Team Camaro Tech banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm considering a cam change when I have rear main seal and other minor maintenance done.

The current cam was installed at a shop in 1980s before 20+ years of storage. Only cam specs I know per old note from shop:

dur: 222* at .050"
lift: .436"
lobe sep: 112
adv dur: 265*
(some specs sound similar to the "151" 327/350 hp cam)

other current specs:

327 stock bore and stroke
1.94/1.50 67 cc heads (World S/R)
stock (not shim) head gaskets
Edelbrock Performer 2101 intake
SMI Stage 2 Q-Jet carb
ceramic coated headers going to X pipe
8.2 " 3.36 axle gear/Eaton Posi
26.1" tires (15" rims)
TH-350 transmission, 2000 stall
Petronix Ignitor conversion and Flame Thrower coil

The car is mainly a weekend cruiser, with most driving at 65 mph or less. It hums nice on the highway, but I'm looking to gain a bit more torque at lower rpms.

I am considering the following 2 cams:

Edelbrock Performer 2102:
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/mc/camshafts/chevy-sb.shtml

Com Cams Nostalgia Plus N+300:
http://www.compcams.com/Company/CC/cam-specs/Details.aspx?csid=106&sb=2

I understand both cams are considered a step up from the stock "929" 327/275 or 300 hp cam, and both have less dur @ .050 than the current cam for lower rpm torque.

I would appreciate any suggestions or insights on these or other similar cams.

Thanks!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,992 Posts
Getting low end torque from the 327 is a challenge. I ran the Perfomer cam in my 327/275 with 1.94 double hump heads and Qjet. While it's a step up from the stock cam, I wouldn't use it again.

I went from the Performer to a Crane 272H10 and this one was quite a bit more torquey in the midrange. The specs on this one are single pattern 216/216* @.050", .450" lift with 110 degree lobe separation. It has 5 degrees advance ground in and I have it installed at another 2* advanced if I remember correctly. There is no downside to using this cam over the Performer.
Make sure you know if your cam is installed advanced or straight up with respect to the crank. Advanced will move the powerband lower, increase cylinder pressure, raise DCR and help out the 327 on the low end.

Another cam that is often used in mild 327's and 350's is the Crane 274H06. The specs are similar to 272H10 but with 218*, .450" lift and 106* lobe sep, which should be peakier, torquier and lopey sounding at idle.
This is the one I will be trying next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
I had a sweet 327, forged pistons, balanced, with pro comp heads, about 9.5:1 compression, weiand 8004 intake, headers, etc. in a '65 chevy van with 3.36 gears and a th350. I wanted to get as much low end out of it as I could, so I stayed conservative on the cam. I considered the edelbrock performer grind, and the factory 300hp grind too. I finally settled on the smaller of comp xtreme 4x4 line, which was advertised to be designed to maximize low-end torque. I installed a comp xtreme 4x4 cam 12-231-2 http://www.compcams.com/Company/CC/cam-specs/Details.aspx?csid=94&sb=2

Its 206/214 on a 111 LSA. .432/.453 lift. From what I understand, it has relatively aggressive ramps that effectively 'slam' the valves open and shut quickly. I think the performer and also the factory cams had fairly lazy ramps that were slow to open the valves.
Anyway, you can't see any of that for yourself, but I installed it and it worked just as advertised, helped the 327 pull down low, and really came on through the mid range too. The power band is listed as 600-4600. (I think this is probably true for a 350), but it did start pulling hard low, pretty much right off idle and exactly thats what I wanted. I had the stock convertor in that van, and the th350 was stock also, so when I had it floored, it shifted at about 4500. Since I never took the engine up even to 5000, the cam was a pretty good fit to what I was doing. I also liked how it sounded at an idle. It was not lumpy, but it rumbled strong. It was a smooth idle, but you could hear it sounded more than just a normal stock cam.

Unfortunately, the 327 came apart, sending a piston through the cylinder wall one day. It ran really well right up to the point where it didn't, lol. Anyone need 7 forged 327 .040 over pistons?

I liked the cam, so I pulled it out and swapped that same cam into a 305 HO out of a '85 monte carlo, and it did pretty good in the 305 too. Not as good as the 327, probably due to the loss of cubic inches, but it was still OK. It sure made that 305 sound good too.

I think that comp extreme 4x4 cam is a good one for small CID engines where you are trying to do what you can to get some torque out of them. I felt it was just about perfect for the 327, for what I was doing with it.

