[Gary H]

Just to add my 2 cents to all the above posts, I have a 73' Trans Am with a 455 SD that I put a Ultradyne cam in quite a few years ago. The specs were 231 240 on a 110. Although it's still in the engine, I wouldn't put it again. The car has too choppy a idle for me and it really isn't all that impressive in my opinion. At some point I'm going to go with something similar duration wise but on a 114 because of the exhaust manifolds and it will tame the idle down significantly

[Skip Fix]

Gary which UD lobes? Maybe the low CR on the SD was an issue because in my 455 with a similar one I drove mine all over town with A/C autocrossed it drag raced it.

[Jay S]

I was curious about Gary’s cam also. It looks like a 288/296 but a 296 only has 239 on the exhaust. It could be that on that SD engine it has to much reversion from the E/I split. The older Ultradynes I have had showed a little less acceleration and a couple less degrees on the closing side of the ramp. We use the older profiles on the exhaust on some custom stuff.

The 704 spread out to 112 will be more cam than what a stock head needs, I think what Paul Carter said about that is correct. Power wise it will not beat the 110.

We often run 1.65s on the comparable Bullet cams I mentioned, the 1.65s give the idle more attitude too, there is a lot of thing going on, sometimes it is hard to compare this stuff.

Maybe something to keep in mind, running a bunch of compression the 110 version may want 93 octane, and that 112 spread out version may only want 91. Yes the 112 will not make as much power, but how about when you pull up to a pump and the only option is 87 octane, lol or 85. Ugh! I have several cars in the 10 + range with cast iron heads (PORTED) that can run on 87 octane, I have some towns that is all there is now. FWIW

Maybe just to supplement what Cliff talked about on the 60919....A while back Steve C. and I were discussing the 60919 and he called and talked to Shane at Crower. Shane looked up the master for grinding for the 60919. Shane gave a range that the master could do, the master was rated at .005” tappet, and best I can recall the range was 301-306 at .005” tappet. So, that puts it in the upper 290s at .006” tappet on the intake and matches up with the 308* on the exhaust that we have found. They seem to have more than one master for grinding it, and some of the masters are apparently different. FWIW, I think given the right combo the lazier version with big rocker arms is capable of crushing the newer version myself and a couple other have ran into, it is a bigger cam.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by Skip Fix

Gary which UD lobes? Maybe the low CR on the SD was an issue because in my 455 with a similar one I drove mine all over town with A/C autocrossed it drag raced it.

I think you are right that cam will like some compression and headers.

I remember swapping out a RAIV cam for the original cam in Super Duty many years ago and the car ran exactly the same. It just traded of low end torque for some higher rpm power.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Jay S

I was curious about Gary’s cam also. It looks like a 288/296 but a 296 only has 239 on the exhaust. It could be that on that SD engine it has to much reversion from the E/I split. The older Ultradynes I have had showed a little less acceleration and a couple less degrees on the closing side of the ramp. We use the older profiles on the exhaust on some custom stuff.

The 704 spread out to 112 will be more cam than what a stock head needs, I think what Paul Carter said about that is correct. Power wise it will not beat the 110.

We often run 1.65s on the comparable Bullet cams I mentioned, the 1.65s give the idle more attitude too, there is a lot of thing going on, sometimes it is hard to compare this stuff.

Maybe something to keep in mind, running a bunch of compression the 110 version may want 93 octane, and that 112 spread out version may only want 91. Yes the 112 will not make as much power, but how about when you pull up to a pump and the only option is 87 octane, lol or 85. Ugh! I have several cars in the 10 + range with cast iron heads that can run on 87 octane, I have some towns that is all there is now. FWIW

Maybe just to supplement what Cliff talked about on the 60919....A while back Steve C. and I were discussing the 60919 and he called and talked to Shane at Crower. Shane looked up the master for grinding for the 60919. Shane gave a range that the master could do, the master was rated at .005” tappet, and best I can recall the range was 301-306 at .005” tappet. So, that puts it in the upper 290s at .006” tappet on the intake and matches up with the 308* on the exhaust that we have found. They seem to have more than one master for grinding it, and some of the masters are apparently different. FWIW, I think given the right combo the lazier version with big rocker arms is capable of crushing the newer version myself and a couple other have ran into, it is a bigger cam.

Jay,
Where are you setting the ICL of each of those?

Stan

[Skip Fix]

Yes the E/I on round ports can get you. My RAIVs actually liked a reverse split and smaller headers because of reversion.

[Jay S]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Jay,
Where are you setting the ICL of each of those?

