[1979 TA Y89 W72]

Hello, new to the forum. Thank you in advance for your help!

79 W72/400 4 speed cam recommendations?

What cam is everyone using for an upgrade on a 1979 W72 4 speed TA?

My car is all stock, except for Ram Air 2.5 exhaust manifolds and 2.5 true dual exhaust with X-Pipe.

Don’t plan on doing any headwork at this point and stock compression will remain.

Anyone using these cams:

Crower 60240 cam?

Comp XE cams XE 262 & XE268

Summit 2801 or 2801

Or what did you use and why?

Would like input on what your results were and what exactly you did? Video of car idling would be great as well.

I won’t be going all out on this engine, just want to wake it up a bit.

Thanks in advance!

[77 TRASHCAN]

Since you are new here, we do all we can to help folks avoid the dreaded XE cams!

The 60240 would be a great choice. Your 8.2 compression ratio won’t allow much more duration at the risk of killing off low Rpm cylinder pressure. Beware of what brand lifters to buy. Hylift Johnson’s are the most expensive, but also the highest quality.
Cliff has lots of experience waking up these low compression engines, hopefully he will make a post.

I sold auto parts from 1985-1998. I sold a few Pontiac cams, those days. Most were the Comp 260H (NOT the XE cam, which they did not make back then, thankfully!). Every customer was thrilled with that cam swap. I believe the latest Crower grinds are even better.

When you perform this work, post here how it went, and IF any of the factory cam loves were beginning to go flat? Every Pontiac I sold, the owners reported back that they were glad for the awesome new cam, AND that the old cam was developing some flat lobes...

[Jay S]

I have a Roller cam in my stock appearing (all OEM casting numbers) 4sp W72 with ra manifolds. Everything is ported it is stroked to 450 cid.

FWIW...What I would suggest for more of a stock w72 4 speed combo is a Lunati 702 and advance the cam to 104-106. A little port work and a set of 1.6 rockers and it would run very very hard, even though the compression is low. If it was mine I would also have Lunati move the LSA in to 110 from the stock 112.

Plan on a lot of valve terrain noise with the XE cams, some are quiet, most are not. Especially when the engine is cold.


The Crower 240 I think would be ok. I have not been around that one. I have several of the the 2801s, in various engine. But in a stockish 400, 4 speed and a 3.42 gear maybe not run much different than the Crower, 2801 will just idle a little rougher. Personally I prefer the XE268 over the XE262. But the XE262 would feel fast on the street. With more tq, less rpm and hp than either the Crower or summit. It should feel fast, and be fun to drive. The XE 268 would out muscle all those except the lunati. And the Lunati 702 with the adjusted 110lsa would be about the same everywhere as the xe268 with less valve terrain noise and hold on to the power longer on the top end. 1.6s on the 702 and the 110lsa would pretty much decimate the XE268.

[PunchT37]

I have used the 60240 in the same car. `79 W72. Good street manners. Out of breath around 5200.

[phil400]

I run the old High Energy 268H. The previous owner installed it in 1992. Runs good, pulls hard till 4300-4500 rpm, then its all done.

Been wanting to try both the 702 and the crower, let us know what you decide and how it runs.

[Cliff R]

You'll have trouble finding a cam that will work better in the later low compression 400's that the Crower 60240.

It lowers vacuum at idle to about 12" and a tiny bit of "attitude" but still excellent low end power and street manners. I wouldn't go any bigger in a low compression engine.

I've had various later FB's and T/A's brought to the shop to custom tune over the years, most had cam swaps. I had the 60240 in the first 400 that was in the Ventura. It was backed by a TH400, stock converter and 2.73 gears. It would easily run 14.0-14.20's around 99-100 MPH and logged a best of 13.78 @ 101mph in really good air with a tail wind! That's pretty strong performance from an engine with untouched 6X heads and 7.7 to 1 compression, IMHO.

The Summit 2800 isn't too bad, but a little to "mild" for my liking. The XE-262's I've worked with were turds. Nothing impressive outside of throwing a little mid-range rush at you then fading away into nothing early in the RPM range.

Had one poor soul put a RAIV cam in one and it wanted nearly 50 degrees initial timing just to think about trying to stay running at idle speed!

I tuned with with a real 068 cam in it, and it wasn't too bad but to be honest on 067 cam would have been a better choice if one was going that direction. The 068 was just too "soft" in the low compression engine and very "flat" power curve so it didn't feel all that strong even in the upper mid-range and top end.

