Best 383 Cam for Torque ? [Archive] - Team Camaro Tech

: Best 383 Cam for Torque ?


73 stroker
Dec 15th, 07, 09:10 AM
I have a 383 in a 73 camaro. 2000 stall/th350/3.08 gear. I need to change out my cam & lifters because of a lobe gone bad. What is my best choice for torque, not high end HP? (it will never go above 5000rpm.) Thanks

Straight-line-69
Dec 15th, 07, 09:28 AM
Comp's 260H

Brian Lewis
Dec 15th, 07, 09:32 AM
CompCams CamQuest6 software recommends the XE262H with a 1300-5600 rpm range
Hydraulic-Excellent response, good mid-range, noticeable idle

If Hydraulic Roller, the software recommends the XR270HR

The 260H is '18th place' on CamQuest6 for recommendation. Torque curve similiar, but 18 less HP at 4000 rpms.

I used '4 - Auto - Excellent in Daily Driver - Slight-Mild to Choppy Idle' for the Usage selection.

wiskeesour
Dec 15th, 07, 09:42 AM
I have a 383 in a 73 camaro. 2000 stall/th350/3.08 gear. I need to change out my cam & lifters because of a lobe gone bad. What is my best choice for torque, not high end HP? (it will never go above 5000rpm.) Thanks

Contact UDharold at TeamChevelle....

JimM
Dec 15th, 07, 09:45 AM
I've been running a comp 270H in mine. "Torque" is an understatement.

Chassis dyno pull started at 2000 rpm, well over 350 ft-lbs there, peaked at 400, peak HP was 293 @ 5200. cam is coming out, pm me for a "special"

zdld17
Dec 15th, 07, 10:24 AM
I've been running a comp 270H in mine. "Torque" is an understatement.

Chassis dyno pull started at 2000 rpm, well over 350 ft-lbs there, peaked at 400, peak HP was 293 @ 5200. cam is coming out, pm me for a "special"


Might be a good deal for him as he already had a burnt lobe on the last one. Maybe this was the noise on #6 cly. If all lifter are in the same place, breakin time is done.

Lou, was this the problem?

pdq67
Dec 15th, 07, 10:40 AM
Please see the 396 thread..

pdq67

Highhat2
Dec 15th, 07, 10:49 AM
For a solid lifter, I ran a Comp Xs290 and ran in the 11s. Globs of torque. Hit 501 TQ rear wheel on the dyno.

DOUG G
Dec 15th, 07, 11:11 AM
I ran the CompCam 280H for years in my 406 and torque was never a problem, traction was :yes:

You should state your full combo for the best reply.
It seems the flat tappet XE cam line has the most issues with lobe failures :confused:

dawg
Dec 15th, 07, 11:41 AM
I used a sealed power CS-179R in my 383 (350 hp 327 grind)
and it was surely a stump puller.
everyone was always wondering what cam I used because their 383s never had the grunt mine had.
got mine here:
https://www.northernautoparts.com/ProductModelDetail.cfm?ProductModelId=4240

Eric68
Dec 15th, 07, 11:45 AM
What about the GM hot cam? Hydraulic roller so no "burnt lobes".

Brian Lewis
Dec 15th, 07, 01:12 PM
The 280H and XS290 duration cams are too high for a 3.08 gears rear end
Lets not turn this into another XE bashing thread, we have enough of those BS threads with 95% of the posts coming from people who have never owned an XE cam

DOUG G
Dec 15th, 07, 02:13 PM
I only stated what I gathered from posts on wiped lobes and what the majority were (or seemed to be).

I ran the 280H with 2.73's and a 2200 converter which had no traction on the street below 40mph on regular radials when nailed ... yes not an optimum combo but would 2.0 60' all day with a best of 13.5 @ 101 using only 1st and 2nd with a th350 tranny.

The "ricers" never expected 1st gear to go to 80mph @ 6000rpm, grab 2nd and burry the speedo. You know the "muscle cars" aren't any good on the hiway :secret: lol

73 stroker
Dec 15th, 07, 07:17 PM
was wondering about the 327/350Hp.(222/222 duration @.050) I've used it in a few 350s & liked it. The XE was too much for the 3.08s.(well actually if I had a higher stall converter it wouldn't have been that bad).(Very noticable Idle). It WAS the problem for #6 !. I'll look some more at the Comp Cams.

dawg
Dec 16th, 07, 06:33 AM
the CS-179R is great with a 3:08 rear

pdq67
Dec 16th, 07, 07:42 AM
It pulled like a freight train in my 350 years ago and I figure it will be a lot better in a 383.