Stan

The bigger the exhaust profile the more I advance I given them. The 112 LSA Ultradyne’s I mentioned have been set on 107-108, and usually have 8* more degrees on the exh. The similar cranes with 10* we run that have a 112 LSA are also 107-108. The 114 LSA have been set on 110 icl, I have left the advance in even when the split is smaller than 8. We have given the 110 LSA Ultradyne versions a coupe more degrees of advance, 104-105. I usually order them +6 on the advance.

I installed the Crower 60919 (112 lsa) on 109.

[Jay S]

Maybe I miss understood Stan? Are wanting numbers and cam span to play with? I know your a numbers guy

[TransAm 474]

Great info guys! Would there be another option out there that is comparable to the 60919, while offering more lift? I like the 60919, but I would like to have a little more lift than .470", as I will be retaining the stock stamped steel 1.5 rocker, no aftermarket rockers at this time.

[Steve C.]

https://www.bulletcams.com/Masters/Masters.htm

https://www.bulletcams.com/Masters/u...nemasters.html

Talk with Tim Goolsby, he worked with Harold at UltraDyne for 21 years.


.

[69 Limelight]

Second talking with Tim Goosby for cam.

[1968GTO421]

My thanks to TransAm 474 for starting this thread. I too am doing a Voodoo 704 and find this a really good thread. (Subscribed) Since I have a 428 it's got me wondering if I should swap the 110 LSA for a 112 LSA. Menwhile I'm using Ferrea intake valves 5.095" and exhaust valves 5.110" in length from Butler.I also took another look at my old Lunati print catalog and noticed that Lunati recomends these 73949 springs for all their Voodoo cams ranging from cam 700 with duration of intake/exhaust of 207*/213* at .050" and .437"/.455" lift to the 705 cam with 241*/249* @ .050 and lift of .527"/.548". This is with an installed height of 1.650". I'm thinking too much pressure for some lifts to coil bind at others. I'm thinking Lunati is believing the user will be using stock length valves with the 73949 springs. I looked through my old catalog and found another spring the 73100 which is the same diameter but installed height of 1.850" which I believe will work better with the longer Ferrea valves. Since OP might sell his 68404 springs I thought I would include the Lunati spring info. Of course it's possible the Crower 68405 spring might be his choice if he goes with the longer valves. Fwiw

[TransAm 474]

You are most welcome! I love these type of threads.... I am actually going to keep the 68404 spring, and I'm thinking I will set them up at a 1.550" Installed Height. That will give me close to the 130 psi on the seat like Paul Carter recommends. The Open pressure will probably be just a touch less than he likes, but I have a feeling it will be fine. This will also allow me to run them under the recommended "keep them under .100" from coil bind" rule, since I will be retaining the 1.5 rocker. The 68404 spring coil binds at .950", so a 1.550" Installed Height minus .504" Intake lift of the 704 cam, leaves me with .096" before coil bind. The exhaust lift of the 704 is .527", so that should put me at .073" from coil bind on those. I will be cutting the guides down for smaller .530" PC seals, so I will also shorten the guides at the same time, to gain more Retainer to Guide/Seal clearance. I will also grind some off the bottom of the retainers as well, if any extra clearance is needed, to retain .050" of Retainer to Seal clearance. I think I've decided on the 704 on the 110° seperation. I've researched this for days now, and every 455+ engine build that ran the 704 in the 9.0- 10.0-1 compression range, the owners were really pleased and impressed with the power it produced, and none seemed to have an issue running pump gas. That could be do to the way Harold designed the lobes and lobe offset on the VooDoo camshafts. I'm not really sure, but I have yet to read about one single issue with the VooDoo camshafts, unlike the Comp XE series, where there are lots of negative talk, mixed in with a few positives.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Jay S

Maybe I miss understood Stan? Are wanting numbers and cam span to play with? I know your a numbers guy

Jay,
Thanks. Your other answer was all I was looking for.

Stan

[Cliff R]

I've never pulled the Crower 68404's down to 1.550" installed height but have ran PLENTY of them at 1.600" w/o issues, even with bigger cams than you are using. Even so I seldom use them as it's just easier all the way around to install .100" longer valves in stock heads and move up to the 68405 springs. I've pulled the 68405's down to 1.670" and ran pretty aggressive roller and flat solid cams with them w/o issue.

The "ratings" in the Crower catalog for their springs are actually a bit lower than what they actually measure for pressure. I suspect they don't use a retainer at all when "rating them and the inner step raises the values a bit.

