Maybe that 290 cam works better with standard port heads allowing more flow with all of that duration. Seems like 290 would be too much for a max wedge head.

Interesting and good to know. I recently decided on not trying the 267 sft cam. Its too close to what i currently have in it now. Dwayne's 270 cam has been a good one and i think hard to beat, so i have decided to move on to a solid roller of 269/275@50 with more lift and on a 108 lobe sep. The UltraDyne sft will be for sale soon.

I had one of them in my last engine (446) and that is one that I checked in my current block. it was actually 265* and 183* @ .200 vs. the 267* and 185* it was supposed to be. The cam I was using in my current 493 was supposed to be according to lobe listing on website 272* ,cam card said 270* and actual was 264* @ .050 and 180* @ .200 (no specs were given for .200).......so I had less cam in a 493 w/ 13.3-1 than my previous 440 w/ 11.8-1.

Might explain why my MPH pretty much sucked relative to what it should have been based on my 20+ years ago same car, 446- 10.8-1 with ported 452 heads and a recently verified 284*@.050 .570 lift catalog cam i picked years ago.

Between incorrect valve spring pressure advise from one cam grinder that had me chasing the wrong problem, and all over the place cam recommendations (from grinds that might work in a rock crawler to grinds good for a 5 speed 1500 lb. dragster) ..........To say I'm a little disgusted with "experts" would be an understatement.

After putting 5 cams through it........ you should have a handle on what that combo wants.

I've only had the one in the 493 so far. Had I tried all 5 with not knowing that 3 weren't all that close to what they were supposed to be, I would have had some really lousy data. I only have 2 that were for the 493....and both of those were not what the cam card said.

I was about to try the second one when the opening and closing figures weren't adding up and that led to further investigation. I just started pulling other cams off the shelf to both verify and check to see if I was my rocker and missing something or an unseen block problem.....not that checking .050 and .200 duration figures is all that difficult.
My thinking was that if every cam was consistently off, I wasn't measuring correctly.

When I'm done, I should have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't......that is actually the part I enjoy the most, I just didn't think i'd have to learn quite so much of what doesn't work or isn't manufactured correctly.

What you’ve figured out is....... you really should check em.

Yep......I guess that was my long-winded point to the previous discussion. lol

How did the 267 cam(265 actual) work out for you? Any faster/slower and was it hard on valve train? Just curious.

I didn't run it in the 493 just put it in to verify cam specs.
When in the 446, I didn't have any valve train problems. As far as performance, my testing at that time wasn't the most conclusive as that was the first cam choice after getting my car back out after 20+ years with lots of changes. I will say that the next two cams I tried in that engine, didn't make any significant improvement....were I to go back to that size engine, I'd likely use that grind(with accurate lobes) again.

I will add an observation if it matters to anyone, the Crower cam I checked was the most accurate.....both consistency comparing lifts lobe to lobe and duration figures were as close to perfect as my measuring abilities could measure. A Lunati was probably second best. Based on what I've learned through this little exercise, I'm changing directions as far as size goes and I have another Lunati and Comp coming, so we'll see how accurate they are.

Hopefully, after you’ve gleaned some info from your testing efforts, you start a thread about what you’ve found in terms of how the different cams affect the dyno and/or on track performance.

I will....and i'll try to put it in a more coherent format.

I had some setbacks (the valve spring pressure problem that your suggestions helped me out on) before that got me off track from what I thought I was learning. I should have a better handle on things this year. Car consistency has improved....the last 2 runs of the year were identical to the thousandth in 60ft.,1/8, 1/4 and mph was within 1/2 mph. I've pretty much got the converter/rear gear combo figured out at least if the powerband remains similar and even if i need an adjustment there, i'll likely have a converter available for that. Carb fuel curve and jetting are down to minor tweaks now.