All this said, the 210/218 cam I mentioned in the other thread will create MAX. low end grunt, but will be all over at 45 to 5000 rpm. So how many times is your engine above 5,000 rpm w/ your 3.08"s??

pdq67

73 stroker
Dec 16th, 07, 11:20 AM
who makes the cs179r ?

dawg
Dec 16th, 07, 11:35 AM
speed pro does
its patterned after the GM .# 3863151
(350 HP 327 cam)
I got mine here:
https://www.northernautoparts.com/ProductModelDetail.cfm?ProductModelId=4240
This hydraulic flat tappet is used on the 65-67 Corvette and Chevy II L-79. It has excellent power and torque (ID# 3863152). The duration at lash point in degrees (intake/exhaust) is 320/320; duration at .050" tappet lift (intake/exhaust) is 221/221 and maximum lift with 1.5:1 rocker ratio (intake/exhaust) is 447/447. Valve lash is zero/zero and lobe centerline is 114 degrees.

73 stroker
Dec 16th, 07, 11:44 AM
exactly ! I want all the "seat of the pants" I can get up to about 45-4800.

pdq67
Dec 16th, 07, 11:44 AM
It's more like 290/222, 114/110, .447" lift.

And, imho, at $60.00, it's a dandy even if it is long of tooth!

BUT you need at least 10 to 1 CR in a 350 for it to run good. Preferably 11 to 1.

pdq67

98blackburb
Dec 16th, 07, 01:34 PM
I have a Comp Cam XE262H in my 350 ,but for a 383 I would go with this one almost 400 ft. pounds from the start then up to 460 Ft, Lbs. on the dyno chart....................
http://www.crateenginedepot.com/store/ZZ383-Crate-Engine-425HP-12498772-P764C53.aspx

Eric68
Dec 16th, 07, 01:34 PM
Sorry to disagree, but those old GM grinds have lazy ramps that bleeds off cylinder pressure and give up some TQ. They were good in their day, but they are VERY OLD designs. A modern lobe that has more aggressive ramps (shorter on the seat with more duration at .050" and more lift) will build more cylinder pressure and make more TQ with better power across the entire power band.

If you must have something that is dirt cheap the old GM grinds will work fine, but IMO there's a lot to be gained (and nothing to be lost) spending another couple $$ on a modern grind.

Compare these:

GM 350hp/327 -- 320 adv (by modern measurement standards this cam is probably more like 290-300* advertised), 221* @ .050, 114* LSA

Comp XE268 -- 268/274 advertised, 224/230* @ .050, 110* LSA

Comp 270H Magmnum -- 270 advertised, 224* @ .050, 110* LSA

Isky 270 Megacam -- 270* advertised, 221* @ .050, 108* LSA

GM Hot cam -- 279/287 advertised, 218/228 duration @ .050, 112* LSA, .525" lift

Crane 274H06 -- 274 advertised, 218* @ .050, 106* LSA, .450" lift

The tighter the lobe separation angle the more cylinder pressure the cam will tend to build at lower RPM and the faster the power "comes on". Tight LSA cams have power bands more like a light switch (as opposed to a dimmer switch)

Hope that helps.

PS. No offense intended to you old timers that like the 60's grinds.

98blackburb
Dec 16th, 07, 01:37 PM
Eric68,No offense taken and I understand where you're coming from ,I have heard alot of good about GM's Hot Cam:D

dawg
Dec 16th, 07, 02:03 PM
new isnt always better and with the fast ramps etc. you can wipe a cam lobe a heck of alot easier.
those old school cams have proven themselves time and time again and you dont hear much about them giving any problems like the comp cams alway seem to give.
the bigger is better mentality doesnt play a part here when you relize the guy is trying to attain monster torque.
that cam will put a big smile on his face and actually work with the valvetrain as GM intended.
for what it is its still a bitchin cam I know I used one for years.
I used it with 1:5 ratio rockers for awhile and was very impressed.
I changed out the intake rockers for 1:6 ratio and woke up that motor and commenced to crap my pants on every hard launch.

