|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: nss guy]
#1761571
02/25/15 03:51 PM
02/25/15 03:51 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,179
California
mickm
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,179
California
|
Quote:
Running the cross ram with only 9.78 compression probably want a mild cam. I ran hughes solid cam. Give hughes a call and let him spec one 
he is calling hughes. wanted to see what people here think, and what others are running.
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: mickm]
#1761572
02/25/15 10:36 PM
02/25/15 10:36 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
|
Send the cam back to bullet and they'll re grind it as either a solid or hydraulic roller. I'd knock about 10 degrees off each lobe and spread the centers out 2 degrees....it'll be great, and come inat about 500 rpm lower and should make about the same power up top and be crisper all around. it'll cost you about $135 for Tim to re grind it.
I run a bullet .4033 solid roller lobe 251/259@.050 on 109 i my 440" W2 headed smallblock, awesome power curve and torque EVerywhere.
It started out as 261/268 on 107 before the regrind
Last edited by Streetwize; 02/25/15 10:38 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: Streetwize]
#1761573
02/26/15 01:24 AM
02/26/15 01:24 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,179
California
mickm
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,179
California
|
Quote:
Send the cam back to bullet and they'll re grind it as either a solid or hydraulic roller. I'd knock about 10 degrees off each lobe and spread the centers out 2 degrees....it'll be great, and come inat about 500 rpm lower and should make about the same power up top and be crisper all around. it'll cost you about $135 for Tim to re grind it.
I run a bullet .4033 solid roller lobe 251/259@.050 on 109 i my 440" W2 headed smallblock, awesome power curve and torque EVerywhere.
It started out as 261/268 on 107 before the regrind
Hmmmm... Never thought of that. We'll check it out, thanks!
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: B3RE]
#1761574
02/26/15 02:40 AM
02/26/15 02:40 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,501
Gainesville,FL
goldmember
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,501
Gainesville,FL
|
Quote:
Yes, occasionally it gets to the track. 3700 lbs, 750 Carter AFB, 1 3/4" street headers with full exhaust, 3.91 gear, 28" tire, a tight 3500 vert, trapping at about 4700 rpm. It has gone 12.15 @ 108.
Strange combo,runs like it's missing over 100HP and has a converter that is more than locked up. Strange stuff.
Last edited by goldmember; 02/26/15 02:44 AM.
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: goldmember]
#1761575
02/26/15 11:04 AM
02/26/15 11:04 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
B3RE
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, occasionally it gets to the track. 3700 lbs, 750 Carter AFB, 1 3/4" street headers with full exhaust, 3.91 gear, 28" tire, a tight 3500 vert, trapping at about 4700 rpm. It has gone 12.15 @ 108.
Strange combo,runs like it's missing over 100HP and has a converter that is more than locked up. Strange stuff.
I hear ya. While the engine combo might be spot on, the chassis combo is set up for reliable, and fun, street driving. Just tapping at 4700 reduces the power by over 20 hp. Figure in the carb, small headers, full exhaust, and drivetrain losses and it is down quite a bit from the flywheel dyno hp. Is like to see the difference with a set of 4.56s and a looser converter, uncorked.
Mike Beachel
I didn't write the rules of math nor create the laws of physics, I am just bound by them.
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: Streetwize]
#1761576
02/26/15 11:20 AM
02/26/15 11:20 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,986
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
gregsdart
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,986
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
|
I see a lot of cam recommendations here that would start pulling power after 2,000, not my idea of a good choice for 3.55 gears and a stick in a heavy car! I don't care if it has 472 cubes, it still needs low end manners to make the guy happy. This guys stated goals are not high horsepower, just decent horsepower. That tells me he would be much happier and more impressed with a cam that has a lot of low end like the Thumpr, but still sounds mean. A street driven car like this with this type of driver will seldom if ever see more than 5,000 rpm. Why take away from the bottom end?
I think it is time to get realistic about the customers wants, not what some of us think he needs, which is often based on our preferences.
Last edited by gregsdart; 02/26/15 11:25 AM.
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: gregsdart]
#1761577
02/26/15 11:40 AM
02/26/15 11:40 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
B3RE
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
|
Quote:
I see a lot of cam recommendations here that would start pulling power after 2,000, not my idea of a good choice for 3.55 gears and a stick in a heavy car! I don't care if it has 472 cubes, it still needs low end manners to make the guy happy. This guys stated goals are not high horsepower, just decent horsepower. That tells me he would be much happier and more impressed with a cam that has a lot of low end like the Thumpr, but still sounds mean. A street driven car like this with this type of driver will seldom if ever see more than 5,000 rpm. Why take away from the bottom end?
I think it is time to get realistic about the customers wants, not what some of us think he needs, which is often based on our preferences.
 Well said, Greg.
Mike Beachel
I didn't write the rules of math nor create the laws of physics, I am just bound by them.
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: B3RE]
#1761578
02/26/15 12:35 PM
02/26/15 12:35 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
|
Greg,
If you take my example and cut 10 degrees of the existing grind you get to 246/254 @.050 on a SOLID roller which would comp to around 236/244 on a Hydraulic Roller, I worry that if you make the lobes too small for a 472" motor you could trap too much cylinder pressure at low rpm making the dynamic compression high enough to induce preignition, especially with a tighter converter in hot weather. With a 3 speed (assuming manual) you have a pretty wide gear spread, broad torque is critical.
Additionally, with the regrind you cam tune the @.200 and over the nose ramps as well, the @ .050 numbers don't always tell the whole story.
