hazzmatte

Voodoo

60801 213/219 @.050 .485 Intake /.499 EX

or

60802 219/227@.050 .499 intake / .510 EX

which one would you use?

engine specs
1972 350
7a heads - 3 angle valve job, exhaust pots filled, pockets blended with port work
valves - 2" intake 1.6 exhaust
9.9:1 compression
adjustable valve train
performer manifold
q-jet carb
stock converter
200 4r with 3:73
headers (maybe manifolds. not sure yet)

I know 60801 will be good but will 60802 be better without going overboard? Going in a g body cutlass with vacuum needs and A/C.

Thanks

olds 307 and 403

Second one, make sure your converter is 2500 stall or better.

hazzmatte

Hey Olds,

I only want to use a stock converter will it hurt that much?

cutlassefi

You gotta decide whether or not you're going with manifolds or headers. If you're going with manifolds why did you fill the exhaust ports, waste of time then. And with your combo IMO a Performer RPM would have been a better choice and your comp is a little high for the rest of everything as well. You have a mismatch here and there.

Neither is the right cam with manifolds for sure. With headers the second one would be o.k. but even better if it was on a 110 (especially with the 9.9:1) not a 112, it'll work though.

Either an Erson TQ40, or a Lunati 280/288, 223/231 @ .050 on a 110, jmo.

hazzmatte

My target CR was 9:5.1 but we are coming in closer to 9.8:1. I was also considering Comp Cams XE262 218/224 .475 IN .480 EX 110 doe this fit better in your opinion?

I want to avoid using a high rise manifold even if I have to lower the CR. But weather its 9.9:1 (more like 9.8:1) and 9.6:1 I can't see that making a noticeable difference when driving the car.


Anyway, thaks for the feedback. I really appreciate it.

Run to Rund

I happen to prefer Comp Cams. They seem to have good dynamics and are relatively easy on the valvetrain, while giving good performance.
The XE262 will give good midrange, work well with stock converter and 3.73s. If you want more power at higher rpm, and will accept less responsiveness down at low rpm with that converter, get an XE one or two steps bigger.

cutlassefi

You're welcome. if you can, shoot for closer to 9.5. Then you'll be able to use the smaller cam which will make more sense with the standard Performer.

If you run exhaust manifolds, none of these cams are right. With the lousy exhaust Olds ports coupled with regular iron manifolds, you don't have enough duration on that side. One of the older grinds would serve you well, even one of the Comp Dual Energy cams, even easier on the valvetrain that the XE stuff and offers more on the exhaust side. At least the nice thing is you have choices, that's a good thing.

hazzmatte

I'm going to go with headers but will stay with the CR.

Back to considering
XE262
XE268
60802

More good news is this car is a hobby and sits in the garage and any of these cams will be good.

But I know me. I say I want a nice drivable car but I also like to stick my foot in the carb once in a while! Thanks again

cutlassefi

Just a suggestion, see if you can have that 60802 ground on a 110, that would be better for your anticipated compression ratio. You need a bit more overlap. Anything would help.

I have a 222/230 roller in mine, 9.7:1 I run 89 but I have EFI and my cam has more off the seat time, lobes aren't as fast as the Comp and Lunati stuff. That was done on purpose. With your combination I'd still consider opting for something a little slower. JMO.

Jharken

I would use duration for the rpm intended.Then use seat timing and intake closing to help bleed down compression.

For reference 219/226 #5 heads no porting but big valves peak hp 5200rpm.

1 3/4 header
Rpm intake
750DP

Lazy ramps would be you're friend here,I would think.

cutlassefi

[quote=Jharken;215984]I would use duration for the rpm intended.Then use seat timing and intake closing to help bleed down compression.

For reference 219/226 #5 heads no porting but big valves peak hp 5200rpm.

1 3/4 header
Rpm intake
750DP

Lazy ramps would be you're friend here,I would think.[/quote]

Thank you. And to quote BTR out of his book on page 50 "Slow lazy exhaust lobes in general make more torque"

I don't agree with everything he (Bill Travato) says but I think he's a pretty good source when it comes to Olds engines.

An Erson TQ 40 is 284/296 adv, 220/228 @ .050, .504 lift.

Notice the exhaust lobe is lazier than the intake, there is an 8 degree spread at .050, but 12 degrees advertised. Sorry but I think this cam would be your best choice, no matter who you buy it from.

Rickman48

Sounds like a decent combination, buy if you used even a small stall-speed, it'd really make a difference!
I know someone makes a looser convertor that retains the lock-up! Then use ANY cam!
I mean, how do the GN boys get out of the gates??
Had a BB chevelle 2-dr wagon that was a stone out of the gates, but ran 13.50's.
W/a holeshot convertor, was a terror and 'danced' the tires on the street - beating a 350 vega that had run 12:30's by 3 cars!
[is it cool to mention street racing in the 80's???][statute of limitations and all that!]