like always had guys saying same cam as Ken's ect. That newer design was better.
All he wanted was to see was interested party's wanted it. Or was going to be a waste of his time and money.
As was going to have to foot the bill to have a minimum amount made.
(IE) Did not want to get stuck with them.As more costly than other off the self available was.

Oh that cam. I know about it. Yes it would be interesting

 

[340six]

Oh that cam. I know about it. Yes it would be interesting

68 340 speed cams

Back when I was cam shopping I was interested in something milder like this but as a solid.
Most companies don't have anything smaller.
But went with larger solid in the 422six
I think I went to far down the page. It's hard to not go towards the bottom of the page. Lol

 

[RustyRatRod]

Which cam?

The 68 4 speed cam.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Exactly.
I've said that 100 times.
But those who insisted it was 'close' argued it was essentially the same. And they were louder and more instant.
Fact: Its not the same.
Fact: It can't be compared to a real 4-speed cam without having one to compare with.

When EXACTLY did you KNOW FOR A FACT that it was NOT the same? I can tell when I found out. In this very thread. All I was going on was what was said all over the forum from the one or two people who were responsible for getting Oregon to make that cam, so that's all the information I had to go on. Did you know early on and decide to keep it to yourself, or did you just find out recently and want to act like you've known all along? I'd like to know which it is. As you've "said it 100 times" that leads me to believe you've known they weren't the same for a while, yet somehow, this is the first I've seen you be so adamant about it. We all knew all along they were not exact, but when did you know they were this far off? When exactly? And why didn't you say something until now? Or are you just trying to make others sound stupid?

 

[Illahe]

I would have to find the thread.
There was a guy who did say he had a 68 four speed can and was going to work with Jim at Racer Brown to remake them.
It like always had guys saying same cam as Ken's ect. That newer design was better.
All he wanted was to see was interested party's wanted it. Or was going to be a waste of his time and money.
As was going to have to foot the bill to have a minimum amount made.
(IE) Did not want to get stuck with them.As more costly than other off the self available was.

A cam grinder can only do so much with his master lobe library. My understating is that most shops do not have the equipment to create a master pattern. Lacking this capability, they "tweak" their patters to achieve the best possible outcome.

That beings said, I have met ken at his shop and realize he has forgotten more than I will ever know about camshaft manufacturing. Hell, the Ol' fella runs a 385 series in his Fox body!

Worth reading:

Valve motion is probably the least understood element of a successful performance engine. Kinematics, fluid dynamics and metallurgy must all be mastered by any engineer that sets out to design a successful valve motion profile for a high performance engine and ultimately translate this motion onto a camshaft that will accurately produce the same motion at the valves. This is not always the level ofengineering you will get when choosing a camshaft for your engine. Unfortunately there is a dirty little secret in cam design that is still practiced today by some manufacturers that either “don’t know what they don’t know” or choose to ignore the learning curve required to engineer a modern high performance camshaft. “Morphing” or master tweaking is when a camgrinder takes an existing profile master (a large lobe shaped disc followed by a cam grinding machine) andtweaks the grinding machine (including CNC grinders) causing it to stretch or distort the actual grindingpath of the master to achieve a “morphed” cam lobe and then builds a second master from the morphedlobe. This is not cam design by any stretch of the imagination, yet many cam grinders unfortunately still use morphing to develop new profiles! Hertzian contact stress, spring harmonics, maximum follower wear pathlength, component mass and flex, and cam drive feed back are examples of just a few of the constraints that cannot be directly address by morphing. Modern lobe design is no longer primarily done in the displacement domain or physical shape of the lobe, but in the derivatives of that shape. Velocity, Acceleration, and Jerk are the first 3 derivative domains of the lobe shape and are the domains that mostof the real design work is accomplished in. Even mechanical engineers can struggle with designing inmultiple domains, so it is not the point here to teach but simply to describe the process. The designer must first understand and then solve for the constraints of the specific engine application being addressed, including the intended RPM range, required airflow along with the inherent physical and volumetric weaknesses of the original engine. This process cannot be accomplished with morphing!

Author: Jim Wolf

 

[RustyRatRod]

A cam grinder can only do so much with his master lobe library. My understating is that most shops do not have this capability so they "tweak" their patters to achieve the best possible outcome.
That beings said, I have met ken at his shop and realize he has forgotten more than I will ever know about camshaft manufacturing. Hell, the Ol' fella runs a 385 series in his Fox body!

