350TurBRO

Ok, so I have a 350 sbo blah blah blah and I'm not very good with the camshaft stuff, so I need to know which duration and lift and stuff on a cam that I need. I don't really want to lose mpg because i'm almost never going to race it, but I'm looking to get hp to like 350 and torque to 400 plus. The engine is bone stock so i'd need a cam and lifter kit or whatever. like I said stock, so no real details to worry about.

GEARMAN69

I assume you have a flat top 69 motor that's four barrel with #5 heads but I saw this mild Howards cam that could fit close to the bill if you also did headers with it.
510021-12 NA
267 277 adv
213 223 @ 050
.480 .480 w 1.6
112 LSA
106 ICL
Hyd. type
1200-5800 range
Street Performer/Hot Jet Boats. 4 barrel & good exhaust a must.

For some that will say the 325 hp W31 cam being bigger duration (232/232) was only rated 325 hp remember that was under rated below peak and I believe it is at least 370 HP on the W31 with headers in stock form or more. The higher duration of the W31 would kill off all your low end and even hurt mid range torque and be a pig if the gears are not adequate so hence the Howards choice above with modest but effective duration at 050

cutlassefi

The Howard Cam he listed won't hit these goals.
Remember, the ratings were different, plus or minus. But they were done with much better fuel, no water pumps, air cleaners or exhaust.
And unless you're increasing compression, increasing your HP will take more fuel, plain and simple.

GEARMAN69

well if you like over camming every car a killing the torque in the driven rpm range to try for a peak hp number go ahead but I bet it would be a much better car to drive with the milder grind. A simple generic 214/224 112 cam in a stock mild Pontiac will hit close to that number I guess these Olds don't have what it takes to hang. I would have suggested the hotter 221/221 108 Howard cam it looks interesting but also pretty lopey .

GEARMAN69

T o my point in my first choice, go any bigger than that and MPG will suffer. and if your not running at the track anyway why push towards more cam that is really needed. A well tuned 325-340 hp actual engine number is gonna be fine for you I am sure. If you want the HP without the MPG loss and the 350 HP goal do it with the milder cam and make up the gap on good exhaust with headers (a must) and some mild head work (pocket porting and gasket matching). How do you think late model engines do it? FLOW is HP , use the least amount duration required but more lift and flow, increased duration quickly reduces peak torque number especially in the actually driven rpm range so short timing with decent 9.7 :1 compression can keep the torque up.

Fun71

Since your engine is "bone stock" it will have either 6 cc dish pistons (factory 4 bbl) or 14 cc pistons (factory 2 bbl) so it is rated either 10.25:1 (in reality high 9.x:1) or 9.0:1 compression ratio. Need to know which it is before trying to recommend a camshaft for it.

350TurBRO

4bbl so 14 cc probably

cutlassefi

I hate to burst your bubble but what happens when you increase air flow? You need more fuel as well. More air, more fuel.
As mentioned, if it's a 9.0:1 engine then you can increase the compression a bit.
And new engines make comparable hp with much better (efficient) cylinder heads. Yes, and also with cams with minimal duration and more importantly overlap, but also very precise fuel metering and optimized timing. I hope you're not comparing the new stuff to a 45 year old Olds.

But you're right, I don't know anything about cams.

captjim

ll depends on the compression. Olds 350s came with as high as 10 to 1 and low as 8 to 1, that 214/224 is an old lazy grind and will be a dog in a stock, low comp 350. And, IMO, stock heads won't get to an honest 350 HP.

captjim

Don't forget (he never mentioned the year) but if it is 71 or 72 it will have 23 cc pistons.

350TurBRO

It's a 1969 350 sorry for not mentioning

captjim

That makes it better!

GEARMAN69

I wasn't going to recommend that cam for low compression I was basing it on a 69 4 barrel motor (10.25) that I believe actual compression is 9.7. A specifically the 214/224 was an example of enough cam to hit 350 HP in a stock Pontiac with manifolds I was using for example. I did say some headwork would be need to get it over the top but throwing a big cam in it to try hit a peak HP in an otherwise stock engine is a bad idea. It may take an intake profile in the 220-224 range at 050 to hit that number but that is dissapointing to me on the lack of potential in these engines.

