Abodysloth
Member
Anyone use Brown camshafts out of Baltimore? What do they go for cam & lifter set new in box.
Last edited:
Small Block Chrysler Racer Brown camshafts
- Thread starter Abodysloth
- Start date
-
OldmanRick
Well-Known Member
That's a serious cam. It just begs for a good cyl head, some compression and some 1.6 rockers. 
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
I’d run that.
Yep I run one. 6.0@113
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.
Comp Cams 0.842 lifter size. XTQ lobes 588 lift.
Ford 875 lifter lobes 600 lift
Bullet [ UltraDyne ] 875 lifter 602 lift.
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
Is that kinda like "I'd hit that"? lol
I noticed that. Might have been cut for some kinda lift rule. Still a goodun.
Not in my opinion.
RacerBrown Did This One for me a Couple of Years Ago... SB 273 Cam all Parkerized and Ready To Go! It's Beautiful!
Runs Solid Lifters and Sounds Great! It was a Couple Hundred Bucks.
Runs Solid Lifters and Sounds Great! It was a Couple Hundred Bucks.
My buddy is a good friend of Jim’s and he made him this one. I bought it probably 7 years ago and never threw it in anything
Yet.
Yet.
We discussed my 273 and my 65 Dart build and he did this one for me. Nothing fancy just a bit more than stock. Got it in the block which is as far as I’ve got
Last edited:
if both cam & lifters came from Racer Brown ballpark likely 4ish . Very happy with what he did for us. His ST-14 cam and Johnson solid lifters.
moparstud440
Well-Known Member
My dad got one last year after he waited over 6 months for a Howards came that the delivery date kept getting pushed back. At that time it was $400ish for a solid flat tappet and lifters from Racer Brown. Good guy to deal with.
Racer Brown arguably has the best grinds for Chrysler engines. A lot of these younger guys probably don't know that Racer Brown supplied ALL the camshafts for Chrysler back when it was Direct Connection. All those grinds are still available through Racer Brown.
Demonic
Well-Known Member
Jim is a good guy, hands down.
B3422w5
Well-Known Member
That sucker will have some chop.
Better have some squeeze and vert
Better have some squeeze and vert
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.
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.
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.
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
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.
PRH
Well-Known Member
If someone has a combo that could use a cam that size, I don’t see anything that would keep me from using it.
RRR,
You are forgetting 'relativity'. Firstly, the numbers quoted are NOT lobe lift, they are valve lift. The numbers on a cam card that refer to valve lift are theoretical valve lift, lobe lift multiplied by rocker ratio. Several factors will influence the measured valve lift that can be more or less than the calculated ratio. Relativity. If lifter/prod angle affects the measured valve lift, it will do so for all cams used in that engine, not just one.
You are forgetting 'relativity'. Firstly, the numbers quoted are NOT lobe lift, they are valve lift. The numbers on a cam card that refer to valve lift are theoretical valve lift, lobe lift multiplied by rocker ratio. Several factors will influence the measured valve lift that can be more or less than the calculated ratio. Relativity. If lifter/prod angle affects the measured valve lift, it will do so for all cams used in that engine, not just one.
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.
Turk,
I understand the realities of valve train better than you do, as your post #22 exposes the reality.
The lobes I quoted were using the Ford 875 lifter. They have less total lift & less area under the curve than lobes designed for the Chrys 904 lifter & are not on the ragged edge. So the valve train with the quoted lobes will have an easier life than lobes designed for a 904 lifter.
To further educate you, here are two examples, UltraDyne lobes:
One is the 875 lobe I quoted in post #5. 272 @ 050, 602 valve lift.
The UD lobes for 904 lifters stop at 263 @ 050, so I will use '263' for the comparison.
The equivalent 875 lobe, 263 @ 050 has 0.590" lift. The 904 lobe has 3* more duration at 0.200" lift [ 181* ] than the 875 lobe & 0.597" lift.
It has more area under the curve.
As for lobe lift & valve control, the UD sol lifter lobes go as high as 0.635" lift with 1.5 rockers or 0.720" with 1.7 rockers.
Using your 'logic', nobody would run roller cams with their extra lift & faster acceleration rates because of valve train stability issues.
I understand the realities of valve train better than you do, as your post #22 exposes the reality.
The lobes I quoted were using the Ford 875 lifter. They have less total lift & less area under the curve than lobes designed for the Chrys 904 lifter & are not on the ragged edge. So the valve train with the quoted lobes will have an easier life than lobes designed for a 904 lifter.
To further educate you, here are two examples, UltraDyne lobes:
One is the 875 lobe I quoted in post #5. 272 @ 050, 602 valve lift.
The UD lobes for 904 lifters stop at 263 @ 050, so I will use '263' for the comparison.
The equivalent 875 lobe, 263 @ 050 has 0.590" lift. The 904 lobe has 3* more duration at 0.200" lift [ 181* ] than the 875 lobe & 0.597" lift.
It has more area under the curve.
As for lobe lift & valve control, the UD sol lifter lobes go as high as 0.635" lift with 1.5 rockers or 0.720" with 1.7 rockers.
Using your 'logic', nobody would run roller cams with their extra lift & faster acceleration rates because of valve train stability issues.
-
