Good application for this cam?

[junkyardhero]

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?

on that combo with the J's you'll probably come in around 9.5 compression which is kind of the low side of what i'd want on a .500 lift cam

i personally wouldn't be springing for new rockers on something that i was just kinda piecing together. especially if i was still going to rock the stock mannys and converter.

but change that stuff up? then it's a whole different ball ball o' wax

 

[Illahe]

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?

Quality rocker gear is not cheap! And most oem LA heads flow well up to .450 lift, that's why that camshaft was designed with that lift/duration.

With those H116CP pistons and the open chamber J head, that camshaft should be very efficient at making strong torque.

Talk to RRR he has a similar camshaft in his 400M powered Fr'd pick up.

 

[fshd4it]

i personally wouldn't be springing for new rockers on something that i was just kinda piecing together. especially if i was still going to rock the stock mannys and converter.

Then there's that. It's doubtful I'll run manifolds on a car, even more so a stock converter. Or it might end up with an 833.

I could avoid the cost of new rockers by putting Magnum heads on it (I'm sitting on a rebuilt stock pair), have quench, and spend the coin for an intake.
I'm not intent on using this thing. If it would work reasonably well in one of these scenarios, sure, I'll run it. But leaving it on the shelf any longer is dumb.
I'm sure there are tons of better cams out there. But there's also tons of better motors and cars than I'll ever build.

 

[Illahe]

Then there's that. It's doubtful I'll run manifolds on a car, even more so a stock converter. Or it might end up with an 833.

I could avoid the cost of new rockers by putting Magnum heads on it (I'm sitting on a rebuilt stock pair), have quench, and spend the coin for an intake.
I'm not intent on using this thing. If it would work reasonably well in one of these scenarios, sure, I'll run it. But leaving it on the shelf any longer is dumb.
I'm sure there are tons of better cams out there. But there's also tons of better motors and cars than I'll ever build.

China gap intake and your in business. I would think you could achieve 375 hp with that cam/heads/ and intake.

 

[fshd4it]

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.

What about basically stock heads? Let's say 2.02 X/J, or Magnums, does a cam with (reasonable) lift above where flow drops off make sense?

 

[Newbomb Turk]

What about basically stock heads? Let's say 2.02 X/J, or Magnums, does a cam with (reasonable) lift above where flow drops off make sense?

I hear that all the time.

If you bolt on a decent intake manifold most of the time the flow just flattens out.

You lift average. The higher the lift the longer the valve is at higher lifts where the port flows more.

Also, the head may break over at 28 inches but the port doesn’t see 28 inches of water at higher lifts.

I tested this **** to death when I had my flow bench.

My testing and results showed otherwise.

 

[Illahe]

What about basically stock heads? Let's say 2.02 X/J, or Magnums, does a cam with (reasonable) lift above where flow drops off make sense?

Call Kevin @ Schnider Cams when they open back up on monday and ask him about his lobe profile for factory heads...

I run the TR-142F In an iron headed 360 with a 4spd and 3.91:1. Its very steady through the rpm cycle: 242/242 .510 on 110 LSA, but there are better lobes available for factory Iron Heads. Like the

284° Mechanical: P4120653 Purpleshaft​

TR-304F-LL Below:


This tight lash, fast ramp profile camshaft has been designed for circle track cars with with a .500" lift rule that need agressive cams with fast opening and closing ramps. Essentially this is a flat tappet cam profile designed to mimick the agressiveness of a roller tappet profile. Ported or aftermarket heads, 10.5:1+ compression ratio, and long tube headers are suggested. The LSA has been tightened slightly to 106, but we can grind this cam on any LSA you want by request (call to order that way).

What about basically stock heads? Let's say 2.02 X/J, or Magnums, does a cam with (reasonable) lift above where flow drops off make sense?

 

[fshd4it]

You lift average. The higher the lift the longer the valve is at higher lifts where the port flows more.

This is what I've assumed, or at least thought I understood.

I tested this **** to death when I had my flow bench.

My testing and results showed otherwise.

So, am I to understand it's not really the case? Or am I reading this wrong?

 

[Newbomb Turk]

This is what I've assumed, or at least thought I understood.

So, am I to understand it's not really the case? Or am I reading this wrong?

Lots of guys (smart guys) say not to lift more than where the port breaks over.

Ive not found that to be the case. Wait, I should say it this way. I got into it with Mike Jones both online and through DM’s about this very topic.

I said what I said above and he said (basically) I was full of ****. When we got down to the nut cutting his theory of port break over is the valve job is incorrect or something like that.