Worth reading:

Valve motion is probably the least understood element of a successful performance engine. Kinematics, fluid dynamics and metallurgy must all be mastered by any engineer that sets out to design a successful valve motion profile for a high performance engine and ultimately translate this motion onto a camshaft that will accurately produce the same motion at the valves. This is not always the level ofengineering you will get when choosing a camshaft for your engine. Unfortunately there is a dirty little secret in cam design that is still practiced today by some manufacturers that either “don’t know what they don’t know” or choose to ignore the learning curve required to engineer a modern high performance camshaft. “Morphing” or master tweaking is when a camgrinder takes an existing profile master (a large lobe shaped disc followed by a cam grinding machine) andtweaks the grinding machine (including CNC grinders) causing it to stretch or distort the actual grindingpath of the master to achieve a “morphed” cam lobe and then builds a second master from the morphedlobe. This is not cam design by any stretch of the imagination, yet many cam grinders unfortunately still use morphing to develop new profiles! Hertzian contact stress, spring harmonics, maximum follower wear pathlength, component mass and flex, and cam drive feed back are examples of just a few of the constraints that cannot be directly address by morphing. Modern lobe design is no longer primarily done in the displacement domain or physical shape of the lobe, but in the derivatives of that shape. Velocity, Acceleration, and Jerk are the first 3 derivative domains of the lobe shape and are the domains that mostof the real design work is accomplished in. Even mechanical engineers can struggle with designing inmultiple domains, so it is not the point here to teach but simply to describe the process. The designer must first understand and then solve for the constraints of the specific engine application being addressed, including the intended RPM range, required airflow along with the inherent physical and volumetric weaknesses of the original engine. This process cannot be accomplished with morphing!

Author: Jim Wolf

Ken's really sharp that's for sure.

 

[Mattax]

When EXACTLY did you KNOW FOR A FACT that it was NOT the same?

At least as far back as that 2019 thread when we asked Karl and he wrote that its not quite the same. Since he had the cam copied and he posted the cam sheet that seems pretty factual. He may have made a post about it even early than that, but I'm not looking for it since you asked when did I become convinced. It was that thread.

As you've "said it 100 times" that leads me to believe you've known they weren't the same for a while, yet somehow, this is the first I've seen you be so adamant about it.

I dunno. I thought this was pretty adamant.

Post in thread 'Anybody running the '68 4 speed 340 cam?'

Nov 3, 2025

To add to that, there is nothing wrong with telling someone the product is already available so they don't make an investment in something that isn't going to sell in any significant volume.

The product is not available. There is something close, but thats not the same.
It may be good enough for some, but others were interested in the original - surviving examples of which is hard enough.

It's like saying a Tisas 1911A1 is the same as an US purchased Colt or Rem Rand. its close and reasonably priced, but its not the same.

• Mattax

Post in thread 'Anybody running the '68 4 speed 340 cam?'

Nov 3, 2025

I thought it was a duplicate of an original cam. Is it not?

It's not. I just posted its not. Clearly I'm not on your ignore list, but apparently I was not clear.

Oregon's '68 4-speed cam may be about as close as can be easily purchased.

The product is not available. There is something close, but thats not the same.
It may be good enough for some, but others were interested in the original - surviving examples of which is hard enough.

• Mattax

 

[RustyRatRod]

At least as far back as that 2019 thread when we asked Karl and he wrote that its not quite the same. Since he had the cam copied and he posted the cam sheet that seems pretty factual. He may have made a post about it even early than that, but I'm not looking for it since you asked when did I become convinced. It was that thread.



I dunno. I thought this was pretty adamant.

Post in thread 'Anybody running the '68 4 speed 340 cam?'

Nov 3, 2025

To add to that, there is nothing wrong with telling someone the product is already available so they don't make an investment in something that isn't going to sell in any significant volume.

The product is not available. There is something close, but thats not the same.
It may be good enough for some, but others were interested in the original - surviving examples of which is hard enough.

It's like saying a Tisas 1911A1 is the same as an US purchased Colt or Rem Rand. its close and reasonably priced, but its not the same.

• Mattax

Post in thread 'Anybody running the '68 4 speed 340 cam?'

Nov 3, 2025

I thought it was a duplicate of an original cam. Is it not?

