Camshaft Question

[Matt15]

Hi

I am wanting to upgrade the camshaft in my 455 1970 toronado. Just wanting a little more kick. So I have found this #K42-308-4 270H comp cam.

its spec are as follows

Valve Lift: 501/501
Dur Adv: 270/270
Dur 0.5: 224/224
L centerline: 110

That being typed my question is. Would I require higher diff gears and torque converter to use this cam without issues? If so what is the next best cam for use with a stock motor.


Also my car has dual 2 1/4 system.

Cheers.

[J-(Chicago)]

That's a little big in my opinion. I'd go down a step or 2, like a comp XE256H or a 268H if you're keeping everything else stock.

You won't regret the swap. The stock cam is pretty lazy.

[Rdrokit]

Originally Posted by J-(Chicago)

That's a little big in my opinion. I'd go down a step or 2, like a comp XE256H or a 268H if you're keeping everything else stock.

You won't regret the swap. The stock cam is pretty lazy.

X2. Try to keep the lift under 500 with stock valve springs. 268H is a good choice.

[Matt15]

With the springs and lifters etc. I was planning to change them in accordance with the camshaft. My main concern was the torque converter.

So i should be ok with the stock torque converter?

Cheers

[joe_padavano]

I would also add that a 2 1/4" exhaust system is really too small for a 455 and will not let you see the benefit of a cam swap.

[Rdrokit]

Yes you will need a new torque converter to match the cam. Here is a good explanation of torque converters out of a tech manual

"Theoretically, for maximum acceleration the stall speed of the torque converter should match the peak torque rpm of the engine. A good explanation for the way it works is this: when you go outside jogging you start to breathe in and out faster and harder. Well the same thing goes for a performance engine. The engine is breathing in and out harder and faster, at a higher rpm. If a high performance engine makes power at a higher rpm, then a higher stall speed torque converter is what you need to put more power to the ground quicker."

I am not sure how high to go. Most cam manufactures give tech. specs for torque converters. My guess would be 3000 with that cam. Much more than that would not be fun to drive on the street. Also as Joe says go to a bigger diameter exhaust system.

[J-(Chicago)]

A stock converter will work fine with either cam I listed. It won't be perfect, but it will be just fine.
You don't need new springs if you are using one of these small torque cams either.
Just trying to save you some $ if money is tight.
Obviously, all new stuff is ideal, but it's unnecessary in your particular application and goal.

[J-(Chicago)]

Also a year or 2 ago I did a semi-back to back test between a stock 455 cam and a comp 268H.
The Comp went 9 tenths faster than stock with open headers at the strip.

Even with that exhaust system being undersized, I believe you'll notice a difference. It will sound a lot better at idle as well.

[My442]

Engle 18-20 cam would work great in your car.

[Matt15]

I was looking at a web site with the 270H and it said that torque converter to suit would be either stock or mild. Rdrokit says it should be replaced and he's probably right. So I'm at bit lost, do I replace the torque converter or not? Would it run ok or horribly with the 270H and stock converter.


If worse comes to worse Id just use the 268H




Cheers

[Rdrokit]

Use the 268H and you can get away with the stock valve springs and stock converter. Then you would have some money left over for some chromemoly push rods and some roller rockers.

[Warhead]

Engle 18-20 is a MUCH better camshaft. More lift (why give up 20 HP here???), less duration.
This should keep a decent idle.
Get a good set of springs for it too.
Don't worry about the converter, with this cam, plenty of power and torque down low.
Really no need for the pushrods, and roller rockers-
only if you have big spring pressures do you want to look at this stuff.
He just wants a lil more kick, not more tricks.
Jim

[mugzilla]

I am getting 12 mpg with my stock '70 442 w/ 2.23 gears ...

What could I expect with an Engle 18 - 20 ..?

[1964f-85]

i just rebuilt a 68 toronado 455 for my 64.
I used a Comp cam 230/230 with .490 lift.

these big cams need a lot more valve pressure and therefore require machine work on the valve pockets, adding unseen epense.
If I had to do it again I would stick with a milder cam that doesn't require the head work.

Bigger cams with a big block will bleed of cylinder pressure at low rpm, making them less sensitive to lower octane (93) gas. My 455 is a 10.25 to 1 compression motor. it likes a lot of initial timing and very little vacuum advance but will run all day on 93 octane unleaded without pinging.