As far as camshafts go tighter LSA always increases overlap. The cam manufacturers do this to produce a "lope" in the exhaust not more than anything else. Maybe some "magic" exists with Voodoo lobes where they like tight LSA but I've had Lunati grind several cams for me using Harold lobes and put them out on a 113-114LSA and they flat ars ROCK!

One in particular went into a 350 Olds build after the owner did his first engine himself and it was a freaking TURD! He used a Lunati cam, tight LSA and lowered the compression for pump gas (how many times have we heard that in the last 20 years or so). His little 350 felt pretty decent if you "smacked" the tires pretty hard and got them spinning, so he thought it was a "rocket" but found out the day we took it to the track he would easily get outrun by a Dodge Neon with a couple of plug wires pulled off the engine! It ran like 16 something seconds in the 1/4 mile under 90mph, confirming that despite "feeling" strong on the street it was a turd when you hooked it hard. I actually raced the car for him and the first two runs in spun most of the way thru 1st gear. It was a handful to keep it in my lane, of course most folks "feel" that as making great power. On run #3 I did a "John Force" burnout, hooked it hard, and it left so slow I was about ready to order a Big Mac and a Coke and consume them before it got to the end of the track! Another reason that "seat of the pants" evaluations on the street are pretty much USELESS for evaluating engine power/vehicle performance.

So on the next 350 build I had him toss the dished pistons and push the compression up to 10.6 to 1, and much tighter quench. I had Lunati grind a duplicate of the EXCELLENT Chevrolet 327/350hp cam on a 114LSA using better lobe profiles. The engine idled much smoother and would flat out rock your World anytime you went to full throttle, any gear, and it never did quit pulling hard in the little short stroke 350 build just like those cams did in the original 327/350hp engines. Next track outing showed that it picked WAY up over what it ran with his first 350. We ran 1/8th mile but doing the math he was now running high 13's/low 14's with it so about 3 seconds improvement in the 1/4 mile. I did make another change to the vehicle so the TREMENDOUS improvement in vehicle performance was only partly from the stronger running engine. I rebuilt his 200-4R and had a Custom converter built for it, so as a disclaimer that flaws the testing a bit. Had to put that in there so the naysayers can cry "foul"....LOL.

Anyhow, with all those good things said he ended up not liking the engine and removed it for a 425 instead. His complaint about the 350......."idles too smooth" and no one paid the car any mind when he went to local cruises with it. So "bling" drives this industry just as hard if not harder than actual vehicle performance and why these cam grinders and manufacturers have went that direction......IMHO.......Cliff

[TransAm 474]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

I've never pulled the Crower 68404's down to 1.550" installed height but have ran PLENTY of them at 1.600" w/o issues, even with bigger cams than you are using. Even so I seldom use them as it's just easier all the way around to install .100" longer valves in stock heads and move up to the 68405 springs. I've pulled the 68405's down to 1.670" and ran pretty aggressive roller and flat solid cams with them w/o issue.

The "ratings" in the Crower catalog for their springs are actually a bit lower than what they actually measure for pressure. I suspect they don't use a retainer at all when "rating them and the inner step raises the values a bit.

As far as camshafts go tighter LSA always increases overlap. The cam manufacturers do this to produce a "lope" in the exhaust not more than anything else. Maybe some "magic" exists with Voodoo lobes where they like tight LSA but I've had Lunati grind several cams for me using Harold lobes and put them out on a 113-114LSA and they flat ars ROCK!

One in particular went into a 350 Olds build after the owner did his first engine himself and it was a freaking TURD! He used a Lunati cam, tight LSA and lowered the compression for pump gas (how many times have we heard that in the last 20 years or so). His little 350 felt pretty decent if you "smacked" the tires pretty hard and got them spinning, so he thought it was a "rocket" but found out the day we took it to the track he would easily get outrun by a Dodge Neon with a couple of plug wires pulled off the engine! It ran like 16 something seconds in the 1/4 mile under 90mph, confirming that despite "feeling" strong on the street it was a turd when you hooked it hard. I actually raced the car for him and the first two runs in spun most of the way thru 1st gear. It was a handful to keep it in my lane, of course most folks "feel" that as making great power. On run #3 I did a "John Force" burnout, hooked it hard, and it left so slow I was about ready to order a Big Mac and a Coke and consume them before it got to the end of the track! Another reason that "seat of the pants" evaluations on the street are pretty much USELESS for evaluating engine power/vehicle performance.

