Cam advice needed.

dutchie June 2nd 2010, 1:24 am

Hello,
I'm building my 466, and need some advice on the cam.
I need a good torqe from idle and up, as it comes into a heavy car.
Main usage is cruising. Fuel will be PROPANE. (injection)
Goal: maximum efficiency (economy), combined with max. torque with that eficciency. (and reduce pumping losses.)
I'm having the block zero-decked in order to maximise quench, an use hypereutectic flattops. Cr. should be approx. 10:1 (96cc heads)
I plan on installing 2.25"/1.76" stainless valves in the heads, and use roller rockers/studs.
Now, since hydraulic flat tappet robs some power, i was thinking about a hydraulic roller setup.
Not for the RPM obviously, but just for economy, and the more choices in cam lobes.
It may have a slightly noticable idle, but when there's a choice, i'd rather have it very smoothly running.
The engine is balanced/blueprinted.
There will be headers installed combined with a silent free flowing exhaust system. (magnaflow)
Estimated highway RPM at cruise is calculated at 1700-1800RPM.
Transmission has a lockup, 9" rear has a tracklock in it.
When i want to, i would like to have a lot of power under the pedal if i step it harder.
Spinning the rear shouldn't be a problem at all.

Any advice highly apreciated.
PS. No need to have it computer friendly, as i'm going to put a fully programmable system in it.
Still saving bucks for it, but when in reach, i plan on a motec 800 series.

Thanks!

rmcomprandy June 2nd 2010, 11:24 am

In one instance you claim you are after TORQUE and ECONOMY ... then later you say you are installing really big valves which will lessen BOTH.
Use a 1.650" tulip exhaust valve and a 2.110" intake valve with a MARINE camshaft; (the FRPP number was M-6250-A460 but, they no longer offer it. ELGIN or Sealed Power are probably the best alternatives. I can get you one if you eventually want it).

A hydraulic roller will work in your situation however, be aware that initial installation is certainly NOT a "drop-in" and performance will be no better than a good flat tappet.

It sounds to me as though you really have little idea what your actual priorities are from this build.

jones June 2nd 2010, 12:31 pm

Randy,

Are you saying that he will make more average trq if he uses the smaller valve? Where is the line drawn for sacraficing hp? I'm assuming this is a 4,500-5,000 max rpm engine?

dutchie June 2nd 2010, 12:34 pm

rmcomprandy wrote:

It sounds to me as though you really have little idea what your actual priorities are from this build.

hi, thanks for the reply.

No, my priority's are as clear as glass, but i don't have enough knowledge of every part of an engine and how one effects another. I think that that's what you'r trying to say.

I _thought_ bigger valves would help breathing, and not only at high RPM. that's why i brought the option in the whole question.
When it hurts low rpm torque and economy, i don't want it indeed. (that, after all, whas what i was asking.. Wink

)

i will take a look at the cam you mentioned.
i read different story's about roller and flat tappet's.
It may not come as a surprise that most of my knowledge i gathered from books and the internet, not by experience. This is why i ask you guys for advice.

Thanks for that.

Laughing

rmcomprandy June 2nd 2010, 6:32 pm

For better milage and low speed torque especially at PART THROTTLES you need to maintain proper VELOCITY in the ports AND as that mixture goes past the opening and closing valve. The larger the valve - the lower the velocity. On the exhaust side it is extreemely important to MAINTAIN velocity past the valve and seat. When that valve gets to large the "blow down" occurs much faster and velocity is not MAINTAINED.
REMEMBER that the mixture DENSITY at part throttles is not near what they are at Wide Open Throttle so keeping the velocity with a very thin mass of air becomes critical.
Finding those valve sizes and shapes becomes an exercise in going to large and backing off until torque stops climbing; I've already been there but, if Jones or anybody else wishes to find out for themselves, I welcome them to find different conclusions.
They can spend the money and I can learn for a change, lol.
Wide Open Throttle seems to be everyone's ONLY criteria here.