Also, I suggest a set of stock w-30 style exhaust manifolds with a 2.5: dual system. Headers on street driven oldsmobiles always leak, and they make lowering the front of the car more challenging and never fit right.

Now that the bugs are worked out, with the close ratio muncie and the 3.25's in the rear, I love it, it is a beast!

Next year is a Tremic 5 speed swap, with a 2.95 first and overdrive.

[88 coupe]

Originally Posted by 1964f-85

........ these big cams need a lot more valve pressure and therefore require machine work on the valve pockets ........

?

Norm

[J-(Chicago)]

I wouldn't go slapping on new springs and retainers willy-nilly.
Different year heads used different style retainers, and spring pocket depths.

Just slapping on bigger springs could wind you up with your pushrods sticking through your newly broken rocker arms.

Lets stay on subject here.

[cutlassefi]

First of all, you'd have to have some pretty stiff spings and/or some real crappy rockers to put a pushrod thru them. But I agree, the stock converter should be fine with that cam.

Look in the Comp Book, they'll give you the recommended spring. I know Olds have various installed heights so you'll have to take a minute to find the right one but it's not difficult. Spring rates are not only determined by cam lobe design but also the intended rpm range. Higher rpm, stiffer spring.

As far as the cam choice itself, I'd like to see you run a dual pattern cam, more exhaust lift/duration than intake. We all know that the exhaust flow on an Olds isn't the best, plus you have a smallish exhaust system for your application.

And no Engle isn't the only cam for an Olds. Had that same one (18-20), it sucked. Quality control was poor,
didn't measure out anywhere near what it was supposed to be. Bought it new right from Engle.

By the way, my headers have never leaked.

[Rdrokit]

IF you are going with new springs be sure to check out Comp's new beehive springs.

[88 coupe]

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ it sucked. Quality control was poor,
didn't measure out anywhere near what it was supposed to be. Bought it new right from Engle ........

What did Engle say (and do) when you contacted them?

Norm

[Warhead]

ALOT of BAD frickin information on this thread.
I am not going o break it down like Norm does, lotsa bullshyt here.
Talk to the flippin cam company.
Engle sells GOOD cams, have run them before, will run them AGAIN!
No they are not the only cam company, many other cams will be good, also.
If you have issues, get help from a professional (cam company, or local expert).

What you have IN THE CAR is not to bad either.
Make sure your oil has ZDDP in it.
Pull the valve covers, get some help if you need it.

ENOUGH said.
Jim

[cutlassefi]

I spoke with Mark Engle at the time. He said send it back, but even if they found it was off they were only going to replace and I still had to pay the freight back. I was down to the wire and put it in anyway.

Intake was supposed to be 216 @ .050, it was much closer to 208 and lobe lift was .010 shy. Not very good QC in my book. I'm sure they normally put out a good product, but for all the hoopla on this site and others regarding Engle cams, I just wasn't that impressed. Plus look at their grinds and lobe combinations for Olds vs. Chevy, Ford and others, they're no different. So how can Engle be an Olds cam?!. Simple truth is they're no more than any other off the shelf grind.

I agree with Warhead. Call a cam grinder. Tell them every little detail. But make sure you get a real tech, not some pimply faced kids that happens to be working the phones.

[tim72]

What you have IN THE CAR is not to bad either.
Make sure your oil has ZDDP in it.
Pull the valve covers, get some help if you need it.

ENOUGH said.
Jim[/quote]

I used Brad Penn 30 weight break in oil. After the cam is broke in then we changed to Brad Penn 20/50.
Trust me on this, as this is my third rebuild, same motor, all because the cam was not broke in correctly by the engine builder.

Tim

[1964f-85]

poor choice of words OK!

some cams require more lift
and some require more valve spring pressure
and some require both.

the mild cam I originally wanted to buy would not require heavier valve springs, the stock one were ok.
the one I bought required springs with more pressure and springs that wouldn't coil bind at full lift.

This required my 68' C heads to have the seats machined for a deeper pocket and new retainers. Comp Cams required this modification.

My point is to do your reseach

[cutlassefi]

Yes poor choice. Cams don't "require" more lift. Springs will need more useable range if the cam provides more lift. And spring pressures are mostly decided by cam lobe design, rpm range, and solid or hydraulic lifters, whether roller or flat tappet.

