I have a 75 duster with the 360 HP engine. Will 1 of these cams pick up the low end power very much. Is ther other ones ground like the whip I will be putting on a Holley street dominator intake as well. Thanks. Kim
Whiplash cams
- Thread starter oldkimmer
- Start date
-
Subscribed....always looking to learn
Yeah, I think it would work well......as long as the corresponding springs were used.
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 24,928
- Reaction score
- 12,276
the specs on the SMC 1326AL are 213/226/109+5....with lift (1.5 arms) of 480/.516
That cam has a long seat to seat period to idle like a race cam.
That cam has short 050 period to reduce the operating rpm.
The late opening intake will reduce your Dcr some, so it will need hi-compression to work well. The power-extraction cycle is also reduced, so don't expect much in the fuel mileage department.
It will have excellent torque, and the 109 LSA+5 will carry the power quite far up the rpm scale, especially with good heads.
This is a good cam to use if, A) you need to get rid of some cylinder pressure, and B) you want to sound racy.Some guys like that.
213/226 is mighty conservative.
I installed one of Hughes very torquey 223/230/110 cams with 1.6 arms on Eddies.(367 cubes) Hardly any noticeable lope. Unbelievable SBM torque, spun to 7000, and pulled fuel-mileage deep into the 20s. There was no downside to this cam, except it didn't pull as hard after 6000, as the 292/292/108,508 cam it just replaced.
This whiplash adds the racy idle
If your cylinder pressure is adequate, it could be a fun cam.
That cam has a long seat to seat period to idle like a race cam.
That cam has short 050 period to reduce the operating rpm.
The late opening intake will reduce your Dcr some, so it will need hi-compression to work well. The power-extraction cycle is also reduced, so don't expect much in the fuel mileage department.
It will have excellent torque, and the 109 LSA+5 will carry the power quite far up the rpm scale, especially with good heads.
This is a good cam to use if, A) you need to get rid of some cylinder pressure, and B) you want to sound racy.Some guys like that.
213/226 is mighty conservative.
I installed one of Hughes very torquey 223/230/110 cams with 1.6 arms on Eddies.(367 cubes) Hardly any noticeable lope. Unbelievable SBM torque, spun to 7000, and pulled fuel-mileage deep into the 20s. There was no downside to this cam, except it didn't pull as hard after 6000, as the 292/292/108,508 cam it just replaced.
This whiplash adds the racy idle
If your cylinder pressure is adequate, it could be a fun cam.
The cam is designed as a crutch for low compression engines and the early intake closing is to help raise the dynamic compression. Using above 9:1 compression gets the engine closer to detonation with the Whiplash.
I've seen a few videos of cars equipped with them, they sure do sound nasty. I've been half tempted to try one also in my old truck with a 360 if it made enough vacuum to run power brakes. Is your motor on the stockish side Kim?
Dave at Hughes also was trying to sell me one of these cans. He said because my engine has low compression but I tried to explain to him that the compression was 9.7 to 1 on a magnum engine. Something tells me that there might be a better cam without so much lope maybe a 110 instead of 107 I don't need that much lope I need performance and fuel economy not so much the sound. Any help would be greatly appreciated before I drop $400 on a cam...
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 24,928
- Reaction score
- 12,276
Oh well if you can live without the sound then that is a whole new ball game.
OOps, you are not the OP. Better you start your own thread or things tend to get muddied up in a hurry
Last edited:
nm9stheham
Well-Known Member
For Dodge74: Well, your Magnum CR is most likely actually in the low 9's or upper 8's if it is stock.. which it may not be. Buuuut, if you are looking for economy and torque, then 107 LSA is certainly not where it is at. The narrower LSA can be used to close the intake earlier to give better DCR, BUT the overlap goes way up and off-idle torque and economy suffer. And yep, sound can be 'faked in' with a cam; increase the overlap so that the low RPM cylinder-to-cylinder fill variations get really out of whack and voila....a knarly idle!
Torque and economy cams typically have LSA's in the 112 and even 114 degree range, with the ICL advanced. Look at the lower duration Crane and Voodoo hydraulic flat tappet cams, Lunati High Efficiency cams, the Crower torque cams (Baja Beast for example) and Racer Brown EH-4 or EH-5. If you want more HP, then the lift has to go up and then the duration consequently HAS to go up too, due to the limitations of how fast the ramps can be; the overlap then increases and DCR and economy drop. So you trade off economy and low RPM torque to gain mid and upper RPM HP. It all works that way, and all these different cams are variations on that.
