Purple Cam question

[mr gtx]

the comp 21-222-4 would have been my first choice, but comp came out with one made for our .904 lifters. this is a great street cam off idle to 5500 rpms. you must have better valve springs than stock if your running the 484 cam or any modern cam. should have 120-130 lbs on seat and 280-310 open, with this cam.

 

[stubs300]

As Steve Dulcich has said!
Take a stock cams specs and add no more than 10% to the duration, and not more than adding .050 lift, you'll have one great street car that can use stock converter and have good vacuum! this would put you in a 220-230* at 0.50 range.
Crunch the numbers on a 260*/.425" cam and see what numbers you get and go from there!
I wound up using Hughes 23/30 cam, which is no longer made. Good Luck

 

[mr gtx]

As Steve Dulcich has said!
Take a stock cams specs and add no more than 10% to the duration, and not more than adding .050 lift, you'll have one great street car that can use stock converter and have good vacuum! this would put you in a 220-230* at 0.50 range.
Crunch the numbers on a 260*/.425" cam and see what numbers you get and go from there!
I wound up using Hughes 23/30 cam, which is no longer made. Good Luck

don't understand what your getting at. more lift the better with less duration. are talking about the stock 2 barrel cam 260/425. the 4 barrel hp cam was 214-222 with 450-458 lift.am running that cam now 217-221 in my 4200 lb Newport rebuilt 440 motor with 2.94 gears with stock 915 heads and stock 2.08 intake-160 ex valves. i have used the 223-230 in my lighter gtx good cam with 3.23 gears little extra converter and head work, also ran a hughes 215-223 in a stock 440 gtx, ran a hughes 219-223 in my 1965 413 300L. plus 45 years ago ran the 471 hemi grind, 484 and the 509 cam. the 217-221 is best for a heavy c-body with a mild built in my opinion, there was no need to put a red x in my post, you like the 223-230 and that's your opinion. neither one of us is wrong. in my thinking the smaller cam gives you more down low but only takes away after 5000 rpms. plus the extra exhaust duration spread of 220-230 takes more away from the bottom end.

 

[furious70]

Both those comps have XE lobes which are aggressive by design. A person just needs to realize that, spring correctly, and expect it to clatter like a solid cam or worse based on everything I've seen over the years. Certainly either one has mild duration to work with stock stall and highway gears

 

[mr gtx]

Both those comps have XE lobes which are aggressive by design. A person just needs to realize that, spring correctly, and expect it to clatter like a solid cam or worse based on everything I've seen over the years. Certainly either one has mild duration to work with stock stall and highway gears

Actually the lifters are not too loud a lot less than a solid lifters. I'm running 15-40 oil they're actually pretty quiet new cam from cam made for the 904 has a softer closing rate then there other fast ramp cams. Another reason why I like it so much.

 

[furious70]

I looked it up in the catalog - the lobes you used said they are for an AMC I6 but are modeled after the XE Mopar cams?

 

[mr gtx]

I looked it up in the catalog - the lobes you used said they are for an AMC I6 but are modeled after the XE Mopar cams?

Well keep reading don't they say they have a softer closing rate

 

[mr gtx]

I'm not going to argue with you guys like I said I ran dozens of cams some of them in a Buick nailhead talk about noisy they were. But were quiet in the 340 Buick Motors. Plus I'm actually running the cam if somebody would like to come and listen and drive the car you're welcome to see for yourself

 

[furious70]

it says softer than XFI .842 cams, but aren't all XE Mopars .904 based?

I don't believe I've said you're wrong, just providing additional context for people who may not understand the XE cams. If you were near to me I'd definitely take you up on it - it's an interesting cam that I'd like to see how it works.

 

[mr gtx]

it says softer than XFI .842 cams, but aren't all XE Mopars .904 based?

I don't believe I've said you're wrong, just providing additional context for people who may not understand the XE cams. If you were near to me I'd definitely take you up on it - it's an interesting cam that I'd like to see how it works.

No the X e cams extreme energy are made for the 842 Chevy lifter. I would love somebody to come drive the car it's quite quick even with 294 gears I live in Auburn New York

 

[furious70]

only 688 miles between us!

