hi, i was looking at getting an edelbrock cam then 1.6-1 rollers but they say :-
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']The camshaft would only work with a stock 1.5 ratio, if you change to a 1.6 ratio the rocker will add more tension to the camshaft and may make the camshaft fail. That camshaft will make good power with the 1.5 Ratio so that change alone will make a difference.[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']what do you guys think?????????? shal i look at other cams instead? theres plenty around i guess............[/FONT]

 

IMO, rockers are for adding extra lift when I cam just wont do. Or you dont want to change a cam but want a few ponies.

Also, depending on the lift of the cam, they may be warning you because the heads(in stock form) wont allow for the combo of the lift.


Id get the cam, and some full roller 1.5's n be done.

 

remember geometry that we all hated in h.s. ??? thats why , the right amount of action is good . too much action not so good . ( in many ways in life ) .

 

Forget the edelbrock cam. It's just a copy of their performer sbc profile.

Crane makes the only decent cams for these engines.

 

ive got http://store.summitracing.com/partde...5&autoview=sku i noticed a decent increace in performace, although i made some other modifications which may have hurt performace, so i cant be a great source. there have been a few others who bought this cam, do a search on is MTC-5 i believe it was, and you should find that Doward (whatever happened to him) thought it was great for boost.

 

that melling looks good, nice duration compared to others, i also looked at crane & compcams , didnt know they did cams, ive had there oil pumps before, any other sites other than summit i should check out??????

 

I had the MTC-5 as well. Quite zippy and for the price it was nice.

 

I have used edelbrock cams a few times...very few over the years. You will find that very few of there cams are at all tailored or engineered at all. They are more of a cookie cutter design and I can usually find the exact same cam in Melling, Speed Pro, Blue Racer, etc. and usually a lot cheaper...hmmm reboxed maybe? I will look over some cams and run them on my dyno software and see what it says. I would imagine however that a duel pattern cam would almost be absolutely neccesary, but we'll see. 1.6/1.5 rockers...very little change in geometry at all. It just moves the pushrod a little closer to the rocker stud which barely changes any geometry but it's good for ~ .030" lift. I say go high ratio when in dought, but you need to buy a better engineered cam first and make sure the heads are machined to take the lift.

~Couch

 

hey, thanks. which cam then???? i wanted roller rockers initially for the quicker free reving, so it just made sense that whilst im doing it get the 1.6's.....................

 

I once emailed Edelbrock's "technical" department to ask what the torque specs were for their hi-flow runners. The response I got back was;

"torque down the bolts until they feel firm".


Apparently they have some 14 year old dude over in India answering their technical email inquiries.

 

I'm glad someone else noticed it. Maybe if word spreads enough they'll get off their a**es and do some real engineering. Not just edebrock- all of them. Or maybe people will start using their own heads and design their own profiles with a little help from a tuning program. Off my soapbox now.

Roller rockers and higher ratios are always beneficial- it improves valvetrain geometry and valvetrain control raising it's maximum rpm. If you don't mind readjusting the valve lash once in a while crane's solid 250801 profile should offer a good boost in performance, but might be rough for street use. As always retuning the ecm is a good idea.

 

hehe its good to hear some proper U.S. views, over here we only know what companys want to sell us - not everythings imported so we dont have a huge off the shelf choice. edelbrock are massive over here as a cool aftermarket company that kicks some ****, its the first and last name anyone ever comes out with. you lot may get tired with the same questions but you have so much more access to so much more stuff than we knew could exist!!! so its much appreciated!!!


yeah im edging towards the crane - fiero boys seem to luv em aswell.......

 

I assume you are running a 60 degree V6 and not a Buick 231 or a Chevrolet 262 or anything right? Well you tell me because it takes a lot to set the stuff up for it.

~Couch

 

yeah sticking with the 2.8 for now wana go as far as i can go with it..

 

K i'll research cam options for you

~Couch

 

LOL thats pretty funny, all I can say about their claims to being the best name in racing or whatever is....all they have is a good intake manifold and good coverage for intake manifolds... they just recently got hydrolic roller cams for the first time ever... id say they are pretty behind on a few things.

