Author Topic: Struggling with cam decision. Need opinions on choices. (Read 1306 times)

Sluggo · « **on:** May, 09, 2010, 07:52:22 AM »

Here's a spreadsheet of the ones I've narrowed it down to.

The car is currently running D80E heads with the biggest valves that will fit in them and screw in studs and guide plates. they will be replaced at some point with aluminum heads. I may have the machine shop grind off the humps in the exhaust ports in the interim.

Other details
Keith Black 10:1 dished pistons
performer intake
summitt 750 cfm carb
1.6 roller rockers
4.060 bore
4.125 stroke

SELLERSRODSHOP · « **Reply #1 on:** May, 09, 2010, 03:07:45 PM »

the last motor i built 15 yrs ago had a cam with specs similar to the second one, but wasn't a split pattern. i loved it. it was mild enough to not cause drivability issues but had loads of power. i had one in a 351c with a 298 duration/ .579 lift 234@.050 & IT WAS A BEAST. made all its power above the 1800rpm range & just wasn't practical at all. IMHO if you plan on driving it much, i would stay in the 280/.500 range with a flat tappet motor.

66gt350 · « **Reply #2 on:** May, 09, 2010, 04:49:23 PM »

The last time I bought a cam I called and talked with the tech at Clay Smith Enterprises - I ended up talking with one of the original founders of Clay smith!!! I gave him the specs of the cam, car, and told him what I wanted to do. He gave me a recommendation of one heck of a cam. And he was right on...I was running in the low to mid 11's with a natural aspirated small block. :) When I finally hit the frustration factor with the E303 cam and the searching idle, I'll be giving Clay Smith another call and getting one of their cams.

Give Clay Smith a call, they are great to deal with!!

monkeystash · « **Reply #3 on:** May, 09, 2010, 06:17:39 PM »

Sluggo, those operating rpms are for a 351, not your 427. Your motor will peak at a lower rpm. Any of those baby cams will offer awesome low end torque and great driveability, but you will most definitely sacrifice power.

gotstang · « **Reply #4 on:** May, 09, 2010, 06:19:09 PM »

If I had to pick, Cam B would be my choice. Highest lift and most reasonable duration, with not too much overlap. Should keep cylinder pressures nice and low.

Otherwise, I'd look at a Lunati Voodoo or a Comp XE. Some of the Voodoos are surprisingly high lift and good valve events, so overlap isn't too excessive even when the cam is huge, which gives good driveability. The XEs are similar, but less so in every way.

Edit: I agree with Ryan, I'd go for a bigger cam. Something more modern, so as it's not too earth-shaking, despite the specs.

johnpro · « **Reply #5 on:** May, 10, 2010, 05:47:59 PM »

In a stroker, it would have to be either of the 1st 2, or something else. Those last 2 are way too mild for a 351 stroker.

I'm running the F-303 roller cam in my 408 with 1.7 ratio Crane Gold Rockers, giving me ~.554 lift, IIRC. I could have gone MUCH more aggressive, but wanted to keep it very streetable.

The other thing that jumps out at me, is that intake. It's really going to hold back any real performance engine.

2ndgen · « **Reply #6 on:** May, 11, 2010, 09:47:32 AM »

Quote from: johnpro on May, 10, 2010, 05:47:59 PM

In a stroker, it would have to be either of the 1st 2, or something else. Those last 2 are way too mild for a 351 stroker.

I'm running the F-303 roller cam in my 408 with 1.7 ratio Crane Gold Rockers, giving me ~.554 lift, IIRC. I could have gone MUCH more aggressive, but wanted to keep it very streetable.

The other thing that jumps out at me, is that intake. It's really going to hold back any real performance engine.

I agree... I am running a hydraulic roller with 238 @ 0.050 and .560 lift on a 393w and once I dialed it in it is pulling 14 inches of vacuum at idle and has a great lope to it.

Consider all the money you are putting in your engine - you should really consider a custom grind for about $100 more. Just be sure to be honest with your intended use and accurate about the other parts you are using.

-Rory

68EFIvert · « **Reply #7 on:** May, 11, 2010, 10:27:12 AM »

For my Cam I went with Jay Allen at Camshaftinnovations.com to grind me one. I went with a billet cam which cost me about $100 more than his SADI cams run. Well worth the money. Do it once and do it right.

http://www.camshaftinnovations.com/Camshafts.htm

Starfury · « **Reply #8 on:** May, 11, 2010, 07:57:07 PM »

I've heard good things about both Clay Smith and Jay Allen. The latter is really popular among the fox body crowd. If it were me, I'd spend the extra money on a custom cam to squeeze every bit of power out of the motor possible.

Sluggo · « **Reply #9 on:** May, 11, 2010, 10:54:33 PM »

I've been loading cams into Engine Analyzer Pro 3.9 for three days. I've probably plugged 40 combos in there.