So on the next 350 build I had him toss the dished pistons and push the compression up to 10.6 to 1, and much tighter quench. I had Lunati grind a duplicate of the EXCELLENT Chevrolet 327/350hp cam on a 114LSA using better lobe profiles. The engine idled much smoother and would flat out rock your World anytime you went to full throttle, any gear, and it never did quit pulling hard in the little short stroke 350 build just like those cams did in the original 327/350hp engines. Next track outing showed that it picked WAY up over what it ran with his first 350. We ran 1/8th mile but doing the math he was now running high 13's/low 14's with it so about 3 seconds improvement in the 1/4 mile. I did make another change to the vehicle so the TREMENDOUS improvement in vehicle performance was only partly from the stronger running engine. I rebuilt his 200-4R and had a Custom converter built for it, so as a disclaimer that flaws the testing a bit. Had to put that in there so the naysayers can cry "foul"....LOL.

Anyhow, with all those good things said he ended up not liking the engine and removed it for a 425 instead. His complaint about the 350......."idles too smooth" and no one paid the car any mind when he went to local cruises with it. So "bling" drives this industry just as hard if not harder than actual vehicle performance and why these cam grinders and manufacturers have went that direction......IMHO.......Cliff

I appreciate you expertise Cliff. How much difference in Seat and Open pressure have you seen with the 68404 during actual measurement vs the catalog specs?

[Steve C.]

Lunati spring... rated at 120 lbs @1.650

https://www.lunatipower.com/dual-val...set-of-16.html

VALVE SPRING SPECS CHARTS HERE:

http://www.hivolume.info/catalogs/Lunati_2002.pdf


( Information provided in this post does not represent any endorsement. And unless specified it is not based on personal experience and is offered for general interest only )


.

[Jay S]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Jay,
Thanks. Your other answer was all I was looking for.

Stan

A better answer would probably have been the reasoning for the ICL’s we use. I start by using a event calculator, and adjust the ICL on the calculator until the EVC and IVO events are square. On a timing chain engine I always assume the cam timing events are running 2* behind, so what ever that ICL turns out to be, I subtract 2* for the installed ICL.

When we install a cam we start with the ICL found with it degreed in from the .050 down from each side of max lift. Then further check the duration on the opening side of the cam from .006 to .050. Then the closing side from .050 to .006. That gives me the cams span or asymmetric’s for most of the overlap triangle. If the cam is a modern performance cam, has no asymetric’s (Crower 60919, SPC-8, ect) and I want to bleed compression I find I can move the ICL timing and retard it, I.E. the exhaust events are running behind the intake events without sending a ton on heat into the intake charge, seems like the max is about 4 degrees. Which if I recall correct is on a SPC-8 or a Crower can almost be installed straight up. What ever the span is (closing side of the cam is longer duration than opening) I subtract that from that 4 degrees. That is the max retard I will use it it is assymtrical, which is easy on a Voodoo, because the EVC and IVO events end up being square.


If you end up using a 704 on a 110 with a stock head, keep in mind the stock Pontiac heads have a huge push on the low lift flows. Personally on a Pontiac I think it makes that 110 act like a 108 LSA . It does a ton of scavenging, then tries to move a bunch of air again when the piston is coming up and the intake is shutting. Which make good power and mid range tq. But add much compression with those things can be to much of a good thing, you will be running race gas. Paul Carter runs a lot of compression with the 704, but I am pretty sure he ports the heads. That cam and ported head combo is pulling the air in differently than a stock head. Harolds cams are very effective cams for cylinder fill, IMO, no need to get carried away on compression on the 110 LSA.

[Steve C.]

Different batches of springs often will vary in their actual pressure. Never trust what a catalog states. We always test new springs before use on a Rimac machine at the actual verified installed height with the retainer in use.

Regarding a loss spring pressure with use. Personally I've seen as much as 14 pounds loss on the seat after a dyno session. And not long ago I mentioned a build where the valve springs were set up for a hyd flat tappet application with an initial setting of 130 lbs on the seat, knowing they would lose pressure with run in. The actual pressure after a day on the dyno was 122 pounds.

.

[Cliff R]

"How much difference in Seat and Open pressure have you seen with the 68404 during actual measurement vs the catalog specs?"

I just can't remember the details as it's been over 10 years since I used a set. I seem to remember with stock retainers seeing 128lbs on the seat but can't remember open pressure(s) but they should be up around 280-300lbs at 1/2" lift. One of the last sets we used were on a set of #48 heads we did here for a 455 build, and we used the Crower 60213 cam which specs out at 308/314, 248/256, 108LSA with .518"/.537" lift.

That cam is a handful in a 455 build and will literally tear your head slam off from about 3500-5500rpm's. It loves higher compression, and PLENTY of converter/gearing. IF you like heavy "lope" and EXPLOSIVE mid-range power put it on your list for a "hot" street/strip engine build........