Motor is apart and trying to round up parts to reassemble. Machine shop says the cam needs replaced......Question.....Do I replace with the a W-30 "stock" cam or do I go with newer grind technology? This car will be a driver to car shows and around town, with the occasional trip down the track....4 speed, F heads, dished pistons, no aftermarket performance except maybe petronix....My first thought is to replace with the original specs, since I am going back to original as much as possible. Your Thoughts????

 

I've thought about this question myself from time to time. You would expect that cam design has come a long way since 1970...but has it? I figured when the time came for me I'd call Mondello and see what they say. That was before I found this forum......so it will be interesting to see what people on here say. I think I read on the old 442.com, in the engine build section, that there are better cams now than the stock W-30 grind.....but I'd have to go back and check. And it seems there are people on this forum who don't trust the info on 442.com.....so we'll see what the verdict is when others chime in.

Now if you mean what you said in your last sentence and you really want the car to be as original as possible.....I guess you answered your own question. Stock is stock. But oh the temptation for just a little more power!

later,
bob

 

yes Bob more is better....LOL but I guess I have answered my own question about stock is stock, just looking to others who have had more motors apart than I ever will......Since I am remaining stock, is the old school cam appropriate? I think yes, but curious of what others might think or have done............

 

For a stock build I'd do an Erson TQ 50, 228/235 at .050 on a 110 with .504 lift. That would give you good tone, better hp and drivability than the stock W30 cam, and work with your stock valvetrain. Or I can grind you something custom, a little hotter or not.

The original cam was around 308 adv with about 232 @ .050, the 4 speed one was more than that, both on a 113 lsa which makes them somewhat lazy. But conversely if you're not going to port the heads then the new fast ramp stuff isn't the best either. I can grind you one of those as well but it wouldn't be the best for your application. I'd stick with what I recommended and have it ground on no wider than a 110, no matter what you get.

 

Basically what has been said is the dual pattern with the larger exhaust side is a better cam beause it makes up for the crappy olds exhaust runner. I think cutlassefi's cam recommendation would be similar to stock but would run better.

 

Exactly and still be compatible with the stock valvetrain along with having a bit more throttle response.

 

To sound like the original 328 deg. cam and run stronger, I'd pick the Comp Cams Extreme Energy XE284H which has 240/246 deg. at .050, .541/.544" lift. It has more lift and less total duration, but similar duration at .050" (stock was 244 deg, .475" lift). To be closer and still run better, the Comp 292H Magnum has 244 deg. with .518" lift, single pattern. I know a guy with the latter cam in a rebuilt early 400 that dynoed at about 410 HP with headers.

 

Yeah.....I never finished cam school, I am way behind on the cam speak, so the the only thing I got outta that, was......you are WAY smarter than me.... out of 442faq they state the W-30 MT had 108 overlap, with the same 328 duration for intake and exhaust, and each with a .475 lift, how does that compare with your above numbers?
Thanks!

 

One thing that concerns me is that he said he was going to use dished pistons. Don't believe for a minute any compression numbers the piston manufacturer tells you. "10.5" or "9.5" pistons are not as advertised, for the simple reason no one can predict all the other parameters of your engine which affect the size of the combustion chamber. It's real easy to build an Olds 455 with less than 9:1 compression, if you aren't careful.

What I'm getting at is that your engine builder should make a conscious effort to calculate your real compression ratio, choose that ratio to support the cam you choose, and choose the pistons and machining and head gaskets which will get you that ratio.

 

i'd take suggestions and go with a modern cam, I did and it is a little more than what was in there as I an automatic but I didn't go crazy - this was 8 years ago. No one sees the cam at a car show!

 

Below are the actual specs of the 1970 W-30 cams as from the factory.

The 308-degree cam that cutlassfi mentioned was not a W-30 cam. It was used for the W-31. It was also used for some of the earlier Hurst/Oldses and does in fact make a nice compromise cam for a W-30 if you're trying to stay old-school. Otherwise go to a more modern grind like cutlassfi and Run to Rund are recommending.

