Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Tech / General Engine
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?

Tech / General Engine Is your car making a strange sound or won't start? Thinking of adding power with a new combination? Need other technical information or engine specific advice? Don't see another board for your problem? Post it here!

Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-04-2003, 09:01 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: kentucky
Posts: 675

Classifieds Rating: (0)
my comp 268 cam install..

Know I'm going to catch a terd on this one , but I'd like to at least try the cc Q-jet and cc dist. Can someone explain the factors involved so I'll know what might possibly happen.... Another thing, I know a visual is nothing to go by, but there didn't seem to be much difference in that cam(268) and my lg4..so I got out the calipers and I saw about a .050 differ in the lift. Will the .050 make that much of a difference? I'm sure the dur. and other specs are out there too.
RICHRAD is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2003, 09:08 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 4,942
Car: Girls
Engine: Indian
Transmission: Change

Classifieds Rating: (0)
I don't know squat about CC Q-Jets, or the CC dissy for that matter, but I can tell you that .050" of lift is a lot if you're talking at the lobe.

Multiply that by the rocker ratio and it's .075" more lift at the valve. Equivilent of changing a .425" lift cam with .500"
AJ_92RS is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2003, 09:25 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: kentucky
Posts: 675

Classifieds Rating: (0)
yeah, it's at the lobe..if I done the math correctly.. one thing I didn't understand was that on the stock cam the backsides of the lobes were wider than on the 268 comp. This makes me believe that when I go to install the 268 my lifters will be further down in the bores...So do I get longer pushrods ..In the learning process here now
RICHRAD is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2003, 12:56 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 4,942
Car: Girls
Engine: Indian
Transmission: Change

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Yes, you may have to get longer pushrods.

The reason the back of the lobes look more narrow on the newer cam is actually a simple explanation.

In order to increase the lift of a cam, they have to make the low spot lower. They actually have to do it this way. They can only increase the "height" of the lobe a certain amount otherwise it wouldn't clear the holes (aka bores) in the block where the cam slides in and rests on the bearings.

Since they can't make the lobe taller, they make the base shorter.

I hope that makes sense. 90% of the time what I mean and what I say are two different things.

I guess it's like the high jump in the Olympics. They usually raise the bar right? Well instead of raising the bar 2", they could just dig a trench in front of the bar 2" deep, and you'd still have to jump 2" more to clear the bar. Make sense?
AJ_92RS is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2003, 01:10 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 4,942
Car: Girls
Engine: Indian
Transmission: Change

Classifieds Rating: (0)
I make picture

#1 would be stock. They can't make #2 or else it wouldn't go into the engine so they make #3.

BTW, you can get an adjustable pushrod from www.jegs.com or www.summitracing.com that will help you find the correct length you need.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg qtr-mile-1.jpg (15.7 KB, 199 views)
AJ_92RS is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2003, 06:02 AM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 158
Car: 1986 Z-28 Camaro
Engine: 355
Transmission: T-5

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Send a message via AIM to Rob116
Just so you know, on another engine, I went from a stock LG4 cam to an XE268 and didn't need to change pushrod length - it ran fine in this case.
Rob116 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2003, 10:14 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 866
Car: 3
Engine: inboard
Transmission: underfloor

Classifieds Rating: (0)
I run a 268XE in a 355 with stock smogger 76cc heads and about 8.6:1 CR, I have a Jet Streetmaster stage II Q-jet (non CC) and I idle at about 650 with 13" vaccum, with my old non modified q-jet I had the idle screws backed all the way out and the throttle stop screw in about 6 turns and it idled at 850-900, big midrange flat spot. Jet redoes the idle passages and reworks the primary circuit.

Comp insisted I should have 15-17" of idle vaccum with this cam but I have yet to meet anyone who pulls this much with it.

It likes a 2200 stall converter much better than the stocker as well.

Eric
eric17422001 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2003, 05:10 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: kentucky
Posts: 675

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Thanks AJ, me understand lots more:lala: Maybe when I tighten the rockers down the nuts won't bottom out before the arm seats snugly..
RICHRAD is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 05:52 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: kentucky
Posts: 675

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Thanks for the info everyone....Having second thoughts about the cc Q-jet and ccdist.... Can my carb be reworked to accomodate the 268HE or can I get a custom chip ...or both? Will my timing also have to be modified...?
RICHRAD is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 05:57 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Stuart, Florida USA
Posts: 524

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Quote:
Originally posted by eric17422001


Comp insisted I should have 15-17" of idle vaccum with this cam but I have yet to meet anyone who pulls this much with it.


Eric
I have the same issue. Sometimes I think comp is on crack. I have the XE262 and it pulls 10-12" vacuum at idle. Comp claims 18".
__________________
1992 Pontiac Firebird 355/Six Speed - Soon to be 383 TPI powered with Edelbrock base and SLP runners.
1987 Toyota Pickup 383/500+ HP 10:32@132MPH - Driven to and from the track.
1985 Camaro SC 305 TPI - Built from spare parts and still faster than rices
1987 S10 - 377CID - Under contruction

"PROMOTE PEACE: BAN RELIGION"
"RYCIN Ain't Race'n"
Mark W. Winning is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 07:05 PM   #11
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Loveland, OH, US
Posts: 18,462
Car: 4
Engine: 6
Transmission: 5

Classifieds Rating: (0)
I have a XR264HR in my 305, it pulls about 15-16" of idle vacuum....

It's all in the tuning.
__________________
"So many Mustangs, so little time..."
RB83L69 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 07:05 PM
ThirdGen
1992 Camaro




Paid Advertisement


Reply

Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Tech / General Engine

Tags
268, 268h, 268xe, 305, cam, comp, install, pontiac, swap, vaccum, xe262
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


1982 Camaro '82 || 1983 Camaro '83 || 1984 Camaro '84 || 1985 Camaro '85 || 1986 Camaro '86 || 1987 Camaro '87 || 1988 Camaro '88 || 1989 Camaro '89 || 1990 Camaro '90 || 1991 Camaro '91 || 1992 Camaro '92


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright © 1997 - 2012 ThirdGen.org. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without the expressed, documented, and written consent of ThirdGen.org's Administrators.

Emails & Contact Details