Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I wasn't planning on changing my cam, but it does not hurt to ask the question to you guys.

The cam is a 282S solid flat with 236 duration at .050 and .528 gross lift (.510 net lift....018 lash). Lobe separation is 110 degrees. It has really been a nice cam. I get peak SAE RWHP of 335 with the weiand stealth at 6400 rpm. The peak SAE RWTQ was 337 at about 4100 rpm.

I've always been impressed with this cam and the engine's usable HP up into the 6600 to 6800 rpm range.

Now i'm putting a ported, port matched and knife edged Pro Products Hurricane on. I know it's not a Vic Jr but out of convenience I bought it from a local shop. It's an exact copy and dyno results from a another local shop showed it to be just as good as a Vic Jr. Sorry I bought Chinese...I ground off the word "China" from the bottom of the intake.

I'm also putting Probe shaft mount 1.7 rockers on and beehive springs. That's the main modifications i'm doing. I did a little more head work, but not a lot.

My goal is to pick up 25 more HP and have usable HP to about 7000. Given how this cam has performed, I think it can support this goal, but i'll ask the question anyhow.

The 1.7s are going to grow the cam a tad to .54 net lift and effective duration may increase to 237 or 238 at most.

I used EA 3.0 to design my engine 4 years ago. It predicted the engine very well. Anyhow, fastforward to today and when I look at different cams with EA 3.0, my low to mid range takes a big hit when I try bigger cams. I tried a couple of solid flats with duration of 242 to 248.

I don't want to make this engine peaky by putting a big cam in it. The single plane intake is going to make the engine more peaky as it is.

I could put a roller cam in which should improve low to mid as long as it's not a really big roller.

Aside from "call Cam Research" or "call Cam Innovations" which I may do, please give me your expert opinion. Thanks

_________________
Tracy Blackford: Corona, Ca
'65 FB Mustang 331, 282S cam, ported 351W heads. T5z, 3.50 9" posi.
346 [email protected] on a warm spring day (335 RWHP SAE corr.)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: blkfrd on 11/22/06 6:13am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,287 Posts
A roller with similar ADVERTISED opening and closing events will probably fit your bill nicely. Specially with your goal of more power, without messing up your existing powerband. A roller will improve your power across the board =). I had a cam I think you'd have loved. 50616 Lunati. It was a dual pattern 286/296 (246/[email protected]) with I think .518/,541 lift, and a 110LSA/106IC. With your 331, it should give a great powerband from 2500-7000 or a bit better. Remember this cam was designed for use on a 302 motor, so it would be substantially more 'tame' with a 331. I gave it to a buddy of mine who's using it with a 357. It might have been slightly larger than what you had in mind, but I think it would have worked great =)

Cris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
That 282S cam seems just about right for what you are trying to do. With all the other changes you have made with different rocker set-up and intake manifold it will be hard to tell if a different cam makes any difference or not. Make too many changes all at once and it will be hard to tell what did what.JMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Based on what you say, I assume this is an everyday driver. The single plane will be better from 5500 rpm, but the rocker change might not be better anywhere.That cam is about a 20 year old design, so there is lots of room for improvement. It will take you a while to get you carb dialed back in.It is too bad you could not make these changes on an engine dyno, so you can see what REALLY works. JOE SHERMAN RACING
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,499 Posts
The 289 headed combo in my car is very similar to yours, Blkford. My camshaft is a custom grind that I had done by Comp about a dozen years ago. It has the 282S intake lobe and 294S exhaust lobe ground on a 110 degree lobe seperation. 236/248 @ 0.050" with around 0.560" gross lift using 1.7 intake and 1.6 exhaust rockers. (I chose these specs for nitrous use)

650 Double Pumper
Victor Jr.
Owner ported 289 heads
cam listed above
TRW #2298 (heavy) pistons with dome milled to 0.060"
cast 302 crank
289 rods w/ARP bolts
1-5/8" Hooker Super Comps
3" exhaust w/o tailpipes
toploader 4-speed

With me in it, the car weighs 3300lbs and runs 11.80 @ 114 in the 1/4 w/o the bottle, and 10.63 @ 129.3 using a 200hp plate.

