Quote:

---

BTW, Im not interested in the VooDoo grinds, anything else is fine. Long story.

---

Quote:

---

Since you said budget build, i'm guessing you may be using the stock rockers. If so, i've had good luck with the old Comp 292 Magnum hyd. .030 440 8.5 comp, 906s pocket ported when i was 20yo and didn't know what i was doing(still don't), Torker,750dp, 10 in GER stalled about 3800, 3.23s, 28 x9 slicks, 68 Satellite street car all steel except for 6 pak hood. 12.35 at 106, 1.69 60 ft. Cam has been in for about 25 years and hasn't gone flat yet in spite of me not always changing the oil as often as i should. Car sometimes sits for months and then might be driven almost every day for a while.

---

Ive actually got some 1.6 rockers.

What RPM do you shift that cam?

Thanks

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Since you said budget build, i'm guessing you may be using the stock rockers. If so, i've had good luck with the old Comp 292 Magnum hyd. .030 440 8.5 comp, 906s pocket ported when i was 20yo and didn't know what i was doing(still don't), Torker,750dp, 10 in GER stalled about 3800, 3.23s, 28 x9 slicks, 68 Satellite street car all steel except for 6 pak hood. 12.35 at 106, 1.69 60 ft. Cam has been in for about 25 years and hasn't gone flat yet in spite of me not always changing the oil as often as i should. Car sometimes sits for months and then might be driven almost every day for a while.

---

Ive actually got some 1.6 rockers.

What RPM do you shift that cam?

Thanks

---

Quote:

---

Narrow down to solid or hydraulic first?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Narrow down to solid or hydraulic first?

---

Lets say a solid.

Looks like the Comp 292 should work if I go with a hyd.

---

There are way better cams now then the old cc292. A buddy of mine built a very similar deal last year, had an old comp 280 (230@50) and went to the comp 284xe and gained around a half second. This was in a fully stock body '68 Bee, ended up going 11.6X .

I have had good luck with the.528 mp solid too, but there are better grinds now worth investigating.

Quote:

---

There are way better cams now then the old cc292.

Not sure on "way better" part......I laugh everytime a new grind is the shiznit, and the old stuff is junk. My junk runs decent (11.30s)with pretty old lobes (Comp TL lobes).....Thinkin about having Dwayne grind me a cam with the super duper new stuff for a comparison.





A buddy of mine built a very similar deal last year, had an old comp 280 (230@50) and went to the comp 284xe and gained around a half second. This was in a fully stock body '68 Bee, ended up going 11.6X .

---

Well lets see... the XE284 grind has 10 more degrees on the intake side than the 280, 16 more on the exhaust..., not to mention the extra .25 ish more of lift. The XE grind has 13 more degrees at .200 than the 280. So yeah, it should be quicker. I dont think that is a good comparison.

The XE274 would be a better comparison. 3 degrees more at .200 than the 280. Same intake duration at .050.

The XE284 and 292Mag would be a much better comparison, for the larger grinds. I'll throw it out that in a heavy car the 292 takes the XE284......

Im not a fan of split duration cams, and after talking at length with Dwayne, I understand why.

Quote:

---

All I was trying to get at is don't buy a sh!++% old cam. I subscribe to the theory that there is no such thing as too big of a cam/conv/gear. Of course this is the wrong forum for that, but I must explain where I come from.

---

I agree on the cam/conv/gear thing, but not that the 292 is a sh$$$ old cam. Ive known forphorty for a long time and his stuff runs hard...with hardly anything. Ask the all knowers if his stuff should run 12.30s with... gasp....3.23s...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

All I was trying to get at is don't buy a sh!++% old cam. I subscribe to the theory that there is no such thing as too big of a cam/conv/gear. Of course this is the wrong forum for that, but I must explain where I come from.

---

I agree on the cam/conv/gear thing, but not that the 292 is a sh$$$ old cam. Ive known forphorty for a long time and his stuff runs hard...with hardly anything. Ask the all knowers if his stuff should run 12.30s with... gasp....3.23s...

---

Anything is possible. In this case, WEIGHT is the
big factor. Bunch of mass to move (a little over two tons w/ driver) and the low end/strong midrange level cams would get the job done. Higher lifts (.500 or better) would only help MORE.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

All I was trying to get at is don't buy a sh!++% old cam. I subscribe to the theory that there is no such thing as too big of a cam/conv/gear. Of course this is the wrong forum for that, but I must explain where I come from.

---

I agree on the cam/conv/gear thing, but not that the 292 is a sh$$$ old cam. Ive known forphorty for a long time and his stuff runs hard...with hardly anything. Ask the all knowers if his stuff should run 12.30s with... gasp....3.23s...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

All I was trying to get at is don't buy a sh!++% old cam. I subscribe to the theory that there is no such thing as too big of a cam/conv/gear. Of course this is the wrong forum for that, but I must explain where I come from.

---

I agree on the cam/conv/gear thing, but not that the 292 is a sh$$$ old cam. Ive known forphorty for a long time and his stuff runs hard...with hardly anything. Ask the all knowers if his stuff should run 12.30s with... gasp....3.23s...

---

The only reason I would disagree with that is there are better cams now. The lift on that is .501(?)...And with the bending and deflection of stuff, its under 500 lift.
Don't get me wrong, I've seen those cams work too.

---

A lot of guys optimize those MP cams to run better
times with the rest of the combo on the engine.
It's a hit or miss game, what could be the cam holding power back could actually be tuning problems, wrong intake, exhaust restrictions, too heavy car for combo, etc.
or visa-versa. EVERYTHING has to work together to produce good power!! And yes, not everybody wants to run an MP cam, there ARE many other choices.

Quote:

---

[
A lot of guys optimize those MP cams

---

Who said anything about a MP cam??

Quote:

---

Please define better....and why more lift is needed with stock castings?

Ive already discussed the same subject with Dwayne...

---

True, it will run real nice with a stock cam.

Quote:

---

with a stock cam.

---

Ya, how do stockers run so well with sub 500 lift.

Quote:

---

Relax man!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

with a stock cam.

---

Ya, how do stockers run so well with sub 500 lift.

---

Quote:

---

Please define better....and why more lift is needed with stock castings?

Ive already discussed the same subject with Dwayne...

---

In SOME instance more lift to a point in relation to duration, equates to MORE TORQUE. Mopar BB heads flow pretty good for street/MILD strip usage
w/o "heavy" massaging. A MODERATE duration/higher lift cam is best for a hot streeter. Bigger (longer duration) cams want bigger port/valve heads. Not needed here!! The K.I.S.S. principle.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

with a stock cam.

---

Ya, how do stockers run so well with sub 500 lift.

---

Sorry, I didn't realize the OP is building a Stock/SuperStock car.
Must be reading to fast.

---

You got me ROTFLMAO...

http://www.moparts.org/Tech/Archive/bb/Lobe.html

Dang RB and MP old technology....Sure wish they would have tested some of the newer shiznit grinds. Oh wait...they did...


Peace Out!!!

Quote:

---

I went with an old skool MP528 mechanical. WOW what a great cam. Daily driveable, medium lope, fries the 295/60-15 BFG drag radials thru 3.55 gears. 470". See info in my profile.

---

Good setup!!

Quote:

---

Well his combo is almost identical to mine. I run a .030 over 440 with stock bottom end other then the KB quench pad pistons that give me quench with my open chamber 906 heads. Its 10.0 comp and I run the Holley Street Dominator intake with an 850 DP. I have Hedman 1-3/4 headers and use a Dynamic 9.5 converter that flashes about 4200 at the track. My 63 weighs just over 3700 with me in it and I use 4.30's with a 30 x 9 tire. I use the MP .557 cam and I have ductile iron 1.5 rockers. Suspension is all stock other then SS springs and 90/10 shocks up front. Best et is 11.49 @ 116 with 11.50's to 11.70's the norm is hot weather. I drive on the street way more then I race it as I only race 2 or 3 times a year but put alot of street miles on it. I like the .557 cam as it makes ok power and has great driveability on the street. Ron

---

Thanks Ron. Great input.
Keep Maxin' em', my friend!!

Quote:

---

The performance of those cams DO NOT relate to his CAR WEIGHT!! Look, I'm not knocking the newer cams, but you fail to realize that WEIGHT effects the perfomance.

---

How do the cams NOT relate to car weight??? Look at the torque #s the RB cam put up.

I think you are not seeing my problem with some of the comments on this thread,and most other cam threads. To make the statement that "this cam, or that cam sucks, is out dated, is a SHi445 pos, etc", is totally ridicoulous.

As you said its all in the combination......I agree that most cam related problems are due to other issues, (compression, converter, advance curve, tuning, etc)

But, as in forphorty's case (whose car is no lighweight, 3600 and change I believe) if I asked 100 people what his car runs with no compression, 3.23s, very little headwork, and a high mileage motor to boot, most generally the answer would be "That cam is too big, it will be a flippin hound" or something along those lines.

Too many blanket statements thrown out on this board that are at best half true.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

with a stock cam.

---

Ya, how do stockers run so well with sub 500 lift.

---

Sorry, I didn't realize the OP is building a Stock/SuperStock car.
Must be reading to fast.

