[War eagle]

Summit 2801
Speed-Pro CS1022R
Melling 26204

Chances are good that Melling is the main grinder as they are very involved contract manufacturers. They provided the Pontiac Cams i.e.RAII, RAIII etc.

[JohnS66GTO]

Originally Posted by Tim Corcoran

The 068 was designed for more compression and higher octane fuel that we no longer have. Even if the 068 had more lift it would not be a good choice for a 9.5:1 street car that runs 92-93 octane pump gas. Yes the 068 would tolerate more compression but would need higher octane fuel too.

I'm using the Crane version of the 068 in my otherwise stock '66 389 (actually more like 396 at .040 over) with 4-barrel AFB, 4-speed, A/C and 3.23 rear. When I cc'd the 093's I have, I calculated 9.5:1 CR static. I run only 93 octane, 12 degrees initial and about 34 total timing and never had a problem. But I'm in Michigan, and it rarely gets driven when over 85 degrees air temp. I also have good cooling with a 7 blade clutch fan, shroud and 180 t-stat.

As always, your results may vary.

John

[Tim Corcoran]

John

I also ran the (real Melling) 068 in a 428/440 combo heavy auto car but only had around 9.0 compression. The car ran good but was all done before 5,000. I think the 068 would work fine with 9.5:1 but the car would make more power with a cam better suited for 9.5:1 compression, more lift and maybe on a 112 rather than a 115 LSA. I don't know the specs on the Crane cam your referring to. Is it an 068 or something different.

[Kenth]

The original 068 is a fine cam.
I wouldn´t hesitate using it again in my 1966 Tripower high compression engine.
No problems at all with the lowest octane available over here.
Pontiac engineers (McKellar) knew what they were doing with this cam.
Wide 115,5° LSA and an intake closing 39° at .050" lift makes a wide powerrange and less prone for ping cam than most off-the-shelf aftermaket clones.

Low or medium-low compression engines is another story.

[Greg Reid]

Originally Posted by Kenth

No problems at all with the lowest octane available over here.

What octane would that be Kenth? I have an untouched '66 WT 389 and was concerned about running pump fuel in the engine.

[Kenth]

Greg, we have 95 as the lowest octane in Sweden, wich would be the same as 91 in the USA?

[Greg Reid]

I don't know Kenth...I do know that we have 91 in my area but I don't know how that translates into the 95 in Sweden. Also, 91 is on the high end of the octane scale here unless you're buying race gas. MUCH higher pricewise and generally unavailable except at specialty stations.

[Dan-K]

I installed this cam in my 74 Lemans behind a 400/TH400 combo with 3.73 gears and a 3000 stall. I am pleased with how it turned out. I would recommend using better quality after-market lifters though as mine make some racket upon start up for the first few seconds until they pump up.

[Kenth]

Originally Posted by Greg Reid

I don't know Kenth...I do know that we have 91 in my area but I don't know how that translates into the 95 in Sweden. Also, 91 is on the high end of the octane scale here unless you're buying race gas. MUCH higher pricewise and generally unavailable except at specialty stations.

Greg, here is one explanation of the different octane numbers:

http://hondaswap.com/reference-mater...ratings-59435/

[Kenth]

Originally Posted by Dan-K

I installed this cam in my 74 Lemans behind a 400/TH400 combo with 3.73 gears and a 3000 stall. I am pleased with how it turned out. I would recommend using better quality after-market lifters though as mine make some racket upon start up for the first few seconds until they pump up.

You might want to try 10w/30 mineral oil?
Thicker oil wont flow out in the oilsystem and into the lifters as well when cold.

[Greg Reid]

Originally Posted by Kenth

Greg, here is one explanation of the different octane numbers:

http://hondaswap.com/reference-mater...ratings-59435/

Yes, that helps to clarify. Looks like your 95 octane would be the equivalent of 90 or so octane here.... 95X.95= 90.25....I can get 93 here so, that works for me.

[71SportRagtop]

I wonder how the 2801 cam would work in a 68 YC motor with #15 heads. It's basically a stock rebuild with just a slightly hotter than stock cam. Would the 2801 give me a little more low end torque and a slightly lopier idle?

[2002Z4CSS]

Originally Posted by Jim Doran

I have the 2801 in my 389 / tripower / 3.55 / 4spd / 77 heads with 1.65 Rockers. Pretty sure you are going to need adjustable rocker nuts with the 2801.

Performance everywhere is great ,plenty of vacuum, and zero complaints.

I also converted mine to adjustable valve train, using stock Chevy rocker arm nuts. It didn't run right before hand, because the valves where too tight with 20 ft lbs.I went zero lash and a quarter turn, problem fixed. Very cheap around $15 bucks.

