Hey all,

I've been playing with my new copy of DD2K and am running cams through my DD2k 327 setup... So far I've looked at the Crane 266/266 (210/210@.050) the Crane 266/272(210/216@.050) and the Crane 272/272 "little fireball"(216/216@.050)

So far the Crane 266/272 dual pattern is the front runner on torque to 5000 RPM with the slightly smaller Crane 266/266 single pattern giving up only 2-3 ft. lbs., but pulling ahead past 5000RPM! (this suprised me!)

Anywho, I would like to compare some of the Comp. cams grinds to the Crane's. I would like to get the seat-to-seat timing for the Comp. 260HE so that I am sure that I'm doing an "apples to apples" comparison.

Anyways, enough rambling for now....


Thanks,
Mark P.

The 260 is seat to seat for the High energy line. anyway you can look on the summit web site and find the cam and look under technical for .050 specs.

It's just 260/212, 110/106, .440" lift.

I would think it will make more down low then the other two with the Crane 266 being in the middle in a real motor???

And imho, all of them are great SB daily driver cams!!!

And don't forget the good old CC 268HE too!!!!!!!!!

pdq67

Thanks Guys,

All of these cams are very close together as far as it goes in DD2k. I'm probably "splitting hairs" in trying to compair them....as all of them should work very good in a mild street 327.

It's just that the Crane 266/266 lists specs as 210/210 @ .050 , while Comp cams list theirs as 212/212 @ .050 with 260 advertised duration.

Guess it's just the way that Comp. lists their total advertised duration.

Thanks,
- Mark P.

Who's buried in Grant's tomb?

Sorry couldn't resist ;)

Imho, the older designed Crane 266 cam will be a schosh easier on the valve train when comparing the hydraulic intensity's, (HI's), between them that Mr. Harvey Crane came up with so he could compare aggresiveness of different lobe's..

266-210 = 56 HI
vs
260-212 = 48 HI sorta thing.. That's all..

pdq67

Originally posted by pdq67:
Imho, the older designed Crane 266 cam will be a schosh easier on the valve train when comparing the hydraulic intensity's, (HI's), between them that Mr. Harvey Crane came up with so he could compare aggresiveness of different lobe's..

266-210 = 56 HI
vs
260-212 = 48 HI sorta thing.. That's all..

pdq67 Not exactly. Crane rates their street hydraulics at .0045 lift, while comp rates theirs at .006 lift. Looking at specs for similar cams between the two companies usually shows that the crane cams will have about 6* more advertised duration for a similar .050 duration, so the HI numbers are meaningless.

I have used several 266 energizer cams and 260HE cams in various 305's and 350's over the years. Strangly enough, every single 266 energizer I have used has always required poly locks to keep the valves adjusted. It acts almost like it is an aggressive profile and causes even brand new rocker nuts to back off. Never had this problem with the 260HE. In my experience, the 266 energizer makes just the slightest bit more off idle torque (makes sense sit it has a slightly smaller .050 duration and 1* more advance ground in), but the 260HE will rev considerably higher and makes considerably more midrange and top end power. I am short on time right now (got to go to work)...if you want more info just ask.

Travis,

I'm asking whenever you have the time.

pdq67

Interesting bit of info. on the Energizer 266 cams backing off the rocker arm adjustments.

Eric, Yup, 266 is a bigger number than 260... ;)
I guess I should have phrased my question differently. I was actually wanting the IVO/IVC & EVO/EVC numbers of the Comp. 260HE....And I finally found them:

FYI for those who would like to know....

