[screamingchief]

Originally Posted by 73T/A

Ken,I recently had a similar issue with a Melling SPC-8(041) cam.We were degreeing the cam with Cam Logic equipment and also checking the cam specs.The lobe lift was just as advertised .313 but the intake and exhaust durations were not as advertised.We then picked up a second new Melling SPC-8 and the readings were the same as the first one.I then called Melling tech and told them about the issue.They stated that I could mail them the cam and they would check it.I never did send it though.It was my understanding that CMC(Camshaft Machine Company) in Jackson,Michigan ground most if not all of the flat tappet cams be it Melling,Comp,Edelbrock etc.Both of the Mellings had CWC(CMC upside down on them) stamped on them.

Just a note on this deal,understand that the factory cams were not rated at the same lifts as many "modern" cams are rated at.

Most modern cams are rated per current SAE guidelines,typically giving us the duration numbers @ .006" lift at the valve (which is usually around .004" at the cam,then multiply by the OE rocker ratio).

So .004 x 1.5 = .006

Now the '65 to '76 OE cams were typically rated @ .002" on the opening side,and .008" to .009" on the closing side,at least that's what was stated in the HO racing HPED&BPA book (page 78 first paragraph).

Which might explain some of these discrepancies.

So understand that how and where one is measuring the cam can make the duration numbers come out ever so slightly different than those OE cam numbers were.

Just where the cams duration is being rated needs to be known to accurately compare the numbers from one cam to another cam.

Crane had a bulletin about that a while back,I'll include the text here:

Originally Posted by Crane Cams

Why Crane Cams Measures Advertised Duration at .004 Lifter Rise

We are frequently asked why Crane Cams measures the Advertised Duration of hydraulic lifter camshafts at .004 lifter rise on the cam lobe (this applies to both flat-faced and roller hydraulic grinds) when several competitors measure their advertised duration at .006 lifter rise. The answer is that we attempt to comply with the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) J604 standard.This standard states that hydraulic automotive camshafts should have their duration measured at .006 lift at the valve.On pushrod engines, lift at the valve is the product of (cam lobe lift x rocker arm ratio). Most popular pushrod engines use rocker ratios of 1.5, 1.6, or 1.7.When you divide .006 lift at the valve by any of the popular ratios, you come up with .004 when the answer is rounded to three decimal places. Using .006 lift at the lobe results in at least .009 lift at the valve.That is quite a difference from the SAE standard of .006 lift at the valve.

This difference in measurement of advertised duration does make the intensity of Crane Cams lobes appear to be less aggressive when compared to the competition.Camshaft Lobe Intensity is frequently defined as the difference between the advertised duration and the duration @ .050 lifter rise.It is generally accepted that the lower the number of degrees of difference between these two figures relates to the greater the amount of Camshaft Lobe Intensity (or aggressiveness in the lobe design).Camshaft Lobe Intensity is only valid, however, when the advertised duration of two camshafts is measured at the same point.At first glance, it would not appear the .002 of lifter rise measurement would make much difference in the perceived Lobe Intensity.The fact, however, is this is the first part of the lift curve where any clearance in the valve train is taken up,and the lift rate at this initial point is at its slowest point.

Consequently, .002 lifter rise difference can create a significant misrepresentation of actual Camshaft Intensity. When comparing lobe profiles, it is best to compare cam lobes at exactly the same points.

Keep in mind that the discussion above is about hydraulic lifter camshafts in pushrod engines.For overhead cam engines (OHC) where there is no rocker ratio, Crane Cams measures duration at .006 valve lift.That creates different issues when comparing duration (and related power ranges) of camshafts used in pushrod engines as compared with OHC engines. See Crane's Engine Builder Newsletter #31 dated February 22, 2007 @ www.cranecams.com.

So who is right and who is wrong here?At Crane Cams, we are only claiming to comply with the SAE J604 standard.That way, Crane Cams can be evaluated with other cams that comply with the accepted world standard.

Hope that helps.

Bret P.

[73T/A]

Bret,
Thanks for the info.That may have been the issue.

[Cliff R]

"I was thinking about asking Lanier Henry who is a part owner/partner (or damn good friends etc) with Schneider Racing Cams. They are grinding me a cam now FWIW..."

It's my understanding that CMC ground the original WG-5059 cams. They also have the original prints. In order to have a run made, a few samples would need to be obtained, and measured, then put in an engine and ran on the dyno, etc.

Once satisfied with the product, an order would be placed for a minimum run or price per camshaft based on the amount they designate per order. I have no idea what their minimum order would be, as I never got a return phone call from anyone at that company, and I left numerous messages at several folks desks? Typically, the more you purchase, the less they cost per camshaft.

I also gave up on the idea due to the high lobe failure rates we are seeing with flat camshafts these days. It was probably a good thing that CMC didn't make it easy for us, because no doubt 20-30 percent of the cams we would have sold would have had a lobe or two knocked off of them (for various reasons beyond our control). This gets us in to having to warranty them, etc.

We went to roller cams here for all engines built here (when we choose the parts). We also went to forged cranks and forged 4340 connecting rods as well. End result, Cliff sleeps better at night!......Cliff

[Rocky Rotella]

A couple of pictures of an original 744-profile camshaft. You can clearly see the "constant dwell" at peak lobe lift that's often referred to.

