PRH
Well-Known Member
Will it work?
Sure.
Can you do better?
Of course.
Your build...... your $$$$...... your decision
Sure.
Can you do better?
Of course.
Your build...... your $$$$...... your decision
What springs come on eddy performer RPM heads
- Thread starter scott657
- Start date
-
Well, PRH beat me to it.. but if I already had it and was wanting to save $$$ for a good converter, I wouldn’t have any qualms running it. Reading the description on what it’s designed for is what you described your looking for. But add in a converter in the 2200 stall range and run it. Know someone who has used this cam in 318 powered ‘65 fury with factory high stall converter and 3.23 gears. I can tell you there are much worse cams you could choose.
Wyrmrider
Well-Known Member
like that erson 14 degrees bigger than the Crane and measured the same way
or the comp 268 is a toss
Compare with the lunati or Howards which are over 10 degrees shorter than the comp and almost 15 degrees shorter than the Crane - if adjusted for measureing differences
now look at the lift
The erson must have been designed for stock early heads with stockish springs
only .450 lift for a 290 degree cam good choice if you really want to kill your torque
I would think both the Lunati or the Howards would give you more area under the curve and both for sure will build more dynamic compression
or the comp 268 is a toss
Compare with the lunati or Howards which are over 10 degrees shorter than the comp and almost 15 degrees shorter than the Crane - if adjusted for measureing differences
now look at the lift
The erson must have been designed for stock early heads with stockish springs
only .450 lift for a 290 degree cam good choice if you really want to kill your torque
I would think both the Lunati or the Howards would give you more area under the curve and both for sure will build more dynamic compression
I ran the big block Erson TQ20 “The Performer” cam in a big heavy 70 D200 w/a low compression 400 (3.38” stroke) Auto, 3.54 gear, 33” tires back in the mid 90’s. Was a great cam, very mild rump to the idle, strong for a daily driver, saw no problem with it or shortcomings. Prior to the internet you just slapped em in and that was that. Now there’s a little bit of revisionism I think. Sure you can do better, but you have it, it’ll work great. Keep in mind It doesn’t stop working or being good just because theirs better options today.
Last edited:
Hughes engines flow numbers (possibly a whole separate point of debate and contention?) show 236 intake 185 exhaust at the .450 lift figure. If you have the cam and are budgeting for a torque converter, it would work well enough. But your not going to get near the power level available with the heads that reach the sweet spot at .550 lift and above. With a probable 8.6:1-9:1 compression (MP .028-.031 thick head gaskets could help), using a cam that would optimize charge filling would make a noticeable difference.
PRH
Well-Known Member
The Comp 268 is $129 with free shipping from summit.
Sell your current cam for $50, and you’re into the new cam for under $80.
Sell your current cam for $50, and you’re into the new cam for under $80.
Wyrmrider
Well-Known Member
I don't want to kill the driveability with overkill on the camshaft
.1 would be worse case scenario?
8.2 CR
27" tire
Low and mid range are my goals 5000RPM
he could run better heads even port these for under .500 lift but evidently not this time
here will be a big improvement over stock with his new heads even under .5 lift
comp 268 or the crane or the super shops piece of crap are still ll the wrong cams
The super shop cams were all ground in Detroit and worth about $30 new- but good quality and so mild there were few cumbacks
recap of other questions
you will not have to machine the edelbrock heads
but check them out anyway
you would need new springs and seals and most likey guides for stock heads and you would cut for stem seals so yes to the question for stock heads
to figure spring load you need either:
one load and a spring rate
or two loads at different heights- which you have
now figure the spring rate from the two loads given
subtract the differene in the spring heights- open and closed
then convert from that fraction of an inch to one inch
to give you the rate per inch 1.000/
now you can see what a change of .010 or .030 would uch you ave to shim -or cut the seats or change retainers- to get the load you want at the height you want it
we are assuming liner rate springs here- not beehives
.1 would be worse case scenario?