It's not. I just posted its not. Clearly I'm not on your ignore list, but apparently I was not clear.

Oregon's '68 4-speed cam may be about as close as can be easily purchased.

The product is not available. There is something close, but thats not the same.
It may be good enough for some, but others were interested in the original - surviving examples of which is hard enough.

• Mattax

What I wanted to know was, when were you aware it was as FAR OFF as this thread describes? We've all known that supposedly it was "a little" off. That was known right from the rip. You're tellin me stuff we all already knew. This thread here is the first "I" have seen that it was this far off...regarding overlap and such. That's a long way.

 

[1MeanA]

I just want to be clear. Ken just copied this cam from a given sample. He is not claiming anything. I did ask him if anyone would knowingly recommend or buy a 276/309 cam. I didn't really get an answer but we all know it. He said it is pretty common to see discrepancies between advertised and actual. It wouldn't be bad if it was out a just a couple degrees. I’m not upset with anybody just a little miffed that I could have done better for this engine. I’m sure I will enjoy it this summer.

 

[RustyRatRod]

I just want to be clear. Ken just copied this cam from a given sample. He is not claiming anything. I did ask him if anyone would knowingly recommend or buy a 276/309 cam. I didn't really get an answer but we all know it. He said it is pretty common to see discrepancies between advertised and actual. It wouldn't be bad if it was out a just a couple degrees. I’m not upset with anybody just a little miffed that I could have done better for this engine. I’m sure I will enjoy it this summer.

Yeah I understood that. The part I never knew until this thread was that the cam presented TO Ken was not an original 340 4 speed cam. THAT is where MY confusion came in.

 

[Mattax]

A cam grinder can only do so much with his master lobe library. My understating is that most shops do not have the equipment to create a master pattern. Lacking this capability, they "tweak" their patters to achieve the best possible outcome.

That beings said, I have met ken at his shop and realize he has forgotten more than I will ever know about camshaft manufacturing. Hell, the Ol' fella runs a 385 series in his Fox body!

Worth reading:

Valve motion is probably the least understood element of a successful performance engine. Kinematics, fluid dynamics and metallurgy must all be mastered by any engineer that sets out to design a successful valve motion profile for a high performance engine and ultimately translate this motion onto a camshaft that will accurately produce the same motion at the valves. This is not always the level ofengineering you will get when choosing a camshaft for your engine. Unfortunately there is a dirty little secret in cam design that is still practiced today by some manufacturers that either “don’t know what they don’t know” or choose to ignore the learning curve required to engineer a modern high performance camshaft. “Morphing” or master tweaking is when a camgrinder takes an existing profile master (a large lobe shaped disc followed by a cam grinding machine) andtweaks the grinding machine (including CNC grinders) causing it to stretch or distort the actual grindingpath of the master to achieve a “morphed” cam lobe and then builds a second master from the morphedlobe. This is not cam design by any stretch of the imagination, yet many cam grinders unfortunately still use morphing to develop new profiles! Hertzian contact stress, spring harmonics, maximum follower wear pathlength, component mass and flex, and cam drive feed back are examples of just a few of the constraints that cannot be directly address by morphing. Modern lobe design is no longer primarily done in the displacement domain or physical shape of the lobe, but in the derivatives of that shape. Velocity, Acceleration, and Jerk are the first 3 derivative domains of the lobe shape and are the domains that mostof the real design work is accomplished in. Even mechanical engineers can struggle with designing inmultiple domains, so it is not the point here to teach but simply to describe the process. The designer must first understand and then solve for the constraints of the specific engine application being addressed, including the intended RPM range, required airflow along with the inherent physical and volumetric weaknesses of the original engine. This process cannot be accomplished with morphing!

Author: Jim Wolf

Thanks. I think you wrote something along the same lines to shed light on Carl's statement below about the .006

The only other thing that was off on mine was it was .006" less exhaust lift which Oregon can't "fudge", so their clone can be made to the exact lobe centers and lobe center line, with full intake lift, and only .006" less exhaust lift....

^^The lobe center difference^^ probably refers to the fact that the cam card he posted shows 112 LSA.

a 276/309 cam. I didn't really get an answer but we all know it. He said it is pretty common to see discrepancies between advertised and actual. It wouldn't be bad if it was out a just a couple degrees. I’m not upset with anybody just a little miffed that I could have done better for this engine.