~Couch

 

alright I tested every cam I could find I'll list the brand names and if in red then their cams did too poorly to list. unless in red: *Same colors same cams*

Comp
Crane
Lunati
Elgin
Edelbrock
Speed Pro
Melling
Schnider
Iskendarian
factory H.O. 660

Featured cams:
Comp: 16-233-4
Crane: 253901
Elgin: E-999-P
Speed Pro: CS1087R
Edelbrock: 3790
Melling: MTC-5
Iskendarian: 111262

ok first thing to get out of the way: [Edelbrock 3790, Melling MTC-5, Speed Pro CS1087R]-all identical cams
[Crane 253901, Elgin E-999-p]-identical also

ok the comp 16-233-4 is a strong stick, and puts it on the Crane/elgin until around 4500, but only by 3-4hp at the most before the Crane/elgin runs away with it also by 3-4hp, but that would be a bad a$$ race to see if you have low gears run with the crane/elgin it has a lot more power in the high end, if you have a high gear and need to get that puppy outta the hole better use the comp stick. If you opperate above 6500 rpm's all the time use Isky: 111262. If you opperate above 7000 rpm's use believe it or not the melling/speed pro/edelbrock cam, or the Isky above Isky being the stronger of the two. Ultimatly in my opinion what would I use? Gear ratio determines which between Crane253901/ElginE-999-p, and the Comp 16-233-4. If i was running a high gear ratio I would run Comp no question about it to get that jump out of the hole, if I was running a low gear where I need the power in the high rpm's I would run the Crane 253901/ElginE-999-P. If you end up going the Crane/Elgin route you gain nothing by buying a more expensive cam get the cheaper of the two.

all the cams responded well to the higher ratio rocker arms but especially the Crane. All cams were tested with 106 degree timing, all things were equal between motors tested.

~Couch

P.S. this test was done based on a hydralic flat tappet lifter configuration with no emissions standards or computer limitations in the way. Some of these cams are not computer compatable, and im pretty sure your car would fail the emissions test from before you even pulled in the parking lot.

 

Crane's 253901 profile is decent among the hydraulics, but I've found the 254112 makes slightly higher numbers. And of course the solids like the 250801 and the less radical 251241 make the best numbers. Are you sure the edelbrock's a good choice? I actually got lower numbers than stock with that cam.

 

BLIMEY thats some awsome data/research you got me there
i want a high revy motor - ive had too many lazy torquey ones - and although i love em - love the non stop train like pull of a torquey motor, its just time for a change.
looks like crane then, with the 1.6 rockers,
next question is valve springs........................

 

where did you come up with your numbers? And what numbers are we talking about. I use total average energy production numbers basically the measurment of area below the power curve between spans of rpm ranges 2-7000 rpm's (for example" calculations not just peak numbers. The power is in the curve not the peak. The 254112 cam you list had almost no low to mid range power at all when I ran the tests on it, and had a very low energy production number. If he were running multiple clutch mechanical engagement then I would pick a cam with the highest peak power number because I could set the car up to stay in that one small stretch of rpm's to utalize the power, but in a street car I combine torque and hp energy output over the span of rpm's the motor will be opperating in and calculate total energy production because those are the ones that win races. You need a set up that will pull hard on demand and all the way throu the rpm range not one that you have to wait on to "wake up."

Did I say edelbrock was good? All I said was it was one of the strongest beyond 7000 rpm's, but inferior to isky's at those speeds. I recall recomending Crane's cam which is the same as Elgin's E-999-P, and or Comp's cam. As I described above Melling, Speed Pro, and Edelbrock all make the same exact cam and as I read above we have a proven combination using that cam in the combination on this very page.

~Couch

 

just to reiterate:

~Couch

 

that part's easy I'll be right back....

alright... I don't understand why Crane always puts so much spring pressure on stuff that really doesn't need it, but they recomend 99848, but using that spring you come within .003 of it's reccomended net lift so I'll look at some options for you. Ok you can run the Crane 99848 that way you get warranty, but If it were me i'd consider running an isky 165-a behive spring for stability (comp 26918's are unavailible till March), a comp 980-12, 981-12, 941-12, or if you wanna get cutting edge and high tech and such comp 983-12. Now these are numbers I'll ask Comp about on Monday. These springs offer a larger tollerance for lift, stability, and lower pressure at any given lift. With the world wide flat tappet cam failure issue at hand I would almost have to suggest no more than 295# valve open spring pressure. I have personally tested 981 comp springs to 7200 rpms in a 350 chevy with a 3.48" stroke and much heavier valves then the ones in that motor so I imagine they would be stable clear to 8000 or higher I don't know if the motor is even capable of that, but I wouldn't give the springs a seccond thought.