8.2 CR
27" tire
Low and mid range are my goals 5000RPM
he could run better heads even port these for under .500 lift but evidently not this time
here will be a big improvement over stock with his new heads even under .5 lift
comp 268 or the crane or the super shops piece of crap are still ll the wrong cams
The super shop cams were all ground in Detroit and worth about $30 new- but good quality and so mild there were few cumbacks
recap of other questions
you will not have to machine the edelbrock heads
but check them out anyway
you would need new springs and seals and most likey guides for stock heads and you would cut for stem seals so yes to the question for stock heads
to figure spring load you need either:
one load and a spring rate
or two loads at different heights- which you have
now figure the spring rate from the two loads given
subtract the differene in the spring heights- open and closed
then convert from that fraction of an inch to one inch
to give you the rate per inch 1.000/
now you can see what a change of .010 or .030 would uch you ave to shim -or cut the seats or change retainers- to get the load you want at the height you want it
we are assuming liner rate springs here- not beehives
nm9stheham
Well-Known Member
The hard part of telling what will happen with these older, slow ramp grinds is the effect of the duration on low RPM dynamic compression.... if the tail ends of the ramps are really slow, then they have less effect than might be apparent. But there is also a lot of subjectivity in the above statement that can't be quantified for people...... 'strong for a daily driver' means what exactly? Plus things like the stall speed for the TC in that D200 trannie is not mentioned....
The only way you know with any certainty that you are not hurting the low end torque (and driveability) is use a short advertised duration, faster ramp cam like the Howard's.
With all of these cams's RPM limits not being all that high, I'd run the Edelbrock springs as-is for starters with a mild hydraulic cam like all of the ones being discussed; the Howard's cam would be more of a worry due to the faster ramps, but the rest would be fine IMHO. Those springs are decent, just not suited for things like .550" lifts and solid cams with their fast ramps. Easy to change later if any issues discovered, and any float is not likely to push the valves into the pistons with these low lifts. We used them with a Crane H-268-Z2 with no issues so far.
scott657
Well-Known Member
Some one on the board
My real world experience:
It wasn’t hard to tell back then when I bought it using the recommendations from the Erson cam catalog, 1992 I think it was. That’s how many picked cams back then, let’s just hypothetically say by those that used platigauge vs. having micrometers, etc. Was in a bone stock low compression mid 70’s 400 I got from a junkyard, to replace the original 383 that developed a rod knock. Put a Factory 4-barrel intake, Holley 600 vacuum secondary, MP electronic ignition with vac, factory advance curve, maybe 8 before initial, Blackjack 1-5/8” headers, 2-1/2” exhaust through Sonic Turbos dumped at the axle. Bone stock 727 and converter, no stall worth anything, 33” tires, 3.54 Dana. Big *** heavy *** truck. Mild rump to the strong idle, vacuum? No idea. It idled, rev’d, pulled accelerated, pulled grades, made passes in a flash. Good, great, awesome, snappy. Whatever you want to call it. I didn’t have special measuring calculations, tools, theory, years of study, experience, or the internet to validate anything. The cam worked great in that setup because I went to super shops, read the catalog, decided on that TQ20 because it was listed as “The Performer” and also gave descriptions on some of their cams and what complimentary components to run with them. And it mentioned the concept of the cams using specs that were geared to that eras low compression engines. That’s what I did, and miracle of miracles it worked. He’s got it. We all can inundate a person with the technical aspect which is fine, I’m into that stuff too. Its all solid, valuable, incredibly helpful to us all. But maybe, just maybe for some its all just too much technical, they just want to know if what they are thinking or have at the moment is gonna work and work good. Could be in this case, I could be wrong. Just one way of looking at it without getting too technical. That’s ok and a valid opinion, no? Of course there’s always better, everything. So the OP asked about this particular cam, I give my actual usage and opinion. Here’s the truck it all went in:
Last edited:
PRH
Well-Known Member
My Dad had a 1977 B200 van.
Came with a 318-2bbl.
It was a long wheelbase with one of the raised roofs and large side windows, shag carpeting throughout.
We re-ringed a 360, I touched up the heads, put a Performer and a 600vs Holley on it along with some headers.
Cam was the Comp 268H.