EVERYTHING within an engine and how it runs is a COMPROMISE and whatever priorities you have should come FIRST if it differs from those which work well with other parameters.

rmcomprandy June 2nd 2010, 6:35 pm

rmcomprandy wrote:For better milage and low speed torque especially at PART THROTTLES you need to maintain proper VELOCITY in the ports AND as that mixture goes past the opening and closing valve. The larger the valve - the lower the velocity. On the exhaust side it is extreemely important to MAINTAIN velocity past the valve and seat so less "back flow" into the cylinder occures. When that valve gets to large the "blow down" occurs much faster and velocity is not MAINTAINED.
REMEMBER that the mixture DENSITY at part throttles is not near what they are at Wide Open Throttle so keeping the velocity with a very thin mass of air becomes critical.
Finding those valve sizes and shapes becomes an exercise in going to large and backing off until torque stops climbing; I've already been there but, if Jones or anybody else wishes to find out for themselves, I welcome them to find different conclusions.
They can spend the money and I can learn for a change, lol.
Wide Open Throttle seems to be everyone's ONLY criteria here.

EVERYTHING within an engine and how it runs is a COMPROMISE and whatever priorities you have should come FIRST if it differs from those which work well with other parameters.

billandlori June 2nd 2010, 7:02 pm

Check this out: https://www.429-460.com/proven-builds-f4/big-block-ford-horsepower-chart-info-gathered-by-djohagin-t121.htm

The lower HP engines will tend to be more street friendly.

The "marine" type cams work good for a street car as Randy said.

Bill

Unfairadvantage June 16th 2010, 1:58 pm

Dutch, in an off-the-shelf cam for your purposes, look for 256 to 262 total intake duration and 110 to 112 lobe separation. As an example take a look at Comp's smaller Xtreme 4x4 grinds, or Lunati's smallest Voodoo grinds. These are both a good choice for moving a heavier vehicle from off idle up to 5k rpm. Rollerizing is not necessary, not good bang for the buck, but roller IS proven to be slightly more efficient and more reliable. Your call.

Also the marine cams others mentioned are very similar to the 4x4 grinds I mentioned, with a slight expense of off-idle torque for slightly stronger midrange torque. The torque curve on either style cam will be strong and wide, with a good vacuum signal and no problems working with the stock torque converter, just stay in circa 250~260 total duration range with the marine cam if you go that route, they make some hairy marine cams for jet boats, you don't want to go too big.

jones June 16th 2010, 2:24 pm

Thank you for the clarification and information. I think Suspect

Unfairadvantage June 16th 2010, 3:27 pm

I know, the funny look is for small cam plus 10:1 CR? Normally would recommend a bigger cam than @ 260 total for 10:1 but the propane conversion gives him 100~110 octane (depending on local quality, butane etc added) plus charge cooling via fuel vaporizing. Also, LP carbs usually require a good vacuum signal to properly set a/f mixture at low rpm. Note: a good strong ignition system and good stainless valves on hardened seats are also a good idea.

jones June 16th 2010, 3:42 pm

Sorry,, the funny look was directed towards randy for throwing me under the bus.

dutchie June 16th 2010, 4:28 pm

Unfairadvantage wrote:I know, the funny look is for small cam plus 10:1 CR? Normally would recommend a bigger cam than @ 260 total for 10:1 but the propane conversion gives him 100~110 octane (depending on local quality, butane etc added) plus charge cooling via fuel vaporizing. Also, LP carbs usually require a good vacuum signal to properly set a/f mixture at low rpm. Note: a good strong ignition system and good stainless valves on hardened seats are also a good idea.

Currently the heads are being machined for 16 hardened seats, new guides, and stainless valves with tulip back-cot, and with 3-angle job.
LPG carb is only temporarily, as i'm going to set it all up for LPG injection...
Currently in progress of buying a Motec M800 ecu. Very Happy

bb429power June 16th 2010, 4:33 pm

By the sound of it you are building a hot rod not a gas sipper. My valves are 2.19/1.76 with low compression and 500+hp/600+ft-lbs. Your valves don't need to be THAT big. As for the rpms, whats the highest you will/want to get them?

