[Johnny406]

About a decade or so ago, Crower had a clearance sell on these big ass 60355 (318FDP) SFT camshafts. 274/280 @ .050 .579/.591 lift with 1.5 rocker arms (cam card attached)

From the Crower 2004 catalog:
COMPU-PRO / PERFORMANCE LEVEL 5 - Upper mid-range and top
end profile for added power above 7000 rpm.
RPM Power Range: 5200 to 8000 plus.

I know RPM range certainly varies with cubic inches, compression and head flow potential etc. With that said, and in my case, a .030 455 with a 300cfm potential head 11.40:1 compression, 4400 converter in a 3200lb car, would this cam make sense?

How about using Rhoads V-Max lifters?

Would it make more sense in a 12:1+ compression 428 due to better RPM capabilities along with more compression?

[Formulas]

V-max Rhoads on a solid lifter cam? BTW. that's a crazy amount of .050 duration per advertised... is that like a super stock cam?
I would like to hear that run

[quick67bird]

I am running one now. It pulls like a freight train, but I have not been to a track yet. With a gps and 2 country power lines apart approximately 660 feet my car will run 106 mph. I know that is not track or a very accurate testing scenario, but it is what I have lol. I have driven it a lot on the street and I like it so far. There is video of my car running with this cam on PY somewhere.

[quick67bird]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TsU...ature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssNX...ature=youtu.be

[Johnny406]

Originally Posted by quick67bird

I am running one now. It pulls like a freight train, but I have not been to a track yet. With a gps and 2 country power lines apart approximately 660 feet my car will run 106 mph. I know that is not track or a very accurate testing scenario, but it is what I have lol. I have driven it a lot on the street and I like it so far. There is video of my car running with this cam on PY somewhere.

Thanks for that, what kind of compression and heads are you using?

[quick67bird]

340 KRE Dports and Wallace calculator is 11.56-1. I have the flow numbers from SD Performance on here too.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Johnny406

About a decade or so ago, Crower had a clearance sell on these big ass 60355 (318FDP) SFT camshafts. 274/280 @ .050 .579/.591 lift with 1.5 rocker arms (cam card attached)

From the Crower 2004 catalog:
COMPU-PRO / PERFORMANCE LEVEL 5 - Upper mid-range and top
end profile for added power above 7000 rpm.
RPM Power Range: 5200 to 8000 plus.

I know RPM range certainly varies with cubic inches, compression and head flow potential etc. With that said, and in my case, a .030 455 with a 300cfm potential head 11.40:1 compression, 4400 converter in a 3200lb car, would this cam make sense?

How about using Rhoads V-Max lifters?

Would it make more sense in a 12:1+ compression 428 due to better RPM capabilities along with more compression?

JMO, but they will not make the cam smaller than running solid lifters. The one thing you could check with the cam in an engine using a degree wheel and a dial indicator is how much the valve seat duration is reduced if opening the valve lash up by 0.004"

Stan

[PAUL K]

I think that cam would run well the way it is. You could use the solid lifters and play with lash to dial it in.

It's a better choice for the 455. It'd respond to more compression and a bit more converter. I ran a similar cam in a 455 with RAIV heads. Took it to the track once and it ran 10.70 @ 123 weighing 3800#.

[joes455]

From what I've read u may want to get the cam and lifters hardened

[Jay S]

I think if would run well with 11:1 compression with some cam advance.

I would not run Vmax lifters on it. It would gain some idle vacuum, normally the lash is .035” when using Vmax on a mech cam, versus .022-.024” normal. Some vacuum rule classes run Vmax on mechanical cams. But by 2 or 3000 RPM, most of that lash is taken up by hydraulic action of the lifter. After the lifters pump up your throwing the dice to see if the engine will like it or not. If you don’t care about the idle vaccuum your better off with a mechanical lifter and just tighten up the lash. Whatever the Vmax does full throttle, your stuck with it.


