MDchanic

No specific project or plans right now, but I am thinking about what I might want to do in the future (on the cheap), and just for my general knowledge... (I have tried searching and not come up with this information, so am sorry if I missed it posted somewhere else.)

I have a few questions about stock cams vs. aftermarket.
My personal desire is to have a motor that is punchy (I loved the '70 Cutlass I had years ago with a stock 350 / 4bbl), but I am not interested in breaking any land speed records, and I want an Olds that runs like an Olds: easy power, smooth idle, no drama.

It appears to me that Olds put pretty much one cam into all of its small blocks from '68 to '75
(not counting top-performance motors, which wouldn't be smooth, and would probably need a high-stall converter):
the 400084, with advertised 250/264 duration and .400/.400 lift.
There was also a 402486 that went into some '68 police motors and '71-'72 4bbl / 4speeds with 262/274 and .440/.440,
and a 393859 with 286/286 and .472/.472 that went into a few '69-'70 cars.

Am I correct about this, and if so, what were the motors that the latter two cams went into?

Is it true that the same cam was used not only for the pre-smog '68-'70 motors, but also for the EGR '73-'75 motors, and that it was used in both the low-comp. 2bbls and the high-comp. 4bbls?

Are there any agreed-upon specs for duration @.050" for the stock cams?

There are lots of cam companies making impressive claims for their cams, as has been the case since the dawn of time.
Are there any aftermarket cams that are clearly better, in power and driveability, than stock? I don't mean something that gets you an extra 20 horses at 5,255 RPM at the expense of usable torque at 2,000 - I mean something that works better, gives more push, and probably (due to increased efficiency) increases gas mileage slightly; if a given cam makes the car perform somewhat better, but the stock cam makes it perform pretty darn well to begin with, then it's not worth the time and dough for me to change it (remember - cheap is the goal, and I want a smooth-driving car, not a hot rod).

Thanks in advance for any insights you guys can provide!

- Eric

J-(Chicago)

1969 393859 58 286/286 .472/.472 400 AT, W-32 OAI

400165 57 285/287 .472/.472 455 Pol, Toro W-34, F-85, Hurst,
455 Mar 4BC hi-perf
402486 48 262/274 .440/.440 3269 AT, 350 Pol.
402194 82 308/308 .474/.474 350 W-31 OAI
400117 44 258/272 .435/.435 455 ex. Pol., Toro, hi-perf.
402569 108 328/328 .475/.475 400 OAI ex. W-32
400084 36 250/264 .400/.400 350 ex. OAI

1970 393859 58 286/286 .472/.472 350 4BC ex. AT, OAI, hi-perf

400084 36 250/264 .400/.400 350 2BC, 4BC AT
400117 44 258/272 .435/.435 455 ex. Pol., Toro
400165 57 285/287 .472/.472 4257, 67, 4400 AT, Toro W-34
402486 8 262/274 .440/.440 455 Toro ex. W-34
402569 108 328/328 .475/.475 455 4400 ST OAI (W-30)
406768 68 294/296 .472/.472 455 4400 ST ex. OAI
402194 82 308/308 .474/.474 350 W-31 OAI

1971 400084 36 250/264 .400/.400 350 2BC, 4BC AT

400117 44 258/272 .435/.435 455 Toro w/2.73 axle, 455 ex 400 or
Perf. Eng.
400165 57 285/287 .472/.472 455 4400 OAI w/AC, 4400 AT
402486 48 262/274 .440/.440 350 4BC ST,455 Toro w/3.07
409691 61 286/287 .474/.472 455 4400 ST, AT OAI ex AC
409717 32 250/264 .400/.400 350 5400
409759 68 294/296 .472/.472 455 4400 ST OAI (W-30)

1972 400084 36 250/264 .400/.400 350 L34, 350 AT L32, 33 All

400117 44 258/272 .435/.435 455 All 4BC AT, Marine LC
402486 48 262/274 .440/.440 350 F-85 4BC ST (L34), Marine
409691 61 286/287 .474/.472 455 L75 ST,L77 AT, Marine HC
409759 68 294/296 .472/.472 455 F-85, 455 ST OAI (W-30)

