Comp's Magnum 286H - Team Camaro Tech
Performance Our High Performance area

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 5th, 01, 07:23 AM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 193
Question

I'm looking for advise from anyone familiar with running a Comp Cams Magnum 286H in a small block.

I'm currently running their XE268H, based on the raves I'd heard about this cam, but have since heard that it's not recommended for higher compression ratios. I'm running about 10.3 to 10.4:1 with iron heads (Vortecs), tight quench, and all the sharp edges broken to reduce detonation, and, though I've not heard any detonation, or seen any indication on the plugs that it's a problem, my engine seems to nose over above 5500 rpm or so, and 1) I'd like it not too!, and 2) I'm concerned that I may be having some detonation that I'm not otherwise seeing that's contributing to the performance loss.

I'd like to have it run stronger up to, or even beyond 6000 rpm, and if I lose a little bottom end, that's not such a huge problem. The car has a vacuum cannister, so that shouldn't be a huge issue either. But, even though I want to maximize performance, it's still primarily a street car, and I don't want something that's absolutely MISERABLE around town. Comp's recommendation was the 286H (got this same advice from a couple different customer service techs), but I'd like some input from people that might be running it on the street in their own cars. I'd probably also run the Pro Magnum lifters with it.

Any advice?

------------------
Huck
355 SBC powered '87 Chrysler Conquest TSi - 10.3:1, Vortec heads, XE 268H cam, HEI, eq. length shorties, Performer RPM intake, 750 Edelbrock (1407), T-5 and 3.54:1 posi indep. rear
Huck is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 5th, 01, 07:34 AM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 193
Post

P.S. I've run some Dragstrip Plus comparisons, and they look favorable (higher peak hp, and a broader powerband, too), but I don't trust their rather limited head selection options. I don't know if I've got them modeled accurately or not, since it doesn't allow me to enter flow numbers. They're a lot better than '70's "smog heads", ported or not, and they flow, unported, as well as most aftermarket heads, 'til you start getting up into the higher volume runner heads (AFR 195's, etc.) I really distrust this aspect of the program, which they state themselves as being the "most critical" modeling criteria.

So I don't know if the 286 looks good 'cause I've overstated the capabilities of the heads, or if it would really work that well. I'm getting somewhere in the neighbor hood of 450 hp.
Huck is offline  
post #3 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 5th, 01, 09:30 AM
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atco Raceway
Posts: 2,069
Send a message via AIM to CamaroNOTcamero
Post

thats a tough call, you may want to drop it down to the 280h magnum. it has a little less duration, so it should be better on mid range torque/hp.
CamaroNOTcamero is offline  
post #4 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 6th, 01, 07:18 AM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 193
Post

That's kind of what I'm going back and forth between - the recommended 286, or the safer and more streetable 280. And wondering if it's really the cam that has it feeling like it's nosing over above 5500, or something else.
Huck is offline  
post #5 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 6th, 01, 10:59 AM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Dahlonega, GA
Posts: 40
Post

I'm running the xe274 in a 355 and the chassis dyno shows peak hp just below 5500. Mine also stops pulling between 5500-6000. I shift at 5700 and that seems to work really well. I've got 76cc iron heads with stock type pistons (flat top with valve reliefs), my combo would probably run slightly better with the xe268. The xe274 has a pretty rought idle, but makes a ton of torque. If it's a steet/strip car I'd go with the xe274 based upon the rest of your engine combo.
jbalch is offline  
post #6 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 7th, 01, 09:34 AM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston, Texas USA
Posts: 39
Post

Huck,

Are you sure you do not have an ignition or fuel delivery problem? My engine is much milder than yours and it still revs pretty happily to about 6200. Although with the compression you are running you could do very well with a slightly larger cam. Personally I would go with a dual pattern cam since the intake/exhaust relationship of the Vortec heads is not the best. Just my .02 cents.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huck:
That's kind of what I'm going back and forth between - the recommended 286, or the safer and more streetable 280. And wondering if it's really the cam that has it feeling like it's nosing over above 5500, or something else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rubeng442 is offline  
post #7 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 7th, 01, 09:42 AM
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hot Springs, AR 71913 USA
Posts: 131
Post

Huck,

Could you be running out of air? How big is your carb?



------------------
Jim Byrd
1970 350 four bolt, .060, Speed pro hyper pistons, stock crank and rods, '77 vette GM manifold, edelbrock 600cfm, comp magnum 280H cam, '993' 75cc heads, comp springs, manley valves 1.96"-- In 1972 Nova, aka Camaro in grocery getter's clothing.
Jimmybyrd is offline  
post #8 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 7th, 01, 10:24 AM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 193
Post

Jimmybyrd - don't think I'm running out of air - I'm running a 750cfm Performer and a Performer RPM manifold.