If the valve job is junk or something like that then yes that MUST be corrected.

When the port is breaking over because you can’t get the air around the short side radius because the air speed is too high and you can’t get it slowed down then it doesn’t matter if you lift it past that. It won’t kill power. I’ve never seen that.

Like I said, I’ve seen a tunnel ram straighten and slow the air enough that it will get around the short turn. A well ported single can do close to it.

If you test a port that breaks over at say .550 lift at 28 inches and you test at a higher pressure and the break over stays at .550 lift then it most likely isnt the wrong valve job or something like that.

Then if you really want to make sure you’re not barking up the wrong tree you can drop the test pressure down to 10 inches and see what happens. Most likely you will find that the port can carry right past .550 lift and not break over at all. It might stay flat but it won’t break over.

That’s why I do not base lift on the port breaking over.

And if Mike Jones was a tenth as smart as HE thinks he is, every single NHRA, NASCAR, F1 and any other sanctioning body would all be using Jones Cams.

Spoiler alert: they don’t.

And, no Mike and I don’t see eye to eye. I’ve tested his stuff in a very fair test and he lost.

 

[fishmens67]

And if Mike Jones was a tenth as smart as HE thinks he is

He's pretty good. imo
I've been checking Salters channel, now there's a smart guy.

 

[fshd4it]

NbT, thanks for taking the time to explain. Probably stating the obvious, but I'm not going for broke here. My junk is all street car stuff at best, that's all I need to put a smile on. So, for me, good enough really is good enough. As I've said before, the knowledge, ability, and experience shared on here is amazing, and my hat's off to all you who have it.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

He's pretty good. imo
I've been checking Salters channel, now there's a smart guy.

He’s good, but he’s not the world beater he thinks he is.

Like I said, we did a back to back test between a cam he ground and a cam I had ground from another company. All from the exact same spec sheet.

The results weren’t even close. He lost.

 

[Illahe]

Lots of guys (smart guys) say not to lift more than where the port breaks over.

Ive not found that to be the case. Wait, I should say it this way. I got into it with Mike Jones both online and through DM’s about this very topic.

I said what I said above and he said (basically) I was full of ****. When we got down to the nut cutting his theory of port break over is the valve job is incorrect or something like that.

If the valve job is junk or something like that then yes that MUST be corrected.

When the port is breaking over because you can’t get the air around the short side radius because the air speed is too high and you can’t get it slowed down then it doesn’t matter if you lift it past that. It won’t kill power. I’ve never seen that.

Like I said, I’ve seen a tunnel ram straighten and slow the air enough that it will get around the short turn. A well ported single can do close to it.

If you test a port that breaks over at say .550 lift at 28 inches and you test at a higher pressure and the break over stays at .550 lift then it most likely isnt the wrong valve job or something like that.

Then if you really want to make sure you’re not barking up the wrong tree you can drop the test pressure down to 10 inches and see what happens. Most likely you will find that the port can carry right past .550 lift and not break over at all. It might stay flat but it won’t break over.

That’s why I do not base lift on the port breaking over.

And if Mike Jones was a tenth as smart as HE thinks he is, every single NHRA, NASCAR, F1 and any other sanctioning body would all be using Jones Cams.

Spoiler alert: they don’t.

And, no Mike and I don’t see eye to eye. I’ve tested his stuff in a very fair test and he lost.

Any chance of explaining the single plane manifold modification theory: "Like I said, I’ve seen a tunnel ram straighten and slow the air enough that it will get around the short turn. A well ported single can do close to it."

I'm far from getting on a flow bench, but I suspect that "if runner volume" is increased then air speed goes down, assisting the short turn(?). For instance, one of my engines was equipped with a:

and my machinist harped on too much plenum volume, (normally I run a smaller single plane) but the car ran very strong for its weight, compression and gear. #3250 10.7:1, 4.57:1 gear with 32" rubber. 550 lift, and 246/254 on 110 lsa.

 

[rumblefish360]

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

Originally designed for exhaust manifold engines with its extra long exhaust duration, these cams remind me of LS cams.
My opinion won’t be popular, but this is what I’d do with it.

10.5-1, RPM intake and well ported heads using 1.6 rockers or Edelbrock Magnum heads with an 1.7 rocker exiting into 1-3/4 headers and a 750. Back it with an overdrive trans and 3.55 gears.

Let’er rip.

 

[Bewy]

Turk,
What was the main difference between you & MJ that caused him to 'lose'? I do agree with you that some of his ideas/statements are contentious.