anothersix

I currently have the compcams 252, and am throughly unimpressed with it. It does idle nice and smooth, but I really can't say it really seems much more than a stock cam. That was why I went after an erson cam in the first place--I wanted something in between the compcams 252 and some of the high lift MP cams. From what others have said, the 270 (TQ-20) is runnable with a stock converter, etc.

Or you could wait and see what Doug's cam setups end up like. What's your timeframe for needing a new cam?

MJ

NewLancerMan,

Thanks for the response. It sounds like what you want is very close to what I want. Something in between the almost stock and the too much street strip setup. I have used the hydraulic erson tq20 in several small chevys, a long time ago (82-83). They all worked real well and had great torque and a broad range. Even with stock low compression. In one 327 with the old angle plug 202 heads and 10 to 1 compression it really made some good street power. Yes they were totally different engines than our slants but the erson design philosophy and performance target for the Slant tq20 is the same. That is why I have been holding off thinking I may not quite be happy with a smaller cam, but I know that is not as bad as one that is too big for the setup. I am not in a big hurry, probably this will be a summer project for me. I wanted to get in on the Erson deal before it goes away. If there is a better cam in the works for what I want to do I would be interested.

I'm going with the Erson 270, 3.23 gears and stock converter. Tom at Erson told me that I would be really happy with that combination but if there's any doubt it isn't that tough to swap a converter

_________________
David Kight
'62 Valiant Signet, White
'98 Dodge Dakota
'06 Jeep Liberty

Growing older is unavoidable but growing up is strictly optional.

Well the best part about this whole cam deal is what was mentioned several pages back--we will start to get some real data on different cams in different setups and how they work. I've made the too small cam mistake, now I'll see if I've made the too big one. For the price, I figured I could do a lot worse. I think the 270 is right in between! That's the hope anyway. I really wanted a cam that had a decent idle, good low end torque, and didn't have to wind up to 3000 rpm before I feel it. I moved the lobe center a little tighter, which worries me on my overlap, but we'll see what happens. I'll report back.


MJ

I am trying to get Erson "zeroed-in" on just that kind of cam.
I have already sent them the plots and a couple of my cams for them to cut masters off of. We will see if they "listen" and engage in a true colaborative effort or...??
Stay tuned,
DD

karl this thread makes me remember when I was studying alternate booster shapes for my 2300... sometimes jeffrey reacts pretty "unfriendly" at plain sight but I'm sure he means well. Perhaps an iron fist wrapped in a silk glove would help.

I have to admit I got kinda fuzzy over the last third of your post. I have provided a RDP cam used and developed by local chrysler that had this valve event timing (well I have to dig it... but will get back to you)



I think that betwen the most bright gearheads here you can solve many factory design issues. Ill get cam profiles when I can.

_________________
Juan Ignacio Caino

Please use e-mail button istead of PM'ing. I do log in sometimes but I'll be answering quicker thru e-mail.

Is it springtime yet Doug?

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.