I am building up a 400 SBC for the van now, so I sold the 305 with that cam in it to a guy for his '71 truck. No need to save the cam out of it, because I'm going with a different profile on the 400 sbc.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,167 Posts
Your engine specs look a little old. I would definitely look at little things like larger valve heads. Then that will probably require better springs, being a hyd, you would more likely be asking later what to do about a wiped lobe.

I do like the lobe center of the 151 cam but I think you can do better by not running a 107° .
As Chris mentioned, look at other roller cams in the 270 ish duration and 112° lobe centers for drivability. I am more convinced the wider LSA cams are more streetable .
You will need some retro rollers to match your hyd roller with is no big deal but they cost a few more bucks and eliminate burned cam lobes over time.

You could also look at trying to increase compression some and decrease your piston to head clearance that brings quench down some. I would guess that you have over .070 quench? It take a little home work to check this out. Juggle head gaskets thickness to achieve a tad higher compression and decrease quench to about .040.
You will notice the difference. Just my 2 cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
I'll bet the edelbrock 2102 would work great in this combo also. You can save some $$ buy buying the summit 1102, its pretty much the same cam with a white box. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-1102

Or get em even cheaper off venders selling on ebay.,

I would definitely run a split profile for smaller cubic inches. You want to favor the exhaust and run a bit more duration and lift on the exhaust side to help low rpm cylinder filling.

Either of the cams you are considering will work well I think. The edelbrock 2102/sum 1102 would probably make better low end since it has less duration than the comp 300+

I would err choosing a cam on the smaller side since this is a 327, and not a 350. Remember, a smaller cam with 'act' and 'feel' larger in an engine with less cubic inches.

Most of the cam descriptions, power bands are written for a 350. You can usually figure it like this: raise the published power band by any cam you are considering by 500 rpm for use with the 327 vs. a 350.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,842 Posts
When you get the rear main done, make sure to get the good blue rubber 1 piece fel-pro oil pan gasket. Would you consider getting new heads? The 327's really need all the help they can get, and a 58 or even 49cc (if you're at stock deck and 4-valve relief pistons) would really wake it up. I went from something similar to your setup to a good aluminum 58cc head, 2.02/1.60 valves, good quench, 10.8:1 and cam, and it was like night and day.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,167 Posts
don i think you got intake center line mixed up with lobe separation.
Maybe I said that incorrectly or a typo, but I meant lobe separation angle of 112° was what I am running. I noticed considerable drivabilty when coming from a 110° . I run a CCC 282/290-HR12 with .550 lift on a small base circle cam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
910 Posts
I would not use either one of those cams because there is more to be had . Here are a couple of goodies that flat out work well hands down.1, Lunati cam 301a6lun 221 / 221 @50 454 / 454 110 on a 106 4* advance a great cam . 2, ISKY 264 megacam 214 / 214 @50 450 / 450 on a 108 lobe center 3 degrees advance another good one . If you don't buy the cam and lifter kit make sure you only use either Johnson H T -817 lifters or genuine G /M lifters only.Next use specifically made breakin oil brad penn etc and then when you change oil don't forget to add the zddp supplement for F /T cams . Alex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
Of course there is more to be had, but remember a larger duration cam moves the power band to a higher RPM. The whole reason the OP is considering a cam swap is he's looking for some more low end torque. He states: "I'm looking to gain a bit more torque at lower rpms."

He already has a 222 duration @ .050 cam and wants to swap in a smaller cam to get back some low end for the street.

That lunati cam listed is going to shine in the mid to upper rpm's but will not help the 327 make torque down low very well. The duration specs are really close to his current cam anyway.

I do like the specs of that Isky 264. Those numbers are more conservative, and with a tight LSA, it might work well, even though its got more duration. Just be careful with a tight LSA like that, Tightening up the LSA can really help promote good cylinder filling, but as a result can also create high cylinder pressures and you could run into detonation issues with those iron heads, depending on your timing and the grade of fuel you are running.

I would still look into running a split profile, with a little more duration on the exhaust side.

Picking a cam ultimately is a compromise, especially with this engine. To get good low end torque out of a 327, you need to stay quite conservative on the cam because of the small stroke.

