brianj5600 said:That is a very mild cam, almost an RV cam. I would look more towards the 262 at least.
302 coupe said:anything with less than .480 lift and 214 dur at .050 is a waste of effort in my opinion, even with stock heads. The stock cam is designed for stock heads and efficiency, just use it.
bad68coupe said:so what kind of things can i do to the stock heads, with budget in mind, to increase their flow?
XXBULLETSXX said:I have the Extreme energy 274 and it is sooooo mean. No one believes me when I tell them it's a 289. I've had a lot of head work done to some windsor Jr heads and went full roller.
I kind of agree with what was said earlier if you're going for gas mileage and want to stay with the stock heads I wouldn't put in the work to swap the cam.
However, you can find some iron heads like I did, possibly do some flow work to them, and go with a more radical cam like the 262 mentioned which would result in significant power increase.
Although it's tough to wait sometimes it's best to put this project together a piece at a time. Find some iron heads and put them on the shelf until you get your cam and lifters.
Oh and IMO, I would go with solid lifters if this isn't a daily driver and roller if it is. Spend the money to get everything externally balanced before you re-assemble.
Good Luck!
tylerrocks said:rollers are more effecient and allow more agressive ramp on cam.
Well think about it. Your camshaft is rotating at a high rate of speed, non-roller lifters drag/grind across the cam lobes while roller lifters well, roll across them. You can push your car around in neutral, however if you take the wheels of and set it on the hubs, moving the car takes much more effort. Rolling>Draging as far as effeciency is concerned. Non-roller lifters are just old technology. You are kinda looking for the same thing manufacturers are; increase effecinecy/power at minimal cost, which is why THEY use roller lifters.bad68coupe said:does that necessarily translate into horsepower or torque? and what do you mean by effecient?
It probly has a noticable idle, be nice if the cam had a little more lift, I would use 1.7 rockers but thats just me. I have the F303 in my engine and it has an obvious lope in the idle, I get looks at the stoplight or sonic or really anywhere i go. Its duration is 226/226 @ .544/.544 lift with 1.7 RR and its plenty steetable, even with the stock 3:1 gears (thats all about to change this afternon with my new currie 9") the motor dosn't bog from takeoff. It sounds like a beast at WOT.Sharps-Nut said:Not to jump you thread. But I just alled the cam help line last night about my build which sounds very close to your. I asked the tech guy about 4 different cams including the 271hp grind and he hands down pointed me towards the 262 extreme performance. My question now goes to 67topless whis runnning the cam. Is it at all choppy at idle? I want the torque figures it will produce on the low end but would sure like eneogh duration to get a little sloppy idle so everyone knows its in there. I knowthat sounds childish but thats what I want. If it does not does anyone know which one will get me a lumpy idle and preserve eneogh low end to still make a good street driver, manual trans manual brakes so no worries there, but 13-14 mpg would be nice if its possible. Thanks for any insight.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?