*************************************************
1970 W-30 cams:
-------------------------------------------------
P/N: 400165
Application: W-30 AT, also non-W30 442 AT.
IVO: 24 BTDC
IVC: 81 ABDC
EVO: 74 BBDC
EVC: 33 ATDC
Intake CL: 118 ATDC
Exhaust CL: 112 BTDC
Lobe Separation: 115
Duration: 285/287
Overlap: 57
Valve Lift: .472/.472

P/N: 402569
Application: W-30 SM.
IVO: 56 BTDC
IVC: 92 ABDC
EVO: 96 BBDC
EVC: 52 ATDC
Intake CL: 110 ATDC
Exhaust CL: 110 BTDC
Lobe Separation: 110
Duration: 328/328
Overlap: 108
Valve Lift: .475/.475

 

@ blackgold
yes, he is reviewing all the numbers and nudging me towards a more modern combination rather than just buying the stock cam, lifters, springs, etc.....so keep the recommendations coming....I am not intersted in a roller rockers...so I can change:

cam
pistons to something .030 over with exisitng connecting rods
standard lifters and pushrods
all new bearings..............

 

You say you're not interested in roller rockers, but maybe you should be. Not for any performance reason, but because it is often easier to install adjustable rockers (at which point you might want rollers) than to properly set up the heads so that the original stamped steel rocker arms and pivots will work.

The original factory system was not adjustable. The tolerances of all the production parts was good enough that the assemblers just bolted on the pivots and it was good to go. Once you start messing with the cam, maybe a little valve work, a different thickness head gasket, etc., you can no longer use the original-style rockers unless you also purchase pushrods of exactly the right length. Chances are the old ones won't be right.

If you do choose to use original-style rockers, just be sure that your engine builder knows to mock up the assembly, grind the valve stems to the right height, and choose the right length pushrods. Of course, pushrod length is also important with adjustable rockers, but there's more latitude on what's "right."

 

I have adjustable push rods at my disposal if that makes a difference.........?

 

You are correct, the numbers from years ago were thought to be pulled out of someones' behind, they very seldom match.

Whatever you do, a more modern standard dual pattern cam (less intake duration than exhaust) would work best. If you have the regular dished piston then you're probably closer to 9.75:1. Make sure you verify that first, then we can go from there.
Another thing, the faster ramp stuff is harder on the valvetrain and normally requires a stiffer spring than a slower ramp cam. Plus with stock heads and manifolds I don't recommend any of them. They are too quick and don't have enough off the seat time.

Jmo.

 

just curious....What cam did you go with? I know you said you have an AT, but still curious on what combos are out there.
Thanks

 

Have a cam ground to YOUR engine,for the best result.Figure out what the compression will be.Don't guess.Leave the adjustable pushrods aside,and get a set of roller rockers.You can fit a lot of them under the stock notched valve covers,for that stock look.

 

Roller rockers on F-heads?? I know you can't see them with the covers on, but......any idea if the lunati rockers on 7/16 studs fit under the stock covers?? supercars has adjustable rockers as well, anybody use those? no machining necessary?

 

It was 12 - 15 years ago at least. I got a Mondello, I think it was the JM-22-25-10 which would be

intake lift .512 exhaust lift .523 duration 274/280 intake at .050 230 exhaust at .050 236 lobe separation 110

Ended up using Rhodes lifters to get enough vacuum.

Didn't have a clue back then still don't so not sure if that cam is even a reasonable solution for an otherwise stock engine but from what I remember there were almost no choices back then. the engine was bored 020 over with forged 10.5 pistons put in, otherwise everything else is stock

 

I just did another car,with F-heads,Harland Sharp stud-mount rockers,and the stock notched covers.I did massage the breather baffles,but I have also removed the baffles to gain even more clearance.You can also use the shaft style Harland Sharps,that require NO machinework.They bolt down using a 5/16 bolt,and the rocker adjustment is made over the pushrod,with an adjustable pushrod cup.No guide plates or special pushrods needed with these rockers.