98blackburb
Dec 16th, 07, 04:35 PM
Here's my XE262H on a 350
http://www.superchevy.com/tech/0312sc_355_cid_short_block/photo_10.html

pdq67
Dec 16th, 07, 05:07 PM
Harry said it well, imho!!

pdq67

Straight-line-69
Dec 16th, 07, 05:24 PM
The 280H and XS290 duration cams are too high for a 3.08 gears rear end
Lets not turn this into another XE bashing thread, we have enough of those BS threads with 95% of the posts coming from people who have never owned an XE cam

So mentioning the hundreds (or thousands) of reports of failures of the XE cam is "BS" and "bashing". Ok,..

Do a search on this site; "wiped lobe XE cam" and it will yield over 90 hits,..or over 90 hits on www.chevelles.com or 38 hits on www.corvetteforum.com. That's lots of BS and bashing.

Now do a search, "noisy XE cam". It will yield:

123 hits on this site,
174 hits on the Chevelles site,
and 67 hits on the Corvette site.

Lots more "BS" and "bashing", I'm sure.

Eric68
Dec 16th, 07, 06:06 PM
Before you guys get all fired up on the Comp thing . . . take a look at my post and notice that there are SEVERAL different brands of cams that I recommended -- not just Comp.

Dawg, you are correct -- bigger is not always better and in this case that is why I think a cam with LESS advertised duration will make more TQ. Remember the title of this thread is "best 383 cam for TQ" -- not best cam for least noise or best cam that will run for 200,000 miles ;) BTW. According to the other thread he started about the bad cam, it was a summit #1103 grind that went flat on him -- definitely not an agressive cam.

Reliability is another reason why I recommended the GM hot cam (a roller cam) originally. I understand though that $$$ is sometimes a major consideration -- I just think he can do better than the 350hp / 327 cam.

PS. PDQ -- did you ever get that car of yours running? You're going on what . . . about 8 years now? Do I have to get in my car and drive down to Columbia and wrench on that thing myself? ;) j/k

73 stroker
Dec 17th, 07, 11:42 AM
yes, the down side of the roller cam is definitly price ! it's a 73 block & converting it just isn't worth it. But the 327/350HP is looking better all the time. Was I correct in assuming that that cam will make it's low end power a little "sooner" in a 383 than it did in the 327 ,or 350 ? or will the power band be the same ? Thanks

73 stroker
Dec 17th, 07, 11:46 AM
another question. the cams with the smaller LS, you said they fill the cyliners more at lower rpm's, wouldn't that bring on detonation in a 10-1 engine as apposed to a higher rpm cam that "bleeds off" some pressure? I have no idea, thats why I'm trying to understand this. Thanks

68RS-SS
Dec 17th, 07, 12:22 PM
Play it safe and stay away from the XE line. Yes, I owned one so I can say that (wish I didn't though). I'm thinkin 'bout making it into a lamp or something useful. Do you all think it would make for a reliable lamp base? Just kiddin.... I'll stop.

Lonnie67
Dec 17th, 07, 12:25 PM
what heads and compression do you have?

Eric68
Dec 17th, 07, 12:39 PM
If you go too far with cylinder pressure sure, you could get into detonation. In your case I don't think you are close to that point.

What happens is the cylinder starts to build pressure on the intake stroke only after the intake valve closes. So the quicker you close that intake valve on the compression stroke, the more distance the piston travels compressing the charge and the more TQ the engine builds. We typically use a dynamic compression ratio calculator to quantify this phenomena and also to estimate how much cylinder pressure we can safely build without getting into detonation.

For example: your dynamic compression ratio with the 350/327 cam is roughly 7.3:1 (assuming 10:1 static compression, a 290* advertised duration, and a 114* LSA, installed at 110*). This is very low because of the late intake valve closing. The other extreme would be the Crane 274H06 cam that I recommended -- your DCR would be 8.3:1 (assuming 274* advertised duration, a 106* LSA, installed on a 102 ICL). I can tell you that the difference in cylinder pressure and TQ between these two cams would be SIGNIFICANT.

Now if you compare these two cams the duration at .050" lift is virtually identical, but they will have radically different cylinder pressures. The slow ramps of the 350hp/327 cam causes the valve to be "barely" open for several degrees of crank rotation. This prevents compression from really starting and since the valve is barely open there is no real potential for meaningful flow into the cylinder at high RPM (like a long duration race cam).

At lifts ABOVE .050 the more aggressive lobe will actually have more duration and more area under the curve. For example, at .200" lift the Crane would have a few more degrees duration than the 350/327 cam. As a result, the cam that is "shorter" on the seat, will allow more airflow at higher lifts and will not only make more cylinder pressure down low it will flow more air and will make more power in the midrange and top end too.