For low end torque and low RPM street cruising operation, you don't need to swap heads, you don't need bigger valves.. all this stuff only make a difference at higher RPM's when you are trying to move more air. For low rpm torque, and crisp throttle response, you want high port velocity. For this application, a low revving 327, his current valve sizes are fine.

Just my .02 cents because I have been there, done that, trying to get low end torque out of a 327 with a th350 and 3.36 gears on the street. Its just a tough proposition no matter what because of the 327's small stroke crank.

What I finally did was went with more cubes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
Manipulating air velocity with valve events is what builds torque. What the LSA is, well it is what it is. The events are what matters.

Just did a vintage road race engine, SHP block 327 with a set of 186 heads on it ported. Flat tappet rule. We are going to see 475HP plus out of this 11 to 1 engine and a nice flat torque band for road racing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,246 Posts
Getting low end torque from the 327 is a challenge.
There was a time when the 327 was the big small block and had lots of torque...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,842 Posts
There was a time when the 327 was the big small block and had lots of torque...
Now we live in a World where 400hp and 400tq are the norm, and "lots of torque" from a 327 in those years was what? 290-300?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,246 Posts
Now we live in a World where 400hp and 400tq are the norm, and "lots of torque" from a 327 in those years was what? 290-300?
1962 - 1965 with 4 Barrel Carb
(Low End Horsepower Model)
Max Brake Horsepower - 250 @ 4400 rpm
Max Torque - 350 @ 2800 rpm
Stroke - 3.25
Bore - 4.001
Compression - 10.5
Firing Order - 18436572
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Thanks for all the information and opinions.

The current heads are fairly new, so I probably wouldn't look at going to 2.02/1.60 heads right now. I would definitely consider if I got into racing.

I have also considered hydraulic roller cams.

I know Comp does "Retro-Fit" hydraulic roller cams for the older blocks, does anyone have experience or opinion on these?

I know roller cams are more efficient than flat tappet in some ways, but do the cam specs (lift, dur @ .050, lsa, etc) have similar results to flat tappet?

In other words, can you use more lift, dur @ .50 with a roller cam (vs flat tappet) without loss in low to mid rpm torque?

The Camaro is not used as a daily driver, and is normally a fair weather weekend cruiser, but I would still consider hydraulic roller if the benefits outweigh extra cost.

Thanks again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I did some more searches here and elsewhere regarding cam selection and compression for the 327.

I plan on keeping the 1.94/1.50 67 cc heads for now, but will raise the compression some with different gaskets.

Consensus says a roller will make more HP than flat tappet with same specs.

I'm leaning toward a dual pattern cam with 110 -112 lsa, and less dur @ .050 than the current 222*, regardless of roller or flat.

I might go flat tappet for now, but would definitely do roller cam and maybe vortec if/when I rebuild the 327.

I'm still interested to hear any experience or opinions on the Comp "Retro-Fit" hydraulic roller cams or anything similar.

Xtreme Energy 110 LSA*
http://www.compperformancegroupstores.com/store/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=CC&Category_Code=RFHRXE

Xtreme 4x4 111 LSA*
http://www.compperformancegroupstores.com/store/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=CC&Category_Code=RFHRX4X4

Thanks again for the previous responses, they have been helpful.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,167 Posts
Thanks for all the information and opinions.

The current heads are fairly new, so I probably wouldn't look at going to 2.02/1.60 heads right now. I would definitely consider if I got into racing.

I have also considered hydraulic roller cams.

I know Comp does "Retro-Fit" hydraulic roller cams for the older blocks, does anyone have experience or opinion on these?

I know roller cams are more efficient than flat tappet in some ways, but do the cam specs (lift, dur @ .050, lsa, etc) have similar results to flat tappet?

In other words, can you use more lift, dur @ .50 with a roller cam (vs flat tappet) without loss in low to mid rpm torque?

The Camaro is not used as a daily driver, and is normally a fair weather weekend cruiser, but I would still consider hydraulic roller if the benefits outweigh extra cost.

Thanks again.
I have run the comp retro rollers on a hydra billet cam for some 20K miles. No issues here.
I think your 112° might be more streetable as I have done much touring with this cam, 288/290 x .550 lift. Depending on the cam lobe ramps, some can be much easier on the opening and closing of the valve with a roller.
You may not need this much cam as you have a 327 and smaller intake runner manifold, but over all I think rollers are the way to go and don't have to worry about wiped lobes as many of our cars have much stop and start before the cam and lifters get fully lubed up. Just my 2¢
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top