I would hold that ~246/254 @.050 on a Solid grind
would be pretty sweet, overall very mellow and torquey in a 472" motor, I'd be more concerned with getting the converter right to optimize streetability. This is a clutch ( I assume) so drivability would be neck snapping with the right tune from right out of the basement with a 246/254 solid, and for street cars I'm one of the more conservative cam pickets on this board.
look at this 442" AMC which has a comparable 238/244 @.050 Hydraulic roller and follows the same recipie as my 440" W2 small block with its 251/259 @.050 Solid Roller, look at the torque curve it's pretty much wall to wall and the roll on power off idle is incredible, the AMC is in a 3700 pound jeep CJ-7 with 33" tires and 3.70 gears with a UCC 9 1/2" converter that gets driven EVERYWHERE.
Last edited by Streetwize; 02/26/15 02:02 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: max_maniac]
#1761580
02/26/15 01:51 PM
02/26/15 01:51 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
|
I generally agree there is a huge difference with a X ram in terms of tuning....but.... I'd be curious to see what ramp he is using in his ignition curve....from my experience with Cross rams they won't fall out of a tree off idle unless they have a fair amount (18-22) of initial lead as well as a bit more aggressive step-up rod spring settings if you're using AFBs. It's not so much that initial pump shot (although it matters too) as it is timing that 'idle to main' transition with the rods and springs. I'd make sure that was optimized first before moving or changing the cam. Higher cylinder pressures with a smaller cam combined with a lean Cross ram mixture can spell trouble beyond drivability.
If you notice the original post says STOCK CARBS.... To me that's a red flag right there, the jetting and step-up rods/springs need to be tuned for a larger motor and bigger cam before scrapping the cam that may (or may not) be too big.
I've tuned carbs and ignitions on people's combos countless times and they were Amazed inthe night and day difference it made in terms of drivability. Not guaranteeing it in this case but I'm slow to throw the baby out with the bath water until I gave it a fair shot. Likewise, If it's a solid am try loosening the lash .004-.006 and see if it makes a difference in drivability, it should help the bottom end
If it were mine I'd first put it on a chassis dyno and play with the timing and jetting. Too small a cam can be almost as bad as too big of one. Not a lot to go on with the cam, where is it phased and what is the spread?
Last edited by Streetwize; 02/26/15 02:33 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: nss guy]
#1761583
02/26/15 06:10 PM
02/26/15 06:10 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,179
California
mickm
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,179
California
|
Quote:
When you say stock carbs, 3407's or 3447's ?
Those are great carbs find an old dc manual and jet them accordingly. If they're 600 or 750 eddy's out box jetting is close enough, lean them out if anything. Accel Pump arm in top hole.
i'm not sure, haven't looked, but they are OEM carbs, not eddy's. thanks for the pointer on the DC manual...
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: Anselmi]
#1761584
02/26/15 06:39 PM
02/26/15 06:39 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,916
usa
lewtot184
master
|
master
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,916
usa
|
Quote:
Not hydraulic, but might give you some ideas... Crane Cams 680201 "Replacement for factory 425 HP 426 cu.in. camshaft"
http://www.race-mart.com/Crane_Cams-416680.html
this is a stock eliminator cam and shouldn't be confused with the original cams. the original cams were probably around mid 230's at .050. a '63 cam would be 300/300-.509. they had gentle ramps, 112lsa with 3 degrees of retard ground into them.
the t85 trans has a 2.10 1st gear, and 1.44 2nd. taking off in 1st gear with one of these is only slightly better than taking off in 2nd with an 833 trans.
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: lewtot184]
#1761585
02/26/15 07:31 PM
02/26/15 07:31 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
|
Quote:
the t85 trans has a 2.10 1st gear, and 1.44 2nd. taking off in 1st gear with one of these is only slightly better than taking off in 2nd with an 833 trans.
That car would love one of the Passon 4 speed OD's, wouldn't it?
All the more reason to maximize the torque, look at that AMC torque 236/244HR curve again, more torque than a 455 Buick (500+ for a very broad range) and the torque at 2000-2500 (where you're roll-on the gas torque is) will snap your head back. And a Max Wedge manifold whose sweet spot would normally be mid 3K to mid-high 5K on a 426" motor should move down several 100 RPM with 472 cubes.
Last edited by Streetwize; 02/26/15 07:34 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: Streetwize]
#1761586
02/26/15 08:24 PM
02/26/15 08:24 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,916
usa
lewtot184
master
|
master
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,916
usa
|
Quote:
Quote:
the t85 trans has a 2.10 1st gear, and 1.44 2nd. taking off in 1st gear with one of these is only slightly better than taking off in 2nd with an 833 trans.
That car would love one of the Passon 4 speed OD's, wouldn't it?
All the more reason to maximize the torque, look at that AMC torque 236/244HR curve again, more torque than a 455 Buick (500+ for a very broad range) and the torque at 2000-2500 (where you're roll-on the gas torque is) will snap your head back. And a Max Wedge manifold whose sweet spot would normally be mid 3K to mid-high 5K on a 426" motor should move down several 100 RPM with 472 cubes.
the 833, o.d. or not, is exactly where i'd go. that t85 is basically a t10 with reverse in the main case. way too weak and too valuable to grind up.
i'm still stuck on a conventional low maintenance flat tappet. from what i gather from the OP the owner may not be maintenance savy for a roller. i'd take that roller stuff and sell it to some numbnuts (did i say that,..  ) who thinks he has to have it and run something i didn't have to work on. there are low maintenance solids out there.
|
|
|
|
|