[PontGuy]

This is the first time that I've actually seen this grind discussed at any length here (assuming that they are all the same- Summit, Melling, others..) Since I've been running it for a few years now I just can't help adding a few more thoughts.

First- my car is supposed to be a mild driver (hence the small cam) so nothing fancy, and the valve train is stock with pushrod length sized to match up correctly with the bottlenecks. The engine initially ran good but fell on its nose just before 5000 RPM. Fresh springs with just a bit more seat pressure made all the difference. With the new springs the power flattens out near 5000 RPM but it keeps on pulling, even with the big cubes. And the valvetrain is probably the most quiet that I ever had in a Pontiac.

After a couple years of "street tuning" it really seemed to run strong so I took it out to the track to see what it would do. I varied shift points from 4500 to 5200+ during my three runs and got the best overall numbers shifting at higher RPMs. Power was soft toward the end of the track, probably due to fuel flow, so I quit and haven't been back yet. But the first timeslip really surprised me- this is a very basic build with what I consider a very mild cam, but performance at the strip is comparable to my stock 06 GTO. 1/8 ET and speeds are almost exactly the same.

This car has me thinking that most of us tend to put too much emphasis on "big cams" and not enough on the rest of the package- especially on street cars. Very guilty of that myself especially in the early days. But only been at this off-and-on for 30 years or so, still learning...

[limejudge69]

Hey PontGuy you race at Jackson? I took my car there a few years ago. Ran mid-high 13's with a 2.56 rear through factory log manifolds and a 2.3-2.6 60 ft. I haven't been back since I went to headers, a 3.73 posi and upgraded fuel system. I hope to get down there sometime this spring. Probably going to go with some wider tires as the 215/60/14's aren't the best for traction.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Old 2801 272/282 214/224 .442/.465
SUM 2801 288/298 214/224 .444/0.466
MEL 26204 288/298 214/224 .443/0.465

Those lift numbers are for the "744" style PMD grind.
Used in Manual tranny Ram III and the 73 SD455.
Pretty good bump over the 068 style PMD cam.

Have used that profile in numerous 400's with varying compression ratios , years ago.
Super excellent cam for driver - street/strip.
Went with Rhoads lifters most times when in automatics with 3.08-3.23 gears.
Will kick an 068 engine flat on its azz.

i "think" its do-able with stock 1968 #15 heads/springs,
but would definitely verify coil bind first.

An 068 cam with 1.65 rockers would be similar configuration.

[mkpontiac]

Baron Von Zeppelin
What compression did you run with the Rhoads lifters?

[Kenth]

BVZ, here are the factory specs of the #068 and the #744:

Pontiac #9779068 AID 288° AED 302°, ID.050" 212° ED.050" 225°, IL1.5 .410" EL1.5 .410" LSA 116°, overlap 63°.

Pontiac #9785744 AID 301° AED 313°, ID.050" 224° ED.050" 236, IL1.5 .410" EL1.5 .410" LSA 119° overlap 76°.

What most people misses with the #744 cam is the specs on valve springs necessary for the lifters to follow the "square" lobes on this grind?
#744 needs 125lb@1.586" installed heigth in D-port heads.
With standard spring pressure the cam stops pulling below 4500 rpm´s, (don´t ask me how i know).

I wouldn´t choose a 2801 over a 068 (or 744) due to the 2801´s tighter LSA and it´s less overlap in a higher compression Pontiac V8?

[PontGuy]

Hey PontGuy you race at Jackson? I took my car there a few years ago.

Yup, but not exactly racing- I like to go just to see what my cars will really do so usually lots of years between visits. Looked at your profile, funny my first pass ever at Jackson was with my 67 FB with similar results... about 25 years ago now. That car would not hook no matter what I did and I broke rear end parts two visits in a row. No lack of cam, was running one of the old Crane "Fireballs". My Lemans with the Melling "hi lift 068" idles, sounds and drives like a pussycat, but at the end of the day it gets down the track just as fast.

Yet another guy that is sort of local! Met up with a new member here Bhbradley yesterday afternoon. He just bought a very nice 67 GTO. It was a blast getting a chance to actually ride in someone else's car and talk Pontiac performance- its sort of a Pontiac desert around here. And I haven't seen a 60's Firebird for at least 10 years now. Let me know if you decide to go back and give it another try.

Maybe 1990 at Jackson, just before breaking the pinion yoke:

[PontGuy]

I wouldn´t choose a 2801 over a 068 (or 744) due to the 2801´s tighter LSA and it´s less overlap in a higher compression Pontiac V8?

Agree with that. My engine is OK but I have no lack of cylinder pressure based on compression tests. Would not recommend for a CR that is any higher, and success at 9.5:1 might even depend a bit on other factors in the build.