While I don't think the 350hp/327 cam is awful, I just think you can gain a lot everywhere in the power band with a more modern cam grind.

Again, I am not trying to argue or beat any one up over this, just trying to explain how "modern cam technology" can really have some advantages. If I recall there were some guys here who tried that Crane and REALLY raved about it. You might try a search on "Crane 274 H06"

Hope that helps!

73 stroker
Dec 17th, 07, 01:58 PM
383 with flat top pistons(4 valve reliefs), 76 cc iron heads (1.94/1.5)(sandwich head gaskets), .010 in the hole pistons. (1800 stall converter)Q-Jet/performer intake with headers. what I want (with 3.08 gears, maybe back to 2.73) is a fairly decent idle(I have working AC), as much bottom end power as I can get(never to go above 5000 and most of the time not over 3500) I want the seat of the pants power & as decent fuel economy as I can get with a 383. I believe this should be attainable. I can't afford to go with a roller cam. Ideas ? Thanks

JimM
Dec 17th, 07, 02:19 PM
so you have a static compression os 9.46:1, give or take the difference between estimates and reality.

256 adv dur cam gives dcr 8.15:1, ok with premium fuel
262 = 8.0, also premuim fuel
270 = 7.8:1. This one will run fine on midgrade, 89 octane.

I used 110 lsa, 106 icl.

73 stroker
Dec 17th, 07, 02:38 PM
I'm not really understanding What you just told me. is there a cam there that will deliver What I'm looking for ? I would figure for 89 octane (because who knows what future gas will be, it bad enough already) Thanks

98blackburb
Dec 17th, 07, 02:48 PM
If you go too far with cylinder pressure sure, you could get into detonation. In your case I don't think you are close to that point.

What happens is the cylinder starts to build pressure on the intake stroke only after the intake valve closes. So the quicker you close that intake valve on the compression stroke, the more distance the piston travels compressing the charge and the more TQ the engine builds. We typically use a dynamic compression ratio calculator to quantify this phenomena and also to estimate how much cylinder pressure we can safely build without getting into detonation.

For example: your dynamic compression ratio with the 350/327 cam is roughly 7.3:1 (assuming 10:1 static compression, a 290* advertised duration, and a 114* LSA, installed at 110*). This is very low because of the late intake valve closing. The other extreme would be the Crane 274H06 cam that I recommended -- your DCR would be 8.3:1 (assuming 274* advertised duration, a 106* LSA, installed on a 102 ICL). I can tell you that the difference in cylinder pressure and TQ between these two cams would be SIGNIFICANT.

Now if you compare these two cams the duration at .050" lift is virtually identical, but they will have radically different cylinder pressures. The slow ramps of the 350hp/327 cam causes the valve to be "barely" open for several degrees of crank rotation. This prevents compression from really starting and since the valve is barely open there is no real potential for meaningful flow into the cylinder at high RPM (like a long duration race cam).

At lifts ABOVE .050 the more aggressive lobe will actually have more duration and more area under the curve. For example, at .200" lift the Crane would have a few more degrees duration than the 350/327 cam. As a result, the cam that is "shorter" on the seat, will allow more airflow at higher lifts and will not only make more cylinder pressure down low it will flow more air and will make more power in the midrange and top end too.

While I don't think the 350hp/327 cam is awful, I just think you can gain a lot everywhere in the power band with a more modern cam grind.

Again, I am not trying to argue or beat any one up over this, just trying to explain how "modern cam technology" can really have some advantages. If I recall there were some guys here who tried that Crane and REALLY raved about it. You might try a search on "Crane 274 H06"

Hope that helps!


A man that's done his homework :beers:

73 stroker
Dec 17th, 07, 03:07 PM
SO, WHICH HYDRAULIC FLAT TAPPET CAM will give me reliability, low end torque, decent idle, without detonation ? brands/numbers??

73 stroker
Dec 17th, 07, 03:19 PM
I'm searching summit & jegs , Can't find a crane cam 274 HO6. energizer? Z? powermax?

73 stroker
Dec 17th, 07, 03:46 PM
found crane 274H under Energizer cams. it says "ROUGH IDLE". Just what I don't want.

pdq67
Dec 17th, 07, 04:35 PM
Please consider a Crane PowerMax H-266-2.

266/210/272/216, 114/109, .440"/.454" lift hy-cam.