This cam could be good, but I need to know what rpms you want to hit. Remember, getting the same cam from Summitracing.com will give you a better deal, plus you will need hydraulic flat tappets. They can hook you up with that, there is nothing wrong with flat tappets. Roller cams are mainly for racing or high power applications so that is not needed. This cam will help you with low end power while still having top end power. Or there is an Edelbrock cam that will give you like 1500-6500 rpms. There is a point where you go too big and loose efficientsy and just gain power. So you don't need to go big on this one, the 460 alone produces a good amount of torque and that's what you need for hauling stuff around.

dutchie June 16th 2010, 4:43 pm

Okay,

No race intentions at all.
So, if i'd stick to lets say 2.19"/ 1.76" i'd do fine?
My cam is a comp cams extreme nrgy cam 34-255-14, grind XE256H-14.
cam specs 256/268, .490/.495, 114deg. LS.

That's what i have, brandnew, never ran.

The 500HP/600Tq is achievable you think?
That would really live up to my expectations Very Happy

I need low rpm with this heavy car. i think that 4500-5000 rpm tops would be more than enough.
Fastest i would dare to drive is 100 Mph, not faster...
so, i aim for highway cruise speed of approx. 70Mph, and have it run about 1600-1700 Rpm with OD and lockup enabled...
That should give a decent milage i guess..

Thanks for all the advice from you guys, it's really nice to have so much knowledge available to ask for info.
Wish i could return a favor.

IDT-572 June 16th 2010, 4:54 pm

jones wrote:Sorry,, the funny look was directed towards randy for throwing me under the bus.

Randy and two more guys his size couldn't throw your bug butt under the bus Razz

You have to be thick skinned to be friends with Randy.................. Laughing

(like me)

He's taught my dumb azz a bunch...............

jones June 16th 2010, 5:15 pm

IDT-572 wrote:
jones wrote:Sorry,, the funny look was directed towards randy for throwing me under the bus.

Randy and two more guys his size couldn't throw your bug butt under the bus

You have to be thick skinned to be friends with Randy.................. (like me)

He's taught my dumb azz a bunch...............

Having thick skin has nothing to do with just being out right sour.

IDT-572 June 16th 2010, 5:20 pm

jones wrote:
IDT-572 wrote:
jones wrote:Sorry,, the funny look was directed towards randy for throwing me under the bus.

Randy and two more guys his size couldn't throw your bug butt under the bus

You have to be thick skinned to be friends with Randy.................. (like me)

He's taught my dumb azz a bunch...............

Having thick skin has nothing to do with just being out right sour.

rmcomprandy June 16th 2010, 5:42 pm

Unfairadvantage wrote:Dutch, in an off-the-shelf cam for your purposes, look for 256 to 262 total intake duration and 110 to 112 lobe separation. As an example take a look at Comp's smaller Xtreme 4x4 grinds, or Lunati's smallest Voodoo grinds. These are both a good choice for moving a heavier vehicle from off idle up to 5k rpm. Rollerizing is not necessary, not good bang for the buck, but roller IS proven to be slightly more efficient and more reliable. Your call.

Also the marine cams others mentioned are very similar to the 4x4 grinds I mentioned, with a slight expense of off-idle torque for slightly stronger midrange torque. The torque curve on either style cam will be strong and wide, with a good vacuum signal and no problems working with the stock torque converter, just stay in circa 250~260 total duration range with the marine cam if you go that route, they make some hairy marine cams for jet boats, you don't want to go too big.

