DC 590 camshaft comparison

I currently run this old cam in a 383 that has run a best of 9.86 at 137mph at 3100lbs.

Has anyone tried a different cam in a similar combination and found big gains?

I have heard many say this old cam is a dinosaur but I think it works pretty well.


Hutch

9.86 @ 137mph at 3.1klbs with a 383 is more than "pretty well." Don't touch it!

Yeah what else is done to that 383?

Let leaping dogs glide.
Leave it alone.
I'm lighter than you. Sell me that motor as is. LOL.

You're flying with old news and much salutes.

I’m going to guess...ALOT.

Yeah, that would have to be pretty stout.

If you have enough valvespring then put a 1.6 rocker on the intake. Wallace shows you're only making 615 HP now so with a 'good' stage6 (340cfm) head you could make 650-675 still using a flat tappet and using respective parts/combo. Conversely, I don't see it being worth your while to mess with a cam that hasn't wiped the lobes and is running respectable given what I know/assume about the motor.

Sounds like the dinosaur cam is working well in that 383! Curious to know the rest of the combo... I'm guessing the right roller cam would pick up power, if that's what you're after.

Thanks for the reply guys. It's an 11:1 383. 060" over. 1st design stage 6 straight plug hand ported heads 2.14 1.81 valves with a 7.100 rod.
It does work well but of course every time I get asked about it I always hear about how old the cam design is.

I'm building a 406cid twin to this now and I have another dinosaur going in. Lol


Hutch

Old age and treachery always overcomes youth and enthusiasm. Lol.

A camshaft by definition is "old" technology. Lots of "new" cams not running 137 mph at 3100 lbs with a 383.

Kevin

I'm a little surprised that the 590 cam works that well with the Stage VI heads but evidently those two are happy with each other in your engine. It can be hard to improve on a combo that is working well. I've spent a bunch of time (and money) on the dyno testing the latest trick cam only to find nothing or go backwards.

I have a .590 in a 440 @ 3,000lbs,Stage 6 heads,6bbl intake ,93 gas.
have run 136mph in Ohio.

not as fast as your 383 ,,,,,STOUT combo!!
Good tuning skills.

According to my no's your making 648fwhp@3100lbs
60 Foot E.T. : 1.36
1/8 Mile E.T. : 6.19
1/8 Mile Trap Speed : 109.76
1/4 Mile E.T. : 9.81
1/4 Mile Trap Speed : 137

Thats some HP with that spec motor.

My mates 12.5:1 440 Dart with 317cfm Eddy's and the .590 cam only managed 132mph and 10 teens best@3150lbs and thats@sea level@SPR raceway...that was 600hp.

What is the compression height of a low-deck 383 with a 7.10" rod? That's a 2+ rod ratio, which is uncommonly high. (We're still talking a 3.375" stroke, right?)

Got flow #s for the heads? And are they standard port or MW?

What's the induction system?

What sort of RPM are you spinning it?

Auto or stick? How much stall, if auto?

Regardless, it hauls a$$ for what it is.

if automatic, what converter and rear gear ?

It's an oddball combo for sure. Pistons were custom made in 1972. They are. 927 pin,. 200 dome,. 043. 043 3/16 inboard locks with a tiny skirt. Head intake ports are matched to the. 060" intake gaskets that used to come with a belly pan. I had a collection of them so it seemed like a good fit. Exhaust ports were raised in a D port design and I made custom header flanges to fit. CH of the piston is 1.195 from memory and crank is 3.365" and still Chrysler diameter. There were no rockers for these stupid heads so I used crane golds with Jesel Buick adjusters and Chevrolet push rods. I shift this between 7500 and 8000, the converter is an 8" I made that goes about 6400 on the hit. Intake is a Victor with a 2" velocity spacer and an old carb shop 930 with an air cleaner and the car has header mufflers.