Should be smooth idling and pull GREAT!!!! The 114 is what will smooth her way out!!

pdq67

JimM
Dec 17th, 07, 05:02 PM
I'm currently running a comp 270H magnum. I've run it in both a 327 and a 383. In a 383, it will give peak torque around 2500 rpm, max power around 5200. It will idle at 650-700, and pull 15" of vacuum at idle.

Comps magnum series, to quote UD Harold from a conversation we had last week, is "the first cam line that Comp's president designed after he fired me that actually worked."

This is one of the cams that Eric listed in his comparison post. Compared to the ole '60's cams, it is much more agressive, 270 adv to 224 @ .050. It is no where near as aggressive as the XE's, and it's quiet and is easy on valvetrain parts.

The 270H will run on midgrade fuel at 9.5:1. I can "make" mine ping, but only by lugging her down to 1500 rpm and getting on it in 5th gear. Really should downshift, but the torque is so good it's not needed.

Lift is .470, so I don't think it's gonna work on a stock vortec head. If you want one that's all ready broke in, shoot me a pm.

JimM
Dec 17th, 07, 05:06 PM
The "best" cam for a particular combo is tough. We can all only speak based on our own experience, and most of us do not have "all encompassing" experience. There's a lot of cams out there.

Eric68
Dec 17th, 07, 05:32 PM
SO, WHICH HYDRAULIC FLAT TAPPET CAM will give me reliability, low end torque, decent idle, without detonation ? brands/numbers??

I agree with Jim, the Magnum 270H would be a good, safe choice.

Sorry if I get carried away with the "more power Scotty" thing -- I just happen to like to go fast . . . LOL

ps. thanks 98 burb. :beers:

camaroman7d
Dec 17th, 07, 05:58 PM
The title of the post alone ran me away. First of all there is no "BEST" cam for any one engine or purpose. There was a lot of good advice offered. As Jim said what is mild to me may be wild to you. Nobody wants to say "Lou go buy cam part #xxx and it will give you exactly what you're looking for" If you want that kind of promise or advice call your favorite cam company and tell them what you want and let them make the suggestion.

The best thing you can do is learn a little about cams and what all the numbers mean, at that point you can make an educated purchase. I read the very first post in the thread and thought to myself, "How can anyone answer this question, he didn't even give the compression ratio?"

Let's first understand an engine is a combination of parts and the best running or performing (no matter what your goal is) will always be the combination of parts that are matched. This is why you can't say XX cam is the best for a 383. The answers will depend on the other parts used in and on this engine. Even after that is figured out the use of the car the engine will be going in, the weight, gear ratio, tranny type, exhaust, etc... are all factors.

There are probably over 20 cams on the market that will give you what you want. How can you expect everyone to agree on which one is the best? We wouldn't even agree on which manufaturer. This doesn't mean that every choice suggested wouldn't do as you want, it just means there is more than one way to get there.

Does that cam have a rough idle in a 283 or a 400? The larger the engine the less rough the idle will tend to be.
This is the very reason I do not make cam recommendations on the internet.

98blackburb
Dec 17th, 07, 06:42 PM
Camaroman7d, How much does your tach go up and down on your motor in that sound clip,she's hunting hard...........:D

73 stroker
Dec 17th, 07, 06:50 PM
funny, I thought I described the engine/ trans /rear & weight pretty well.( JimM was kind enough to figure the Comp. ratio) I just asked for suggestions based on others oppinions/ with others experiences & the info THAT I DID provide. I really didn't want to have to buy 15 cams & change them all out to find out how they act, better to learn from others experiences.THATS WHY I ASK QUESTIONS. why are you getting your feathers ruffled?

JimM
Dec 17th, 07, 06:55 PM
check your pm's lou

73 stroker
Dec 17th, 07, 07:03 PM
JimM, I'm thinking about it. I'll get back to you. ( never new about the PM's before) Thanks

camaroman7d
Dec 17th, 07, 08:17 PM
Lou, I suppose you are addressing me? My feathers aren't ruffled. I was trying to help you learn a little. There is more to picking a cam than what most people understand. If I sounded harsh or upset, that was not the intent. Take Jims advice and I'm sure you will be happy. Good luck with it.

Motorhead62
Dec 17th, 07, 09:38 PM
Try this hyd roller from Crane. A GREAT cam in a 383 that makes KILLER torque. The part number is HR-284-2S-12 IG. Specs are .509/.528 lift and 222/230 duration @ .050. Check out the Summit link below. :D

http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=CRN%2D119831&autoview=sku

73 stroker
Dec 17th, 07, 09:46 PM
Like I said, "can't afford a roller cam"

Straight-line-69
Dec 17th, 07, 10:03 PM
Comp's Magnum is good stuff. I too have run the 270H and 280H in SB's and BB's, and it' a reliable, quiet, performer.

