Quote:

---

It's a great cam, I just started driving my 440 'Cuda with a Mr. Six Pack. I wonder how it would run in a 383...

---

Quote:

---

it seems to have a bit of an idle-thing going on, in a good way, more than I would think you'd see in a stock car.

---

Quote:

---

Is there a web site to order a Mr Six Pack cam?

---

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.

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 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.

---

C'mon, get that thing buttoned up so you can let me know how she runs.

Quote:

---

Thanks for all the responses. I tried the online computer dyno to try to get an idea on how much torque vs horsepower the cams would give (ball park). All are in a good range,all will give, according to the program, 370 to 397 hp and 440 to 480 lbs torque, but the bigger 280 cam gives about 29 hp over the smaller 262 cam, and the smaller cam gives about 40 lbs of torque over the biggest. The Hughes cam and Voodoo cam are in between.

What is better for a cruiser? gain 40 lbs torque or 27 hp? Maybe a better question is about how much torque does a 383 need to put out to push the Road Runner with ease?

Thanks
Carl

---

Quote:

---

Thanks for all the responses. I tried the online computer dyno to try to get an idea on how much torque vs horsepower the cams would give (ball park). All are in a good range,all will give, according to the program, 370 to 397 hp and 440 to 480 lbs torque, but the bigger 280 cam gives about 29 hp over the smaller 262 cam, and the smaller cam gives about 40 lbs of torque over the biggest. The Hughes cam and Voodoo cam are in between.

What is better for a cruiser? gain 40 lbs torque or 27 hp? Maybe a better question is about how much torque does a 383 need to put out to push the Road Runner with ease?

Thanks
Carl

---

Hands down, gaining the
40 ftlbs of torque! You need it for "powering thru
the gears", passing, or just plain hi-speed cruising (60+ mph or higher) on the highway!!
But idle content is important too, so is quiet
operation till you put foot in it!! I have to
agree with some of the other members on the cam
from Mr. Six Pack. Not that I am posting a plug
for him, it just makes sense!! Especially with the
3.23's!!! All I can say is do more research on his
camshafts.

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

---

Quote:

---

the six pack cam i installed was recommended to be installed at 115 center line. this was according to mr sixpack based on my gear ratio and tire height.

---

Sorry for the confusion, I don't know the specs of the Mr six pack cam (they are not disclosed, but if you have a cam it can be measured/profiled.) I was speculating that they may be close to stock, but with more agressive lobes?
Besides, I was just posting "computer simulation" results for comparison, and not having all the specific information avaliable, I had to make some assumptions on intake and exhaust port length, taper and volume. I used flow numbers from a decent flowing stock 906 head, and the 9.5:1 compression that was listed in the original post.

Quote:

---

I try not to be nasty to anyone unless it is feets
-dulcich

---

Yet I keep leaving myself open for more.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

the six pack cam i installed was recommended to be installed at 115 center line. this was according to mr sixpack based on my gear ratio and tire height.

---

Sorry for the confusion, I don't know the specs of the Mr six pack cam (they are not disclosed, but if you have a cam it can be measured/profiled.) I was speculating that they may be close to stock, but with more agressive lobes? Besides, I was just posting "computer simulation" results for comparison, and not having all the specific information avaliable, I had to make some assumptions on intake and exhaust port length, taper and volume. I used flow numbers from a decent flowing stock 906 head, and the 9.5:1 compression that was listed in the original post.

---

i went round and round trying to see what the exact specs were for the cam and that was a big secret. but after talking with mr six pack and alot of six pack cam users and not hearing a single complaint. i took a leap of faith and installed it. now this was after going through 2 other cams that did not respond well to the six barrel setup. the big point mr sixpack made about his cam was that it was not based on the common chevy lobe design and based on the lobe designs chryslers put out back in the day. this was to take advantage of the lifter dia. so my personal experience went well. i have alot of vacuum, an extremely smooth idle, and great tunability (is that a word?). again this is my street car and that is what i wanted for cruising. if i wanted a 1/4 killer i would have gone in different direction. here is the sheet that cam with the cam that i received.

Quote:

---

the vodoo cam in my near stock 383 4 speed is great! way more bottom and mid than i expected its stats are: 220/226 @.050 with 475/494 lift on a 112 lsa installed a 107

---

i have that same cam in a 383 and am very happy. good power. vacuum and idle. i would buy another voodoo cam in a heartbeat after using this one.

Quote:

---

I was too quick to judge and get bent out of shape. I will have to take things with a grain of salt for now on! Thanks for writing back and clarifying.

Well I'm going with the 262 cam, I think the torque curve will be best for my application. The Mr. Six Pack cam sounds great too. The specs are secret from what I hear, but if it is in the 260 range then I'll go for it to take advantage of the .904 lifter.

Thanks again to everyone for their time and responses, I really appreciate it.

Carl

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

the six pack cam i installed was recommended to be installed at 115 center line. this was according to mr sixpack based on my gear ratio and tire height.

---

Sorry for the confusion, I don't know the specs of the Mr six pack cam (they are not disclosed, but if you have a cam it can be measured/profiled.) I was speculating that they may be close to stock, but with more agressive lobes? Besides, I was just posting "computer simulation" results for comparison, and not having all the specific information avaliable, I had to make some assumptions on intake and exhaust port length, taper and volume. I used flow numbers from a decent flowing stock 906 head, and the 9.5:1 compression that was listed in the original post.

---

i went round and round trying to see what the exact specs were for the cam and that was a big secret. but after talking with mr six pack and alot of six pack cam users and not hearing a single complaint. i took a leap of faith and installed it. now this was after going through 2 other cams that did not respond well to the six barrel setup. the big point mr sixpack made about his cam was that it was not based on the common chevy lobe design and based on the lobe designs chryslers put out back in the day. this was to take advantage of the lifter dia. so my personal experience went well. i have alot of vacuum, an extremely smooth idle, and great tunability (is that a word?). again this is my street car and that is what i wanted for cruising. if i wanted a 1/4 killer i would have gone in different direction. here is the sheet that cam with the cam that i received.

---

Good Deal!! What size and type of carb you are running on your combo? (Vac sec or air door type- AVS/AFB) Might of missed it in your post. It's the amount of vacuum that interests me, for the carb I would go with. Can't go wrong with it!!