Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board - Reply to Topic
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> Cam selection... 383 chevy, vortechs, heavy car...streetable but fun. 400hp-ish
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Thread: Cam selection... 383 chevy, vortechs, heavy car...streetable but fun. 400hp-ish Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

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.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
12-13-2012 04:42 PM
hcompton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motochris View Post
Thanks. I was looking at that exact cam (270HR) too. My heads are NOT currently setup for the higher lift, but I'm leaning that way. May as well do it while it's apart.
The most expensive words in hot rodding are "might as well"
12-13-2012 04:30 PM
Motochris
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmonty View Post
Motochris,
You never said if your vortecs were modified for more than 0.450" valve lift.
If they have you may want to consider a Comp Cams 270HR roller cam with 218* duration @0.050" lift single pattern, w/.500" valve lift w/1.5:1 ratio rockers. Using Comp's Camquest software with your engine specs it indicates 404HP, and 463ftlbs of torque. You can get a few more rpm with the XR270HR to get 411HP and the same 463ftlbs with a slight loss of torque off idle.
Both should work good with your torque converter IMO. You may want to upgrade your valve springs.
FWIW,
ssmonty
Thanks. I was looking at that exact cam (270HR) too. My heads are NOT currently setup for the higher lift, but I'm leaning that way. May as well do it while it's apart.
12-09-2012 07:00 PM
ssmonty Motochris,
You never said if your vortecs were modified for more than 0.450" valve lift.
If they have you may want to consider a Comp Cams 270HR roller cam with 218* duration @0.050" lift single pattern, w/.500" valve lift w/1.5:1 ratio rockers. Using Comp's Camquest software with your engine specs it indicates 404HP, and 463ftlbs of torque. You can get a few more rpm with the XR270HR to get 411HP and the same 463ftlbs with a slight loss of torque off idle.
Both should work good with your torque converter IMO. You may want to upgrade your valve springs.
FWIW,
ssmonty
12-09-2012 06:48 PM
ssmonty Motochris,
You never said if the vortecs were modified from stock to allow more than 0.450" valve lift.
If they have you may want to consider the Comp Cams 270HR. Using their Camquest software configured for your combination it indicated 404 HP and 463ftlbs of torque, 218*@0.050" lift single pattern cam, 0.500" valve lift with 1.5:1 rockers. Should work good with your torque convertor.JMO
You may want to upgrade your valve springs for insurance.JMO
ssmonty
12-04-2012 05:21 PM
Motochris
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcompton View Post
Not sure how you can say that edelbrock is the one company out there that really stands behind there product. They sell the highest quaility hop up parts on the market. Yes they focus on middle of the road performance. But that hardly means its junk. Really means its what this car needs.

With this car i would go for 300-350 ft tq. Hp is not going to matter much and may even slow the car down if the cam is to peaky. I got my 4000 pound 71 gp from a guy that had tried 10 cams and finally went with a smaller pmd cam factory cam. That made the car run the fastest at the track. The op can save himself the issues of replacing several cams to find something that works he could just get the performer or the torker. Edelbrock provides thecombos that work for little money and big results that act as expected.

The 59 wagon has to be every bit of 5000 lbs. Does it have an X frame? Might want to be easy on it with older frame. 400hp and the tq that comes with it is a lot of pressure to put on the old style frame. It will be fine with street tires and normal fun run type of driving. Some slicks and some abuse at the race track could lead to some major issues. Best to let it spin if you get a lot more power than stock. Especially if it has stock suspension and brakes.
This car will NEVER see slicks.
It's in the parking lot here at work right now. It's my daily driver, I just want it to be fun. If it doesn't have 400hp... that's OK, I just had to make a target somewhere. I want it to run good, be a hotrod. The current setup has all the parts listed in my first post in a 350 with a very mild cam...it needs more oomph....
12-04-2012 04:28 PM
1Gary Not going to take away anything from a Howards roller,nor from Edelbrock.But your comparing apples to oranges Ap.
12-04-2012 04:13 PM
hcompton
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap72 View Post
Edelbrock cams are just reboxed crap- always have been.

And the Howard's cam is a roller.
Not sure how you can say that edelbrock is the one company out there that really stands behind there product. They sell the highest quaility hop up parts on the market. Yes they focus on middle of the road performance. But that hardly means its junk. Really means its what this car needs.

With this car i would go for 300-350 ft tq. Hp is not going to matter much and may even slow the car down if the cam is to peaky. I got my 4000 pound 71 gp from a guy that had tried 10 cams and finally went with a smaller pmd cam factory cam. That made the car run the fastest at the track. The op can save himself the issues of replacing several cams to find something that works he could just get the performer or the torker. Edelbrock provides thecombos that work for little money and big results that act as expected.