GEARMAN69

So give me a track time for your sig displaying all the HP yours has with that incredibly expensive combo you show ? BTW I was only speaking to his engine being the high compression 10.25:1 advertised (9.7) one. I was looking to err on the conservative side. He has not shared whether he has stall, gears etc to bump up to something bigger yet. If your done relieving yourself, I have been building GM engines, combos for over 25 nearly 30 years and strip/strip racing to stock-ish , budget combos with good results.

GEARMAN69

Not trying to start any crap here BTW if I am pissing off anyone but please don't assume I am a nube either.

cutlassefi

Never took it to the track, not my cup of tea. But I know about how much power it's making by looking in my fuel map and seeing how much fuel it's using. For the most part it takes X amount of fuel to make X amount of hp, period.
Conversely, do you have a dyno sheet of a similarly built SBO to the op showing it made 350hp/400tq with the cam you mentioned?

I think at least a few of us would like to see that. Thank you.

And I never said what cam I'd use to make his goals, if he could reach his goals at all with the rest of the combination. You assumed I would recommend something undrivable, or at the very least tell him he'd make this or that with whatever cam I recommended.
Pontiacs ain't Oldsmobiles or AMC's or Fords. Olds heads aren't the best, so it's takes a bit more to make the numbers others do. But you knew that because you've been building GM engines for over 25 years right? However it doesn't sound like you've done many Oldsmobiles. I would love to see the similar builds you've done.
Just an FYI, look up the dyno sheet for Kitfoxdaves 380 build on here. True 9.0:1 380 c.i. mild roller cam(216/221@.050, .542 lift), cleaned up #7 heads with 2.00/1.625 valves, RPM intake, 750 carb and headers. 323hp and 395hp. He even posted the head flow sheet. Check it out and see if you still think the op can make the power he wants with the cam you recommended. I'm confident you'll think otherwise.

Thanks.

GEARMAN69

My experience has been mostly Pontiac , Chevrolet and BB Mopar so your right, I have not attempted a SBO (pig) yet. I will share results when my new project on the horizon of a Rallye 350 comes together. The current thought is when I build the L74 310 350, if the car has the 3.91 rear they claim it does (have not picked up car yet) I am considering a W31 ish build , so just the basic big valve upgrade to #6 heads with flat tops and some head work and flow bench testing (Elliottsportworks) but just port matched to the iron 70 intake and set of headers and see what the 232/232 or 234/234 113 cam does at the track. I use track performance and vehicle weight to determine real world performance. I will look up that 380 build sounds quite dissapointing considering the cost it must have had. Also remember I was pointing to that small cam based on other requirements of the OP. MPG maintained and driveability (street performance). If this Rallye I am getting turns out to be a 3.23 or 3.42 geared car I will do a smaller cam but the same head work, no goals just see what it does. The OP has not said whether he has the 9.0:1 69 2 barrel car or the higher compression 4 barrel car. So obviously to get a chance at some HP he needs the higher compression to the edge of pump gas driveability unless he can afford aluminum heads and no mention of gear ratio yet. So you think the 213 Howards cam wont even make 325 HP at 9.7:1 in a 350 with headers ? I agree it probably wont hit 350 HP unless the headwork is good. But I did mention headwork needed up front and 9.7:1 . thats a big difference from a barely 9:1 motor and stock heads.

boese1978

[QUOTE=GEARMAN69;742562] I have not attempted a SBO (pig) yet.
. I will look up that 380 build sounds quite dissapointing considering the cost it must have had.

WOW...maybe you should find a Pontiac board to run your mouth on.

GEARMAN69

[QUOTE=boese1978;742564]
I do but we all get along. We cant agree SB Olds are not that great? Sure I would prefer to build a big Olds but if its not correct for the car. Nope. If you cant admit it is pathetic to have a 325 hp roller cam stroker engine (unless that is RWHP) just agree to disagree.

cutlassefi

You might want to reread the original post. You can't assume he'd do this or that. He said stock so I take it as stock.

Thanks.

GEARMAN69

I have read it but also he has started a new thread asking about having his top end rebuilt in Ohio and a cam done for him. He says its 4 barrel so still figuring it to be the higher CR. I dont think he said he wasnt going to add headers pretty sure he knows he must if he wants to even get close. He just said it was stock he didnt say he was not doing anything else but the cam...

GEARMAN69

saw this post on another thread by coppercutlass and

"13.3's. @ 103 mph in the quarter with a 350 10 to 1 compression with #6 heads with just bowl work and big valves and a 280h comp cam. 600cfm carb and. A tight 2200 stall. I must admit I also drove like an idiot and made the stall converter useless by loading wayyyy too high up into it. I'm sure if I drove it better could have hit better numbers along with a bigger carb and a higher stall converter. That's my first hand experience with. Near stock #6's."

He must me making nearly 380-400 hp with a 230 @ 050 cam so why not 350 hp with a smaller one. Sure it may need to be 220-225 at the intake to get it but this actually looks good performance wise to what I would like out of the future Rallye project on the 10:1 ish motor with # 6 heads

Captjim on another thread posted
"My 3920 lb Cutlass wagon ran 13.91 with a 210/216 cam in a 9 to 1 355 Olds engine and 3.42 gears. By comparison, my 4100 lb 440 magnum 10.25 to 1 410 geared Charger ran 14.0 waaaaaay back in the day. Technology advances. The general consensus is .500 lift, but I can't say for certain."

I ran a HP calulator against 4000 pounds and flywheel HP wth 17 % loss and it took 350 HP to 13.89 @ 4000,not exact but seems like Capt has well over 300 HP ?

Fun71

No, the 2bbl engine had 14cc pistons. The 4bbl engine had 6cc pistons.

grampy

You know camshafts are topic that every one has a opinion on.it seem that some take things too personal. I don't want to offend anyone and I expect the same in return.it is OK to have a rebuttle but let keep clean and let the readers make there own minds.

70cutty

I don't know crap about cams but I just want to add that Mark aka Cutlassefi has helped many here with custom grind cams from stock to straight racing, I haven't heard one single complaint.

grampy

My advice on this is this guy is a average Joe and wants a driver that feels fast without being a gas hog.I would steer him away from the camshaft first.set a good foundation first.a rear gear you live with is always the biggest bang for the effort. Then a tune on the distributor and ignition. Add a free flowing exhaust.then if it still not not the power you want.any other upgrades are built around the rear gear so you can build a combo that compliment each other.

grampy

As for camshafts on a stock engine and a mild cam choise with the @50 and lobe sepration that are close.there is not as much power or idle or driveability to put one brand over another anyway. It not like x cam its worth 20 horsepower,20 more tq and 4 inches more vacume at idle. Most of that talk is advertising.it is more important that the compression,rear gear, stall,camshaft complement each other.

GEARMAN69

I may have come off as a ***** yesterday but I feel like the resident "expert" feels like he can talk down to everyone that does not kneel to Zod so to speak. I was factorying in the MPG comment and the driveability factors and sure it would be short a little on the 350 goal if the heads are at least played with a little to bump up flow and if the compression is too low. Clearly I ony suggested that little Howard one based on the 6 cc dish 9.7 (10.25) pistons and without headers and bigger valves and bowl work it wont get there without all three. Yeah I agree the generic old 214/224 112 cams would be lazy in a low compression small block but I was expecting it to be the higher CR closer to 10. I have ran low 13's in street car daily driver Trans Ams with 9:1 400's with exhaust manifolds but in a 350 it would need a CR boost and headers and some gear to compliment all the more. So sorry for being a jerk but the err on the conservative side I would really bet the OP would really like the way his car ran and drove if the combo was followed. Captjim shows a mere 210/216 @ 050 cam in a 350 70 Cut Wagon turning a 13.9 which is quite impressive and that very combo would have to be right on the money for this guys 69 Cutlass. I will attach a pic of the interesting cams I saw at Howards. Never used there brand before but they seems to priced reasonable and have grinds a little different than some of the others. The largest I would still consider for this fella without a stall (although better if he had atleast a 2200) is the 221/221 108 cam (with headers and fresh head work) hope he has at least a 3.08 or 3.23 gear or more in the plan.

boese1978

I doubt our "resident expert" would go to a Pontiac board and call the motors "pigs"......you sir came off as very condescending and arrogant.