~Couch

 

Take it easy, guy!

I'm using DD2000 to get my 'numbers' (torque an hp) from 2-10k rpm. Although DD2000 tends to exaggerate low-end power somewhat I still found slightly more area under the curve (total average energy production) with the 254112 than the 253901. On your list you had edelbrock listed in green which I assume means it's a good choice.

Edit- taking a second look at your list I see you're using the colors to group like cams, not to denote quality. Duh, my mistake.

 

no im cool I'm easy to get along with I like a challange. I welcome suggestions and opinions. You and I would probably get along just fine if we weren't talking accross cyber space. I know my speech is dry think nothing of it. Im usually just in a hurry when im typing. We are good everything is hunky dorry.

I am using the same software, but I enter my cams on valve open and close data not duration and separation as they all meassure the lobe separation differently. When you go into cam math how are you entering the data? The lobe separation should to into the top left box, and the top right box is for the timing (intake lobe center angle). For instance SBC standard timing is 110 degrees so if it were advanced 4 degrees like all of comp cams for the sbc then it would be installed at 106 this goes in the top right box, if the cam book says the cam has 110 degrees of lobe separation that goes in the top left box, then the rest is self explanatory. I tested all the cams at 106 LCA.

~Couch

 

Yea, the internet gets in the way all too often. That's why I use these so much.

I have a crapload of cams on file from a while ago so I wouldn't be suprised if some of them were a bit off. I'm using opening and closing points as well, but I've found that the profile type- street cam, economy, performance, ect. has a good effect on what the software spits out. I look at what the manufacturer says about them and what the profile's like and give my best guess at what category it falls into. And of course I'm sure our simulated "test engines" are nothing alike. We're both agreed that crane/comp are the better choices so our data's probably close enough.

 

so we agree for the most part.

FYI as I said above i only tested hyd. lifter cams no solid lifter cams. If this were for me I would only use a solid lifter cam thats all I ever use in my own stuff these days. I just didn't know how crazy you wanted to get.

~Couch

 

Solid profiles are always the better choice, if you don't mind occasional lash adjustments. FYI- these engines are rated for 7500 rpm continuous use (short block anyway) so make good use of it. With a good valvetrain and better oiling I wouldn't be suprised to see one of these hit 10k rpm and keep ticking. Just part of the reason these engines have such a cult following for some of us.

 

i could 'feel' when i first drove my v6 that it had huge rev potential, which most guys overlook or dont like as there obsessed with big block torque - dont blame em its great ;-) just i appreciate everything for what it is and id love to get this thing moving. how occasional are we talking on lash adjustments ????? i do like the odd excuse to spend some time tinkering , never thought about solid's just all sounds a bit harsh wear and tare wise to me - beter the devil you know sometimes, can you tell me more about if it does increase wear rates on components, or what there like to live with?????

 

How frequently depends on how you drive the car. Daily driver- best to check atleast twice a year. Mechanical cams usually won't wear components any more than hydraulics as long as you keep up on lash adjustments, but again it depends on the intended use. They are noisier than hydraulics, but I find the extra little 'tick' pleasant. If you're engine's going to see lots of +5k rpm sessions then a solid cam will beat a hydraulic hands down. If it'll stay below 5k rpm then you really don't need a solid, but it's still fun to have.

 

 

hydro's are good for towing and grandma realistically if your a car guy I see no reason why not to run a solid lifter cam, but I sing a very different tune then most folks, and if you run the dog $hit out of your motor, and get it good and just off the track hot (not water temp hot, but internal hot) if you let it idle with the valve covers off you can adjust the valves until they shut up...IF YOU WANT TOO. The only danger is that if you ever get it hotter then that the valves wont come back to their completely seated position. I have done this with solid rollers before in a lot of applications, and flat solids both. The reason I do it with solid rollers is because the little known secret about solid roller lifters is that if there is any bit of actual constant lash you will beat the needle bearings up from the stress of high rpm's and that little bit of room so the rule is at my shop is any clatering pushrod motor is a no no. I know everything the cam companies tell you is the oppisite and bla bla bla. The reason they give a lash setting is to compensated for expansion of the valvetrain parts under heat they are supposed to heat up, expand and take up the lash on there own... it doesn't happen. You still have to run some lash just in case, but not .016" or whatever they usually tell you. I could see a nascar or a Le Mans car where those parts are glowing orange inside those motors, but not a street car. Just MO.

~Couch