The 59 wagon has to be every bit of 5000 lbs. Does it have an X frame? Might want to be easy on it with older frame. 400hp and the tq that comes with it is a lot of pressure to put on the old style frame. It will be fine with street tires and normal fun run type of driving. Some slicks and some abuse at the race track could lead to some major issues. Best to let it spin if you get a lot more power than stock. Especially if it has stock suspension and brakes.
12-04-2012 01:46 PM
vinniekq2 so many variables that its not as simple as spreading or narrowing lda.The intake valve closing and CR need to be matched,even more critical when economy and pump gas are involved.Techinspecter is probably one of the best guys here to optimise intake valve closing times for street cars.

rough way to work with LDA is the narrower angles will have more over lap,rougher idle,lower vacuum.They are usually more advanced icl and make more bottom end power with a narrower power band. A wider lda will idle smoother and make perhaps more top end power or rev/make power to a higher RPM.

super stock engines quite often have a very advanced ICL because of low compression ratio and need to close the intake soon enough to not bleed of to much compression,but those cams are also fairly long duration with significant lift.
Its all mathematical formulas with uncountable combinations possible.
12-04-2012 01:21 PM
Motochris If I'm looking at two different cams... lift and duration being identicle, but lobe seperation being the difference, the wider lobe seperation would reduce overlap... and possibly give better fuel milage, correct?

Is there much difference between a couple degrees (110 vs 112) or is it more noticable at larger spreads like 108 vs 114?

What is the drawback to the wider lobe seperation?

This is one of the cams I'm considering.. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/hr...make/chevrolet
a bit smaller than the one suggested.
12-04-2012 01:15 PM
vinniekq2 An LS 5.3 will cost about a grand to buy complete. It comes with a roller cam,heads that flow 225 cfm and fuel injection.You can make an LS 383,,,
If you want a gen 1, 383 then build that with a cam like the one posted or a couple sizes smaller, tune your A/F for 13 to 13.5:1,you will need to spend some money on the carb. Make sure your exhaust is also free flowing, 2 1/2 min
12-04-2012 12:58 PM
Motochris
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinniekq2 View Post
mileage and power are different tunings
even the A/F ratio is different. The longer the duration the cam,the more fuel it will waste at idle.
If you want both(who doesnt) consider fuel injection or swapping in an LS engine. AP72 can help you with wiring and harness questions,and,,,, a 5.3 with little work can produce 340 hp and return decent MPH
An LS is just not what I want to do with this car... at least not any time soon. I have considered the new MSD Atomic fuel injection... but at best it'll be a year or so past the motor build. Only got so many pennies I can throw at once.

Fuel milage isn't really my "focus", or I wouldn't even consider the 383. I just don't want it to be ****ty. I'de still rather have a strong running car that get's 11mpg over an "ok" running one that get's 15mpg.
12-04-2012 12:46 PM
vinniekq2 mileage and power are different tunings
even the A/F ratio is different. The longer the duration the cam,the more fuel it will waste at idle.
If you want both(who doesnt) consider fuel injection or swapping in an LS engine. AP72 can help you with wiring and harness questions,and,,,, a 5.3 with little work can produce 340 hp and return decent MPH
12-04-2012 12:28 PM
Motochris
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap72 View Post
With those mild parts you're going to need to stay conservative to get good power out of it.

I'd use this cam or milder: Howards Cams Hydraulic Roller Camshafts 180885-08 - SummitRacing.com
That looks to be at about the top of the range cam for these heads from what I've read..... It may be the direction I head, thanks.
I don't race the car... kinda pointless really. I drive it almost daily, my wife drives it regularly as well.
I forgot one more item... I want the car to get reasonable fuel milage. Hoping to get 15mpg on a regular basis, better on the hwy. That's one reason I'de planned to stay with the lower stall convertor.

Everything in the list above... I already have in the car in it's 350cu.in. mode. The motor has exessive crankshaft endplay though, so I figured since it'll need crank work, now's the time to go 383.
12-04-2012 12:18 PM
ap72
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinn View Post
Edelbrock makes a recreatable package that does what it claims. There are too many poeple tring to be different when it comes to cam selection. The cam and intake are a match. How many diffrent intake types are there? The rest is bean counters looking for a extra few hp.

A roller is only going to be 15-25 hp higher than a flat hydraulic, in the range of a driven car. I have a roller in my 440 4spd and the diffrence was NOT amazing. For the money to retrofit I was robbed. A supercharger would have actually got the job done with a big smile. A roller cam conversion was more than half that cost.

The suggested Howards cam even states 2600+ stall. The plus indicates more than. Stock modern heavy vehicles are stalling around 2800.
Their packages do deliver what is promised but the cams are NOT tailored to their intakes, heads, or anything else- its simply the cheapest cam they can get that is "close enough" and then they rebox it. Its been like that for decades. If you're going to buy a cam spend the 10 or 20 dollars difference and get one that really does match your combo.

And I agree the Howards cam is a bit on the big side, but he wanted the rough idle. A well tuned 383 combo like his though will have no problem with a stock converter- not optimal but you have to sacrifice something to get that sound.
12-04-2012 09:49 AM
spinn Edelbrock makes a recreatable package that does what it claims. There are too many poeple tring to be different when it comes to cam selection. The cam and intake are a match. How many diffrent intake types are there? The rest is bean counters looking for a extra few hp.

A roller is only going to be 15-25 hp higher than a flat hydraulic, in the range of a driven car. I have a roller in my 440 4spd and the diffrence was NOT amazing. For the money to retrofit I was robbed. A supercharger would have actually got the job done with a big smile. A roller cam conversion was more than half that cost.

The suggested Howards cam even states 2600+ stall. The plus indicates more than. Stock modern heavy vehicles are stalling around 2800.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:01 AM.


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.