The only way to modify that appreciably is to:
a) go with a roller cam; with the steeper ramps, you can get useably higher lift without too much duration and overlap increase.
b) Put in bigger valves
c) Edit to add: Put in higher ratio rockers
For KIM, I have the same question as Dartish; stock engine? Also, what is the goal for the engine and the main uses?
Torque and economy cams typically have LSA's in the 112 and even 114 degree range, with the ICL advanced. Look at the lower duration Crane and Voodoo hydraulic flat tappet cams, Lunati High Efficiency cams, the Crower torque cams (Baja Beast for example) and Racer Brown EH-4 or EH-5. If you want more HP, then the lift has to go up and then the duration consequently HAS to go up too, due to the limitations of how fast the ramps can be; the overlap then increases and DCR and economy drop. So you trade off economy and low RPM torque to gain mid and upper RPM HP. It all works that way, and all these different cams are variations on that.
The only way to modify that appreciably is to:
a) go with a roller cam; with the steeper ramps, you can get useably higher lift without too much duration and overlap increase.
b) Put in bigger valves
c) Edit to add: Put in higher ratio rockers
For KIM, I have the same question as Dartish; stock engine? Also, what is the goal for the engine and the main uses?
Last edited:
nm9stheham
Well-Known Member
BTW, Dodge74, if you have the 1.6 magnum rocker ratios, you are ahead of the game; that gives better lift-to-duration ratios. You can get more lift with a given duration, or the same lift with less duration; those enable better low end torque and economy naturally.
It sure took Mopar a long time to catch up and get past the old 1.5 rocker ratio. Ford had a 1.73 rocker ratio in the 351C in 1970.....
It sure took Mopar a long time to catch up and get past the old 1.5 rocker ratio. Ford had a 1.73 rocker ratio in the 351C in 1970.....
I always loved the sound of that cam.
I met the guy on the video at the Nats a couple years ago. He liked the cam but eventually was disappointed in the performance with his 318 so he built a 360.
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 24,928
- Reaction score
- 12,276
I gotta agree that cam does sound gnarly at idle. But just rev it up a tiny bit and the gnarliness sorta disappears.
Moved up to a 360, eh.Isn't that the way of it,so often .
Is he still running that cam I wonder?
Moved up to a 360, eh.Isn't that the way of it,so often .
Is he still running that cam I wonder?
My motor is totally stock. It is factory 4 bbl, 340 Hyd cam and springs from factory, double roller timing chain, windage tray . It does seem pretty decent but I just want to pick it up a little . It is hardly ever driven. Less than 41,000 original miles. thanks. Kim.
I used a Whiplash on my 318.
I'm happy with it....a little expensive...springs, cam and lifters were about $400
Nice loppy idle and the little 318 runs VERY strong....
I home ported the heads and went to headers as well though...air in, air out ya know....
Jeff
LowDeck451
Well-Known Member
The OP mentions picking up the 'low end power' AND using a Holley Street Dominator intake. That intake isn't for low end power, is it?
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 24,928
- Reaction score
- 12,276
Kim
It's very hard to beat the stock 70-AVS or 71-TQ set-up,especially the TQ, in a stock or even slightly hotted up engine.
The 360,was born to make torque with a small cam. Anything you put in it is likely to give up some low-end torque.
I see only three solutions; more compression,a higher stall, or a bigger rear gear.
The rear gear will make the biggest difference, and probably is the cheapest; unless you have something other than the 8.75.Then the Tc will be cheapest.And depending on what you currently have,might make the most sense
I gotto say tho, that the 340 cam in a low compression 360 is a bad recipe for low-rpm torque. That cam specs out at 268/276/114/+4 The intake closes at 64ABDC if installed at 110 centerline. This takes your 8.4Scr 360 down to 6.77Dcr and cylinder pressure of about 128psi
This is about as lazy as it gets.
I'm thinking, this cam really wants a lot more stall at this compression ratio.
If most of your driving is at low speeds I would pull that cam out, and put the 2bbl cam back in or something like it.
The 2bbl cam was 252/260/112 I think. This will pump up your Dcr to 7.24 and pressure of 140psi. This will vastly improve your bottom end.
There are other cams, of course, but most will make less psi than this, unless you are willing to spend a lot of money on retro-fitting roller lifters, or installing a solid lifter cam, but that would then probably be a custom cam.
The 2bbl cam is about the cheapest solution.
I tell you what, maybe do a compression test, and see just how high your current cylinder pressure is.
I should also mention that a little bit of torque can be dialed in with a higher initial timing and faster curve. At 8.4Scr, your engine will probably accept quite a bit of timing before complaining.(especially with the small TQ). And you can also burn the cheap gas which I've been told has a faster burn; and that is why I burn nothing but 87E10. There is not a big reward in this tho.
It kindof depends on your current TC, and gears, as to how much and how fast, but I'm thinking 16/18 initial,34 power at 3200, and try to get the advance started quite early. If you have already done this, then your engine should be about as snappy as it can be.
If you get detonation between stall and 3200,either change your driving style(lol), slow down the secondaries,or slow down the rate of advance.
I thought that factory 340 cam was a 220* @050, making it a fairly fast rate of lift cam, and so hard to improve upon. I've never measured one. But; the talk here on the forum is that it is only a 210@ 050. If that be true, then you don't need to stick to the 360-2bbl cam. Then you can try a 252fast-rate from one of your favorite grinders. This will get you that same 7.24/140psi, with little to no power loss. But you will lose the lopey idle.
By far, the best solution is pump up the compression.That engine will come alive at 10.0 Scr. Using the 340 cam, it will make 8.00Dcr@160psi. That should cure you soggy bottom end; it should fry the tires.
It's very hard to beat the stock 70-AVS or 71-TQ set-up,especially the TQ, in a stock or even slightly hotted up engine.
The 360,was born to make torque with a small cam. Anything you put in it is likely to give up some low-end torque.
I see only three solutions; more compression,a higher stall, or a bigger rear gear.
The rear gear will make the biggest difference, and probably is the cheapest; unless you have something other than the 8.75.Then the Tc will be cheapest.And depending on what you currently have,might make the most sense
I gotto say tho, that the 340 cam in a low compression 360 is a bad recipe for low-rpm torque. That cam specs out at 268/276/114/+4 The intake closes at 64ABDC if installed at 110 centerline. This takes your 8.4Scr 360 down to 6.77Dcr and cylinder pressure of about 128psi
This is about as lazy as it gets.
I'm thinking, this cam really wants a lot more stall at this compression ratio.
If most of your driving is at low speeds I would pull that cam out, and put the 2bbl cam back in or something like it.
The 2bbl cam was 252/260/112 I think. This will pump up your Dcr to 7.24 and pressure of 140psi. This will vastly improve your bottom end.
There are other cams, of course, but most will make less psi than this, unless you are willing to spend a lot of money on retro-fitting roller lifters, or installing a solid lifter cam, but that would then probably be a custom cam.
The 2bbl cam is about the cheapest solution.
I tell you what, maybe do a compression test, and see just how high your current cylinder pressure is.
I should also mention that a little bit of torque can be dialed in with a higher initial timing and faster curve. At 8.4Scr, your engine will probably accept quite a bit of timing before complaining.(especially with the small TQ). And you can also burn the cheap gas which I've been told has a faster burn; and that is why I burn nothing but 87E10. There is not a big reward in this tho.
It kindof depends on your current TC, and gears, as to how much and how fast, but I'm thinking 16/18 initial,34 power at 3200, and try to get the advance started quite early. If you have already done this, then your engine should be about as snappy as it can be.
If you get detonation between stall and 3200,either change your driving style(lol), slow down the secondaries,or slow down the rate of advance.
I thought that factory 340 cam was a 220* @050, making it a fairly fast rate of lift cam, and so hard to improve upon. I've never measured one. But; the talk here on the forum is that it is only a 210@ 050. If that be true, then you don't need to stick to the 360-2bbl cam. Then you can try a 252fast-rate from one of your favorite grinders. This will get you that same 7.24/140psi, with little to no power loss. But you will lose the lopey idle.
By far, the best solution is pump up the compression.That engine will come alive at 10.0 Scr. Using the 340 cam, it will make 8.00Dcr@160psi. That should cure you soggy bottom end; it should fry the tires.
Last edited:
I do have a 8.75 with 4.30s. and a 3500 stall. I'm prolly only at 8-0-8.5 compression my street dominator is the zee series with the equalizer tube in between number 7 and 8. And a divider under the carb. Kim
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 24,928
- Reaction score
- 12,276
Oh my goodness
Then the only solution is more compression.
I guess I shoulda asked sooner.
But here's the thing your bottom end starts at 3500, just below your torque peak.
That cam power-peaks maybe about 5200 in that low compression 360, and that means the torque will peak at about 3800.