Here is a similar very similar profile to that Crower. It is an old General Kinetics 316M (280*@.050, .3925 lobe lift) mechanical cam if you want to see what Stan is talking about, how lash effect a profile compared with a hyd lifter. Divide the lash by the rocker ratio, and see when it lands on the ramp. Can do it at any point and compare to a hydraulic.
001” 102.5
.002” 96
3 91.5
4 88.8
5 85
6 81.5
7 77.5
8 74.5
9 71
.010 68.4
.011 65
.012 62
.013 59.2
.014 56.8. Lash at .022” with 1.5 rockers
15 54.8
.016 52.8
17 51.6
18 50.2
19 48.9
20 47.8
21 46.8
22 45.8
23 44.8
24 43.8
25 42.7
.026 41.6
.027 40.8
.028 40
.29 39.2
.03 38.4
.031 37.6
.032 37.
.033 36.4
.034 35.8
.035 35.2
.036 34.6
.037 34
.038 33.6
.039 33.1
.040 32.5
.041 31.9
.042 31.4
.043 30.9
.044 30.5
.045. 30.1
.046 29.7
.047 29.3
.048 28.9
.049 28.5
.050 27.9
.051 27.5
.052 27.1
.053 26.7
.054 26.3
.055 25.9
.056 25.5
.057 25.1
.058 24.7
.059 24.3
.060 23.9
.061 23.5
.062 23.1
.063 22.7
.064 22.3
.065 21.9
.066 21.5
.067 21.1
.068 20.8
.069 20.5
.070 20.2
.071 19.9
.072 19.6
.073 19.3
.074 19
.075 18.7
.080 17.1
.09 14.1
.1 10.8
.11 7.8
.12 4.8
.13 1.8.
.14 .8 now across zero
.15 3.6
.16 6.2
.17 8.8
.18 11.8
.19 14.2
.2 17
.21 19.7
.22 22.6
.23 25.2
.24 28.2
.25 31.2
.26 33.8
.27 37.2
.28 40.4
.29 43.8
.3 46.4
.31 50.8
.32 54.8
.33 58.8
.34 63.4
.35 68.4
.36 73.6
.37 80.2
.38 88.2
.385 93.4
.390 101.4
.391 103.8
.392 108
.3925 max
.392 115.4
.391 119.8
.39 121.8
.38 134.8
.37 144
.36 149.8
.35 155
.34 160
.33 164.4
.32 168.5
.31 172.2
.3 175.6
.29 179.2
.28 177.6 past 180 going down
.27 174.6
.26 171.4
.25 168.4
.24 165.6
.23 162.6
.22 160
.21 157.2
.2. 154.2
.19 151.4
.179 148.4
.170. 146.4
.160 143.4
.15 140.2
.14 137.8
.13 135.4
.12 132.2
.11 129.4
.1 126.4
.09 122.8
.08 119.8
.07 116.4
.060 112.8
.050 108.8
.040 103.8
.030 94.8
.029 93.4
.028 91.6
.027 90.4
.026 89.4
.0248 88.2
.0238 86.8
.023. 86.2
.022 85
.0209. 84
.020 83.2
.019. 82.1
.018. 81.4
.017 80.8
.0158 79.8
.015 78.6
.014. 76.6. Lash at .022” with 1.5 rockers
.013 73.6
.012. 70.6
.011 67
.010. 63.6
.009. 60.3
.008 56.6
.007 52.8
.006, 48.9
.005 45.0
.004 41.1
.003 37.2
.002 33.3
.001. 26.2

[Stan Weiss]

Jay,
A little of topic, but do you know where GK rated their cams? From your number above I get around 0.024". I have number from a 320M 280@ 0.050" 0.372 lobe. My numbers are not as good as your, but it looks like 0.023". Somewhat on topic that cam idled in neutral at about 1000 RPM in 327 + 60 SBC and that was a 108 LSA installed 108 ICL.

Stan

[Jay S]

Stan I don’t know where GK rated cams. My guess is .022”, but that is only a guess. That lobe the numbers are for had a note that says it had .0013” run out on the closing side of the the base circle on that lobe. To get to 316 that shifts the rating numbers closer to .022” or the .023” you mention. The Crower is likely rated at .020”, which is why it shows more seat timing on the cam card, overall though, a very similar grind to that GK.

[Stan Weiss]

Let me add just one more thing to this discussion about comparing "SOLID" tappet cams. Designed VALVE LASH. You almost never see this posted. The same numbers have a different effect in the engine when the cam is a designed for tight lash clearance verses normal lash clearance.

Stan