Right. Since you're real goal is not about recreating the original 340 4-speed but getting more performance along the lines of a hot factory engine, I don't see you getting the blueprinted cam just to find out the difference. We can play with the numbers available, but we don't know the .004 tappet lift for either cam, so it without that its all a bit of guessing. I took a guess for the purpose of getting a ballpark comparison out of the Dynomation simulation.

Jim (Wyrmrider) said that Chrysler's advertized duration is probably close to .008 and posted some comparisons.
Assuming that's basically true then
276 284 is around .008 valve lift (Chrysler 2899205)
276 309 is at .009 valve lift (Oregon 2120)

How much difference does that make, I don't know.
Then there is also likely a difference in profiles so the clearance ramp and acceleration might look different.
Are any of these differences enough of a difference to make a difference?
I don't know, but beleive they might be because as @RustyRatRod posted recently, the Chrysler cam was used in production engines with an intial timing of TDC at 700 rpm. (not saying it was great, just pointing out it would run like that on every car sold). @1MeanA isn't interested in pursuing this any further, and I totally get that.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Thanks. I think you wrote something along the same lines to shed light on Carl's statement below about the .006

^^The lobe center difference^^ probably refers to the fact that the cam card he posted shows 112 LSA.

Right. Since you're real goal is not about recreating the original 340 4-speed but getting more performance along the lines of a hot factory engine, I don't see you getting the blueprinted cam just to find out the difference. We can play with the numbers available, but we don't know the .004 tappet for either cam. I took a guess for the purpose of getting a ballpark comparison out of the simulation.

Jim (Wyrmrider) said that Chrysler's advertized duration is probably close to .008 and posted some comparisons.
Assuming that's basically true then
276 284 is around .008 valve lift (Chrysler 2899205)
276 309 is at .009 valve lift (Oregon 2120)

How much difference does that make, I don't know.
Then there is also likely a difference in profiles so the clearance ramp and acceleration might look different.
Are any of these differences enough of a difference to make a difference?
I don't know, but beleive they might be because as @RustyRatRod posted recently, the Chrysler cam was used in production engines with an intial timing of TDC at 700 rpm. (not saying it was great, just pointing out it would run like that on every car sold). @1MeanA isn't interested in pursuing this any further, and I totally get that.

Well, something made a difference in the overlap, didn't it? At least with the cam the OP has. Thing is, if we had Chevys and this was a Chevy forum, you wouldn't see any of this garbage mess like this. They get all their junk right.

 

[1MeanA]

...
Jim (Wyrmrider) said that Chrysler's advertized duration is probably close to .008 and posted some comparisons.
Assuming that's basically true then
276 284 is around .008 valve lift (Chrysler 2899205)
276 309 is at .009 valve lift (Oregon 2120)

How much difference does that make, I don't know.
...

I don't know about that. That would mean that cams were very aggressive. My Oregon cam sheet has intake at 276 deg at 0.006. I was wondering if their advertised exhaust number might be at 0.008". Perhaps that was based on Wyrmrider's comments. The cam sheet numbers @0.050" do match the factory specs. Its a weird cam anyway when you add the slow ramps and a late 70 degrees intake closing.

 

[Mattax]

My Oregon cam sheet has intake at 276 deg at 0.006.

Tappet rise
x 1.5 rocker ratio for lift at valve
That's where the .009 comes from

 

[Illahe]

I don't know about that. That would mean that cams were very aggressive. My Oregon cam sheet has intake at 276 deg at 0.006. I was wondering if their advertised exhaust number might be at 0.008". Perhaps that was based on Wyrmrider's comments. The cam sheet numbers @0.050" do match the factory specs. Its a weird cam anyway when you add the slow ramps and a late 70 degrees intake closing.

Thanks. I think you wrote something along the same lines to shed light on Carl's statement below about the .006

^^The lobe center difference^^ probably refers to the fact that the cam card he posted shows 112 LSA.

Right. Since you're real goal is not about recreating the original 340 4-speed but getting more performance along the lines of a hot factory engine, I don't see you getting the blueprinted cam just to find out the difference. We can play with the numbers available, but we don't know the .004 tappet lift for either cam, so it without that its all a bit of guessing. I took a guess for the purpose of getting a ballpark comparison out of the Dynomation simulation.