Rubeng442 - not as certain about the fuel supply. I'm running the stock 5/16 fuel lines and high pressure in-tank pump, regulated to 6-7 psi for the carb. It's not that it won't rev there, but it does seem to be losing steam. Is there any good way to check this?

------------------
Huck
355 SBC powered '87 Chrysler Conquest TSi - 10.3:1, Vortec heads, XE 268H cam, HEI, eq. length shorties, Performer RPM intake, 750 Edelbrock (1407), T-5 and 3.54:1 posi indep. rear
Huck is offline  
post #9 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 9th, 01, 12:31 PM
Senior Tech
Eric
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Kentwood, MI
Posts: 8,097
Post

Of course I am running a solid flat tappet cam, but my little 282s pulls very hard up to 6300 RPM. 236* duration on a solid cam is pretty small by most standards BTW. Lots of vacuum at idle, 14 - 15" in park 11 - 12" in drive.

My point - your XE268 should pull hard in a 350 to about 5500 RPM's as you state. I'd also look at a little bigger cam, but that 286H might be a little on the big side IMO, maybe an XE274 or a 280H?

------------------
68 Camaro, 383 small block with TH350 trans. 11.98's at 111mph and never trailered.
Eric68 is offline  
post #10 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 9th, 01, 04:04 PM
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atco Raceway
Posts: 2,069
Send a message via AIM to CamaroNOTcamero
Post

personally i'm going with the 280H, it seems to be just right on the duration for a built up 355.
CamaroNOTcamero is offline  
post #11 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 9th, 01, 04:09 PM
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: skiatook, ok
Posts: 3,692
Post

5500 seems to be about the power peak with this combo (mine is almost identical to yours...just a bit less compression) but mine will go to 6000 easily. If you do decide to go with more cam, just remember to watch the retainer to valve guide clearance with those vortecs...unless they have been machined down some you are right at the edge. Erson offers a number of cams with .472 lift with durations up to 240@.050...might be worth checking out.

------------------
375hp 78 Chevy truck
77 Chevy Nova
95 Chevy Lumina 3.4L
and building a 78 Nova
travis is offline  
post #12 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 12th, 01, 05:42 AM Thread Starter
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 193
Post

Thanks for the input, guys. I also got Boodlepoof to run some desktop dyno numbers for me. The general trend suggests that the improved high rpm torque doesn't make up for the loss in the bottom end. The area under the curve, comparatively, suggests the 268 is pretty much optimum, as long as I'm not planning on running up in the 6500-7000 rpm range. So I guess I'll hold off, for now, keep an eye out for signs of detonation, and try to optimize what I've got before I start trading away that stump-pulling bottom end. Maybe Rubeng442 was onto something with the fuel supply questions.

Anyway...thanks for all the input. I'm sure I'll be done modifying this car by the time I quit driving it!

------------------
Huck
355 SBC powered '87 Chrysler Conquest TSi - 10.3:1, Vortec heads, XE 268H cam, HEI, eq. length shorties, Performer RPM intake, 750 Edelbrock (1407), T-5 and 3.54:1 posi indep. rear
Huck is offline  
post #13 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 21st, 01, 06:40 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Columbia, MO USA
Posts: 21,341
Smile

I'm resurrecting this one.

Huck, put a solid cam that is comparable to the XE268H hydraulic cam AND I guarantee that you will be able to wind her to the moon w/ the right springs!!!

I used to wind my little homemade 301 w/ the -097 little Duntov (that came out of a junk engine, lifters and all) to 7000+ rpm all the time.

Oh, and Eric68 said it best. IMHO. pdq67
pdq67 is offline  
post #14 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 21st, 01, 09:24 PM
Senior Tech
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham Mi,
Posts: 142
Post

I think the problem may be with the heads, they have small intake runners(165cc?) or around there and arent really designed for high rpm.
Joshua Leslie is offline  
post #15 of 16 (permalink) Old Nov 22nd, 01, 02:44 AM
Gold Lifetime Member
Rick
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Accord, NY
Posts: 4,815
Post

Well, I have old double hump heads with the small runners but also have a solid lifter cam and it will wind to the moon as pdq says. I suspect it is more the lifter design. I've been following these threads with quite some interest as my next cam, emotionally, would be a solid roller. Decisions, decisions.

------------------
Rick Dorion
69 RS Conv,355,M20,4.10's and I don't worry about stone chips.
RickD is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Team Camaro Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address.
NOTE we receive a lot of registrations with bad email addresses. IF you do not receive your confirmation email you will not be able to post. contact support and we will try and help.
Be sure you enter a valid email address and check your spam folder as well.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome