I've got an edelbrock performer 400 cam that I purchased years ago for another yet unfinished project. I never really payed much attention to it until this weekend while doing some cleaning/reorganizing of my storage building. The cam specs on this thing are 214/214@.050, .443/.443 lift, 112 lsa/5* advance ground in, and get this...288/288@.006" :eek: A comp cams 286 magnum is 286@.006", 236@.050, with .490" lift. This performer 400 cam is marketed towards low compression 383's and 400's with a performer intake and headers...basically for a very mild engine. How can a cam with 288* duration create ANY cylinder pressure in a 8.5-1 engine? This thing should last forever with those super tame lobes (which is a good thing), but it looks to me like it would be hard pressed to crank more than about 120psi cranking compression on a 8.5-1 400 smallblock...plus it looks like on paper anyway that fuel economy would be horrible. I realize this is a very old generic grind, but how can it actually do what edelbrock markets it as being capable of?
Other than losing probably 100hp in my 388 compared to the 294s I have in there now, it actually looks like it would work ok with my 10.3-1 compression on pump gas.

Travis,

The hy-cam Melling that's in my 406 part number is CRV-1 or -2, I always forget!

It was touted as an RV cam too at 292/230, 109/107, .480" lift!

These old cams are way lazy, so it probably will do very well in your engine, imho!!

Please consider that the old -929 cam is only like 195/202, 112/108, .390"/.410" lift at but is like 304/314 per GM or some other way out to lunch numbers!!! You may need to retard it a schosh??

pdq67

look at the .050 numbers, the 5* of advance ground in, and the 112 LSA. That's why it is being called a torque cam. I bet in a 383 it would only be good to about 5500RPM. I'm not saying it's the best cam (no cam is) but, just saying why "I" think it is being marketed as a tourque cam and why it should make good torque down low.

I am not a cam expert, but I think .050 duration is more indicative of the character of a cam than the .006 number. If I remember right, the other-than-400 sbc performer cam had a bit less lift and duration on the intake side than the single pattern 400 cam. Perhaps the extra displacement of the 400 broadens the curve enough to justify the extra intake timing.

That cam does sonnd a little large on the advertised duration but going with a 112 lobe sep offsets things a little bit.

The we have had the best luck with is adv. 284 duration 232 @.050 and the .200 number is 144 I believe and we have them done on a 108 lobe sep. which will create more dynamic pressure then being at 112 lobe sep.

Here is a link to a 383 we built with this cam.
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106715&highlight=DYNO

look at the .050 numbers, the 5* of advance ground in, and the 112 LSA. That's why it is being called a torque cam. I bet in a 383 it would only be good to about 5500RPM.

I'm pretty sure it isn't going to make power to 5500.My 383 with a Comp 268HE(268 218 454 110) would only pull to 5200 with 186 heads.

I was going to slap the cam in one of my old core engines and throw a degree wheel on it to see what it REALLY is. I could believe those specs at .004" since this design of cam is known for having long, gentle ramps on it. However, I got sidetracked...see my post in bench racing.

The .050 numbers are best for comparing cams, but the seat numbers are still important. You can't build compression with the valve off the seat, even if it is just barely off. Heck, I think the old -151 cam was 288 or 290@.006".
I know Mike lewis has posted over on the chevelle site that he had no idea where edelbrock came up with their advertised numbers, saying that they was nowhere close to reality (advertised durations way longer than actual measured duration). I'll investigate further when I get the chance.

Thrasher, your RPM limit could be very well due to your heads. I wasn't saying this cam "would be" good to 5500, I was just stating that it would be all done for sure by then. Which is why I said "only".