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".