Jim (Wyrmrider) said that Chrysler's advertized duration is probably close to .008 and posted some comparisons.
Assuming that's basically true then
276 284 is around .008 valve lift (Chrysler 2899205)
276 309 is at .009 valve lift (Oregon 2120)

How much difference does that make, I don't know.
Then there is also likely a difference in profiles so the clearance ramp and acceleration might look different.
Are any of these differences enough of a difference to make a difference?
I don't know, but beleive they might be because as @RustyRatRod posted recently, the Chrysler cam was used in production engines with an intial timing of TDC at 700 rpm. (not saying it was great, just pointing out it would run like that on every car sold). @1MeanA isn't interested in pursuing this any further, and I totally get that.

I stay away from hydraulic profiles for the aforementioned discrepancies in valve timing. The grinders don't profile the cams in a poorly machined production block...

The best one can do with a hydraulic cam is centerline the lobe to No.1 cyl. Now a SFT with some "true" rocker arms allows for event timing adjustment "whith-in" the allowable lash "window" See: @Schnidercams, Kevin has lobe profiles that have a "lash-window" in his pattern library.

I too was disappointed with 340 hydraulic profiles. Both 10:1+ with 2.02 J heads. The first was an Erson TQ 30 that made the trash can...The second was an Isky Mega 280H that I ran Rhodes lifters on. WAY better!

3.31 stroke Mopars just don't seem to like the hydraulic cams above 212@ .050" for street use, I presume its due to the erratic lobe timing across 8 cylinders. Vacuum suffers greatly.

The last 340 I ran (last summer) is 9.6:1 242/242 on a 106lsa with .490 lift. I'm running it at 6000' da with a 750 DP and an automatic with, gasp... a Torquer intake.1.88 intake valves with 345 castings and 273 rockers. 13.175 in the 1/4 look up the NHRA altitude correction factor.

Setting a high bar for a hydraulic cam is/was my own failure not the manufactures.

FWIW if you need to crutch a poor profile for street "'competition' light to light" use a spread-bore...

 

[Illahe]

I don't know about that. That would mean that cams were very aggressive. My Oregon cam sheet has intake at 276 deg at 0.006. I was wondering if their advertised exhaust number might be at 0.008". Perhaps that was based on Wyrmrider's comments. The cam sheet numbers @0.050" do match the factory specs. Its a weird cam anyway when you add the slow ramps and a late 70 degrees intake closing.

FWIW get some 273 rockers and pushrods from one of your Mopar buddies and lash all the valves equally. If it was my ride I'd try .030" and even go a smidge tighter after I saw the rise in vacuum and increased drivability.

 

[1MeanA]

FWIW get some 273 rockers and pushrods from one of your Mopar buddies and lash all the valves equally. If it was my ride I'd try .030" and even go a smidge tighter after I saw the rise in vacuum and increased drivability.

I've been looking for a set here up north. They are getting hard to find. Piecing together a cam ,lifter, pushrod and adjustable rocker assembly is awfully expensive these days. A roller set-up, which I really like, are insane.

 

[Illahe]

I've been looking for a set here up north. They are getting hard to find. Piecing together a cam ,lifter, pushrod and adjustable rocker assembly is awfully expensive these days. A roller set-up, which I really like, are insane.

Every once in a while I can score a set up for $150. IIRC the last set was about 200~ and more often then not the banana grove shafts are missing...

FWIW Rocker Arms Unlimited

I tried a set of these:

and the geometry was garbage on a .590" lift... Un-useable!

 

[RustyRatRod]

FWIW get some 273 rockers and pushrods from one of your Mopar buddies and lash all the valves equally. If it was my ride I'd try .030" and even go a smidge tighter after I saw the rise in vacuum and increased drivability.

I've been preachin that for years, but I always get argued with. You can vary the valve lash on a hydraulic and it WILL make a difference!

 

[RustyRatRod]

Every once in a while I can score a set up for $150. IIRC the last set was about 200~ and more often then not the banana grove shafts are missing...

FWIW Rocker Arms Unlimited

I tried a set of these: View attachment 1716544829
and the geometry was garbage on a .590" lift... Un-useable!

What make are those?

 

[Illahe]

What make are those?

I believe they were boxed PRW, and they were hideous. Granted, I only checked them on my speedmasters which come equipped with +100 valves.

 

[Illahe]

I've been preachin that for years, but I always get argued with. You can vary the valve lash on a hydraulic and it WILL make a difference!

Amen!