Thanks for the extra input everyone. Doc, if they roll with your cam specs I will gladly buy one and give it a run. I printed what you posted a while back but some of it is hard to read just because of the print quality. What I can read looks pretty good though. I would like to hear about any updates and if ordering one of them helps make it happen let me know. I am sure they will weigh it against how many they think they can sell. Lets hope! I was thinking of going with the 270 and living with it until getting a new converter if it turns out I need one. I want to go thru the trans at the same time a new converter is put in and want to do this whole thing in phases, not making the car a pain to drive in between phases. If I can get what I want with the stock converter that is my first choice, otherwise I would just do the converter, trans. and gears before the engine. Aside from that, the trans seems fine so I hope to just leave it alone for awhile. NewLancerMan, how tight of lobe centers did you order? If it makes you feel any better I was running a cam with 107 lobe centers in my GN. Hydraulic and only 206 degrees at .050" though, it had a very stable idle with a little rumble and that six cylinder snarl just off idle. I would guess a mechanical cam with about 210-212 at .050" would pull the same vacuum and idle. Great response before boost even with the low 8-1 ratio. Rpm range was what we are looking for in the slant. Different beast, but still a six of the same size. Panic, even responding to you is against my better judgment. My comments about fact and fantasy were for the whole discussion, not directed at any one person but yes included you. The opening post here had quite a bit of thought put into it, but some of it is ground clearly covered decades ago by people who designed all the engines we play with, and no amount of free thinking can change some of the parameters we have to deal with. Maybe building a new engine from the ground up would change things, but not dreaming about it. I already very clearly replied to your comments about 9 second cars and prostocks. Thinking that what they may run applies to a street slant is where the fantasy part of my comment comes in as far as you are concerned. We may as well talk about what the space shuttle runs. The "doing it my way" approach is no guarantee of success, you still have to be right. Failure is more likely if you are going to ignore what every one around you already knows. How many top runners in any kind of racing are running vastly different setups? Why not? And I don't mean brackets. But if the shoe fits.... Your defensive ( and offensive) comments very clearly show where you are with this. Accuse some one else of something that you are doing and pretend everyone is not looking or too stupid to see what is really going on. Sorry I cannot just forget or ignore all that I have learned about cams and street cars for your sake. Adjusting lobe centers has it's place. I went so far as to put a real number on it that is realistic for the range of engines we are talking about. Why is it that cam catalogs are not full of street cams with such wide lobe centers? Call the man working with everyone at erson and see what he says, when you don't hear what you want to hear, maybe you can tell him he has no knowledge and is ignorant about the subject as well, that will show him like it did me. You could do it with all the cam grinders and get everyone on the right path fairly quickly. Ideas from everyone are great, but in the face of real world experience we have to see them for what they are when they are wrong. No one here invented the camshaft or the slant. We are just trying to improve them for our own purposes. Instead of improving things, you have decided to try to berate positive conversation and project your own animosity on to me. Waste some one elses time with your spite, it won't help design a cam or make you right. If you really had this subject in hand I would be taking notes. Have you heard the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? The more I learn about this the more there is to know. So while I have much to learn that does not mean going back to the start of the learning curve for me, I was there a long time ago. For everyone actually interested in this, I am anxious to get whatever I am going to end up with together and will note as many details as I can and share the info, good or bad.

Just to have alternatives available, what would be a close equivalent in an Erson cam, given that there's a group buy going on (still?). I'm speaking of the original cam laid out by Karl in the first post.

_________________

The old white brick

Yes, now is the time to get a cam from Erson at a great price.
It has been a somewhat slow process but Tom and I have developed some new designs that should work well for "street performance" SL6 running 1 & 2 bbl carbs. (intake track limited)
See Here for the one I like the best.

Notice that this cam will be ground 4 degrees advanced.
It has a more aggressive intake lobe and still has a mild overlap event.
Exhaust "blow down" is 61 degrees "on paper" but will end-up at 59-60 degrees with a little timing chain slop.

I have used cams very close to this design and they idle smooth, lash at .012 & .020, have tons of mid range power & pull hard to 5000+ RPM (cfm permitting)

If you are getting one of Erson's more aggresive grinds, you may want to also invest in one of these, so you have it on hand when you get tired of the "lumpity-lump", "clatter-clatter" and poor low end power that the aggresive grinds tend to produce.
DD

Do the lobes actually take advantage of our larger .904 lifters, or are they chevy lobes?????????

_________________
Ed
64 Valiant 225 / 904 / 42:1 manual steering / 9" drum brakes

Would you consider the 270 to be an "agressive" grind?

_________________
David Kight
'62 Valiant Signet, White
'98 Dodge Dakota
'06 Jeep Liberty

Growing older is unavoidable but growing up is strictly optional.

The exhaust lobe is a Mopar profile I sent to Erson, the intake is Erson's 'RV15' profile, that profile is based on the smaller Chebby lifter diameter.
Think about it, this is a mild cam, you really do not need (or want) the 'on the edge' (lifter edge) flank rates (high lobe lift rate) that other "like a roller" (i.e. aggressive cam profiles) need in order to get to max lift with-in a set duration. (while preventing the edge of the lifter from 'digging-into' the lobe)
Yes, Just because you will have to increase your static compression ratio when using this cam or else it will be "lazy" at low RPMs.
DD

I was planning to bring the CR up to between 9 and 9.5:1, will that make a difference? The final drive ratio will be 3.23:1 and I intend to start with a stock torque converter but will consider custom if it proves too doggy with the lower stall.

_________________
David Kight
'62 Valiant Signet, White
'98 Dodge Dakota
'06 Jeep Liberty

Growing older is unavoidable but growing up is strictly optional.