[tom s]

I have your dist gear sitting on my desk for a couple weeks now!Do you need to own it or use it.$100 if you want to own it.Tom

[tom s]

sorry yt hi jack!meant to PM.Tom

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

" It's my understanding that CMC ground the original WG-5059 cams. They also have the original prints. In order to have a run made, a few samples would need to be obtained, and measured, then put in an engine and ran on the dyno, etc.

Once satisfied with the product, an order would be placed for a minimum run or price per camshaft based on the amount they designate per order. I have no idea what their minimum order would be, as I never got a return phone call from anyone at that company, and I left numerous messages at several folks desks? Typically, the more you purchase, the less they cost per camshaft. Cliff

A bit more history:

The guy who "Wrote the Book" on Camshaft design, Don Hubbard, was a "Boost Guy" and very good friend of mine during my early years at Ford. His book is here: http://cambook.net/

Don had a turbocharged Jaguar 6 cylinder. He worked on the Chevrolet Can Am Turbo
cars during that race series.

Don had worked for Harvey Crane and later was the Vice President for Camshaft Machine Company (OEM Cams) and Wolverine Blue Racer Cams (Aftermarket). I was a dealer for the Wolverine Blue Racer camshafts and still have some of the camshafts on the shelves.

I would typically buy the camshafts 10 at a time and the camshaft kits (w lifters and lube) 5 at a time. I was not required to buy 50 cams at a time. I would order about 6 times a year. Unfortunately Wolverine Blue Racer went out of business. They (CMC/ WBR) made great camshafts.

The Chief Engineer of the CMC / Wolverine company was a "Pontiac Guy" named Glenn Corwin.

I watched a Pontiac hydraulic camshafts being ground on one of their high speed grinders in less than a minute. They also ground all of the early Roller camshafts for the Ford Motor Company.

Yep, CMC ground the WG-5059 camshafts. They also had an extensive cam profile collection (using their measurement equipment). I had a couple of new camshafts from "the other guys" that CMC read for me. One of these camshafts was the famous Milt Schornack "744" cheater camshaft, that in no way, resembled a factory 744 camshaft, lol!
It was a true CHEATER camshaft.

Tom Vaught

[A.W.Dille]

After reading these posts it makes me wonder what would be closest to correct if a person wanted a 744 cam. Or one that would be the closest to the power that the original produced.

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by A.W.Dille

After reading these posts it makes me wonder what would be closest to correct if a person wanted a 744 cam. Or one that would be the closest to the power that the original produced.

A true Wolverine Blue Racer Boxed 744 camshaft.

I have several of the High Lift 744 Boxed Wolverine cams but none of the stocker cams.

Tom Vaught

[KEN CROCIE]

I'll post tomorrow a side by side of a 744 and SPC-3/E-909-P lobe. Quite a difference considering the specs are the same.

[Formulas]

Rocky.. Your busted. Thats a SD. cam look at the dist gear teeth (smaller Dia.) regular cam the teeth are almost as big as the bearing journal..
Same lobes tho... just bustin your chops a bit Thanks for the pic.

[Rocky Rotella]

Originally Posted by Formulas

Rocky.. Your busted. Thats a SD. cam look at the dist gear teeth (smaller Dia.) regular cam the teeth are almost as big as the bearing journal..
Same lobes tho... just bustin your chops a bit Thanks for the pic.

You got me there!

[Stuckinda60s]

TRW made a cam which was supposed to be a version of the 744. There were some subtle differences but it ran quite well. It made a LOT of torque. I can't recollect the number, right now. If I do, I'll post it.

It might be worth researching. If memory serves, it had the long dwell.

[KEN CROCIE]

744 on left SPC-3 /e-909 on right

[Kenth]

Ken, did you check the Speed-Pro CS171R camshaft?

And what about the old H.O. Racing Specialities #744k 408/408 301/313 224/236 112/119?

[Tom Vaught]

Speed-Pro CS171R camshaft

That camshaft used to be supplied by CMC to them.

If Speed-Pro is still buying CMC 744 camshafts you should be able to get a "flat nose"
camshaft that way. Good Post Kenth.

Tom Vaught

[2manyT/A'S]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

A little over a year ago, we attempted to get CMC to reproduce the WG-5059 camshafts for Pontiac engines. I was given a direct contact number to a representative from that company. After many left calls and attempts to get a live person on the phone, I gave up on the idea. They must be "fat, dumb and happy" at CMC, because they don't even have the intiative to try to drum up any new business. They had no idea if I wanted 10, or 10,000 of those cams produced? Not a single phone call was ever returned to us. That sort of attitude by an American Company doesn't surprise me at all. I run into it ALL THE TIME trying to get parts made. Some woln't even talk to you at all, and hang up on you unless you want at least 10,000 pieces a month.

Cripe, I can go offshore, the Chinese will make 100 of anything I want, at a tenth the price of any American Company!....FWIW......Cliff

GREAT THREAD! VERY informative.

Always wondered what CMC- CWC meant.

Fat,Dumb & Happy! (I'm going to use that one)

Is it just my imagination,or is there ALOT of that going around these days?

Has every successful/established business in the country assumed that attitude?