[88 coupe]

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ Intake was supposed to be 216 @ .050, it was much closer to 208 and lobe lift was .010 shy ........

Doesn't tell us much.

........ but for all the hoopla on this site and others regarding Engle cams ........

But this does.

Norm

[cutlassefi]

O.K. Norm I'll explain in more detail for you. The cam was supposed to be ground to a spec of 216/226 @ .050 duration. I checked it with a degree wheel, it was 208-209 on the intake, far short of the 216 claimed.
Secondly, Lobe lift was supposed to be .305 on the intake side. It was right about .295. I hope this helps you understand.

[442scotty]

Just to add more choices....

I just got my 65 going...rebuilt 455...040 over...trw 9.5 to 1. C heads edelbrock pedrformer and edelbrock 750 carb

I used a Comp cams 260H (42-228-4) a lot of low end torque (requires new springs) as tghe car has a 2004R and 308 gears. I am really pleased. the car takes off pretty quick, lots of torque. Great for street use...No mileage check yet.

[88 coupe]

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

O.K. Norm I'll explain in more detail for you ........

You are not "explaining" anything to me, as I am already way ahead of you.

Your explanation is to anyone else who might be interested.

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ was supposed to be ground to ........ 216/226 @ .050 ........ it was 208-209 on the intake, ....... Lobe lift was supposed to be .305 ........ on the intake It was right about .295 ........

More random numbers with some bold font thrown in to make it appear legitimate.

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........I was down to the wire and put it in anyway ........ for all the hoopla on this site and others regarding Engle cams ........

This still the more accurate explanation.

Norm

[cutlassefi]

That's your opinion Norm, not necessarily everyone elses.

[Run to Rund]

I have used Comp high energy cams in various engines. The 260HE will be smooth idling with a big block, just the slightest trace of roughness with a small block. Very responsive, good low end and mid range. Stock springs are fine. the 268 gives more mid range and high end, a bit rougher idling. For a Toro I am guessing you are looking for a bit more power but the same "character" meaning smooth and good low end, works well with other stuff being stock. I'd get the 260HE in that case. Cams with more extreme ramps and more lift need more valve spring, may need the valve guides cut down, and more chance of wear and of wiping a lobe on break in. Use the Comp additive or GM EOS in addition to the special lube on the lobes and lifter feet; old formulation CI4+ 15-40 diesel oil is best (make sure it does not meet CJ specs or it will not have the good additives).

[88 coupe]

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

That's your opinion ........

I am impressed with your ability to overstate the obvious.

I am not, however, impressed with your unprovoked bashing of a respected vendor. I say "unprovoked" because of your reluctance to clarify your position.

Norm

[380 Racer]

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

That's your opinion Norm, not necessarily everyone elses.

BINGO!!! I understand what you are stating perfectly.

[MN71W30]

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

First of all, you'd have to have some pretty stiff spings and/or some real crappy rockers to put a pushrod thru them. But I agree, the stock converter should be fine with that cam.

Look in the Comp Book, they'll give you the recommended spring. I know Olds have various installed heights so you'll have to take a minute to find the right one but it's not difficult. Spring rates are not only determined by cam lobe design but also the intended rpm range. Higher rpm, stiffer spring.

As far as the cam choice itself, I'd like to see you run a dual pattern cam, more exhaust lift/duration than intake. We all know that the exhaust flow on an Olds isn't the best, plus you have a smallish exhaust system for your application.

And no Engle isn't the only cam for an Olds. Had that same one (18-20), it sucked. Quality control was poor,
didn't measure out anywhere near what it was supposed to be. Bought it new right from Engle.

By the way, my headers have never leaked.

I appreciate the time and skill it took to measure out the cam and for posting the results. Facts are facts, you presented your argument well, unlike the oposition. I guess I fail to see the bashing. I guess I'll pass on an Engle cam.

[380 Racer]

I have used Engle with much success.....efi hasn't. I had a very bad experience with a 268 Comp cam plus a custom grind. An Ultra Dyne did real well too. What resides in my 730 HP 425? A Comp roller and I like it very much. To each their own opinion. Not sure what Norm's problem is. efi stated why he didn't like Engle cams........pretty easy to understand.