---

You got me ROTFLMAO...

http://www.moparts.org/Tech/Archive/bb/Lobe.html

Dang RB and MP old technology....Sure wish they would have tested some of the newer shiznit grinds. Oh wait...they did...


Peace Out!!!

---

Could you at least post the whole article? I didn't see the part about the sub 500 lift cams.

Andy is a serious asset to the mopar community, I'm honoured to see he recommends the same hydraulic as I do

Glad we can finally agree and move forward.

Quote:

---

Could you at least post the whole article? I didn't see the part about the sub 500 lift cams.

You hittin a crack pipe? Where did I say they tested sub 500 lift cams....

he recommends the same hydraulic as I do

---

Not so fast there, pundit. Looks like the old school crap RB cam took the honors.... Something to the lines that they could tell the shiznit Comp hyd didnt have the low end that the RB cam had and the dyno backed it up. Hmm, split duration had less torque than the POS old school RB, where have I heard that before?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Could you at least post the whole article? I didn't see the part about the sub 500 lift cams.

You hittin a crack pipe? Where did I say they tested sub 500 lift cams....

he recommends the same hydraulic as I do

---

Not so fast there, pundit. Looks like the old school crap RB cam took the honors.... Something to the lines that they could tell the shiznit Comp hyd didnt have the low end that the RB cam had and the dyno backed it up. Hmm, split duration had less torque than the POS old school RB, where have I heard that before?

BTW, which cam company is high lighted in the sources box??

---

Quote:

---

[quoteI said I like the XE284 over the old comp 292/501. You got agitated.

Actually said that the 292 was a shi%%^ old cam. But,no harm no foul.



Too bad we couldn't have a dyno shootout in that motor and see.Probably wouldn't end up being that far from each other.

---

Now back on track, so to speak...

---

Quote:

---

You got me ROTFLMAO...

http://www.moparts.org/Tech/Archive/bb/Lobe.html

Dang RB and MP old technology....Sure wish they would have tested some of the newer shiznit grinds. Oh wait...they did...

Here, I'm throwing it back at ya!!
The update (test page), works WELL for 3500-3600 pound B-bodies. The poster
has nearly TWO-TONS of car. The performance of those cams DO NOT relate to his CAR WEIGHT!! Look, I'm not knocking the newer cams, but you fail to realize that WEIGHT effects the perfomance. You can make horsepower, but torque is needed to move the MASS effectively. Want to run HARDER, lighten the car!! THEN, pack in the horsepower. BTW, the RACER BROWN cam
looked pretty good, probably the most driveable one of the bunch!

---

First of all Andy produced a GREAT article as always, very informative and detailed. Major props
to him!! Next is the issue about weight and power.
As a simple recap, I looked at the highest torque
producing cam that had driveability manners. Thats
why I look at car weights vs. cam lift/duration. All I'm saying is that the heavier the car, the
more torque has to be placed in the engine power range at lower side and midrange (2500-5000 rpm).
The car can horsepower up to 6000-6500 maybe, but it's the effective torque at the lower scale which MOVES the mass and the horsepower maintains the momentum.

Quote:

---

10:1, 2" headers, 4000 stall and 4.10s.

Yep, put a .557 MP cam in it and let it eat.

---

Quote:

---

use the .590 mechanical, sounds great, very powerfull, those other cams are too small

---

That works well too with the same converter. 4:10's are the standard gear with it.

Quote:

---

Whatever you decide, I would call somone that ONLY does mopars and give them all of your info .belive me its worth the call. Nick

---

100%.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The performance of those cams DO NOT relate to his CAR WEIGHT!! Look, I'm not knocking the newer cams, but you fail to realize that WEIGHT effects the perfomance.

---

How do the cams NOT relate to car weight??? Look at the torque #s the RB cam put up.

I think you are not seeing my problem with some of the comments on this thread,and most other cam threads. To make the statement that "this cam, or that cam sucks, is out dated, is a SHi445 pos, etc", is totally ridicoulous.

As you said its all in the combination......I agree that most cam related problems are due to other issues, (compression, converter, advance curve, tuning, etc)

But, as in forphorty's case (whose car is no lighweight, 3600 and change I believe) if I asked 100 people what his car runs with no compression, 3.23s, very little headwork, and a high mileage motor to boot, most generally the answer would be "That cam is too big, it will be a flippin hound" or something along those lines.

Too many blanket statements thrown out on this board that are at best half true.

---

No, there are NO blanket statements here, just the human nature of each individual who HAS a certain combo on their thinking it's the best.
Not all MOPARS that rolled off the line are 100%
exactly alike!! They vary in weight, trim packages, body styles, engine/drivetrain, etc. So the thought of one cam fits several combos is seldom and for the combo to run alike is far and few, unless they are 100% "clones".