With the stock 3.23’s and original converter........ it had pretty good power(15.60’s in the 1/4), and made a damn good tow vehicle...... pulling a full weight 79 Córdoba car on an open trailer around the hills of Vermont and New England.
We never felt like it was “over cammed”....... plenty of power.
After the van finally got too rusty to make it worth keeping, the motor/trans got pulled and put into a 2wd Ramcharger.
And after the Córdoba finally went back to seeing street duty, a different 360 went in the Ramcharger and that 360 from the van went into the Cordoba....... along with an OD trans.
Came with a 318-2bbl.
It was a long wheelbase with one of the raised roofs and large side windows, shag carpeting throughout.
We re-ringed a 360, I touched up the heads, put a Performer and a 600vs Holley on it along with some headers.
Cam was the Comp 268H.
With the stock 3.23’s and original converter........ it had pretty good power(15.60’s in the 1/4), and made a damn good tow vehicle...... pulling a full weight 79 Córdoba car on an open trailer around the hills of Vermont and New England.
We never felt like it was “over cammed”....... plenty of power.
After the van finally got too rusty to make it worth keeping, the motor/trans got pulled and put into a 2wd Ramcharger.
And after the Córdoba finally went back to seeing street duty, a different 360 went in the Ramcharger and that 360 from the van went into the Cordoba....... along with an OD trans.
Nice truck! If I could I'd be hitting like, agree, and thanks all at once.
Curious if you've got an E.T. on the Cordoba and if so, what gears?
Found it in Missoula Montana 1991 vacation, rust free, brought back to Illinois, by 1995 was rusting in all the typical places. Used to tool around in it with my wife and toddler (at the time) at any speed and punch it just to watch their heads go back as it accelerated. We all would laugh, never got old! Wife still raves about the power it had.....nail it and gone!
aaronk785
Well-Known Member
Use the mr. G .028 gasket. Nothing wrong with that crane cam. That thing is bad *** in low comp 360s. Doesn't look like it on paper but it flat works. BTDT
aaronk785
Well-Known Member
BTW. Those crane spring and retainers are in the for sale section on this site. Might have to use -.050 lock to get the height right. The retainers are a - height to.
Rusty calls that same cam "The Magic Grind" that sounds and looks a lot bigger than it is. The only Cranes I've had experience were the Fireball .450/296A in a high compression chevy small block (happy combination), and a Crane 284/290 Energizer that came as purchased in a truck with a low compression 318 (It was everything AJ and wyrmrider say not to do, with the Weiand Xcellerator on it and 3.21 gears, there wasn't anywhere in the powerband a well tuned slant six in place of it wouldn't have run away from it.). But, based on the parameters given I would still go with high lift short duration if your not going to running it past 5000 rpm. Actually, based on parameters, I would be wanting to try a hydraulic roller retrofit with a Lunati high efficiency .485 lift 258/264 with 207/213 @ 050. 1000-4800RPM 112 LSA cam.
Last edited:
aaronk785
Well-Known Member
I agree there are better cams now but that used to be a good go to cam for a street 360. Its still a good cam it does like to pull to 5500+ a little above his max.
Wyrmrider
Well-Known Member
NM
The Lunati at 250 is marginally quicker than the Howards at 256
That said they both may be less radical than the Crane or Comp
it's simply the radius of the lifter that gives them their advantage not any magic quick lift rate
The Jones cam uses all of the lifter and is actually shorter seat to seat than the comp or the crane or even the DC 260 but is 50 % larger than the DE 260 at .275 where it counts.
You can see UD Harolds comparison between his chevy and mopar lobes at Lunati- i reposted it in the 318 cam thread
Why fight with one hand tied behind your back
Now Crane is a Crane Design, the comp is an earlier UDHarold Design
The Erson is a rebox from Wolverine Blue Racer or Camshaft machine CMC or...- You can go to the Elgine or Wolverine Blue racer catalog and buy any of those grinds for a whole lot less than an Edelbrock...or a ...
