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> need cam for mud truck
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Thread: need cam for mud truck 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:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
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)
09-01-2009 03:12 PM
chevrolet327 i have change my torque with a 2400 stall 10 inch and i also have give 4 degree avance on camshaft and change the edelbrock 750 for a truck avenger 770
incredible difference that what i looking for thanks for the help
07-16-2009 02:52 PM
chevrolet327
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
Should work with SCR of 8.75:1 to 10.75:1. 112 degree lobe separation angle should produce more manifold vacuum and smoother idle than a 110 or 108 or 106 grind. It's not the type of cam I might use if I were looking for power in a mud truck. I wouldn't be particularly interested in manifold vacuum or idle quality. I'd probably be looking for a narrower LSA.

Agree with ap72 about the agresssive ramps. If you deduct the advertised duration from the 0.050" duration, you get 43 degrees on the intake and 41 degrees on the exhaust. This is pretty radical, so on a cam like this, I'd resist using other than a stock 1.5 rocker ratio.

Think about it this way: If there is a total of 41 degrees difference between 0.006" tappet lift and 0.050" tappet lift, that means that (given a symetrical lobe) there is 20.5 degrees of difference on each side of the lobe (20.5 on the opening ramp, 20.5 on the closing ramp). That's in crankshaft degrees. If you convert that to camshaft degrees, that means that the lobe is lifting the tappet from 0.006" off the base circle to 0.050" off the base circle in just 10.25 degrees of camshaft movement. That's on the ragged edge of geometric feasibility without having the edge of the tappet digging into the cam lobe.

In my opinion, putting this kind of stress on the valvetrain parts for a very small gain in power is ludicrous.
do you have a good recomman dation for my setup
07-16-2009 11:40 AM
Chevrolet4x4s Have you thought abought double transfer casing it?
Shane
07-16-2009 06:27 AM
manchildau65 4.10 is the lowest gear ratio you can run with the carrier you have. I would also agree that lowering the ratio will net better power response. Try 4.56, you can get a set from a CUCV or M1008 that would already have a Detroit locker in the 14 bolt (that's what I run).
07-16-2009 06:18 AM
ap72
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
Should work with SCR of 8.75:1 to 10.75:1. 112 degree lobe separation angle should produce more manifold vacuum and smoother idle than a 110 or 108 or 106 grind. It's not the type of cam I might use if I were looking for power in a mud truck. I wouldn't be particularly interested in manifold vacuum or idle quality. I'd probably be looking for a narrower LSA.

Agree with ap72 about the agresssive ramps. If you deduct the advertised duration from the 0.050" duration, you get 43 degrees on the intake and 41 degrees on the exhaust. This is pretty radical, so on a cam like this, I'd resist using other than a stock 1.5 rocker ratio.

Think about it this way: If there is a total of 41 degrees difference between 0.006" tappet lift and 0.050" tappet lift, that means that (given a symetrical lobe) there is 20.5 degrees of difference on each side of the lobe (20.5 on the opening ramp, 20.5 on the closing ramp). That's in crankshaft degrees. If you convert that to camshaft degrees, that means that the lobe is lifting the tappet from 0.006" off the base circle to 0.050" off the base circle in just 10.25 degrees of camshaft movement. That's on the ragged edge of geometric feasibility without having the edge of the tappet digging into the cam lobe.

In my opinion, putting this kind of stress on the valvetrain parts for a very small gain in power is ludicrous.
Its not THAT bad TI, but yea, in most cases I'd step up in rocker ratio rather than lobe intensity- you accomplish the same thing but things seem to last longer. If you want to do a low buck cam swap in an otherwise stock engine the agressive 262 series of cams from the big manufacturers seem to be very good though- IF you can keep them from wiping out.

I also agree on the tighter LSA- especially if you're going with a 3000 stall. a 106 or 108 would probably be MUCH more appropraite.
07-15-2009 07:57 PM
techinspector1
Quote:
Originally Posted by chevrolet327
Should work with SCR of 8.75:1 to 10.75:1. 112 degree lobe separation angle should produce more manifold vacuum and smoother idle than a 110 or 108 or 106 grind. It's not the type of cam I might use if I were looking for power in a mud truck. I wouldn't be particularly interested in manifold vacuum or idle quality. I'd probably be looking for a narrower LSA.

Agree with ap72 about the agresssive ramps. If you deduct the advertised duration from the 0.050" duration, you get 43 degrees on the intake and 41 degrees on the exhaust. This is pretty radical, so on a cam like this, I'd resist using other than a stock 1.5 rocker ratio.

Think about it this way: If there is a total of 41 degrees difference between 0.006" tappet lift and 0.050" tappet lift, that means that (given a symetrical lobe) there is 20.5 degrees of difference on each side of the lobe (20.5 on the opening ramp, 20.5 on the closing ramp). That's in crankshaft degrees. If you convert that to camshaft degrees, that means that the lobe is lifting the tappet from 0.006" off the base circle to 0.050" off the base circle in just 10.25 degrees of camshaft movement. That's on the ragged edge of geometric feasibility without having the edge of the tappet digging into the cam lobe.

In my opinion, putting this kind of stress on the valvetrain parts for a very small gain in power is ludicrous.
07-15-2009 07:45 PM
ap72 Its a very torquey cam shaft, great for street, but in your heavy viehicle and higher compression it may ping- if you run premium and keep it in first with that 3000 Stall you'd probably be safe though.

Voodoo's require a very close attention to detail though, their agressive ramps can wipe out fast fi you're not careful.
07-15-2009 07:05 PM
chevrolet327 anybody have try this cam

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/LUNAT...Q5fAccessories
07-14-2009 10:18 AM
chevrolet327 i have called a 10 inch 3000 stall i will let you know the difference thanks.
07-13-2009 11:11 PM
inquiring_mind2 I mud race and I think you need a stall and some different gears then it would wake the motor up or go down in tires size.
07-13-2009 04:39 PM
ap72 It may be- if that is the case though you won't gain anything by it. Its like stepping from a Buick 455 to a nailhead- you're going the wrong direction.

You need to look at a higher stall first- you'll be AMAZED at how much an extra 1500 stall can do. going from a stock conv. to a 3000 or a 3500 can wake up almost any engine.
07-13-2009 03:46 PM
chevrolet327 i have the solid roller that suppose to go with the cam
07-13-2009 03:39 PM
chevrolet327 i think its a very old setup i can read 265-283 on plate of the rev kit
07-13-2009 03:37 PM
ap72 I don't think its a solid roller then- mayb eits just a solid flat tappet. .450" at the valve isn't really in solid roller territory unless you need EXTREEMLY fast opening ramps for restricted circle track racing even then though going with a higher rocker ratio would make more sense.
07-13-2009 03:35 PM
chevrolet327 no 450 at the valve
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 09:39 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.