1973 400084 36 250/264 .400/.400 350 L32, L33, L34

400117 44 258/272 .435/.435 455 AT, Marine, 455 LC
402486 48 262/274 .440/.440 350 ST M15, M20
409691 61 286/287 .474/.472 455 4BC, L77, Marine

1974 409691 61 286/287 .474/.472 455 AG37, 455 W-30, Marine

455 (also #562302)
400117 44 258/272 .435/.435 455 ex W-30, Marine, 455 LC
(Also #562303)
400084 36 250/264 .400/.400 350 (Also #562299)

1975 550638 28 242/250 .396/.400 260

400084 36 250/264 .400/.400 350 (Also #562299)
400117 44 258/272 .435/.435 455 (Also #562303)
409691 61 286/287 .474/.472 455 Marine (Reg.)
402486 48 262/274 .440/.440 350 Marine
409759 68 294/296 .472/.472 455 Marine Hi-perf.

1976 550638 28 242/250 .396/.400 260

400084 36 250/264 .400/.400 350
402194 82 308/308 .474/.474 455 Marine Hi-perf. F.P.
409759 68 294/296 .472/.472 455 Marine Hi-perf.
409691 61 286/287 .474/.472 350 and 455 Reg. Perf. Marine
400117 44 258/272 .435/.435 455 All, Irr., ex Marine

1977 562298 52 256/277 .247/.250 260 (thru 1982)

562299 36 250/264 .400/.400 350, 403 (thru 1980)
562301 68 294/296 .474/.472 403 Hi-perf. Marine thru 79
562302 61 286/287 .472/.472 350, 403 Reg. Perf Marine, ST thru 79

J-(Chicago)

I have a 40017 cam and lifters here that are just sitting collecting dust, if you want to go used.
I wouldn't bother though, I'd get something like a comp 268H or an erson TQ20H

MDchanic

Thanks, J, but that's basically just a core dump of what it says in the parts manual.

It'll save me some typing if I want to enter it and keep it in a database, but it doesn't answer questions about duration at .050" instead of at "0.0"" or make clear exactly which 350 models got the non-084 cams, or compare actual performance of any of them.

I don't mean to be ungrateful, because this information is useful, but "these aren't the droids I'm looking for."

- Eric

[edit: message posted after first response, not second]

MDchanic

Yeah, but that's a 455 grind, ... [edit]: and, if I'm correct, a 455 grind in a 350 will be wilder, while a 350 grind in a 455 will be milder...

[edit edit]: it looks like the 017 is essentially the equivalent of the 084 in the 455 world - basic cam for most motors, which is just a bit "bigger" than the 017, and would presumably give the 350 just a bit "more."

Do you have experience with the 268H and the TQ20H? How do they fit into the picture for mild, "driveable" cars compared to the stock cams?

- Eric

J-(Chicago)

I put a 268h into a stock smogger 455 with new fat head gaskets. 8.2:1 compression and a 3.08 gear. It turned a 14flat in the quarter mile with street tires in a 3600 pound car. I was pretty impressed with the extra torque from such a small cam. Vacuum was about 15 If I remember correctly. Basically it's 1 step above the stock cams, with the benefit of added torque at low rpms. The idle wasn't very lumpy at all.

Heck, you can even go a little bigger in my opinion because 350's rev higher than 5500

J-(Chicago)

The current setup in my gray car is a 9:1 455 with a comp 262xe, and 3.23 gear. Small valve heads, and old rusty small tube headers.
I drive it everyday. Idle is a little bit choppier, but still has tons of vacuum and doesn't really sound anything near the monsters you hear idling at the drag strip. It went 13.16 with the slicks on.

cutlassefi

A 9.5:1 350 is the perfect combo for an Erson TQ40. The TQ 20 would be better for an 8.5:1. Both will enhance the midrange more than anything right were most people drive their cars.

defiant1

Eric

Did you ever find a source or an answer to this question??

d1

MDchanic

Not yet...