Cams for 318's

Dyno test of 262 cam from link comments-

Issue 1- They never actually said with the compression ratio was. Is it 9.2:1 (actually very likely real close to that) or 8.8:1 (likely less)?

Issue 2- I sure would have liked to see what the dyno said about adding just the 4 barrel. That would have been more logical than dyno-ing "just the cam".
I can't believe those guys didn't think of that.

Issue 3- I wish they would have also done the "256" cam. Comp's "desktop dyno" shows a MUCH broader torque curve (they did note a broader curve), and only a 10 max HP reduction. That's a VERY logical trade off in a street motor build. It would have been worth it to see it on the dyno, vs "on paper".

Issue 4- I would bet some pretty serious coin that the "performer" intake is WAY more common and much easier to find "cheaper" than the M-1.

Issue 5- Why TF didn't they continue the low RPM readings at 2K? this is a mild build, we want to know (especially if it drops). Street driving doesn't start at 3K.

Interesting note 1- Despite what 99% of FxBO members responded when the question was posed, they elected to use the factory 318 stock cam springs with the 262 cam. EDIT- the footnote says that cam came with lifters, WTF?

Interesting note 2- 190 HP is pretty good for a stock 318. Chrysler said a 73 318 with dual exhaust was good for 170. Must be 20HP from the $1000 headers. (or maybe it's the 9.2:1 engine)

I knew they couldn't resist throwing on something they "just had laying around". Every single one of these write-ups does, usually to the tune of a major effect on the outcome, and potentially adding hundreds of dollars to the "low buck" status for a reader to cough up while also skewing the results away from the intended point of the test.