I'm leaning real heavily towards a Comp Cams XR270RF-HR. Yes, I goin' roller.

Out of all the cams I plugged in this cam never produced less that 300 ft lbs of torque. Measured from idle to 5500 rpm.
Made 468 ft lbs of torque at 3300 and 357bhp at 4300.

Larger lumpier cams actually made less power.

buening · « **Reply #10 on:** May, 12, 2010, 05:52:12 AM »

I plan on a Jay Allen cam whenever I do my stroker. Just sayin....

gotstang · « **Reply #11 on:** May, 12, 2010, 05:55:31 AM »

From experience, if you're not loading the valve events into EA or using a pre-set example, it will mislead you, FWIW. I've seen them be way off in torque and HP Vs. just typing in the duration, LSA and lift.

That cam looks a little small. Ran it through my copy of EA and the dynamic compression was well over 8:1, which is no bueno for premium gas.

Have you thought about a 5.0 cam and link bar lifters? A Trickflow #2 isn't the latest and greatest out there, but it works damn well in 351W strokers, it's real cheap to buy, used, and you'd have the advantages of a standard base circle cam.

Edit: I'm showing over 300lb/ft at 2000rpm and DCR in the mid-7s, the TFS #2 might be a decent choice. Overlap isn't too extreme either, so it ought to idle OK.

Sluggo · « **Reply #12 on:** May, 12, 2010, 06:11:44 AM »

I noticed that about EA. Most of the cams I ran were in preloaded tables.

Comp Cams camquest software was in agreement with EA as far as which cam made the most power.

Camquest pulled 501 ft lbs of torque and 450 hp. Bigger cams acted similar, less torque on bottom, less peak.

gotstang · « **Reply #13 on:** May, 12, 2010, 06:43:52 AM »

I'm in the 3rd floor basement, so I can't text at the moment. This should be reasonably close-ish. :lol

Edit: Damn and blast you, photobucket. Sorry about the tiny pic.

Horseplay · « **Reply #14 on:** May, 12, 2010, 07:02:05 AM »

You really should place a few calls to some cam grinders and respected stroker engine builders to get their input and opinion. Stock cams are fine but they are designed to fit a range of applications which means they are average at best for most. It doesn't cost a whole lot more to have something made that is engineered to fit your needs. If you are serious about upgrading to an aluminum head you're going to want to have a cam with the ability to maximize their potential.
Give Woody a call over at Ford Strokers. He utilizes custom grinds in his motors and could set you up with something that has been developed and refined through countless stroker engine builds. He knows more about what kind of valve timing benefits a stroked Windsor than any technical call line jockey at a cam company.

Sluggo · « **Reply #15 on:** May, 12, 2010, 10:48:02 AM »

Quote from: gotstang on May, 12, 2010, 06:43:52 AM

I'm in the 3rd floor basement, so I can't text at the moment. This should be reasonably close-ish. :lol

Edit: Damn and blast you, photobucket. Sorry about the tiny pic.

That's pretty respectable. Is that a retrofit setup?

gotstang · « **Reply #16 on:** May, 12, 2010, 11:14:09 AM »

That's a cam meant for a roller block, with retrofit lifters. Better, IMO, than a retrofit cam with factory-style roller lifters, which is what that Comp was.

gotstang · « **Reply #17 on:** May, 13, 2010, 07:23:37 AM »

Links to big pics below:
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~kq292205/ea3info/00061.jpg

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~kq292205/ea3info/tfs2.png

Edit: Make that URLs to big pics. WTF?

66gt350 · « **Reply #18 on:** May, 13, 2010, 07:47:46 AM »

Quote from: gotstang on May, 13, 2010, 07:23:37 AM

Links to big pics below:
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~kq292205/ea3info/00061.jpg

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~kq292205/ea3info/tfs2.png

Edit: Make that URLs to big pics. WTF?

Attempt#2...how's this:

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~kq292205/ea3info/00061.jpg

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~kq292205/ea3info/tfs2.png

2ndgen · « **Reply #19 on:** May, 13, 2010, 10:35:21 AM »

Quote from: Sluggo on May, 12, 2010, 06:11:44 AM

Bigger cams acted similar, less torque on bottom, less peak.

Ummm....forgive me for saying this, but torque is not going to be much of an issue regardless of what cam you run with this engine... and without chassis work, traction control, and real sticky tires too much low end torque may not necessarily be useful on the street.

Better start saving for that tire fund!

-Rory

Sluggo · « **Reply #20 on:** May, 14, 2010, 06:16:47 AM »

I'm talking with the cam specialist at Flatlander.

My current choice right now is either going back with the Lunati 00061 that was in it for a few glorious days or comp cams XR282RF.

I like the Trick Flow cam too. If I go roller, I want to get a complete kit and not have to piece things together.