Quote:

---

A guy would have to be on a marvelous, magical, delusion-filled trip to fantasyland to think there is a 40 lb-ft difference in peak torque between these cams.
-dulcich

---

Simply put I answered the members post, with a
non bias answer and WITHOUT criticism. 40 ft/lbs
of torque is enough you can feel. Depending on the equipment used you can make that much or more
over the stocker. So before you start your personal opinion on someone's elses project, think
how you wouldn't want someone else "clowninig" your choices. Put yourself in their shoes for a
change. Help, don't or IT MAY RETURN
THE "FAVOR" BACK AT YOU!!

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

A guy would have to be on a marvelous, magical, delusion-filled trip to fantasyland to think there is a 40 lb-ft difference in peak torque between these cams.
-dulcich

---

Simply put I answered the members post, with a
non bias answer and WITHOUT criticism. 40 ft/lbs
of torque is enough you can feel. Depending on the equipment used you can make that much or more
over the stocker. So before you start your personal opinion on someone's elses project, think
how you wouldn't want someone else "clowninig" your choices. Put yourself in their shoes for a
change. Help, don't or IT MAY RETURN
THE "FAVOR" BACK AT YOU!!

---

Dude! The guy you're bumping heads with (Steve Dulcich) writes technical articles for Mopar Muscle and other major car magazines.
He's paid to do engine builds, dyno testing, and equipment/component performance test comparisons just to name a few.
It's safe to say that his past articles and advice have helped others to achieve successful projects, solve tuning/performance problems, and saved us from throwing away good money. He has more real world knowledge/experience in his little pinky than you would ever have in your lifetime.

Quote:

---

Any one have a favorite cam for a 383 daily driver? The car is a 69 Road Runner, with auto and 323 posi. It will be used for crusing cross country, stop lite to stop lite low end speed. Looking for good torque at low and mid RPM.

This is what I have, stock 69 383, 9.5:1 CR, 3 angle valve job on stock heads, DP4 Eddie intake, 600 Holley, Headman Elite Headers, dual exhaust, x pipe, have stock 12 inch and 11 inch converter, auto, 323 posi.

I already have a 440 car so max power isn't as important as max torque in this case.

Thanks,
Carl

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have stock quiet mufflers right now, and there's no mistaking my motor for a 318. It's not wild and crazy, but there's definitely something going on there. I'll know more once I get the new exhaust on.

---

Thanks for the info. I'm going to give him a call to see if he thinks his cam will work well for my 383 build.

---

Bob is a great guy. After talking with him on the phone I bought his cam two years ago for my street 383 build. It's not done yet so I can't say how well it runs in in a 383. He did tell me his cam is in many 383 engines. BTW, Bob does not grind his own cams, he has Ingle Cams grind it for him using his top secret specs.

Read more:

Bob Karakashian - Part 1

Bob Karakashian - Part 2

---

Quote:

---

I wasn't trying to bust anyone's chops with that reply. I think the engine "dyno" programs are generally misleading. The exception would be the most sophisticated and unsually expensive ones, and only when given very good and detailed data.

To generalize, cams will tend to move the torque peak rpm and change the shape of the torque coure, rather than add and subtract vast quantities of torque, unless something is really wrong. 40 lb ft just isn't realistically up for grabs here by going with a smaller cam.

Here's the peak torque results from a dyno test on a very basic small block Chevy, running all of the Comp XE cams, from the tiny XE250 to the huge XE294, run back to back with no other changes.

XE 250 475 at 3600
XE 256 472 at 3700
XE 262 476 at 4000
XE 268 479 at 41-4200
XE 274 477 at 4200
XE 284 477 at 4200
XE 294 480 at 4300

That is a pretty typical result.
-dulcich

---

The peak torque numbers might be close, but the torque curves are going to be quite different.
The small cam should have a fairly flat torque curve from 1,500 to peak torque than drop off fairly quickly. The large cam might be down as much as 100 ft/lbs @ 1,500 RPM compared to the small cam at the same RPM, and the torque curve will ramp up to peak torque, and fall off slower past peak torque.

