Hughes cam?

-
Well, I called Oregon Cam Grinding today and talked to them about a cam. They recommended either their 2016 or 819 grind. I decided on the 819. Not super aggressive, but I'm not building an "all out" engine so hopefully it will work well for what I'm doing. I also ordered a matching set of lifters and springs, and decided to splurge on a set of oversized stainless valves.
 
Same cam I chose for mine... So far I'm happy with it. And Kenny got it back to me pretty quickly too
I also got my lifters and oversized valves from there.
 
my68barracuda said:
the link below is to the FAQ page at Hughes Engines.
there Hughes states that the lobes they use are designed to take advantage of the large mopar .904 lifter.
included is an explanation of how a faster ramp will improve engine performance.

https://www.hughesengines.com/TechArticles/1camshaftfrequentlyaskedquestions.php
Click to expand...
Absolutely no argument. A faster ramp certainly makes more power. It also is harder on the valve train. They beat the valves open and slam them closed in comparison to slower, lazier ramps, so lots of times, they are noisier, even with hydraulic lifters. If it's a total 100% street car, "I" kinda want a slower, lazier ramp. Much easier on the valve train and less noisy. But you're right. If you're lookin for every bit of power, a modern grind is the way to go.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Absolutely no argument. A faster ramp certainly makes more power. It also is harder on the valve train. They beat the valves open and slam them closed in comparison to slower, lazier ramps, so lots of times, they are noisier, even with hydraulic lifters. If it's a total 100% street car, "I" kinda want a slower, lazier ramp. Much easier on the valve train and less noisy. But you're right. If you're lookin for every bit of power, a modern grind is the way to go.
Click to expand...
Ok, but just keep in mind that the Mopar grinds being used were designed around the .904 lifter used by Mopar.
I don’t recall hearing of valve train failures on the performance Mopar engines, the same Mopar engines that would have had the faster ramp due to the .904 lifter that Mopar designed and specified.
The way I see it, Mopar designed in a larger lifter for a reason. To get a steeper ramp. They would have also designed valve trains to handle it.
And besides, it’s ramp speed, not opening and closing rates.
 
my68barracuda said:
Ok, but just keep in mind that the Mopar grinds being used were designed around the .904 lifter used by Mopar.
I don’t recall hearing of valve train failures on the performance Mopar engines, the same Mopar engines that would have had the faster ramp due to the .904 lifter that Mopar designed and specified.
The way I see it, Mopar designed in a larger lifter for a reason. To get a steeper ramp. They would have also designed valve trains to handle it.
And besides, it’s ramp speed, not opening and closing rates.
Click to expand...
That's true, but they weren't as aggressive as something like Hughes, some of the Lunati and some of the Comp grinds. While they were Mopar specific, there were somewhere "in between" the old school slow ramps and the ultra fast ramps that are out today. I've seen comparisons on a degree wheel. I do really like the old Mopar cams. They may be "dated" according to some, but they flat out work. I'd love to find the 284 slant 6 cam. I'd run it in a second.
 
Last edited:
RustyRatRod said:
That's true, but they weren't as aggressive as something like Hughes, some of the Lunati and some of the Comp grinds. While they were Mopar specific, there were somewhere "in between" the old school slow ramps and the ultra fast ramps that are out today. I've seen comparisons on a degree wheel. I do really like the old Mopar cams. They may be "dated" according to some, but they flat out work. I'd love to find the 284 slant 6 cam. I'd run it in a second.
Click to expand...

Or the Comp MM lobe series. Howard’s has some very fast stuff too.

No doubt that today the .904 lobes you can get are quicker than the .904 lobes of the 1970’s and 1980’s.
 
Rat Bastid said:
Or the Comp MM lobe series. Howard’s has some very fast stuff too.

No doubt that today the .904 lobes you can get are quicker than the .904 lobes of the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Click to expand...
And engine lube oils are better today.
And better valve spring technology like beehive and conical are available today.
So the tools are out there take advantage of faster ramping solid lifter cams.
 
RustyRatRod said:
That's true, but they weren't as aggressive as something like Hughes, some of the Lunati and some of the Comp grinds. While they were Mopar specific, there were somewhere "in between" the old school slow ramps and the ultra fast ramps that are out today. I've seen comparisons on a degree wheel. I do really like the old Mopar cams. They may be "dated" according to some, but they flat out work. I'd love to find the 284 slant 6 cam. I'd run it in a second.
Click to expand...
Rusty, I found a note looking at cams yesterday that mentioned a Mopar 284 cam, but I find no description or part number in any of my old parts catalog. It also said it's very close to the Racer Brown ST-21, but I am not impressed with that cam. You have the specs on that 284 Mopar cam?
 