Also, I've been disappointed with most everey dual pattern cam I've ever run. Single pattern for me.

sschevellefan
Dec 17th, 07, 10:59 PM
I know a guy who has a mild 383 with the comp 268 hi energy cam, 218@.050 .454 lift. I haven`t heard it but it`s in his sons nova with vorecs and he says it has a mild idle, enough to know you got a cam in there, and really good low end power. He`s running vortec heads too but it should run really good with your set up. I also know a guy who ran the 350hp cam in a 383 for a work truck. I drove it once and it had alot of low end torque. I have personaly used that cam in a 350 i built for another friends truck and it worked great. They are old school with lazy ramps but they are easier on the valve train and they work. There are a ton of combos running around out there that aren`t perfectly matched up with the right DCR that run really good.

On another note, I`m picking up a used hydraulic roller cam for $150 and I`m going to get a "retro" lifter kit for about $80., just need to mod the block a little. You can get take out ZZ4 cams on ebay all day long. Here are a few links.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/NEW-SBC-Small-Block-Chevy-ZZ4-Roller-Cam_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33614QQihZ024QQitem Z370005641344QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevy-SBC-Retrofit-Hydraulic-Roller-Lifters-cam-retro_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33614QQihZ010QQit emZ200184691613QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Small-Block-Chevy-Roller-Lifter-Conversion-Kit-NEW-GM_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33621QQihZ006QQitemZ 160190524619QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

Motorhead62
Dec 17th, 07, 11:14 PM
Like I said, "can't afford a roller cam"

Too bad, a roller makes so much more power. :D

pdq67
Dec 18th, 07, 04:42 AM
Again!

"Please consider a Crane PowerMax H-266-2.

266/210/272/216, 114/109, .440"/.454" lift hy-cam.

Should be smooth idling and pull GREAT!!!! The 114 is what will smooth her way out!!"

What is going on is that guys have a LOT different ideas what lowend a streetable is and that's why you are getting such an a spread of cams to choose from!

Like I've said a split 210/218 cam will produce just about the best lowend you will get, BUT at the expense of topend! This is why the guys are moving you up into the 218, 222 and 224 duration at .050" lift cams!

Talking about hy-cams here only! use an eq. solid lifter cam and you will gain about 3 to 4 percent power everywhere, plus it will rpm better than the hy-cam but at the price of having to lash it every so often!

I am a solid lifter cam guy so it ain't no biggie to me b/c I like to rpm my engines when I want to OR when needed!

And I go old-school and use the older cams just b/c of any possible lobe life issues like noise and premature wear!!

pdq67

Eric68
Dec 18th, 07, 06:49 AM
Like I said, "can't afford a roller cam"

Maybe you should consider waiting and saving up some money -- after all its winter.

After flattening a cam lobe the engine should really be taken down and cleaned well anyways, in your other thread you mentioned not finding anything in the oil filter when you cut it apart. I sure hope the oil filter bypass wasn't open letting shavings into the oil galley (and bearings)

67funcar
Dec 18th, 07, 09:29 AM
I built a 383 for my 67 Camaro with the same goals as you state. The engine was 9.7 to 1 with GM L98 aluminum heads and Edelbrock Performer Air Gap intake. Dyno tested at 456 ft lbs torque at 3700. Big flat torque curve. HP was only 345 but came at only 4500 rpm. Great street motor. My Camaro had highway 273 gears and would light them up!

I can't remember the cam part # but I think it was Comp. The specs were 218/218 at 0.050" with .454/.454 lift. Nice mild inexpensive flat tappet cam that makes great torque and smooth idle. Later on I increased lift (and duration slightly) by going to 1.6 rockers.

Your goals call for a mild cam such as this. You will certainly hear lots of advice for bigger cams that will make more HP but it sounds like you want torque so a good rule of thumb is this: Torque at "low RPM" is achieved with short duration (220 at .050" lift or less) and as duration increases your torque and power will come at higher RPM. Big cams can make big power and torque but if they come at high rpm, you will seldom be able to use your motor's potential on the street (plus it will run rougher and drink more fuel)

Good luck.