 

ballpark $ #'s on the shaft rocker system???

 

JoesW31 or 507olds...does the shaft system from Harland fit under the stock notched valve covers? Either pay to machine the heads or pay to have the shaft.....

 

I bought a HS shaft setup from Trick, several years ago, works good-last long time I did have to remove the baffles. I run the Comp XE274,230/236 and with power brakes it's barely adequate vacuum wise.

 

I've been building engines f/ 35 plus years now, but only recently have gotten into the Olds 455. I have noticed that the BBO requires afew small mods here and there that Chevys ie don't, which is interesting to me and I'm enjoying it, something new, and the Olds 455 IMO being worth it in the end f/ sure. I've read through this forum MANY times and through so many topics where guys are trying to figure out what cam to go w/. I can't, f/ the life of me, understand, why someone would go w/ an "off the shelf" cam when you can have CUTLASSEFI grind you one, that's as close to perfect as you can get, f/ basically the same price. Between CUTLASSEFI, 507OLDS, and afew other very knowledgable guys on here, you can get a consensus and have the very best cam f/ your car f/ the same price as you will using the "guessing game." I'm in no way knocking anyone or making any calls on anyone's know-how. This is only my personal opinion. Like I stated above, the Olds engines are very different from the "run of the mill/regularly run" engines out there, along w/ a limited choice of "off the shelf" aftermarket performance products as compared to Chevy or Ford ie.

 

The Harland Sharp "shaft" rockers consist of pairs of rockers on individual shafts. There are 2 rockers per shaft,not one long shaft.These shaft assemblies bolt directly to the head,with a 5/16" bolt. There is NO machining or modifications needed to run this rocker kit,which is good for your rare heads.Harland Sharp was making these for Mondellos back in the day,before HS got stiffed on an order,so now HS will sell them to anyone.I live close enough,that I drive directly there,to buy them.These are normally made in the 1.6 ratio,which is what they should be,but I have had them make some in a 1.7,so I could get a little more lift out of an existing cam that was in the block.These rockers will handle plenty of lift,and are great for any flat tappet cam,and hydraulic roller,but NOT solid roller,due to the increased spring pressure,and the need for a thicker rocker stud,which you won't be doing.To gain the clearance you need under the stock valve covers,you can drill-out the small spot-welds that hold your baffles in.

 

What about using the extra thick cork valve cover gaskets, will that give enough room?

 

What's the cost of the "rocker shaft sets? I mean the "whole 9 yards." They sound excellent, just wonder if the price is out of this world. Thanks in advance.

 

$487ish for the Harland Sharp set....

 

You could use 2 pairs of the cork gaskets with the baffles it's the section directly under the breather hole that hangs down the most.The engine I just did,had the baffles in-place,but they were peened a little to clear,and one pair of cork gaskets.
That $487.00 isn't too bad,if you take in consideration that you don't need to machine the head,you don't need guide plates,and you don't need special pushrods. If you take a bargain set of $200.00 rockers(if they are that cheap),and you add all the other parts needed,plus machinework,you're right back up there,& possibly more.

 

I ordered the HS shaft kit......and all other components thru summit
Pistons/Rings
Cam/Lifters
Crankshaft
Spring Kit
Valves
Bearings
Oil Pump
Petronix/Coil/Wires

 

 

Pistons -- TRW L2323F/ Moly Rings
Cam/Lifters -- Lunati LUN60802LK 262/268 .489/.510 112 LSA
Crank -- Eagle Original crank was damaged and repaired before, repair was not acceptable to current machine shop, I have a spare 455 with an N crank that I will keep whole for now
Springs Lunati 731261K1LUN
Valves -- Edelbrock Stainless
Bearings -- Federal Mogul
Oil Pump -- Melling
Rockers -- Harland Sharp S50026A

 

Stock heads correct?

 

Correct

 

Thanks....I will keep you guys posted on the results, once assembled......