A hydraulic roller camshaft and valve train IS NOT proven to be any more efficient in a Big Block Ford engine; in fact - quite the opposite.
Ford Motor Company did the testing for that very circumstance comparing OEM sized camshafts, (hydraulic roller and hydraulic flat tappet), almost 20 years ago and it was found that milage and power showd NO increase. The hydraulic rollers were a tiny bit more reliable but, as you mention, certainly not worth the increased cost of over twice the amount.
However, they only checked up to 100,000 miles so after that you might see a difference ... who knows for sure ?

the Coug June 16th 2010, 5:44 pm

rmcomprandy wrote:
Unfairadvantage wrote:Dutch, in an off-the-shelf cam for your purposes, look for 256 to 262 total intake duration and 110 to 112 lobe separation. As an example take a look at Comp's smaller Xtreme 4x4 grinds, or Lunati's smallest Voodoo grinds. These are both a good choice for moving a heavier vehicle from off idle up to 5k rpm. Rollerizing is not necessary, not good bang for the buck, but roller IS proven to be slightly more efficient and more reliable. Your call.

Also the marine cams others mentioned are very similar to the 4x4 grinds I mentioned, with a slight expense of off-idle torque for slightly stronger midrange torque. The torque curve on either style cam will be strong and wide, with a good vacuum signal and no problems working with the stock torque converter, just stay in circa 250~260 total duration range with the marine cam if you go that route, they make some hairy marine cams for jet boats, you don't want to go too big.

A hydraulic roller camshaft and valve train IS NOT proven to be any more efficient in a Big Block Ford engine; in fact - quite the opposite.
Ford Motor Company did the testing for that very circumstance comparing OEM sized camshafts, (hydraulic roller and hydraulic flat tappet), almost 20 years ago and it was found that milage and power showd NO increase. The hydraulic rollers were a tiny bit more reliable but, as you mention, certainly not worth the increased cost of over twice the amount.
However, they only checked up to 100,000 miles so after that you might see a difference ... who knows for sure ?

Randy only your hair dresser knows for sure Suspect

oh wrong comercial

Randy

rmcomprandy June 16th 2010, 5:46 pm

dutchie wrote:Okay,

No race intentions at all.
So, if i'd stick to lets say 2.19"/ 1.76" i'd do fine?
My cam is a comp cams extreme nrgy cam 34-255-14, grind XE256H-14.
cam specs 256/268, .490/.495, 114deg. LS.

That's what i have, brandnew, never ran.

The 500HP/600Tq is achievable you think?
That would really live up to my expectations
I need low rpm with this heavy car. i think that 4500-5000 rpm tops would be more than enough.
Fastest i would dare to drive is 100 Mph, not faster...
so, i aim for highway cruise speed of approx. 70Mph, and have it run about 1600-1700 Rpm with OD and lockup enabled...
That should give a decent milage i guess..

Thanks for all the advice from you guys, it's really nice to have so much knowledge available to ask for info.
Wish i could return a favor.

It seems you already had your mind made-up about the valve sizes you wished to use and were simply looking to get some validation.
Just run whatever makes you feel happy - it's your engine !!!

IDT-572 June 16th 2010, 5:55 pm

Randy,

Just from what I have seen in my small amount of testing, it seems you have to be close to 260 @ .050 for a solid roller to overtake a good aggressive flat tappet.

Just by measuring the lift rate of a flat tappet, it get's the valve off the seat faster than a roller from what I have seen. On my flat head stuff I used to do, I put small hyd roller lobes on big diameter willis jeep flat tappets , of coarse this was 4000 rpm max deals and 325-375 lobe lift.

Hydraulic roller lobes on roller lifters wern't even it the same leage as the flat tappets at the same size, roller was way to lazy off the seat and killed the air charge coming in to the port waithing on the valve to open.

(these were single cylinder engines)

JMHO.

IDT-572 June 16th 2010, 5:59 pm

rmcomprandy wrote:
dutchie wrote:Okay,

No race intentions at all.
So, if i'd stick to lets say 2.19"/ 1.76" i'd do fine?
My cam is a comp cams extreme nrgy cam 34-255-14, grind XE256H-14.
cam specs 256/268, .490/.495, 114deg. LS.

