Cam shootout mild engine, on 350 still useful.

[273]

What makes you think it needed more below 3000? It wasn't in a dump truck.

I'm proud we don't all live in a little box ruled by theory. We'd all be driving stock cammed, two barrel 318's with iron manifolds talking about how they are the perfect hot rod engine.

Most would be happy 318-360 4bbl duals and a small cam. For the rest it's pretty much understood what to do.

 

[Bewy]

That is a very old test, originally published in a Hot Rod year book, in 2000 which I have; not that being old makes it invalid.
The engine was a 'mildly warmed over' package from RHS. World Products heads with 1.94/1.50 valves, 8.8:1, Edel Perf intake, 780 Holley VS & 1 3/4" headers.
The cams do exactly as one should expect; I call the cam a power shifter. It shifts power from the low end to the high end, as seen in tests 1-4.
Test 4-5 is more interesting. Both are 286 adv, both 236 @ 050. But one is hyd & one is a sol. The sol cam was lashed at 0.024". So it is about 12* @ 050 smaller [ 224 @ 050 ] to make it roughly comparable to the 236 hyd cam. There was a dip [ loss ] between 4000 & 5000 rpm from the sol cam, but either side they were very close. The dip might have been a tuning thing. If it could be tuned out, the sol cam would be my pick for a street engine as it made 2-3" more vacuum with the same hp.

 

[rumblefish360]

There was a link for the article with in the post, I just copy the pic's for the lazy ones.

Late link post? I’d swear it wasn’t there. Hence why I wrote what I did. But that certainly helps a lot being able to read up on it.

Engines act very similar when built similar across brands.

I really don't get you sometimes, but glad your part of the crew though.

Engines do. Knowing what there packing helps a lot. Pretty much if there packing the same equipment, then will make the same power.

You would get me a whole lot more if you sat in front of me. Perhaps one day we will break bread. Until then, no worries.

 

[justinp61]

I'm guessing you're talking about lowish compression engines?

True but the engines in this thread are 250-350 hp idle to 5500 rpm, So yes for you under 3000 rpm don't matter but for 99.98% it does and for most above 4000 rpm don't matter.

That's why I asked what I did in my first post. The bottom line is, match the cam to the combo and intended use, if you're building a truck engine, use a truck cam. If you're building something more performance oriented, use a performance cam.

Everyone that's fooled with these cars for very long has seen it over the years. Someone will show up with something that doesn't sound like much and outrun the guys with the dairy queen cams. Combo, combo, combo!

 

[273]

That's why I asked what I did in my first post. The bottom line is, match the cam to the combo and intended use, if you're building a truck engine, use a truck cam. If you're building something more performance oriented, use a performance cam.

Everyone that's fooled with these cars for very long has seen it over the years. Someone will show up with something that doesn't sound like much and outrun the guys with the dairy queen cams. Combo, combo, combo!

Oh, yes I put this here to help the people having a hard time choosing for mild combo's. It's not to recommend these cams.

 

[ir3333]

The tests just show the lo rpm benefits of smaller duration cams.
For a street built piece just so much more fun to drive. ...for the track guys not so much.

 

[AJ/FormS]

AJ always applauded the .220 duration number for excellent all round performance!

In my 360, of the three cams it has seen; by far, the Hughes HE2430AL (223/230/110 Hydro) was my favorite.
The other two were; the 292/292/509/108 Mopar, and a Hughes 230/237/110
I ran each of those hydros at about the same cylinder pressure, with Eddies, 1.6 arms, a clutched A833, and 3.55s...... most of the time. The rest of the combo was all the same.
I installed the 230* right after the 223* dropped lobes. The loss of bottom end was startling and by seat of the pants, required ~16% more starter-gear to overcome. (3.09 first gear versus 2.66)
The 230* cam has been in there now since 2004, and while it does well using the GVod as a splitter, If I didn't have the splitter, I wouldda chucked the 230* years ago on account of it sucks gas pretty bad, compared to the 223* cam. And while it certainly makes more power over the nose, to me, it ain't worth the aggravation. Both of those cams spin 295/50-15 BFGs to well past the speed limit, so;
I have been patiently waiting for the 230* to expire, and, until then, I have been running it with a lil lash.
With the 1.6 arms, the lift on the Hughes 223* cam(HE2430AL) maths out to .538/.549