With a 3500 and 4.30s, you are just milliseconds from max torque .
So I guess the next question should be;
under what circumstances do you feel it is soggy?.
Then the only solution is more compression.
I guess I shoulda asked sooner.
But here's the thing your bottom end starts at 3500, just below your torque peak.
That cam power-peaks maybe about 5200 in that low compression 360, and that means the torque will peak at about 3800.
With a 3500 and 4.30s, you are just milliseconds from max torque .
So I guess the next question should be;
under what circumstances do you feel it is soggy?.
Last edited:
As I said b4 it seems ok I just want more without delving into the engine other than a cam kit. Kim
The 340 cam is factory in my 360 4bbl. I thought w/l cams fool ur engine into thinking that it had more compression?
Actually, yes, it is quite good on the bottom end. It is somewhat of a misnomer in the world of intakes. It has very good low end torque response because of the large plenum cross section. You can see it clearly compared to other single plane intakes. It works well.
Last edited:
nm9stheham
Well-Known Member
That stock cam has a fair amount of duration and relatively lower lift, and that lower lift-to-duration ratio is a recipe for lower DCR with limited gain on breathing. And the 114 LSA keeps the overlap lower for a better idle in a production car, but that makes the intake closing angle later and that lowers DCR. The W/L moves the LSA a bunch narrower, which builds the DCR and low end torque up some but at the cost of greatly increased overlap and thus a poor idle (knarly in our circles! LOL) and poor economy.
In reality the 340/360 W/L should give you better torque and DCR than the cam you have. I can only guess at the intake closing angle, but based on the quickest common flat tappet ramp rates out there (like the Voodoo's), the intake closing angle is gonna be in the upper 50* range, so about 6-8 degrees earlier than the present cam. The lift is going to be higher as the W/L cam looks to have pretty high lift-to-duration ratios, so that might help top end some, depending on the heads and valves which may limit the usefulness of the high lift. But the narrow LSA and high overlap is gonna suck for economy.
IMHO, I would rather go with a slightly lower duration cam with a higher lift-to-duration ratio, like the VooDoo's or XE's. Something in those cam series' in the upper 258 advertised duration. Those will get you to the same intake closing angle as the W/L without the economy killing large overlap. The lift is the same as the cam you have (in the .440"-.460" range) Top end may be down a bit, so when you say you want a 'bit more', that lower duration may be moving in the wrong direction for you.
Depending on where you end up on lift and how hard you run it, larger lift cams push the valvetrain closer to floating. Plus the stock springs have limited lift before you get to too close to coil bind. The springs are gonna need to change to get any of the higher lift cams in, like the 340/360 W/L, and be sure to check the retainer clearance to the valve guide and stem seal.
And, of course, you could advance your present cam to get better low end torque. Do you know where the ICL was installed?
Ultimately, higher compression ratio is the best answer; you are in the same conundrum as the low CR of the 318. You can't get a bit more on the top end without hurting either low end torque or economy or both. The below is a good question:
In reality the 340/360 W/L should give you better torque and DCR than the cam you have. I can only guess at the intake closing angle, but based on the quickest common flat tappet ramp rates out there (like the Voodoo's), the intake closing angle is gonna be in the upper 50* range, so about 6-8 degrees earlier than the present cam. The lift is going to be higher as the W/L cam looks to have pretty high lift-to-duration ratios, so that might help top end some, depending on the heads and valves which may limit the usefulness of the high lift. But the narrow LSA and high overlap is gonna suck for economy.
IMHO, I would rather go with a slightly lower duration cam with a higher lift-to-duration ratio, like the VooDoo's or XE's. Something in those cam series' in the upper 258 advertised duration. Those will get you to the same intake closing angle as the W/L without the economy killing large overlap. The lift is the same as the cam you have (in the .440"-.460" range) Top end may be down a bit, so when you say you want a 'bit more', that lower duration may be moving in the wrong direction for you.
Depending on where you end up on lift and how hard you run it, larger lift cams push the valvetrain closer to floating. Plus the stock springs have limited lift before you get to too close to coil bind. The springs are gonna need to change to get any of the higher lift cams in, like the 340/360 W/L, and be sure to check the retainer clearance to the valve guide and stem seal.
And, of course, you could advance your present cam to get better low end torque. Do you know where the ICL was installed?
Ultimately, higher compression ratio is the best answer; you are in the same conundrum as the low CR of the 318. You can't get a bit more on the top end without hurting either low end torque or economy or both. The below is a good question:
-