Erson was a marketeer not a camgrinder after he left Isky except for special stuff
the race stuff Catalog stuff and Super shops was same O same O
good read
Recalling Sig Erson: the rise of an unusual mind – Moore Good Ink
Sig's been gone 10 years
I knew him at Isky but niot much after that- you have a cam from the original Sig erson days
CAM MANUFACTURER ERSON PASSES | Competition Plus
It's too bad the new guys lost the 1.75 Mopar rocker dies...
PRH
Well-Known Member
It was never raced with the motor from the van in it.
But it had a few other 360 combos in it through the years.
With the original 360-4 motor in it(untouched long block), de-smogged with an earlier TQ on it and 3.90 gears it went bottom 15’s.
Swapped in a 71 360(flat tops) out of a Fury, added a swap meet cam, and my Dad getting used to driving it.... best of high 13’s.
Got tired of messing with the TQ, bought a used Holley 650DP and an old Torker...... no change, but easier to tune.
Built a new shortblock, MP 509 cam, I gave my Dad some porting tips, he did it himself.....2.02 Intake valves, swapped to a Torker II.
Put an 8 3/4 in it with 4.10’s, 10” converter..... solid mid-12’s.
Put a few pushrods through the rockers...... got tired of that........and he wanted a solid cam.
Bought some Crane iron rockers, got a used smaller Crower oval track cam..... no change in ET.
He ran it like that for a few seasons...... mid-12’s at a few different tracks.
Then it got some KB domed pistons and a little bigger cam. New 8” Dynamic converter and 4.56’s..... went 11.80’s.
That’s the best it ever went.
That was in about 1998-99.
Around 1994-95 the motor was out of it for some reason(I think there was a leak in one of the heads), so I stuffed my 340 in it with some 5.13’s.
That went 11.90’s.
3960lbs race weight.
I know.......Waaay off topic.
Last edited:
No converter change? My pick below, use 1.6 rockers.
Voodoo Hydraulic Flat Tappet Cam - Chrysler 273-360 256/262
Wyrmrider
Well-Known Member
good choice rumble
that one
Voodoo Hydraulic Flat Tappet Cam - Chrysler 273-360 256/262
NOT THIS ONE
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Lunati-04001lk-Cam-Hydraulic-Flat-Tappet-
SBM-204-214-422-444-112-LSA-71977-/191958447651 IDK what the hell this is I do not find it in Lunati Catalog- ANYONE?
Which is your generic made in Detroit White box cam- non Voodoo- don't be shocked- Crower sells it too
UD Harold who designed he Voodoo and the earlier Comp XT line said (and did he learn anything in the meantime?)
VooDoos are true Chrysler profiles, designed for the .904" tappets.
That 213/.454" profile is about 5 or 6 degrees fatter at .200 than the Chevrolet one.
UDHarold
Here's the UDHarold Chevy grind
Lunati Chevy 260 260/260 210/210 441"/.441"
Advertised Duration (Int/Exh): 260/260 ;Duration @ .050 (Int/Exh): 210/220 ;Gross Valve Lift (Int/Exh): .441/.441 ;LSA/ICL: 110 ;RPM Range: 1000-4500
LUnati grinds the chevy grind on a Chrysler Billet in their "high Efficiency" series SKU 10200205 so you have to be careful
one size 4 degrees shorter seat Voodoo but 3 more at .050 and more lift about 5 or 6 degrees fatter at .200 than the Chevrolet one.
60401 256/262 213/220 .454'/.475" The one you picked NM
two sizes shorter seat Voodoo still more lift this is still a fatter lobe than the voodoo chevy
60400 250/256@ seat 208/213@.050 .454"/.454" valve lift, the other choice would build some more cylinder pressure
What is important here is both the Chevy Voodo and the MOPAR voodoo use the same ramps according to UDHarold
ONLY THE TAPPET diameter IS DIFFERENT
so let's [put the
"radical lobe" ghost to bed
NOT ME TALKING don't shoot the messenger
I edited the above post from previous to make it clear that Harold was comparing his chevy Voodoo to the Mopar voodoo and not the "universal mopar as seen in the E-Bay add- (wherever it came from- old part number or???)