[88 coupe]

Originally Posted by 380 Racer

........ efi hasn't .........

He said he used the cam anyway, but he did not say how it performed. Perhaps, he did not have anything to compare it to. Or, it actually performed as it was supposed to, because it was the same grind he ordered. Then again, maybe it was a better one for that application.

Originally Posted by 380 Racer

........ Not sure what Norm's problem is ........

Since you are "not sure", Norm will be happy to explain it to you. Norm does not think it is a "problem" when someone questions a statement that does not make sense? Until someone makes a case against it, Norm will continue to question anything that does not make sense. It is not a coincidence that those who actually know a subject, are the same ones who answer Norms questions in a straightforward manner.

Following are two questions for 380 racer or MN71W30 :

Should a reasonable (and/or knowledgeable) person consider cutlassefi's random numbers "proof" of his accusations?

Or does "all the hoopla", on Olds forums, make Engle bashing, a legitimate pastime?

Originally Posted by 380 Racer

........ efi stated why he didn't like Engle cams ........

Yes he did. And Norm is questioning whether, based on his reasoning, that his statement is valid.

It is a "given" that any cam choice is highly subjective and, in nearly all cases, more of a personal, than a technical decision. It is for that reason, Norm seldom participates in "which cam" threads.

If cutlassefi had stated that his opinion was based on his own "personal preference" it would have been accepted, without question.

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ Quality control was poor, didn't measure out anywhere near what it was supposed to be . .......

But, by choosing to accuse Engle of sloppy workmanship, he chose to either defend that statement, or to look like a common BS artist.

Originally Posted by 380 Racer

........ pretty easy to understand ........

Not so easy when you realize what he actually said:

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ I spoke with Mark Engle at the time. He said send it back, but even if they found it was off they were only going to replace ........

"Even if they found it was off"? Highly unlikely that a cam, from any Grinder, would be "off".

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ and I still had to pay the freight back ........

No less than I would expect from any vendor, until the specs have actually been verified. In the unlikely event, the product was actually found to be out of spec, I would expect a refund along with the replacement.

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ I was down to the wire and put it in anyway ........

Depriving Engle of the opportunity to determine whether that cam was actually off spec, or that cutlassefi was mistaken? How convenient.

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ Intake was supposed to be 216 @ .050, it was much closer to 208 and lobe lift was .010 shy ........

Closer to? Shy? Does this sound like the results of accurate measurements?

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ Not very good QC in my book ........

Based on my limited knowledge of cam grinding operations, and the QC procedures involved, I believe cutlassefi is the one who made the error.

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ The cam was supposed to be ground to a spec of 216/226 @ .050 duration ........

JM-18-20 = .488"/.496" 260°/266° 216°/226° 112°?

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ I checked it with a degree wheel ........

Nice touch. I usually use my trusty vernier calipers, but that would be a topic for a different thread.

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ 208-209 on the intake ........

Which was it? What was the exhaust?

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ Lobe lift was supposed to be .305 on the intake side. It was right about .295 ........

Right about? What was the exhaust?

Did you use the catalog specs, the cam card, or both?

Norm

[cutlassefi]

Norm, how often do you talk in the third person? That's weird. Exactly what do you need explained? I'll try to clearify it for you, again.

For the record, it was 208.5 on the intake. Supposed to be 216 by the cam card. Lift was .295, supposed to be .305. Mark Engle didn't offer to pay for the frieght back if it was bad. I've had many vendors over the years offer to do that, that's just good business.

You're an instigater Norm, and I can think of a few other words as well. By the way performance was worse as compared to the Crane Powermax I took out which was 216/228 and virtually right on. Go figure. Engle lobe combinations are the same for Olds, Ford, and Chevy etc. Read their catalog for yourself. I'll ask it again, how are they the Olds cam company? Can you explain that? I'm done here. i've made my point, and imo you've made yours, you're just here to provoke something for no good reason. It's obvious to me and a lot of others.

[88 coupe]

Originally Posted by cutlassefi

........ Exactly what do you need explained? ........

At the risk of repeating myself:

Originally Posted by 88 coupe

JM-18-20 = .488"/.496" 260°/266° 216°/226° 112°?

Which was it? What was the exhaust?

Right about? What was the exhaust?

Did you use the catalog specs, the cam card, or both? ........

Is it clear enough, this time?

Norm