GEARMAN69

I can see that, let me just say that all I am doing is having reasonable expectations to get certain results from certain combos and if I am just being told you can't do it. I take that as a challenge rather than others here to just conform and accept the low HP output of a engine handicapped by its head design. We bash our own smog engines and 301 engines all the time. Like the poor 559 casting 400 junk blocks made in the mid 70's and the pathetic 7.6:1 compression ratios offered by the factory and the obvious solutions of head swaps to fix it. Same as anyone here would tell a 73-76 350 guy to get some #5, 6 , 7 or 7a heads on there flat top 8:1 motor to fix it . I absolutely have always loved the 68-72 Olds A body muscle cars since my teenage years and not a bit less now actually more. I think they are amongst the best looking cars GM ever produced. If I offend people calling a SB Olds a "pig" that is also meaning some off ya'll are little thin skinned I guess but I know what your saying.
So can we just move on and hope this fella gets a nice little combo he likes. Plenty of examples here. I do plan on building a budget 350 Olds for the Rallye I am getting so hopefully not too many years down the road I can see what I can do with one without dumping a ton into it. At least I am no longer considering putting my ready to go 455 Pontiac in it to make it fast.

captjim

I think that using 17% throws off your argument. This has long been one of my little "bones of contention". You can't use a fixed percentage. It takes X amount of power to run the accessories and drivetrain. For the sake of easy math, let's call it 100HP. So, on a 300 HP engine the loss is 33%, but on a 600 HP engine the loss is 17%, see my point? In my opinion, on a relatively low HP engine (around 300) in a heavy, street driven car, losses will be close to 30%, not the 18% you see on a lot of race calculators. In a dedicated race car with optimized chassis, no accessories, OK. Just my opinion. That engine ran great and probably made 325 HP. Also keep in mind, I shifted at 4600 rpm, illustrating the point that a broad torque curve is more important to the performance on a heavy car that peak HP is.
One last thing, I live at about 20 feet above sea level, which does help with the ET

GEARMAN69

I agree on all your points, that was just an online calulator I used but the bare nuts about it is your combo would perfectly fit the need of the guy here. A honest high torque 325 hp gets it done and shouldn't hurt mpg with a good set Qjet. The fact of having a broad torque curve in the right rpm range to deliver the low et that a higher hp higher strung combo has do do in a different way is exactly why I lean on the small side for cam choices to keep the torque up and also to get that good performance with a milder gear ratio than the more radical combo would need. This makes for the tire schredder cruiser most owners would have pleasure in driving even if they don't drag race.

captjim

I agree completely and always warn against over-camming a 350, especially in a heavy car.

DoubleV

I was actually able to achieve a best 13.83 in my 85 442 with 71 350 with even a smaller cam ( 207/213 Voodoo ). It didn't mph worth a damn, high 96's, but with good traction it took off really well. That engine had a ton pf power still left on the table as it had a compression ratio barely above 8:1 and no headwork at all. Unlike Captjim, I acheived my best times shifting 2-3 at about 5300-5400. Shifting lower than that ( around 4700 or so ) and it would consistantly be slower by about a tenth.

GEARMAN69

Thats impressive for sure, an example of mine although apples and oranges. I had my first combo in my old 68 GTO 2.93 geared automatic car a 455 with around 10.5:1 and only a 224/234 112 cam, cast iron intake and exhaust manifolds, Qjet and a stock fuel pump for a 78 TA , stock style converter in the TH400 only would foot brake 1700 torquing the car up hard and with some dry rotted 26x9.5x14 Quick Time Pro tires on Rally II's and shifting low at 5000 on the column it went 12.6@109 mph full weight stock body car I think RW was about 3900# Later combo with the #'s matching YS 030 over 400 back in the same as 455 setup except a bit of stall 2400 and lopey solid lash 242/252 cam and ported heads and only 9.6:1 or so on the 225/70R14 radials it would go 13.1@105 shifting at 6000 same 2.93 gears.. finished the 1/4 in second on the column. The torque was broad on that engine too

Hawghead

Mark,

While I agree that indeed it does take X amount of fuel to make Y amount of horsepower (simple physics). Just because an engine is using X amount of fuel doesn't mean it's making Y amount of horsepower. To assume so would mean that you'd have to assume 100% fuel usage efficiency. Now I'm not saying your engine doesn't make the horsepower you think it does, but could you give a little more detail on how to equate fuel usage to horsepower? (Not trying to be a wise *** just trying to learn something).

And while I may have put it differently than Mr. Gearman69 did, and while 325 HP isn't exactly chopped liver (especially in a small block) it does sound a little disappointing for a 380 stroker. Do you think it's the heads/compression ratio holding it back?

Thanks,
Scott

cutlassefi

He wanted torque, not hp. And yes the heads only flowed 209@.500 and 217@.600. Remember though those numbers were in the crappy Florida weather. Refer to 70cuttys build for the difference in true measured hp/tq.