Even Harolds Chevy Voodoo KILLS the white box cam (as does Cranes)
that one
Voodoo Hydraulic Flat Tappet Cam - Chrysler 273-360 256/262
NOT THIS ONE
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Lunati-04001lk-Cam-Hydraulic-Flat-Tappet-
SBM-204-214-422-444-112-LSA-71977-/191958447651 IDK what the hell this is I do not find it in Lunati Catalog- ANYONE?
Which is your generic made in Detroit White box cam- non Voodoo- don't be shocked- Crower sells it too
UD Harold who designed he Voodoo and the earlier Comp XT line said (and did he learn anything in the meantime?)
VooDoos are true Chrysler profiles, designed for the .904" tappets.
That 213/.454" profile is about 5 or 6 degrees fatter at .200 than the Chevrolet one.
UDHarold
Here's the UDHarold Chevy grind
Lunati Chevy 260 260/260 210/210 441"/.441"
Advertised Duration (Int/Exh): 260/260 ;Duration @ .050 (Int/Exh): 210/220 ;Gross Valve Lift (Int/Exh): .441/.441 ;LSA/ICL: 110 ;RPM Range: 1000-4500
LUnati grinds the chevy grind on a Chrysler Billet in their "high Efficiency" series SKU 10200205 so you have to be careful
one size 4 degrees shorter seat Voodoo but 3 more at .050 and more lift about 5 or 6 degrees fatter at .200 than the Chevrolet one.
60401 256/262 213/220 .454'/.475" The one you picked NM
two sizes shorter seat Voodoo still more lift this is still a fatter lobe than the voodoo chevy
60400 250/256@ seat 208/213@.050 .454"/.454" valve lift, the other choice would build some more cylinder pressure
What is important here is both the Chevy Voodo and the MOPAR voodoo use the same ramps according to UDHarold
ONLY THE TAPPET diameter IS DIFFERENT
so let's [put the
"radical lobe" ghost to bed
NOT ME TALKING don't shoot the messenger
I edited the above post from previous to make it clear that Harold was comparing his chevy Voodoo to the Mopar voodoo and not the "universal mopar as seen in the E-Bay add- (wherever it came from- old part number or???)
Even Harolds Chevy Voodoo KILLS the white box cam (as does Cranes)
@Wyrmrider
Thanks, made sense to me. The lower compression w/no converter change and 3.40 gears, looked about right for all it is worth. W/Edelbrock heads, might as well use the extra rocker ratio to try and take advantage of the head flow.
I also used a similar Crane (on a 112) a couple of times. It with a slightly better compression ratio. (The VooDoo would have been better power wise had I known of it back then.)
The other cam, is in the high efficiency section I think. I guess it is fine for the upgrade over stock while still sounding stock? IDK/WTF?
Thanks, made sense to me. The lower compression w/no converter change and 3.40 gears, looked about right for all it is worth. W/Edelbrock heads, might as well use the extra rocker ratio to try and take advantage of the head flow.
I also used a similar Crane (on a 112) a couple of times. It with a slightly better compression ratio. (The VooDoo would have been better power wise had I known of it back then.)
The other cam, is in the high efficiency section I think. I guess it is fine for the upgrade over stock while still sounding stock? IDK/WTF?
nm9stheham
Well-Known Member
Yes, High Efficiency cams.... more for good mileage and a mild boost over the stock cams.
wyrm, I can't see the how the shorter difference in the advertised and .050" lift durations of the Voodoo and Howards .904 cams being 10-12 degrees shorter than the difference in advertised .050 durations of the Cranes (for example), without the ramps being faster. AFAIK, they are all measured at the same lift for advertised durations. I can't see that a .904 lifter on the Voodoo ramp won't be comparably faster than a .904 lifter on the Crane ramp.... I understand the geometry of the lifter size so don't see how it can be otherwise....??? Not sure where the word 'radical' came in... LOL
My mentioning that in regards to the Edelbrock stock springs was just that any faster lift rate at higher RPM's is more likley to excite internal spring vibrations (surging).
-