My on the Mr six pack cam is that it might have advertised specs close to a stock HP cam, but ground with agressive 0.904" tappet lobe profiles. Would that be a stock "cheater" cam

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I wasn't trying to bust anyone's chops with that reply. I think the engine "dyno" programs are generally misleading. The exception would be the most sophisticated and unsually expensive ones, and only when given very good and detailed data.

To generalize, cams will tend to move the torque peak rpm and change the shape of the torque coure, rather than add and subtract vast quantities of torque, unless something is really wrong. 40 lb ft just isn't realistically up for grabs here by going with a smaller cam.

Here's the peak torque results from a dyno test on a very basic small block Chevy, running all of the Comp XE cams, from the tiny XE250 to the huge XE294, run back to back with no other changes.

XE 250 475 at 3600
XE 256 472 at 3700
XE 262 476 at 4000
XE 268 479 at 41-4200
XE 274 477 at 4200
XE 284 477 at 4200
XE 294 480 at 4300

That is a pretty typical result.
-dulcich

---

The peak torque numbers might be close, but the torque curves are going to be quite different.
The small cam should have a fairly flat torque curve from 1,500 to peak torque than drop off fairly quickly. The large cam might be down as much as 100 ft/lbs @ 1,500 RPM compared to the small cam at the same RPM, and the torque curve will ramp up to peak torque, and fall off slower past peak torque.

---

You are precisely right with what you are saying.
-dulcich

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

A guy would have to be on a marvelous, magical, delusion-filled trip to fantasyland to think there is a 40 lb-ft difference in peak torque between these cams.
-dulcich

---

Simply put I answered the members post, with a
non bias answer and WITHOUT criticism. 40 ft/lbs
of torque is enough you can feel. Depending on the equipment used you can make that much or more
over the stocker. So before you start your personal opinion on someone's elses project, think
how you wouldn't want someone else "clowninig" your choices. Put yourself in their shoes for a
change. Help, don't or IT MAY RETURN
THE "FAVOR" BACK AT YOU!!

---

Dude! The guy you're bumping heads with (Steve Dulcich) writes technical articles for Mopar Muscle and other major car magazines.
He's paid to do engine builds, dyno testing, and equipment/component performance test comparisons just to name a few.
It's safe to say that his past articles and advice have helped others to achieve successful projects, solve tuning/performance problems, and saved us from throwing away good money. He has more real world knowledge/experience in his little pinky than you would ever have in your lifetime.

---

Yes, Steve has a very good reputation as a
world renouned Mopar journalist. None that I
dare to question. He has helped me quite a bit
with his excellent tech articles, too!! There is
no question about that, either!! No harm done. I
simply voiced my opinion about the remark he made.
I understand he gets "the brunt" sometimes in his
replies to his articles, and as an automotive
journalist, it shouldn't matter. Criticism is part
of journalism. And as I had said before, I may not
agree with you, but I WOULD NEVER DISRESPECT YOU.
The idea of me bumping heads with Steve is what
YOU say! Read my post you quoted carefully, it
refers to the REMARKS, not Steves technical expertise! That's why I replied the way I DID!
Steve, no harm done man. Just expressing myself on
the negative comments NOT your tech buddy!

Quote:

---

I'm sorry if the words hurt feelings, it was not meant to be personal. I try not to be nasty to anyone unless it is feets, or especially rapidrobert.
-dulcich

---

I agree, Steve has forgotten more info than I will ever have at my disposal.

Quote:

---

I'm not upset at all, or anything like that. I was just hoping for a chance to use that "marvelous, magical, delusion-filled trip to fantasyland" line because I thought it was funny and would open up the post for some more discussion on the effects of cams, and some of the simulation software. It was not directed at anyone personally. I'm sorry if the words hurt feelings, it was not meant to be personal. I try not to be nasty to anyone unless it is feets, or especially rapidrobert.
-dulcich

---