[Dragncar]

OK cam guys, I have a couple cams and I would like some of you informed opinions. I am a pump gas guy, no secrete around here.
One cam I have is one Dan Whittmore had Crower custom grind for me. Solid roller. This was intended to go on my 9.3 CR pump gas 455 with his ported HOs. They are a very nicely ported iron heads. (no flow sheet. Specs are 270-275 at .050 . Its only a .402- .404 lobe since he had it ground with me driving the car to the track. .663-.667. Lash is .018-.020. I now trailer it and he said I would have got a bigger cam if he knew that. Lobe separation 108*. Card says it should be installed on a intake centerline of 104* if using "Lobe Center" method.
I know am planing on installing it in a 461 with all the good stuff. Forged crank, billet rods, High Ports by SD, go 359cfm. Should be 10.75-11-1 CR
The other cam is a old Harrold UD cam I bought on E Bay used. It is .264-.271 on a .417 lobe. .026 lash. Lobe separation of 104* and card says install it "degree intake lobe to 100 ATDC.
Now I run this cam in my old TRW 455 with Dans HOs. It has been 10.84 so it does run very good for what it is.
I know I should just call Scott B and have him make me a custom cam for this engine. But I have the new Crower and I might as well try it and see how it runs. If it gets me close to 10 flat .Weiss ran my basic numbers and came up with 670HP so it should be close. But I would like to have about .730-.750 lift with the High Ports.
I am leaving much on the table with the Crower. Or try the UD too ? Dan liked tight LSAs. If I bought a more modern cam with wider lobe sep would it run better and not have a rough a idle ? Potential detonation issues ?

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

High Ports by SD, go 359cfm

Do you have full flow for intake and exhaust?

Will the intake be matched in flow?

My first guess is 104 would be too tight.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by pastry_chef

Do you have full flow for intake and exhaust?

Will the intake be matched in flow?

My first guess is 104 would be too tight.

Yes I have the sheet at home. At work right now, get it up in the morning.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

OK cam guys, I have a couple cams and I would like some of you informed opinions. I am a pump gas guy, no secrete around here.
One cam I have is one Dan Whittmore had Crower custom grind for me. Solid roller. This was intended to go on my 9.3 CR pump gas 455 with his ported HOs. They are a very nicely ported iron heads. (no flow sheet. Specs are 270-275 at .050 . Its only a .402- .404 lobe since he had it ground with me driving the car to the track. .663-.667. Lash is .018-.020. I now trailer it and he said I would have got a bigger cam if he knew that. Lobe separation 108*. Card says it should be installed on a intake centerline of 104* if using "Lobe Center" method.
I know am planing on installing it in a 461 with all the good stuff. Forged crank, billet rods, High Ports by SD, go 359cfm. Should be 10.75-11-1 CR
The other cam is a old Harrold UD cam I bought on E Bay used. It is .264-.271 on a .417 lobe. .026 lash. Lobe separation of 104* and card says install it "degree intake lobe to 100 ATDC.
Now I run this cam in my old TRW 455 with Dans HOs. It has been 10.84 so it does run very good for what it is.
I know I should just call Scott B and have him make me a custom cam for this engine. But I have the new Crower and I might as well try it and see how it runs. If it gets me close to 10 flat .Weiss ran my basic numbers and came up with 670HP so it should be close. But I would like to have about .730-.750 lift with the High Ports.
I am leaving much on the table with the Crower. Or try the UD too ? Dan liked tight LSAs. If I bought a more modern cam with wider lobe sep would it run better and not have a rough a idle ? Potential detonation issues ?

What happened to Gach's cam? Personally i don't like either of the 2 you listed for the HP headed engine. But that's me

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by slowbird

What happened to Gach's cam? Personally i don't like either of the 2 you listed for the HP headed engine. But that's me

I have it, too big for what I want to do. Maybe I will pull the cam card out and kick it around.

[RocktimusPryme]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

Stated- "I've noticed that no matter how much 1st hand experience a guy has, on most all car forums, no matter what he says won't work, somebody else will ALWAYS post that they did that exact thing & it worked great for them, with no problems whatsoever, for many years. I suppose it's been that way since forums began, & will continue."


.

That might be the most true statement ever made

There is always someone who had an 8.2 that survived 100 sticky tire 10 second passes.

[Steve C.]

Stated- "I've noticed that no matter how much 1st hand experience a guy has, on most all car forums, no matter what he says won't work, somebody else will ALWAYS post that they did that exact thing & it worked great for them, with no problems whatsoever, for many years. I suppose it's been that way since forums began, & will continue."

Actually it was ponyakr who made this statement. Credit where credit's due.


.

[ponyakr]

"...Actually it was ponyakr who first made this statement. Credit where credit's due."

LOL ! Yeah, I noticed that. But I wasn't going to mention it.

Just ONE other thing as an example: An experienced engine builder can say you shouldn't try to run 10:1 CR on today's pump gas, especially with a small cam. Usually one or more guys will quickly post that they've run over 10:1 for 20 years & never had any detonation or problems of any kind.

[JSchmitz]

"I've noticed that no matter how much 1st hand experience a guy has, on most all car forums, no matter what he says won't work, somebody else will ALWAYS post that they did that exact thing & it worked great for them, with no problems whatsoever, for many years. I suppose it's been that way since forums began, & will continue."