Kamcoman
Dec 18th, 07, 10:17 AM
camaroman7d (call a few cam companies) and wiskeesour (contact UDharold) gave you the best advice. To find two people that are looking for the exact same thing in a camshaft is very difficult. From your request, it almost sounds like an "RV" type camshaft is what you are looking for..... high torque at low to mid-range rpm with a smooth idle. I hope you find what you are looking for.

Keith

73 stroker
Dec 18th, 07, 11:11 AM
Maybe that IS what I'm looking for. But will a RV Cam with the cyl filling abilities work with the 9.5 Comression ? the 218/218- .454/.454 sounds interesting( to bad I can't find one like it in the cat. was looking at the energizer 272H. (216/216, .454/.454 .

73 stroker
Dec 18th, 07, 11:13 AM
It may be winter for you, BUT , I'm in the center of FLORIDA.

JimM
Dec 18th, 07, 11:15 AM
I'm pretty sure the 218/218 @ 050 cam is Comp's 260 magnum.

sschevellefan
Dec 18th, 07, 11:19 AM
Maybe that IS what I'm looking for. But will a RV Cam with the cyl filling abilities work with the 9.5 Comression ? the 218/218- .454/.454 sounds interesting( to bad I can't find one like it in the cat. was looking at the energizer 272H. (216/216, .454/.454 .

thats the 268 hi energy cam. here is the link

http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=CCA%2DCL12%2D210%2D2&autoview=sku

67funcar
Dec 18th, 07, 11:23 AM
The Energizer 272H will work fine. If you want about 0.30" more lift and a bit more duration just use 1.6 rockers.

67funcar

sschevellefan
Dec 18th, 07, 11:25 AM
the crane 272 cam should work fine too. I had a 350 that had that cam in a otherwise stock motor and it ran pretty good. Didn`t have much low end but once you got going it ran good.

73 stroker
Dec 18th, 07, 11:27 AM
found it, comp High energy 218/218-.454/454

98blackburb
Dec 18th, 07, 03:13 PM
Thanks Camaroman7d for the PM....alan

pdq67
Dec 18th, 07, 04:31 PM
CC's good old 268HE is 268/218, 110/106, .454" lift

pdq67

John65nova
Dec 18th, 07, 06:14 PM
I'm currently running a comp 270H magnum. I've run it in both a 327 and a 383. In a 383, it will give peak torque around 2500 rpm, max power around 5200. It will idle at 650-700, and pull 15" of vacuum at idle.

Jim... what was vacuum at 650-700 rpm in the 327? Estimated rpm for peak torque / peak power? Thanks!

Lonnie67
Dec 18th, 07, 08:28 PM
383 with flat top pistons(4 valve reliefs), 76 cc iron heads (1.94/1.5)(sandwich head gaskets), .010 in the hole pistons. (1800 stall converter) Q-Jet/performer intake with headers. what I want (with 3.08 gears, maybe back to 2.73) is a fairly decent idle (I have working AC), as much bottom end power as I can get(never to go above 5000 and most of the time not over 3500 ) I want the seat of the pants power & as decent fuel economy as I can get with a 383. I believe this should be attainable. I can't afford to go with a roller cam. Ideas ? Thanks

If these things are really what you want then I think that PDQ67's pick will meet all these goals the best: "Please consider a Crane PowerMax H-266-2.

266/210/272/216, 114/109, .440"/.454" lift hy-cam.

Should be smooth idling and pull GREAT!!!! The 114 is what will smooth her way out!!"

The HE268 cam is a great cam, I ran one, but I think it is slightly more than what you want. IMO :cool:

Also the 114ls will keep it conservative, your stocker 76CC heads are more prone to detonation than aftermarket heads at the same compression.

73 stroker
Dec 19th, 07, 11:13 AM
pdq67, WHERE would one find a solid lifter cam with the specs of the 266H ? all cams I'm seeing for sale are 3000-6800 rpm's !

73 stroker
Dec 19th, 07, 11:43 AM
the 266 sounds good, I just don't want a cam that falls on it's face at 4000rpm. if it stops making power at 4500, I can handle it. I had that experience with a summit sum 1102 in my old 350.( was good torque/idle, but when it got to 4000, it just stopped pulling altogether like it had a govenor on it ! 4500 is acceptable, but ..... Has anyone ever ACTUALLY gotten crane cams to answer their phone ? I've been trying for YEARS, and can't get a live body.

JimM
Dec 19th, 07, 11:55 AM
Jim... what was vacuum at 650-700 rpm in the 327? Estimated rpm for peak torque / peak power? Thanks!