No experience with the smaller Voodoo grinds in those engines so can't provide any info there.......Cliff

[steve25]

For starters why do you just add 1.65 rockets and the needed correct lengh push Rods to the motor.

Doing this will pick you up 3 to 4 degree's over the nose of the Cam, .040" more lift and yet keep your idle the same.

If you then find you want more then do the Cam swap and try to pick one to allow for keeping the 1.65 rockers on the motor.


At any rate if or when you change Cam's you should go with new springs also.

[jonathonar89]

I saw this post on Facebook.

My recommendation is don’t listen to the guy on Facebook who shows of his build and says to run 34 degrees timing idle.

[TransAm 474]

Originally Posted by jonathonar89

I saw this post on Facebook.

My recommendation is don’t listen to the guy on Facebook who shows of his build and says to run 34 degrees timing idle.

YES! I agree! ..... I'm the other guy that was talking to him on facebook, I recommended he avoid the XE camshafts Lol

Again, I would use either the 60240 Crower or the Summit 2801 in this application.

Brian

[1979 TA Y89 W72]

Thanks Cliff for your reply. How do you think the 2801 cam compares to the 60240? Whats is the difference in performance and manners?

I would love to see videos of these cams at idle if someone has them?

Thanks

Originally Posted by Cliff R

You'll have trouble finding a cam that will work better in the later low compression 400's that the Crower 60240.

It lowers vacuum at idle to about 12" and a tiny bit of "attitude" but still excellent low end power and street manners. I wouldn't go any bigger in a low compression engine.

I've had various later FB's and T/A's brought to the shop to custom tune over the years, most had cam swaps. I had the 60240 in the first 400 that was in the Ventura. It was backed by a TH400, stock converter and 2.73 gears. It would easily run 14.0-14.20's around 99-100 MPH and logged a best of 13.78 @ 101mph in really good air with a tail wind! That's pretty strong performance from an engine with untouched 6X heads and 7.7 to 1 compression, IMHO.

The Summit 2800 isn't too bad, but a little to "mild" for my liking. The XE-262's I've worked with were turds. Nothing impressive outside of throwing a little mid-range rush at you then fading away into nothing early in the RPM range.

Had one poor soul put a RAIV cam in one and it wanted nearly 50 degrees initial timing just to think about trying to stay running at idle speed!

I tuned with with a real 068 cam in it, and it wasn't too bad but to be honest on 067 cam would have been a better choice if one was going that direction. The 068 was just too "soft" in the low compression engine and very "flat" power curve so it didn't feel all that strong even in the upper mid-range and top end.

No experience with the smaller Voodoo grinds in those engines so can't provide any info there.......Cliff

[Jay S]

2801 sound clip in a 79 400 T/A.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EmAUAMQ6U3s

In car cam swap the Crower 60240 and the 2801 are about the biggest cams that you can do and run the stock valve springs. W72s have decent spring pressure, better than the run of the mill 400 big car engines. IRC the 79 W72 in the original road tests topped speed was 133 mph and the engine was well past the factory readline. It was turning 5600 for the top speed test, if IRC. Many muscle car era engines would struggle to turn that many RPMs in top gear. Pretty impressive for a 1979 road test. Top speed was the fastest of any car tested that year, faster than the high output vette’s. The 2801 on the exhaust lift is right at coil bind on a w72, if you do it take a feeler guage and check coil bind at max lift.

A stock well tuned w72 with 1.65 rockers and RA manifolds will make about 240 hp at the rear wheels. Pretty much what Steve25 described.

[track73]

Don't be afraid of the 2800 cam. I know from experience just how it wakes up a low compression 400 like yours. And, you can use stock valve springs and 87 octane fuel.

[Skip Fix]

I have a 2801 in a low compression 6X-4 400 in the 81 ta and it is fairly mild. I have an XE262 on a 112 LS and I think the 2801 is every bit as good.

[Jay S]

Correction, 132 mph @5400 rpm was the 79 road test.

http://i962.photobucket.com/albums/a...adTestp6LG.jpg

I wouldn’t bother putting a 2800 in a w72, if it has the OEM w72 cam in it yet, better off just with a 1.65 rocker swap. 180hp 400 though the 2800 would be a big step up.

[Cliff R]

The 2801 cam is better suited to a mild 400 build with a little more compression.