 

[mr gtx]

The XE cams and the xfi are very similar except the xfi has more lift. If you got that far looking up the 217-221 did you also look at the DURATION @ 200 lift more than a lot of bigger cams

 

[mr gtx]

It just Ruffles me to get a red X without a discussion Plus no red X for the 218 224 extreme energy cam which is darn close to 217-221

 

[furious70]

It just Ruffles me to get a red X without a discussion Plus no red X for the 218 224 extreme energy cam which is darn close to 217-221

I almost red xed this one but wasn't sure the sarcasm would work

 

[LocuMob]

Years ago I was told by Dulcich, a COMP XE265HL would work well with the combo I had, they don't make that cam any longer. I did get the XE275XL, and some Hughes lifters, basically given to me a year or so later. They still have that cam in their catalog. I have too many cams for the engines I plan on building, but at least I have some selection.

 

[stubs300]

don't understand what your getting at. more lift the better with less duration. are talking about the stock 2 barrel cam 260/425. the 4 barrel hp cam was 214-222 with 450-458 lift.am running that cam now 217-221 in my 4200 lb Newport rebuilt 440 motor with 2.94 gears with stock 915 heads and stock 2.08 intake-160 ex valves. i have used the 223-230 in my lighter gtx good cam with 3.23 gears little extra converter and head work, also ran a hughes 215-223 in a stock 440 gtx, ran a hughes 219-223 in my 1965 413 300L. plus 45 years ago ran the 471 hemi grind, 484 and the 509 cam. the 217-221 is best for a heavy c-body with a mild built in my opinion, there was no need to put a red x in my post, you like the 223-230 and that's your opinion. neither one of us is wrong. in my thinking the smaller cam gives you more down low but only takes away after 5000 rpms. plus the extra exhaust duration spread of 220-230 takes more away from the bottom end.

I don't under what you're saying due to the lack of Grammar & Punctuation! It shows your level of education!

 

[Ross Wooldridge]

OK gents, enough. I'm going to respectfuly request that we ALL keep our tempers/egos/feelings out of this thread. I had no idea this would be such a volatile discussion...

I thank everyone for their responses. I have learned a great deal about camshaft selection, how they work and the opinions of those who have seat of the pants experience in these matters.

I will likely be making a choice that is very close to factory stock.

Since the general opinion is that the factory cam for 1966 is a little too mild, I can quite easily bump it up to the 1969 spec 440 high performance cam the factory used. The numbers are all available for comarison, and, from what I can see, identical grinds exist from both Mellings and Elgin in their RV cam listings, and can be bought as a kit with factory style lifters. They even cross reference the factory cam part numbers.

I expect since Mellings and Elgin are long-lived and well respected names in the rebuilding industry, I will get what I want from those, and avoid the current issues of lifter camshaft and other failures that I see all over the place from aftermarket companies like Comp etc.

 

[mr gtx]

only 688 miles between us!

Well if you can't come here LOL . I will start a new thread in a few days and make a video with a cam idling and tailpipe sound. And do a video of running through the gears first and second.

 

[stubs300]

Since the general opinion is that the factory cam for 1966 is a little too mild, I can quite easily bump it up to the 1969 spec 440 high performance cam the factory used. The numbers are all available for comarison, and, from what I can see, identical grinds exist from both Mellings and Elgin in their RV cam listings, and can be bought as a kit with factory style lifters. They even cross reference the factory cam part numbers.

I expect since Mellings and Elgin are long-lived and well respected names in the rebuilding industry, I will get what I want from those, and avoid the current issues of lifter camshaft and other failures that I see all over the place from aftermarket companies like Comp etc.

I agree that the 66 cam is on the small side, that's why I used those numbers in a earlier reply. The newer RR cam would work fine without doing the converter and other mods, maybe that's why Mopar picked that grind??? I have no experience with either the Melling or Elgin cams so I can't comment. You can choose any cam that's around the size of the RR cam and have good results.
Here's my brother's car first time out of the garage and on the street after 20+ years. 383 with a Hughes 2328 cam to give you a idea of the rumble. Good Luck

 

[Ross Wooldridge]

Thanks Stubbs!