Good application for this cam?

-

fshd4it

Squid inc
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
671
Reaction score
370
Location
Winock WA
I've had this Comp 275DEH sitting on the shelf, new in the box, for close to 20 years. From what I've read, it's a decent choice for something with manifolds and a stock-type converter. What about a stock, low compression engine, only doing a cam swap? Not as I have any plans like that, just wondering about hanging on to it any longer is all.

20251231_184629.jpg
 
I've had this Comp 275DEH sitting on the shelf, new in the box, for close to 20 years. From what I've read, it's a decent choice for something with manifolds and a stock-type converter. What about a stock, low compression engine, only doing a cam swap? Not as I have any plans like that, just wondering about hanging on to it any longer is all.

View attachment 1716494334
A 360 with 9:1 would likely work well with that cam. If your thinking 318, you'll need as much compression as reasonably possible. Say 9.6:1 and 3.55 axle in an A body.
 
The other reason I've held on to it is it's age. I kind of hoped it pre-dates all their cam/lifter issues.
Its likely a good core. Howards hydraulic lifters, or your in Wa. Call Delta and get a set of lifters, he faces them.

Or. Cam grinding 1410 is their version of this camshaft.
 
That will be a good choice for a low compression engine. BIG (16 degrees @.050") duration split with a fairly tight LSA. Crower was the first to introduce that in the early 70s. It's kinda along the same lines as the Hughes Whiplash and Thumpr grinds. And indeed it is about as big as you wanna go with a stock converter. Great for manifolds too.
 
The other reason I've held on to it is it's age. I kind of hoped it pre-dates all their cam/lifter issues.
It does by a long shot. They don't make that grind anymore. You used to be able to special order it but you caint even do that now.

I would STILL send a new set of lifters to @NC Engine Builder and let him reface them. No sense in taking chances.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong Rob, but didn't you run that cam in a 383? I did a search on it a few years back, and kinda remember you posting something like that.
 
it'd probably be pretty decent in a 360, especially if it had a hair more compression than a stock wheezer. it's about two ticks above a stock 340 cam, which is what a stock 4bbl 360 got... so think about how those ran.

a little aggro for a 318 if you didn't have some stall and gear to back it up.

either way, i'd 100% change the springs.

ETA: this with a set of closed chamber aftermarket heads would be a really nice little combo that you could snap together "on the cheap". add a "air gap" and QFT 680 and it'd be a good little street combo that you could run on manifolds, stock 'verter and whatever gears out back.
 
Are you sure about that? Those profiles are still listed in their lobe catalog (#'s 5130/5135).
Almost 100%. They have "basically" the same grinds as the DEH but they renamed them something else and gave them a lot more lift and fast rates of lift. The durations and LSA are still the same.
 
Almost 100%. They have "basically" the same grinds as the DEH but they renamed them something else and gave them a lot more lift and fast rates of lift. The durations and LSA are still the same.
Looks like they still have the DEH profiles. They'll grind it for you if you custom ordered it. Of course there's probably better options now.

1767247251196.png
 
Looks like they have a .904-specific hydraulic flat tappet lobe profiles in their "Thumpr," "Purple Plus," and "Xtreme Mopar" lines.

https://edelbrock-files-v1.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/catalogs/COMP-Lobe-Catalog.pdf
Interesting, that the MM SFT profiles list a maximum of .650 lift with 1.5 ratio rockers. I spoke with Jim at Racer Brown last month and he seemed to think .630 was about maximum lift capacity for the Chrysler cam core, but said he didn't like producing them...
 

So, let's say I've got a 360 short block with speed pro H116CP pistons @ .005 below deck. Which I do. And this cam. 1.6 rockers would increase the lift from .462/.482 to .493/.514. I understand lift isn't everything, but it's something, and not needing a new cam would offset the cost of the rockers...
 
Interesting, that the MM SFT profiles list a maximum of .650 lift with 1.5 ratio rockers. I spoke with Jim at Racer Brown last month and he seemed to think .630 was about maximum lift capacity for the Chrysler cam core, but said he didn't like producing them...

I think he means with a 1.5 rocker.

A .3875 lobe with a 1.6 rocker is .620 gross lift.

I’m kicking myself is the *** because I could have went up a lobe or two and been in the .650 range.

That is about as far as I would push 5/16 hold down bolts
 
So, let's say I've got a 360 short block with speed pro H116CP pistons @ .005 below deck. Which I do. And this cam. 1.6 rockers would increase the lift from .462/.482 to .493/.514. I understand lift isn't everything, but it's something, and not needing a new cam would offset the cost of the rockers...

I’d get all the lift I could.

If you look at a flow curve of several different heads it really takes .400 lift before the better heads start making hay.
 
I think he means with a 1.5 rocker.

A .3875 lobe with a 1.6 rocker is .620 gross lift.

I’m kicking myself is the *** because I could have went up a lobe or two and been in the .650 range.

That is about as far as I would push 5/16 hold down bolts
Jim sent me an STX 20M for a build I did last spring. I complained about the low lift and he said, "look at the lobes."

I cant disagree with him about the "dwell over the nose," but I decided to try a .590 lift that Ken ground. It would be interesting to try the two cams on a dyno and see where it goes...

If only there were some mushroom lifters floating around...
 
So, let's say I've got a 360 short block with speed pro H116CP pistons @ .005 below deck. Which I do. And this cam. 1.6 rockers would increase the lift from .462/.482 to .493/.514. I understand lift isn't everything, but it's something, and not needing a new cam would offset the cost of the rockers...
FWIW: "let's say I've got a 360 short block with speed pro H116CP pistons @ .005 below deck."

I ran the same set up (116Cp pistons) on 340 rods in an LA360 at .030 over, with 246/254 SFT @ .550 lift on 110 and it pulled like freight train through the midrange with 1.92 intake EQ 318B heads. ITs done at 5600, good to 5800.

The Chrysler valve train geometry scrubs some lift. For instance 273 rockers with a SFT .490 are .462 at the valve with .014 lash.

N.B.T. will know how much lift your loosing with HFT.
 
So, let's say I've got a 360 short block with speed pro H116CP pistons @ .005 below deck. Which I do. And this cam. 1.6 rockers would increase the lift from .462/.482 to .493/.514. I understand lift isn't everything, but it's something, and not needing a new cam would offset the cost of the rockers...
i'd ask what the application was, what heads you had, what the rest of the combo was and why you would want that much lift.
 
Unknown intentions for the motor, it's a spare. I'm trying to finish up (or close to) all the loose projects. I've got a set of unported 2.02 J castings, Air Gap intake, and a 3310 Holley. For now. But my comment was kind of a question, would the extra lift be worth the cost of new rockers?
 
-
Back
Top Bottom