Gearman, to re-state myself. the op said "350hp and torque to over 400", "the engine is bone stock". I based my recommendation and comments on that, and only that. I didn't add "headwork" and this compression ratio and that compression ratio later on in the subsequent posts like you did. I took him at his original word.

And please try to find one guy on here that's purchased a cam from me that was undrivable or didn't perform better than what they had prior, one. You won't.
And I don't worry about track times to figure hp that are predicated somewhat on tire pressure, climate, state of tune, converter, gear and whether or not the driver had to fart right before the light turned green. I rely on a dyno, plain and simple, and a very good one at that. I've posted many dyno sheets on here, with full descriptions of the combinations. What have you done for credibility to this site? Oh yes, call Oldsmobiles' "pigs" and come off as this great engine builder, who now after many posts, finally admits that you're not familiar with Olds engines, and maybe just maybe you might learn something once you dive into your Ralleye project. I hope you do. I would like nothing better than to have an intelligent, informed conversation with you someday. In hindsight do you think you may have gotten a little better reception if you had taken the "I'm learning about Olds" road first? I do.

I'm one of the "resident experts" or "Zod" on here because of the above, posted dyno sheets, builds, results, sound advice backed by facts, so I've earned it as much as many other guys on here. There are more than a few here that know what they're doing when it comes to Oldsmobiles, certainly moreso than you at this point. You would be smart to listen to them.
But for the record, I don't know everything, not by a longshot, and I learn something everyday. Like today I learned the world is still full of j..ks like you.

I acknowledge that this really should have been in a pm, but I thought I'd address these issues here as you've already made them public.

Thank you.

GEARMAN69

Once again and for the record you seem to want to keep pushing only the 350 hp of the OP rather than the full context where he wanted to maintain MPG and stating engine was stock at this time but DID NOT say he was not going to do anything else with the cam.
You continue to stroke yourself and insult me and it was your "my way or the highway" on telling folks what they can't do even though others performance you discount even though their combos are mild and effective. I didn't hide that I had not built an Olds yet , I answered that question as soon as you asked it but you can't stand to be challenged in your logic. Yeah if the guys 380 roller only had such modest head flow no wonder it only had 5 more ft/lbs and 13 hp over a stock L74 350, if the head flow is the bottle neck on 350 cubes it's damn sure to be on a 380 ci, it just lowers the peaks making for a good heavy Darksider engine or towing setup. You can keep tooting your own horn with your ego all you want. You fail to acknowledge the points I make on using head flow improvements and headers to get to the 350 hp goal with the milder cam under 220 degree on the intake at 9.7:1 seems like reasonable goal to me but gee since I am not the Olds guy, I guess simple logic like looking at head flow data, bore and stroke and known engine combinations that don't depend on a specific car manufacturer to work supposedly won't work on an Olds. I never said you didn't do good work or had great rep or anything but good recommendations but just because I don't shut up and conform right away I have to be insulted to my own abilities that you know little to nothing about. Another example that won't be adequate but to support my own points above. Yes I am a Pontiac guy / Chevy guy but have also done a few things over the years. I built a little 84 S10 truck with a SBC 406 budget motor that I used my Pontiac combo mentality on and I would say it did well. I used 1999 #906 Vortec 1.94/1.5 valves and just did a home pocket port on them with the stock valves, set up a slightly taller spring setup with +050" offset locks so I could run up to .490" lift safely, a flat top piston about 11:1 with stock rods and crank a Herbert 235/245 111 hyd .490 lift cam , a Victor Vortec intake and a 77 Pontiac 800 Quadrajet on a Holley adapter and a straight up blah HEI and 1-5/8 headers. Foot brake TH350 w 10" converter running off idle it would go 11.4-11.5 @115 on motor with 7.2-7.3 in the 1/8 shifting under 6000 (like a Pontiac). Never dyno tested it but several methods of calculation put the small valve engine at 465 hp at the flywheel with 1.94/1.5 valves estimated head flow 230-235 cfm. I did say earlier today I was sorry for being a ***** or whatever but that was not enough for ya oh well. At least I said it. Track performance is important as it is real world performance versus just a controlled environment dyno session. I was not trying to win anyone over and as I said earlier it seems like many here are a little thin skinned and have too much ego to admit any fault in their tone why bashing others just as much.

cutlassefi

So now you're going to talk about small block Chevys, WOW! Man you really don't get it do you.
I feel sorry for you, really.

GEARMAN69

Oh I get it about you just right.