283 cam preferrence - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2011, 02:41 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 4
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
283 cam preferrence

I have built a really cool ratrod, chopped 29 Ford pickup. Installed a stock 283 with Powerglide from 67, I think Impala. Well maybe not fully stock. It came with Holley 650 spreadbore. I can tell the engine was rebuilt at some point, but I believe they used a stock cam since it runs so smooth (uh, too smooth). The engine runs great as is, but I would like to little bit more umph. I'm really not looking to more HP as it does fine as is since the rat is so light, but would like for it to sound better than a sewing machine as I cruise slowly at car shows, etc. A low to mid range cam maybe. I don't plan to change heads or intake. Just a cam for better sound. Just wondering if anyone can give me any suggestions. Example of lift, duration... brand.

Thanks,
Bob

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2011, 03:46 PM
Hippie's Avatar
Analog man in a digital world.
 

Last journal entry: HEI comparison.
Last photo:
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,253
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 3
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
We really need to know which 283 you have, approximate weight of your rod and what gears you're running. Just off the top of my head though the Summit 1103 might give it the idle you're looking for without totally killing your bottom end. Here's alink to a video of one in a 305........

Summit 1103
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2011, 05:38 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 4
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You asked what engine, weight, and ratio. I was afraid someone would ask. All I know is it's a 67... i think. weight? Best guess about 1600 to 1800 lbs. Ratio. Rear end came from Astrovan. I think it's about 3.5:1. As it stands now, the rat is a little slow off the line, but gets going above 15- 20 mph. I consider it totally acceptable on power as is. But I'm not changing the cam to get better line start. In fact, if changing the cam for better "sound" results in a little less performance off the line, I can live with that. I'm not going to enter any drag races. Not this truck anyway. The problem now is... it sounds like your great aunts car who only drives on Sunday. Ii just want one that sounds cool. No plans to do burnouts. Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2011, 06:17 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: illinois
Posts: 195
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I don't know how much compression is in your motor or whether you want to adjust the valves from time to time, how 'bout the 283ci/290 hp Fuelie cam?

I think they used to call it the Duntov 18-20, or something like that.

Solid lifters, a little on the noisy side ( but in a good way ).

Maybe something comparable in a modern design, will give your rat rod a decent boost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2011, 06:25 PM
DoubleVision's Avatar
Not Considered a Senior Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heart Of Dixie
Age: 40
Posts: 10,657
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 15
Thanked 60 Times in 57 Posts
The cam hippie pointed out would work, it`s bigger than I`d recommend but what you have working for you is light weight. However, it would work alot better if the powerglide was dropped and a TH350 was installed. The lower first gear of a TH350 would give it alot better out of the hole accelaration.
With a powerglide low end response might be on the sluggish side.
The spread bore holley works alot like a Quadrajet but not as good as a Quad in my opinion. What intake is in use? As long as there`s not a adapter plate in use your in good shape. With the given cam, I would advance it 4 degrees, this will help low end response somewhat. What you have to remember is, you have a small cubic inch small block, velocity is very important for low end torque development with these engines. Lastly when you change the cam you`ll need to add a new timing chain and valve springs that match the cam.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2011, 09:49 PM
DoubleVision's Avatar
Not Considered a Senior Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heart Of Dixie
Age: 40
Posts: 10,657
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 15
Thanked 60 Times in 57 Posts
Hey F, did you happen to notice he said it`s a 283? It`s easy to make a 283 lope since it`s small on the cubic inches. Also he doesn`t know what the compression ratio is or what mods may have been done to it. He said he wanted a cam, he didn`t say he wanted to do alot of work which would be required on both cams you mentioned.
If it`s just a basic lope he`s after then a Comp 268H will do that with .218 duration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-06-2011, 03:19 PM
Hippie's Avatar
Analog man in a digital world.
 

Last journal entry: HEI comparison.
Last photo:
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,253
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 3
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by red1899
Installed a stock 283 with Powerglide from 67, I think Impala.
There was only the one passenger car 283 in '67 and if it is a '67 and is all original except for the 4 bbl. intake it will be factory rated at 9.25 to 1 compression. It's probably closer to 8.75 to 1 unless they changed some things when they rebuilt it, it will also have Power Pak heads. As light as your rod is and given your intended use I'd still use the 1103. It worked well with a friends otherwise stock 327/250HP; PG (stock converter) and 3.36 equipped '64 Impala SS and he's got literally about a Ton on you. It works even better with the 200-4R and 3.73's in it now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-06-2011, 04:31 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Age: 50
Posts: 4,023
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 24 Times in 24 Posts
I would look for a cam with 106 to 107 LSA and with a duration of 212 (at 0.050") on the intake and 218 on the exhaust.