It sounds like it runs pretty good now. My cam is a custom grind from Dwayne Porter in my street car and it sorta close to the MP .590 but its ground for my combo. Which my 63 weighs over 3700 lbs and I run a full exh but its specs are 264 & 270 @ .050 with .585 & .592 lift with a 110 LSA. I have it in the eng on a 106 ICL. But your cars runs pretty well now. Ron

It would be nice to see some back to back track testing with some of the newer cams if anyone has done it.

Mr Hutch,
I'm quite interested in this motor combination, so it
does not have the long 7.100 rods ?

Yes it has 7.100 rods in it.


Hutch

If a 383 has 7.100 rods, then the piston compression height
would be around 1.200 inches, the factory piston CH is around
1.950 with the stock 6.36 rods.
I'm building something really similar, long rod 400.

I remember Dave Wren running a old Cam Dynamics R282 solid roller in his 1971 Cuda 383 SS car in SS/H I think, he let the clutch out around 8000 RPM and tried to shift it between 8600 to 8800 RPM
The original Racer Brown that owned that company back in the day probably designed and ground that camshaft for Mopar before they starting opening the doors to the lowest bidders in the early 1980s to the mid 1980s
I also remember Joe Alread doing a series of articles on his Mopar sponsored 1972 Road Runner 400 stick car for either Hot Rod or Car Craft magazine in 1972, it had a solid lifter Racer Brown camshaft in it, I'm not sure which grind though
My message is there are a lot of better cam grinds to choose from today than back 30 yrs ago

I think AndyF built a long rod 400 with a short piston years ago that did pretty well. Don't think it was 7.100" though.

You're one of the few guys that knows how to build a bass ass combo with cheap parts. That's cool with small cubic inches as well.

I used Hemi +0.100 rods with off the shelf 1.32 high pistons and a 383 forged crank in a 400 block. It was an off the shelf way to build a high compression 400 back before kits were available. It did work pretty well, that engine made around 600 hp with Porter Racing Head Edelbrock heads. It was a in daily driver Duster that went 10.90 on street tires with full exhaust, full interior, etc. The guy used to drive it to work.

It's not a common combination, so the odds of anyone being able to provide applicable cam comparison data is slim.

Not sure if any SFT cam change would show a big improvement without taking the time to try a bunch of different ones. Small port heads, small cubes... it might not "need" or "want" much difference in valve events or lift.

If you're running race gas already, bumping up the CR might be the easiest way to find some additional power across the RPM range.

Not to mention that most of the fast rate stuff is probably going to require higher spring loads than what std lifters are going to be happy with if you’re trying to buzz the motor 8000.

I have a Direct connection .606 lift cam i going to use in a 340, the duration on these cams will definitely let you wind them up.

A long way back, Hot Rod did a MP purple shaft compare in a big block. They used the 296/557 and the .590 cam against a few others. The .590 held it's own very well. Pay attention to the competitors cam durations.

Here it is, read on brother!

And just tell people that these "Old Dino Cams" just flat out work. Never mind that there old.

That's buzzing pretty good.

I've never turned mine loose past 7200.

Maybe I need to turn it this year.

Because we all pretty much like Hutch, I'll bump this post again. My original thoughts were noone bats an eye when a 3000 pound Camaro with a 383 and good heads runs the same numbers. It's not to take away from that it runs good for what is being used but, it seems peoples expectations are low for performance.

how much difference would this shaft make with a 440 shifting at 62-6400, pocket ported RPM's, 10.8cr, 600 or so more lbs. ?

Compared to what ?

Eddy/.590 combo ran 10.8-10.9 in a 3700lb+ GTX. No electric water pump, battery up front.
Doug

If you want to go faster, you could tighten the intake lash .010 and see if it likes it. Then try the exhaust. More compression will help as long as you don't have a big dome on the piston. I am geussing you have thrashed it enough to know what it wants for timing. If not back it down a couple first, and see if it helps.

to the 383 example mentioned.

"Fading color" cam comparo article was done a few years back on a 421 inch small block, cam manufacturers all took their best shot,and the .590 beat all but one.

Keith Dunnuck did a cam comparison and a hughes solid cam made 17 hp more than the .590.

