GrabberOrange69
Troglodyte
If you have tried, or have a Thumpr cam, I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. Pull enough vacuum for the brakes? How low will it idle? I'm thinking about getting the base Thumpr in a 351.
-
Hello there guest and Welcome to The #1 Classic Mustang forum!
To gain full access you must Register. Registration is free and it takes only a few moments to complete.
Already a member? Login here then!
Camshaft - anyone here try a Comp "THUMPR" Cam?
- Thread starter GrabberOrange69
- Start date
Funny, I've been eyeing one those too but wonder if the specs are more for sound & attitude than performance: less valve opening on exhaust than intake, more overlap on exhaust than intake. Generally, exhaust is (or should be) more than intake on both? I'll be interested to see the responses too. They cams may "sound" pretty good though.
Sluggo
Active Member
I looked real hard at them when I was shopping cams. Wound up going with A Lunati Voodoo 61003. It pulls 28 inches of vacuum, has a nasty lope and will idle down to 600. I really like it.I have a video somewhere......"GrabberOrange69" said:
http://www.stangfix.com/testforum2/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=7
rockhouse66
New Member
I had the base Thumpr in my 428 FE engine and I would not recommend it for a PB car. Only 7" vacuum at 950 RPM idle, tear-inducing exhaust gas, wonderful sounding idle. It was fun while it lasted but I replaced it with a Lunati VooDoo and picked up quite a bit of HP as well as much more civil manners.
I don't like the Thumpr grinds at all. They're essentially filling a hole in the market for people that choose cams for the wrong reason: lopey idle sound. The power band is narrow and they don't make a lot of power for what they are. There are much better off the shelf grinds.
Sluggo, you don't mean 18" of vacuum @ idle? Most modern stock vehicles only pull ~20" @ idle. 28" is a lot.
Sluggo, you don't mean 18" of vacuum @ idle? Most modern stock vehicles only pull ~20" @ idle. 28" is a lot.
Sluggo
Active Member
"Starfury" said:
Yeah, I meant 28. I should maybe try another gauge. Power brakes work flawlessly.
apollard
Active Member
Me thinks another guage is def. in order. 28" is a near pefect vacumn. You wouldn't believe the high dollar equipment we use to get that level of vacumn.
66benchcoupe
Member
Plug the vaccum advance on the distributor and you won't see 28". . .
Robert
Robert
yep, I have on in my 351 windsor. the motor is not running yet. Should be about 500 horse or close to it. Don't know much about it. I dropped it off at the engine shop and told the guy what I wanted. I wanted a good sounding, drivable car with some power. Thumper is what he came up with. I can getthe specs. its a 1969 351 windsor, windsor jr aluminum heads, that have had work done and the block is bore 030.
Dennis Harrelson
Member
I think the name and advertisments say it all; it's for cruising the shows and sounding badass. If you're into image, get it. If you want performance, there're way better choices.
Sluggo
Active Member
"66benchcoupe" said:
I don't have a vacuum advance to plug in.
tarafied1
Well-Known Member
I like Sluggo's cam choice!
66benchcoupe
Member
"Sluggo" said:
Wow, that's really high! Either the gauge is bad or the idle mixture is really lean.
Robert
Sluggo
Active Member
Ok, so it runs about 10-11 inches of vacuum. I was reading the wrong scale. I hate multi tasking gauges. :rant I guess that 95 power valve is coming out of the primary in exchange for a 65.
It does run the power brakes just fine even without the A/C vacuum cannister hooked up.
It does run the power brakes just fine even without the A/C vacuum cannister hooked up.
apollard
Active Member
"Sluggo" said:
Be willing to bet it runs just fine with the 95 PV. Cruising, you're probably much above the idle reading. Doubt it's opening enough to affect idle anyway (and not sure it would, heard conflicting theories).
Sluggo
Active Member
I swapped it for the 65 and really could not tell the difference performance wise. Seems to have cleaned p the idle a bit more.