So, two guys are posting about the first hand success that they've had. One we are to take as gospel and the other we are supposed to discount as just being contrary? How do we know which one is which?

[72LuxuryLeMansLa.]

Originally Posted by JSchmitz

"I've noticed that no matter how much 1st hand experience a guy has, on most all car forums, no matter what he says won't work, somebody else will ALWAYS post that they did that exact thing & it worked great for them, with no problems whatsoever, for many years. I suppose it's been that way since forums began, & will continue."

So, two guys are posting about the first hand success that they've had. One we are to take as gospel and the other we are supposed to discount as just being contrary? How do we know which one is which?

The guy with the highest post count knows more!

[JSchmitz]

Not related. But reminds me of a saying, "The first liar doesn't stand a chance." Lol

[JSchmitz]

Originally Posted by 72LuxuryLeMansLa.

The guy with the highest post count knows more!

Nice one!!!

[Cliff R]

That's just the way it is with these things.

Here's a good example. For decades I've had to upgrade the fuel delivery systems on every car I've owned, or set up for customers when we started to make good power, find good traction and run good track numbers. Not because I wanted to, because I had to.

When the discussions about fuel systems come up, there will be a few folks claiming 10-11 second runs with "stock" fuel systems, when most folks have troubles getting out of the 14's trying to do the same thing.

I also stick with topics on here that I have considerable DIRECT experience with. No google searches required, and I'm not searching in vain going back 10 years or more trying to find someone who agrees with my line of thinking (common practice with some of the "trolls" who post here). If I put something up here I'm going to have some history with it. The owner of this particular vehicle is a long time customer and lives close to me. I've helped him out with quite a few things over the years to get his Olds running well and making respectable power. For the 425 build he wanted a "nasty" idle so went pretty big with the seat timing and tight LSA. He got his nasty idle but the engine just absolutely HATES that cam. It wouldn't take any vacuum advance at all or it pinged, we even reduced the amount added to less than 10 degrees and it "rattled" pretty hard for "normal" driving. Spent some time with the mechanical curve as well and even with a super-tight curve not adding much it REQUIRED race gas and/or octane booster or it pounded pretty hard at heavy or WOT.

Early in the game here with the new cam but initial results are much better and he's able to drive the car w/o race gas or octane booster and so far no detonation. We are being somewhat conservative with timing till things are well seated in and all the race gas/octane booster fuel out of it. He ran the tank almost empty but some still remained even though it was at least a year old. It's also cooler this time of year and better quality air so another variable in the equation. So things are subject to change, just wanted to put up the initial results and will follow up with any updates as they occur.........Cliff

[A.W.Dille]

As I've said before I'm no expert. When I bought the Ultradyne I spent over an hour on the phone with Greg Merrick discussing the profile of the cam. That's when he got into explaining to me about the effects cam profile and dynamite compression have in relation to a pump gas engine versus and engine that has to have race fuel.
I've also read several posts in this forum about the effects of lobe separation and cylinder bleeding. I find those points to consider along with intended usage of the engine..
I could be wrong on some of this but it's an opinion.

[Steve C.]

It was post number 10 made in this thread with a example provided. Not about the highest post count.


Some of harold brookshire cam thoughts compiled:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/clev...ed-t17161.html



.

[72LuxuryLeMansLa.]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

It was post number 10 made in this thread with a example provided. Not about the highest post count.


Some of harold brookshire cam thoughts compiled:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/clev...ed-t17161.html



.

Steve, that was a joke...…..

[torqhead]

Originally Posted by A.W.Dille

As I've said before I'm no expert. When I bought the Ultradyne I spent over an hour on the phone with Greg Merrick discussing the profile of the cam. That's when he got into explaining to me about the effects cam profile and dynamite compression have in relation to a pump gas engine versus and engine that has to have race fuel.
I've also read several posts in this forum about the effects of lobe separation and cylinder bleeding. I find those points to consider along with intended usage of the engine..
I could be wrong on some of this but it's an opinion.

You spent over an hour because he likes to talk about himself and how he knows more than anyone else on the planet.... not...

[torqhead]

Originally Posted by 72LuxuryLeMansLa.

The guy with the highest post count knows more!

Hilarious!

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

That's just the way it is with these things.

Here's a good example. For decades I've had to upgrade the fuel delivery systems on every car I've owned, or set up for customers when we started to make good power, find good traction and run good track numbers. Not because I wanted to, because I had to.

When the discussions about fuel systems come up, there will be a few folks claiming 10-11 second runs with "stock" fuel systems, when most folks have troubles getting out of the 14's trying to do the same thing.

I also stick with topics on here that I have considerable DIRECT experience with. No google searches required, and I'm not searching in vain going back 10 years or more trying to find someone who agrees with my line of thinking (common practice with some of the "trolls" who post here). If I put something up here I'm going to have some history with it.

Quite a few people have hands on experience, there is always more than one way to do something. Just because it hasn't worked for you doesn't mean it can't or hasn't worked for others.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Quite a few people have hands on experience, there is always more than one way to do something. Just because it hasn't worked for you doesn't mean it can't or hasn't worked for others.

^^^TRUTH^^^