That engine pulls GREAT from 4k rpm to 6800 rpm. I tried a 750 Speed Demon carb, and it ran the EXACT same ET's.

In a 306, a cam with this duration (what you have) is about ideal for a wide powerband using stock heads with a GOOD port job. Go much bigger, and the powerband will become narrower. I had never used a flowbench, but after they were old and the valvejob was so-so, a guy wanted to look them over, and he flowed them. They went 218/176 cfm in their worn condition. Your 351W heads start out larger, and may do more.

Joe Sherman did a similar 302 buildup for a magazine some time ago. It used ported 289 heads and a Hydraulic Isky 280 Mega Cam that measured 232/232 @ 0.050" (I believe) and had a 108 LSA. It made 400 flywheel horsepower using a Victor Jr and a 2" spacer. NOT BAD! I have a link to that article somewhere....

Joe's comments on the 'better' cam refer to a quicker acting one. Comp has some that work pretty fast. With your limited cylinder heads and increased displacement (332ci), getting the valves opened as far and quickly as possible would be a GOOD thing.

I'll see if I can find that link....

Joe, correct me if I'm wrong about anything here.

Good Luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thanks guys. As far as getting the valves to open as far and as quickly as possible...this is another reason I like the 1.7 rockers I chose. They are Probe shaft mount rockers and they sit lower on the head than the stud mount rockers did. Any time you can get the rocker down lower, it's good for opening the valves faster. I'm also going to look into screwing down the lash adjustment cup (at the end of the rocker) to move the cup down before I determine pushrod length. This will help to enchance valve opening. Kinda like emulating the quick lift rockers that Crane or someone else sells.

_________________
Tracy Blackford: Corona, Ca
'65 FB Mustang 331, 282S cam, ported 351W heads. T5z, 3.50 9" posi.
346 [email protected] on a warm spring day (335 RWHP SAE corr.)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: blkfrd on 11/22/06 9:06am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,499 Posts
Correct valvetrain geometry is your first priority. Pretty much centered on the tip with no more than 0.080" sweep. Shaft rockers often need their geometry adjusted by installing shims between them and the head. (one reason they are manufactured short) Changing pushrod length on a shaft mounted rocker raises and lowers the rocker on the stud, changing it's geometry. This doesn't work with shaft rockers. They need shimmed.

Good Luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,499 Posts
Here is the link to the Joe Sherman 400hp buildup.

http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/sherman/sherman.htm

Oh, and I found my flow numbers... for anybody that's interested. C6OE 289 heads, not the slightly superior C5 heads that don't have the bump in the top corner of the exhaust port.

Intake -- Exhaust

.1 063 -- 050.9
.2 119 -- 101.3
.3 168 -- 132.8
.4 201 -- 157.1
.5 210 -- 175
.6 218 -- 176.6
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
On 2006-11-21 18:12, n2omike wrote:
Correct valvetrain geometry is your first priority. Pretty much centered on the tip with no more than 0.080" sweep. Shaft rockers often need their geometry adjusted by installing shims between them and the head. (one reason they are manufactured short) Changing pushrod length on a shaft mounted rocker raises and lowers the rocker on the stud, changing it's geometry. This doesn't work with shaft rockers. They need shimmed.

Good Luck!
That's the first step. From what i have been able to determine from just a quick look see, i'm going to have to shim them 1/8 to 3/16 and that's on pedestals that were milled down about .200 for screw in studs and guide plates. I'm going to shim them so the rocker tip is centered on the valve at mid lift. That's right isn't it? I'll also look at the entire pattern as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,499 Posts
If you really want to look at a different cam, the Comp Xtreme Energy solids are a more modern design, and are a little more aggressive than the Magnums.

The next camshaft going into my engine will have their Xtreme SFT lobes. I'll be using the 6055 lobe on the intake, and the 6056 on the exhaust. I'll be using nitrous, so I'll probably keep the lobe seperation at 110 degrees, else I might go 108.

These lobes measure 236/242 @ 0.050" and 147/153 @ 200". For comparison, the 282S magnum lobe, also measuring 236 @ 0.050", measures 145 @ 200".