A 283 doesn't need much cam to make it lope. Plus the narrow LSA really makes it extra lopey at idle then helps it make better mid range power. It should be ok with the stock stall, but I would change it to a higher stall as soon as possible. and change to a th350 at the same time.

run 25 degrees of timing at idle, 37 to 38 total. Use an adjustable vacuum advance canister to add another 10 degrees.

You have headers, right??? if not, get some.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-06-2011, 05:38 PM
DoubleVision's Avatar
Not Considered a Senior Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heart Of Dixie
Age: 40
Posts: 10,657
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 15
Thanked 60 Times in 57 Posts
454 took the words out of my mouth. I was going to say use a cam around .212 @.050 as it would be ideal for a little 283 and should lope as the small cubes are easy to make lope. In my 4.3 V6 with TBI, I have a isky computer hydraulic roller cam in it with .204 .209 duration and at 675 RPM at idle it lopes nicely. Even so the 4.3 is a 350 with 2 cylinders whacked off, it`s still less cubic inches overall, mine is bored .030 which puts it at 266 cubes, it`s still 84 cubes less.
This would be my pick, it works with stock compression ratios and pretty much stock pieces. It`s single pattern cam which I perfer over a split pattern.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/CCA-CL12-206-2/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2011, 07:07 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 4
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
These are all great suggestions, and I much appreciate all the replies. Double is right. All I want is a bit of lope without having to do anything else to the engine/trans. Keep in mind, this is a ratrod with the goal of build it quick, cheap, and keep it simple. That I have done, but that engine, well, it's just, uh the sound, it's just so darned smooth. Plenty of power for its weight and safety, so sacrificing a lttile low end performance is not a concern. I believe your suggestions have just about narrowed it down, but I welcome more. Thanks a bunch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2011, 09:49 AM
bigdog7373's Avatar
Of course it's fast
 
Last photo:
Join Date: May 2010
Location: florida
Posts: 2,670
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 13
Thanked 49 Times in 49 Posts
Any pictures of the truck? Not that it will help anything, but it sounds like a cool truck from what you have said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2011, 01:01 AM
BigEd36's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Auburn, IN
Age: 65
Posts: 398
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 22
Thanked 48 Times in 43 Posts
I'm with BigDog! Let's see the pictures! I dig the hell outta rat rods!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2011, 01:33 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 196
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 10
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleVision
454 took the words out of my mouth. I was going to say use a cam around .212 @.050 as it would be ideal for a little 283 and should lope as the small cubes are easy to make lope. In my 4.3 V6 with TBI, I have a isky computer hydraulic roller cam in it with .204 .209 duration and at 675 RPM at idle it lopes nicely. Even so the 4.3 is a 350 with 2 cylinders whacked off, it`s still less cubic inches overall, mine is bored .030 which puts it at 266 cubes, it`s still 84 cubes less.
This would be my pick, it works with stock compression ratios and pretty much stock pieces. It`s single pattern cam which I perfer over a split pattern.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/CCA-CL12-206-2/
DV why single pattern cam?Wouldn`t it be better to have dual pattern cam with those restricted port heads in 283?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2011, 03:34 AM
DoubleVision's Avatar
Not Considered a Senior Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heart Of Dixie
Age: 40
Posts: 10,657
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 15
Thanked 60 Times in 57 Posts
I`ve said this before, and for some reason, everybody`s thoughts are backwards. Okay so stock small block chevy heads, The intake is long, has a medium bend at the valve so in stock form it`s not very efficient. The exhaust is short, open and the turn is gradual, in stock form it`s very efficient. Plus to port the exhaust with just a basic cleanup helps flow a good deal. The intake side your busy a while trying to improve the short side radius of the bend plus more work in other areas such as the ridge under the valve and thinning down the valve guide boss.
Now lets reflect on factory muscle cars. Just to name a few, the 375 horse 327 cam was a solid lifter single pattern. The L79 350 horse 327 cam was a hydraulic lifter single pattern. Now lets look at the medium performance small blocks such as the 300 horse 327`s and 350`s, they had dual pattern cams. So why did GM use single pattern cams on the high performance engines? They already had dual exhausts and GM figured the exhaust manifolds would quickly be swapped to headers. Now, the 300 horse 350 and the like wise cars these came in had a single exhaust so the cam had more lift and duration on the exhaust side to make up the difference for a exhaust system that don`t flow as well as it could. In just about every dyno test I`ve seen in the past, the single pattern cam always made more torque and horsepower. Not to say dual pattern cams can`t make power, they can and do very well. Now if I were running nitrous, I`d run a dual pattern cam.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2011, 04:40 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 196
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 10
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Those dyno tested engines,were they built by you or some magazine builds?
I just think that why cam companies make 9 cams out of 10 dual pattern instead of single if they would do better otherwise?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.