--------------------------------------------------
Part Number 12-206-2
Engine 1955-1998 Chevrolet
262ci-400ci
8cyl.
Grind Number CS 260H-10
Description
--------------------------------------------------
Intake Exhaust
Valve Adjustment 0 0
Gross Valve Lift 0.44 0.44
Duration At 0.006 Tappet Lift 260 260

--------------------------------------------------
Valve Timing At 0.006
Open Close
Intake 24 56
Exhaust 64 16

--------------------------------------------------
These Specs Are For The Cam Installed At 106 Intake CL
Intake Exhaust
Duration At 0.05 212 212
Lobe Lift 0.2933 0.2933
Lobe Separation 110
-------------------------------------------------
Recommended Valve Springs 980-16


My bad.....I finally looked it up on my pc at work (we have a DSL connection). I have Juno "freeware" at home that only lets you stay on for a few minutes at a time. So it's hard to look stuff up at home.

Interesting discussion about Hydraulic intensity numbers. I have heard lots of good things about the Comp. XE series cams. Not trying to start any arguments, but I have also heard (but can't verify) that the XE series cams are harder on the valvetrain due to their aggressive lobe profiles. And thus wear faster than some other cams.

- Mark P.

[ 10-24-2003, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Granny's 69 ]

I can't explain the rocker nuts backing off, but it happened on the last 2 chevy engines I used this cam in. 1st time I just figured there was something else wrong with the valvetrain, but fixed the problem with poly locks. Then, several years later, on the 1st engine I built for the '78 truck I own now, I run into exactly the same trouble, and again poly locks fixed it. Strange stuff.
My experience with the 266 energizer is that it it doesn't really want to rev much over 5K. It makes very strong off idle torque, and is a wonderful cam for mild 305's even with a fairly tall gear. The 260HE, however, just flat amazed me. The 1st engine I used this cam in was a 307, with no compression (about 7.5-1 with 76cc 882 heads off of a '77 monte carlo), the monte's iron q-jet intake and carb, HEI, small outlet truck ram horns with dual 2" exhaust and 18" glasspacks, a stock th350 and convertor, and 3.08 gears, all in a 4000 pound '69 chevy truck. It launched harder than the stock w/duals '77 monte 350 engine, and would wing to 6k like it was nothing. After brutally blowing up the 307, I got another 260HE, dropped it into a fairly high mileage '77 camaro 2bbl 350 engine with 1.94/1.50 882 heads, stock valve springs, another iron smog q-jet intake, same '77 monte q-jet, same exhaust, tranny, and gearing. It was a tire burning beast...it would light the tires at a rolling start from 25-30 mph, got 3 mpg better mileage than the stock 929 cam, and would pull to 5700 rpms easily. I have yet to build another engine that ran as good with so little money invested. When I built the 1st engine for my '78, I built on the same idea the 355, with the 266 energizer, a weiand 8004, leaking q-jet for a while, then a 600 edelbrock, headers, dual 2 1/4" exhaust, similar 882 heads as before but with Z-28 style springs (after breaking the stockers wit only .440 lift???), better fuel pump, etc. Now granted, the '78 is about 500 pounds heavier than the old '69 was, and they had the same gearing and tires sizes, but the '78's 355 should have spanked on the old combo. It didn't. It was about .4 seconds quicker 0-60 mph, but .5 seconds slower in the 1/4 mile. And that was after extensive tuning, where the old '69 combo was thrown together from whatever I could scrounge up and minimal tuning. The '78's engine, even with better induction and way better exhaust, struggled past 5200 rpms. I have seen similar results from other setups too.

I am rambling, ain't I?

Sorry to keep running on, especially since this isn't even my post, but 1 more thing...

I have gathered parts to try and build my idea of the perfect 3.08 geared truck motor, based on past experience. I have a good dished piston 357 long block in excellent shape. I am going to swap the 1 882/1 624 heads off of it (never noticed this until the other day...it was like that when I got it) with a set of vortecs. Should give about 8.9-1 or so compression. I have a comp cams 260AH-8 cam (260/268, 212/218, .444/.444, 108 lsa), 1.6 guided roller tip rockers, performer vortec, 650 spread bore holley, 1 5/8" headers, dual 2 1/4" exhaust, 981-16 comp springs, and a 2000 B&M holeshot convertor. The goal is mid 14's and 18 mpg. I think this combo will do it.