Abodysloth
Member
Anyone use Brown camshafts out of Baltimore? What do they go for cam & lifter set new in box.
Last edited:
It is well down on lift compared to other brands that have the same 272 @ 050.
Comp Cams 0.842 lifter size. XTQ lobes 588 lift.
Ford 875 lifter lobes 600 lift
Bullet [ UltraDyne ] 875 lifter 602 lift.
Is that kinda like "I'd hit that"? lolI’d run that.
I noticed that. Might have been cut for some kinda lift rule. Still a goodun.It is well down on lift compared to other brands that have the same 272 @ 050.
Comp Cams 0.842 lifter size. XTQ lobes 588 lift.
Ford 875 lifter lobes 600 lift
Bullet [ UltraDyne ] 875 lifter 602 lift.
Not in my opinion.So? Do the lobes need to be on the ragged edge to make power?
That's .040" less lift at the LOBE. In a Chrysler small block, you lose on the order of about .020" lift at the valve due to the pushrod angle.I will answer the silly question in post #6. If you are running a cam with as much as 272 @ 050 duration, you are wanting to make serious HP. One of the reasons folks use roller cams is that the lobes have more area under the curve....& more lift. They make more hp.
The cam above has 0.040" less lift than other cams of the same duration. 040, not 004.....
That is a lot of lift to give up if you are aiming to get max hp out of the engine.
That means it has less area under the curve.
Cam Dynamics & Crane also supplied DC cams.
I will answer the silly question in post #6. If you are running a cam with as much as 272 @ 050 duration, you are wanting to make serious HP. One of the reasons folks use roller cams is that the lobes have more area under the curve....& more lift. They make more hp.
The cam above has 0.040" less lift than other cams of the same duration. 040, not 004.....
That is a lot of lift to give up if you are aiming to get max hp out of the engine.
That means it has less area under the curve.
Cam Dynamics & Crane also supplied DC cams.
Back in my speed shop days TRW had some performance cams. A buddy put a 300°/.500 in a 350 Chevy and it was pretty nasty.If someone has a combo that could use a cam that size, I don’t see anything that would keep me from using it.
I've watched on this forum for years people recommend the absolute quickest and fastest rate of lift cams over and over and people take that advice. Sometimes they then want to know why their valve train is noisy. It's just like you say. When you beat the valve off its seat, then slam it shut, there are all types of side effects of that and noise is a big one. Not only that, but accelerated wear of valve train parts, from the valve seat, all the way up. I've preached for years the benefits of slow, lazy, "obsolete" lobes on the street, only to be turned a deaf ear on.Which means you are probably going to be running higher rpm with that much timing. If so, a slower lobe is far more stable with rpm that a quicker lobe. You have to be able to control the valve train. Smacking the valve stupid off the seat, huge opening and closing acceleration rates over the nose and smashing the valve off the seat makes control tough.
With SFT’s you have a serious issue with rpm in that you can’t run much more than 420 over the nose, and at that you’d better be very careful or you will kill the cam.
Since you cant just keep adding spring load to control the valve train, you either have to soften up the lobes, use Ti valves at least on the intake side or both.
So it wasn’t a “silly” question. It exposed you for not grasping the realities of valve train stability in higher rpm applications.
In fact, I could say your claim that the lobe is down on lift and therefore “slower” and therefore would make less power than a more aggressive lobe is at best naive and silly.