John, that was a couple years ago, it's kinda fuzzy... Adding near 50 cubes shifted the entire powerband down about 700 rpm... With the 327, she wanted to idle a lil faster, maybe 750, maybe 13-14" of vacuum. And remember my car is a stick, so no load on the motor at idle.


As far as guesstimated numbers... I try not to do that... rpm for both peaks would have been 600-700 rpm higher. The 327 pulled well over 6k no sweat. I'd have to guess adding 47 cubes was good for 40 ft-lbs and 40 hp?

CamaroZZ430
Dec 19th, 07, 12:50 PM
If I were you I would call Crane or CompCams and ask them. They will give cam recommendations on the phone if you call the tech lines. They make the cams so they should know what will work for your combination!

CamaroZZ430
Dec 19th, 07, 12:54 PM
I just called crane cams and talked to a tech rep about something. Call 386-258-6174

CamaroZZ430
Dec 19th, 07, 01:16 PM
Put a Crane PowerMax H-272-2 in it. It is 216/228 with .454/.480 lift with 1.5's and a 112 seperation. This cam will run smooth, have power and wont beat the **** out of your valve train. I used this cam in a boat with a 350 years ago and it ran great!

Eric68
Dec 19th, 07, 01:32 PM
the 266 sounds good, I just don't want a cam that falls on it's face at 4000rpm. if it stops making power at 4500, I can handle it. I had that experience with a summit sum 1102 in my old 350.( was good torque/idle, but when it got to 4000, it just stopped pulling altogether like it had a govenor on it ! 4500 is acceptable, but ..... Has anyone ever ACTUALLY gotten crane cams to answer their phone ? I've been trying for YEARS, and can't get a live body.

My God man, make up your mind! 5 pages of waffling back and forth over a cam that is 260 or 270* ;)

Seriously though, It really won't make that much difference. If you want a smoother cam stay with something closer to 260*, if you want to make sure it doesn't fall off as quick on the top end, go with 270-272*

Another observation. 260* is getting close to the limit for pump premium and 9.5:1 compression (which is what you have with flat tops and 76cc heads in a 383, assuming .040" quench). 270* would be a bit safer with pump gasoline.

One more cam to consider for you (I hope it doesn't cause any more waffling ;) ) Take a look at the Comp 265DEH. It is 265/269 advertised duration, 211/221* duration @ .050, 110* LSA. Should idle good in a 383 and the extra exhaust duration should extend the RPM band on the top end a little. (NOTE: Comp's descriptions for SBC cams assume a 350cid engine. Bigger engines lower the power band and make idle smoother than what is in the catalog, smaller engines do the opposite)

73 stroker
Dec 19th, 07, 02:03 PM
Just got off the phone with Crane. the guy said "crane powermax 113942" 272/284-.454/.480. & advised a change to 3.31 or 3.42 gears. according to him will get better throttle response AND better MPG.

73 stroker
Dec 20th, 07, 12:02 PM
ok, Powermax 272H it is. Thanks

Eric68
Dec 20th, 07, 01:07 PM
ok, Powermax 272H it is. Thanks

http://www.southsidestreetcars.org/sssc2006/Smileys/classic/woohoo1.gif We have a decision!!! ;)

pdq67
Dec 20th, 07, 04:21 PM
Look.

UNLESS you change gears at the same time you switch cam's, you AIN'T gonna be happy w/ a 272 cam and 3.08's, imho!!

That 265DEH I always forget about as well as Isky's 264 Mega!!

pdq67

John65nova
Dec 20th, 07, 05:03 PM
Look.

UNLESS you change gears at the same time you switch cam's, you AIN'T gonna be happy w/ a 272 cam and 3.08's, imho!!

That 265DEH I always forget about as well as Isky's 264 Mega!!

pdq67

Crane measures seat timing at .004". This would be ~268 @ .006". I can't see where this is much different than the 265DEH you are recommending. In fact, the Crane may run a little better with tall gears since it is on a 112 LSA. It's a 383... a few degrees of seat timing ain't gonna kill the low rpm performance. Just my opinion...

Eric68
Dec 20th, 07, 07:33 PM
Yup. What John said. When I first built my 383 I ran the Comp 275 DEH with a 1,800 converter and 2.73 gears and it was just fine. In fact, I ran 13.2's with it before I started dinkin' around with it . . . roller cams, gears, converter, bigger motor, E85 . . . LOL