Thinking about this Howard’s cam

Didn’t notice this grind in the past. Think it would pick the car up significantly.
Right about what I think the motor would most like, without going to a roller and the extra costs associated with that.

Mechanical Flat Tappet Camshaft; 1964 - 2003 Chrysler 273, 340, 360 4000 to 7600 Howards Cams 710782-06 | Howards Cams
Hey Don! IMO the cam the engine would want to fit your ?new? goals is going to be bigger...and i'm sure there's another tenth there. This new cam is likely not going to show it's potential until the converter gets loosened. I'd definitely gage its intensity to the one being used currently. As has been mentioned, you might venture into other manufacturers lobes. And don't be afraid to guess wrong by 3-4 degrees duration either. A lot of exhaust lobe profiles are more gradual so the split in numbers typically is negated by .200" lift. Hate to say it but likely new springs, and of course the crossing of fingers during the 'run-in' process would have me nervous. Any time you push the intensity and rpm and increase loads on a 59* motor ...it makes me nervous. I'm not comfortable arm-chairing a new profile in consideration of those issues but on theory alone the bottom cam you listed using the Bloomer heads looked good to me, and yes I know it's a roller. If that is now contemplated, then with an oem block not bushed, typically the cam lobe lifts are capped about .420" to keep the oil gallery covered.