Hyper_pak said:
Rusty, I found a note looking at cams yesterday that mentioned a Mopar 284 cam, but I find no description or part number in any of my old parts catalog. It also said it's very close to the Racer Brown ST-21, but I am not impressed with that cam. You have the specs on that 284 Mopar cam?
Click to expand...
P4529343, 284/284 adv dur, 76 overlap, .528 lift,28/32 lash, 104 center line, 102 installed CL, P3412068 valve spring
From 1992 MP Parts book.
 
Charrlie_S said:
P4529343, 284/284 adv dur, 76 overlap, .528 lift,28/32 lash, 104 center line, 102 installed CL, P3412068 valve spring
From 1992 MP Parts book.
Click to expand...
The Victory library has it listed at those same specs but the .050" duration is 221 instead of 241 like all the other .528 cams. I think the Victory info is a misprint.
 
Thanks!
Man that Lash number is crazy!
I think that is close, but the devil is in the details, I will try and compare the ramps.
 
I think it would be impossible to get 0.528" lift, 1.5 rocker, with 221 @ 050 with a 0.904" lifter diam & FT cam.
 
With cams, very close is a long way off. With FT cams, there is only a certain rate of lift that can be attained, governed by the lifter diameter, before the lifter edge digs into the lobe....& that limits total lobe lift for a given duration.
 
I have a SFT from Howards - 258°adv duration, 230°@0.050" & 0.538" lift. They might have something a bit smaller that's closer than the Hughes cams listed above
 
Why are their Lash numbers so small?

Ted265, you have that howards cam installed or you own it?
Is it for the 265 or a 225?
 
Hyper_pak said:
Why are their Lash numbers so small?

Ted265, you have that howards cam installed or you own it?
Is it for the 265 or a 225?
Click to expand...
Didn't take notice of Hughes lash spec until you mentioned it - very tight.
That Howards cam is in a 318 i just built, I haven't fired it yet and have a baby due in 2 months so it will probably get moth balled for a while.
In the 265 I run a SFT from a local regrinder - 276°adv, 240°@0.050" & 0.550" lift on a 109LSA.
 
Hyper_pak said:
Why are their Lash numbers so small?

Ted265, you have that howards cam installed or you own it?
Is it for the 265 or a 225?
Click to expand...
They are tight lashed because of the aggressive lobe design. The tight lash helps keep the lifters from ski jumping off the lobes.
 
Interesting, the Howards cam I listed above they spec hot lash at 0.018"
 
Bewy said:
With cams, very close is a long way off. With FT cams, there is only a certain rate of lift that can be attained, governed by the lifter diameter, before the lifter edge digs into the lobe....& that limits total lobe lift for a given duration.
Click to expand...
I hate duplicate typing posts, but a flat tappet cam, especially a .904 lifter specific will actually out-accelerate a roller. Fact. A roller can maintain it's lift rate for a longer period of time however, thus continuing & then maintaining a longer upper-lift curve, that's it's advantage.
When I attempted to use the 26918 Comp PAC Beehive for an LS on an FE/MX/MM Comp lobe, it was a big NYET, even though it was fine for an LS roller cam with 1.7 or even 1.8 rockers. Comp said those lobes, Ford & both Mopars, required what at the time was the "new" race LS Beehives to get it done...whether 1.5 or 1.6 rockers.
 
RustyRatRod said:
That's fairly tight considering some are .028-.032.
Click to expand...
Yeah i suppose it's relatively tight compared to some of the older profiles, I run .012" & .014" on my hemi 6 and considered that a tight lash. But I've never seen a lash spec as tight as they suggest for those Hughes cams ( .004" & .006" )
 
Ted265 said:
Yeah i suppose it's relatively tight compared to some of the older profiles, I run .012" & .014" on my hemi 6 and considered that a tight lash. But I've never seen a lash spec as tight as they suggest for those Hughes cams ( .004" & .006" )
Click to expand...
I've tried both tight and loose lashes with the Oregon grind I have in Vixen now. Running it at .020/.020 rather than .008 and .012 really woke it up. I had it at .020/.020 initially but I had some detonation issues so I tried tight lashing it among other things. I finally got rid of the detonation problem and put the lash back to .020/.020 and it made a huge difference in power. I'm sure it's all combo dependent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top