That's what i have, brandnew, never ran.

The 500HP/600Tq is achievable you think?
That would really live up to my expectations
I need low rpm with this heavy car. i think that 4500-5000 rpm tops would be more than enough.
Fastest i would dare to drive is 100 Mph, not faster...
so, i aim for highway cruise speed of approx. 70Mph, and have it run about 1600-1700 Rpm with OD and lockup enabled...
That should give a decent milage i guess..

Thanks for all the advice from you guys, it's really nice to have so much knowledge available to ask for info.
Wish i could return a favor.

It seems you already had your mind made-up about the valve sizes you wished to use and were simply looking to get some validation.
Just run whatever makes you feel happy - it's your engine !!!

I would bowl blend and leave the stock valve size in before I would put the 2.190 in it.

One of the best torque and power engine I ever built was a .060 over 9.5:1 472 with stock 2.065 intake with just a bowl clean up. Attention on the exhaust port and a single pattern cam.

rmcomprandy June 16th 2010, 8:00 pm

IDT-572 wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:
dutchie wrote:Okay,

No race intentions at all.
So, if i'd stick to lets say 2.19"/ 1.76" i'd do fine?
My cam is a comp cams extreme nrgy cam 34-255-14, grind XE256H-14.
cam specs 256/268, .490/.495, 114deg. LS.

That's what i have, brandnew, never ran.

The 500HP/600Tq is achievable you think?
That would really live up to my expectations
I need low rpm with this heavy car. i think that 4500-5000 rpm tops would be more than enough.
Fastest i would dare to drive is 100 Mph, not faster...
so, i aim for highway cruise speed of approx. 70Mph, and have it run about 1600-1700 Rpm with OD and lockup enabled...
That should give a decent milage i guess..

Thanks for all the advice from you guys, it's really nice to have so much knowledge available to ask for info.
Wish i could return a favor.

It seems you already had your mind made-up about the valve sizes you wished to use and were simply looking to get some validation.
Just run whatever makes you feel happy - it's your engine !!!

I would bowl blend and leave the stock valve size in before I would put the 2.190 in it.

One of the best torque and power engine I ever built was a .060 over 9.5:1 472 with stock 2.065 intake with just a bowl clean up. Attention on the exhaust port and a single pattern cam.

WoW Blake ... that's exactly what you need for mileage and "off idle" torque but, one may wish to make some concessions to the midrange.
However, it is all about PRIORITIES.

On roller vs. flat tappet; it's right around 230°@.050" where the MAXIMUM lift which can be attained goes toward the roller. Acceleration from .006" to .050" lift, a roller will NEVER catch a flat tappet; it's what can happen to lifter velocity AFTER about .080" lifter rise where a roller gets much better.

bb429power June 16th 2010, 9:13 pm

I wasn't saying do a 2.19 valve, I was saying that you don't need to have a valve as big as 2.25. I say the cam you have would work just fine, get new valve springs to match the cam and clean up the heads a little bit. A 3 angle valve job on the intake and a full radius on the exhaust would raise the port flow. You don't need BIG valves to have your motor make good power. With that cam you should get some pep with that motor, you should like it.

But take it from the pro's, not me. They would know better so I'll let them chime in. Don't get pissed at me if I'm sounding dumb to you guys, just trying to help. Smile

dutchie June 20th 2010, 3:44 am

The nice gold Motec M800 is shining in front of me now Very Happy

i've made a small list of my wishes with it.
Are there people around here that have worked with the Motec also, who can chime in and have some good tips to follow?
I know it's going to be a steep training coarse, but i'm in no hurry study

As for the valves: i plan on going by Randy's advice and stick to the stock, or just slightly larger than stock stainless valves, and will do a bowl job on them. I think it's good to take just one step at the time, and listen carefully what the expirienced guy's have to say about it. Thanks for the advice so far

Sponsored content

Cam advice needed.

Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

torque cam

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.

Re: Cam advice needed.