I tuned a 400 in a later TA once with that cam, stock otherwise except headers. Pretty “weak” down low but ran OK and pulled prett hard past 3000rpms or so.

The 60240 is better everyplace in one of those engines IMHO.....

[1979 TA Y89 W72]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

The 2801 cam is better suited to a mild 400 build with a little more compression.

I tuned a 400 in a later TA once with that cam, stock otherwise except headers. Pretty “weak” down low but ran OK and pulled prett hard past 3000rpms or so.

The 60240 is better everyplace in one of those engines IMHO.....

Cliff,

I understand that the way my W72 is now, the 60240 would be a better fit. Plan B below.

I haven’t ruled out having the heads pulled yet. If I do, I would do a valve job, mill and port the heads and maybe some thinner head gasket. This would raise the compression for me some. Would the 2801 be a better choice then? Want to do it right the first time.

Thanks

[KEN CROCIE]

You will be disappointed if you use anything smaller than the Crane 283801. ALL of the above cams are just not worth the effort of installing. You must change valve springs. Use the Comp 988. These go in at stock installed height and fit the stock retainer. We ( H-O Racing) sold hundreds of these cams to very satisfied customers. The dist. advance curve will need to be modified, and the carb should be re-jetted. Usually at this point, a fuel system upgrade is advisable . I recommend the Carter P4594 elec. or P 4602rv which is the P4594, but includes a bypass check valve that allows you to run just the mechanical pump and switch on the electric when needed. Considering the age of the car, the fuel pick up strainer (sock) is probably mush, and pick up tube should be checked for internal rust. Larger pick up tubes are available. Classic Industries is one source.

[Entropy11]

I was in your situation a few weeks ago trying to make the same decision. Nearly identical engine right down to the W72 heads. Your first post mentions most of the cams I was considering.

Thanks to info from members here, as well as reading every post I could find on this and other forums, I’m looking forward to installing the 60240.

I also had reservations about “what if” I bumped up my compression down the road. My heads just came back from the shop with a valve job, new valves, and very mild port work and I don’t plan on any milling before reassembly. The one thing conveyed to me by a few others was that if I decide to do this down the road, I’ll only make the 60240 happier. Crower even recommends an increase in compression to 9.5:1 to see maximum output, so that leaves me some room down the road if I’m looking for more (I’m just targeting a fun street car that I can drive everywhere with maybe something a little more than was there on day one). Sorry this isn’t a hands on recommendation, but I just figured I’d throw in my similar situation and choice. Best of luck on your decision.

[ponyakr]

After lookin at the specs for that Crane 283801 cam, if that cam would work good, then maybe the Lunati 10510312 would also work good. Would also reduce the lift. That crane has .494 exhaust lift.

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/c...BoCuTQQAvD_BwE

This Lunati has only .454 lift. Maybe 221° @ .050 is not too much for a low CR 400, if backed by a 4-speed manual trans.

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/lun-10510312

For you experts, how does having a 4-speed manual trans affect your cam recommendation, as opposed to the same low CR engine, when backed by a 3-speed auto trans ? Do you think 221° @ .050 is too much duration for a 4-speed car ?

If you think 221° is a bit too much, this Howards might be better. It has 213°/223° @ .050, with .450 lift. Advertised dur is 267°/277°. So, it has steeper ramps than some cams, but not as steep as XE & Voodoo cams. Most say the steeper ramps increase cylinder in the low CR engines.

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/h...w/make/pontiac

If it was my car, I had the money, & wanted max power in the idle to 5000 rpm range, with a HFT cam, I'd go with a 262 Voodoo, & needed springs. Should make lots of power in the rpm range most street engines run, most of the time. And should be very streetable, with the 4-speed. Paul Carter seemed to always recommend a Voodoo cam. And he had lots of dyno results to prove they worked good. Most call it a 702. I call is a 262, for obvious reasons.

https://www.lunatipower.com/voodoo-h...8-262-268.html

[KEN CROCIE]

ponyakr and others- check the crane int. duration. It's only 278 at .004" checking clearance. If checked @ .006" like comp and others it would be rated @ 270-272 deg.
The point I'm trying to make is that have a ton of experience with this cam, both personally and through customer feed back ,in actual street driven cars. Avoid the advice of the coulda,woulda,shoulda guys. They don't KNOW. Cliff has a ton of first hand experience with low compression street engines as well , but in this case I think his advice is too much on the mild side.