|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: lewtot184]
#1761587
02/26/15 10:19 PM
02/26/15 10:19 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,179
California
mickm
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,179
California
|
Quote:
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.
he's savvy for the roller, just has to decide if he wants it.
the t85 will stay. the car is a 63 savoy 4 door, the only one known to have left the factory with a 12.5:1 max wedge. so besides the internals of the engine, it's going to be stock, whatever that means. i'm sure he is going to run stock appearing tires, that kind of thing, so power beyond a certain point is wasted.
this car will be driven, but not a lot. i would think less than 1k miles per year, so the maintenance of a roller isn't that bad.
it will be a way cool car when it's done! 
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: cknight]
#1761589
02/27/15 12:49 PM
02/27/15 12:49 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,916
usa
lewtot184
master
|
master
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,916
usa
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.
This is not a Stock Eliminator camshaft. It's a replica of what you would find from the factory in a 1963 426 Max Wedge, along with solid lifters and adjustable rocker arms. A Stock Eliminator camshaft nowadays would have much more duration. Regards, Chase
no way. i drove on those cams back in the day and they weren't no where near 250's at .050".
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: cknight]
#1761591
02/27/15 03:21 PM
02/27/15 03:21 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,190
Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,190
Bend,OR USA
|
Quote:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding current terminology. The 2402293 (as per the noted specs) was the solid lifter camshaft installed in the 1963 13.5:1 cross-ram 425 HP 426 Stage III Max Wedge Super Stock package. The 1963 11:1 415 HP 426 Max Wedge street oriented package contained a fairly mild hydraulic camshaft, 210 degrees at .050", 110 degrees lobe separation, .423" lift. Hope I haven't confused myself. Chase
The 1964 and 1965 Mopar 426 C.I. Street Wedges, not offered in 1963, where advertised to be 365 HP, if my memory is half way near correct  They had the low performance 413 intake, carbs., camshafts and exhaust manifolds on them  The 1963 non stage 2 426 C.I. Max wedge 415 and 425 HP motors both had 300 degree cams with right at .500 valve lift. The 1964 M.W. motors had a different and bigger cams than the 1963 M.W. motors had for the 415 HP than for the bigger cammed 425 HP motors  I raced a 1963 415 HP M.W. car in NHRA stock and ended up having the blueprint, allowable by them, specs from NHRA on both years and both HP motors 
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: Cab_Burge]
#1761592
02/27/15 03:59 PM
02/27/15 03:59 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 137
Daytona Beach, FL
cknight
member
|
member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 137
Daytona Beach, FL
|
The NHRA spec sheets that I have, show the 1963 425HP 426 with the 2402293 solid lifter camshaft (300 duration, .509" lift). The 1964 425HP 426 has a 2468595 solid lifter camshaft (320 duration, .520" lift). The 1964 415HP 426 had a 2365131 solid lifter camshaft (300 intake, 308 exhaust duration, .520" lift). The 1964 330HP 383, 360HP 413, and the 365HP 426 all had the 2129203 hydraulic camshaft (328 intake, 336 exhaust duration, .431" lift). So I did confuse myself with no 1963 426's using the 2129203 camshaft. However, the NHRA sheets do show the 2129203 being legal in 1963, would that perhaps be for the 383 4BBL? So, back to my initial goof, what is considered a "Max Wedge" in today's jargon? Thanks, Chase
|
|
|
Re: 63 max wedge cam selection
[Re: cknight]
#1761593
02/27/15 05:52 PM
02/27/15 05:52 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,443
central ohio
nss guy
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,443
central ohio
|
If he thinking of a roller cam now, I run indy's R1
272/276 620 / 620
it's easy on springs and rocker arms
I drive mine on the street some but mostly race.
Last edited by nss guy; 02/27/15 06:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