Complete comparison of 282S magnum to the 6055 and 6056 lobe...

[email protected] 0.015 ..... @ 0.050" ..... @ 0.200 ... lobe lift"

282S....... 282 ....... 236 .............. 145 ...... 0.330
6055....... 274 ....... 236 .............. 147 ...... 0.335
6056....... 280 ....... 242 .............. 153 ...... 0.341

As can be seen, the Xtreme Energy lobes have FAR higher rates of acceleration. Heck, the 6056 lobe measures 242 @ 0.050", yet it has less @ 0.015" than the 282S!

I would be inclined to try the 6056 on my 306, but it now has aftermarket aluminum heads that are probably a little big for the combination. The cam it has now is from Comp's Tight Lash SFT series and measures 242 @ 0.050" and 251 @ .0200... and it feels a big sluggish in the midrange compared to the 289 headed engine... and doesn't have much (if any) extra power up top. I'm thinking a slightly smaller, but more aggressive cam might liven my particular engine up a bit. Yours has 331ci, and might be able to handle the 6056 on the intake lobe. With the lobe seperation tightened up to 108, it might make for a potent camshaft!

Oh well, there's a little food for thought.

Here's the link to the Comp cam specs.

http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Catalogs/LC2005/2005LobeCatalog.pdf

I plan to team this camshaft with their #26924 beehive spring that offers 130# on the seat @ 1.900" and a 315#/inch spring rate. It measures 1.48" at the base. This spring offers about as much pressure as you'd want to run on a regular basis with a SFT, but has the beehive design. It should work REALLY well with these aggressive camshafts!

Of course, there's also the #26986 spring that is very similar, except it measure 1.415" on the base and has a rate of 280 lb/inch.

Joe Sherman, which spring would YOU choose for those Xtreme Energy lobes? Thanks!

Good Luck!

_________________
66 mustang
302 4-speed 289 heads, 10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: n2omike on 11/23/06 11:23pm ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Those xtreme energy solids are interesting. Not only are they more agressive, but it appears the lash can be set a bit tighter. Anyhow, did a little more digging and Comp has xtreme energy solids for chevys but not for fords in their catalog. I'd have to special order one I guess.

I shy away from the 242 duration lobe because i'm afraid it will significantly affect my low to mid range and make the engine too peaky for the street. Especially with the single plane and 1.7 rockers. Comments? Yes / No?

I am interested in the 236 duration lobe for both intake and exhaust. What will 108 degrees of lobe separation vs 110 do? Make the engine more efficient at higher rpms? I think it makes the idle more radical...right?...and reduces power at low/mid range?...not sure.

So anyhow, would the improvement be significant enough to be worthwhile to change my cam to a 236 duration 108 or 110 lobe separation angle xtreme energy cam? The 1.7 shaft rockers I have are going to make this cam effectively even more agressive I believe. 2 degrees of more duration at .200 does not sound like much, but then again I can hear a difference in my engine idle when I set my lash to .018 vs .020 so a little bit seems to make a difference.

Thanks for taking the time to write up the info on these profiles. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

_________________
Tracy Blackford: Corona, Ca
'65 FB Mustang 331, 282S cam, ported 351W heads. T5z, 3.50 9" posi.
346 [email protected] on a warm spring day (335 RWHP SAE corr.)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: blkfrd on 11/25/06 9:14am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
You are a little mixed up about the lobe centers. A real good street performance cam will be the closest to the circle track grinds. look at the Chevy circle track grinds for ideas of what will work in the RPM range you want. Remember, the lift will be higher than shown, because of the rocker ratio.I dont understand why you are worried about your low RPM power so much. If that is your problem, you need lower rear end gears JOE SHERMAN RACING
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,499 Posts
Tracy, with your 331ci, I would probably go for the 242/242 with a 108 lobe seperation.

The tighter lobe seperation will bring the rpm range DOWN, and pick up the midrange.... compared to a wider LSA. The idle will be rougher, the powerband will be a -little- narrower, but the midrange will actually increase.

Just make sure to have a good enough spring on it.

Good Luck!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top