And it measures 487 lift.
Those are the numbers I found. That cam was made by everybody and his brother at one point in time. TRW, Melling, Elgin, Speed Pro, Pro Stock and on and on and. Probably only made and ground by one company, then sold and re-boxed by different vendors. It's a really nice old school easy on the valve train grind.
Was thinking about using it with a set of Rhoads lifters I have.
I would not. It's not a radical enough cam, IMO, but use them if you want to.
I agree. I think it would work well too. With standard hydraulic lifters.
Actually I was thinking if it was 242 @ 50. But 236 on a 112 isn't that much overlap
The numbers I found say that cam is .480/230 on a 112. That's part of the problem. With so many vendors offering "the same" cam, they all probably put their own spin on the specs. Standard hydraulic lifters have enough of a "no man's land" in regards to "WHERE" the plunger is already. That's why I absolutely detest any type of bleed down lifters. I don't think they ever regain 100%, I don't care what the marketing says.....plus, if I'm going to have a noisy valve train, it's gonna be because of solid lifters.
Oh understand, I'm not saying they cannot be of benefit. What I AM saying is, since the fast bleed lifters bleed down so quickly, there's absolutely no guarantee that they ever pump up to achieve full lift. I've always suspected they don't, but what do I know? It's just "my opinion" that a cam with 236 @ .050 on a 112 isn't "big enough" to justify bleed down lifters. It's just not something that "I" would do or recommend. I didn't say there was anything "wrong" with it. This is hot rodding. h are no rules.