Referring to Dunnucks test........ I generally feel that engine builders who work with a lot of the same type of motors often have a good feel for what they like for camshafts.

This proved to be the case in that series of cam tests with the 421 stroker.
Dave Hughes had more experience with that type of build than whoever they got on the phone at the other cam suppliers.
I felt the Comp cams in particular that were tested were pretty far off from what I would have used.
Comp has some really nice lobes available, but what they’re offering for solid flat tappet drag race listings in the catalog leaves a lot to be desired.

Did try lashing it to. 024" once cold to be lazy as doing a hot lash makes a mess because these heads don't drain very well. Car lost 2 tenths. If anything it likes the lash a bit loose. Cam is currently retarded 4 degrees also. Tried it 2 degrees advanced, hates that too.


Hutch

.024 cold would be something like.028-.030 hot in my experience. That is very loose in my opinion. Are you saying that you usually run it looser?

The design specs for the lash are 28/32.

I’m not saying there aren’t combos that wouldn’t respond to tighter settings, but tighter will have you opening the valves on the clearance ramps.

Looser lash settings really speed up the valves movement off the seat....... although it’s usually a little harder on parts.

The reason I asked was that if they were tightened to 24 cold what are they normally at? How much tighter was it to take 2 tenths out of the car? I've always had trouble at some point +.030 lash. Even with the old Mopar solids.

You really wouldn’t have liked some of the old Cam Dynamic rollers with the recommended lash of .035.

Even the old stock Chevy Duntov cam was .030(That’s why it’s referred to as the 30-30 cam).

Yeah I've learned this lesson the hard way several times over the years. Certain cylinder heads prefer certain lobes. Guys who work with the same engine combination over and over gradually acquire this knowledge. Guys sitting on the tech line at a cam company may or may not have any knowledge of the specific cylinder head being used.

If I call Comp Cams I'll get a cam recommendation that is very close in terms of duration but typically the lobe family won't be spot on.

The 590 is one of those old school cams that works great when it is paired up with the matching parts. I used one once a long time ago and it ran hard but we used it with some old school heads and intake.

I usually lash it to 26/30 cold which is 75 degrees at least. I don't get this motor over 160 degrees normally or it starts picking up numbers.


Hutch

Correction: The Duntov cam was the 097 cam which had right at 0.4" lift. He actually made the previous cam just a little bit smaller so it would rev better.

The 30-30 cam, while mistakenly called a Duntov, wasn't designed by Zora. it had something like 252 duration at 50 and had gross lift of 0.485 which turned into 0.455 after the lash was subtracted.

If you care to read about Chevy cams, this article lays it out nicely. https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/cam-valvetrain/duntov-small-block-camshaft/

I was deep into chevies back in the day and back then nobody called the 30-30 cam a Duntov anything. For many people's money, the Chevy cam to use in something less than a nearly race engine was the 3863151 cam, the 350 horse 327 hydraulic cam. Mine cost me $38 plus tax at Rydell Chevrolet in Grand Forks.

R.

Good read.

Interesting how they used a different core for each cam part number to minimize the grinding time.

I seem to remember one of the Mopar tech line guys telling me many years ago that Mopar had switch vendors, cam grinders on all their cams and the one I was calling on complaining about not having the advertised lift was due to the vendors not grinding them correctly.
He also said later that Mopar had two different specs. throughout the life of the "590" grind, LSA being different as well as on lobe lift
Any one else seen or heard of this?
OP, I use to use a Isky grind, .616/.590 split duration cam for BB Mopars ground on a 104 LSA, that was similar to the original Mopar "590 grind.
that cam worked very well installed from straight, 104 ILC, up to being advanced to 99 BTDC on the ILC

a lot depends on the combo. He can try both loose and tight. My deal, a stroked 440, loved tight lash cause IT was way under cammed. If his motor is shifted at a higher rpm with a looser converter, it might love tight lash.

My old $800.00 4 speed V code 440 had a crane solid 590 cam .030 over and 13.1 pistons and was a monster but didn't want to idle much under 1500. Can't remember the lash but that was 44 years ago.