 

Was wondering if anyone considered a "custom grind" on the cam f/ $15.00 more? I just can't see how one can pass up a "perfect Grind" f/ a "in the ballpark" grind when it comes to such a vital component. I stated my opinion a ways back in this topic, but I suppose ...IDK... LOL!!!

 

I shared this with CutlassEFI in a PM...being a newbie to total engine building....Custom grinding is.............to me, uncharted territory and unknown to me and I assume many others. I mentioned that Mark may want to enlighten me and others on the process/benefit of custom grinding. I also told him if I was unhappy with the combo I purchased, I would not hesitate to contract with him to fix it!

 

Thanks Brian. For the record there are guys on here that have used the Xtreme and VooDoo stuff with good success, no question. Contrary to popular belief I like Lunati and Comp, and Engle and others.

But here's my point. The Voodoo and Xtreme stuff is more geared towards the newer better flowing aluminum headed stuff, plain and simple, not older stock cast iron headed V8's. And as with most major venders, their grinds are all the same for Ford, Chevy and so on, just look at their websites/catalogs.
The older heads need help, they normally benefit from more off the seat time in the form of more adv duration. Also most are ground on a lobe sep that is a compromise for some applications, but safe for all.

I have aggressive lobes with less off the seat time as well and I do recommend those for low compression and/or tall geared applications. But I also try to have them ground on a lobe sep thats better suited to the specifics. Most applications here are 9.0:1 small or big blocks with low to mid 3.00 gearing, that's almost a perfect combo for some older grinds. not necessarily slow but older, and on a tighter lobe sep.

Olds are known for torque correct? On a big block it's easy to see why, the 4.25 stroke is a major factor. But why on small block, it only has a 3.385 stroke? Simple, torque is a by product of efficient cylinder filling. When you have smallish/restrictive heads, guess what, you have more port velocity, hence better filling at low speeds. But you also give up higher rpm power. How many stock headed Olds do you see making good power into the 6000rpm range? Not many. Even the 455 I did for Panos with a 238/246 hyd roller fell off bigtime after 5500, why? Mostly because of the stock heads. So why have a cam with mid level duration ground on a 112? That's as much for higher rpm as it is for a better idle. I say take something with a bit less overall duration and grind on a tigher lobe sep, capitalize on the available powerband, don't try to redesign it for an rpm where it isn't efficient, that's a waste. This obviously applies to mostly stock headed applications.

Mild to wild porting will certainly change things as well as compression, gear and so on. But most manufacturers are geared toward the masses, it make sense for them, but doesn't necessarily make it right for us.

 

CUTLASSEFI,
You said a "Mouthful." It is true that a person needs to understand the workings of the internal combustion engine "IN-DEPTH" to understand all that cams do/can do and everything they effect. When I said, "off the shelf" and "guessing game" I was referring to a cam f/ the BBO that one can order from any of the aftermarket companies. I've built so many Chevy engines, and quite afew Fords, and have found great cams f/ them from aftermarket distributors. Ofcourse I went w/ "up to date" internals and matched everything up "COMPLETELY." My reason f/ seeing that a "custom grind" cam is better f/ a BBO, is that there are very few aftermarket components available f/ it.(campared to a BBC or SBC, or big or small block Ford) W/ using the stock heads (using new aluminum heads would be different) you need a cam that will make the best of that situation, and the "off the shelf" cams that are available rarely hit the nail on the head. IMO, it's like having a chair made f/ yourself. (something that alot of old-time Texans have done in the past as they've gotten older and liked sitting on the porch or inside infront of the fireplace more as time has moved on) The furniture maker measures your body, checks your weight inorder to make the chair strong enough, takes into consideration how much cushion you need depending on past injuries, likes and dislikes, etc. He checks the length of your legs so that he can make the seat of the chair the correct length, and so on...The chair ends up fitting the person "perfectly," taking into consideration "everything" that's involved. This is what is taken into consideration when a cam is ground especially f/ your application (custom ground cam). When I get old and need a chair that I'll be sitting in alot, I'm going to the furniture maker and have one made that will fit me "perfectly" and easily blow the "off the shelf" chairs away.