But it can, which explains why Mopar ground an entire re-do line of wider lobe-center versions of the purple-shafts already in use, for the purpose of idle vacuum & drive-ability......at the expense of max-output. There has been very mixed opinions on those, but nonetheless..............the off/on the seat timing is something that needs quantified in these "side-by-side" comparisons.........

that's right,, brain fart on my side!

_________________
Doo Ron Ron and the Duke of Earl are friends of mine.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX8Nj8ABEI8

I'm still fairly young, and new into the automotive tuning.
Thing is I would gladly modify my head to run these cams.. If they keep the engine reliable, keep the idle good and give more some extra bite.

Since I've got a '61 and I've got the weakest cam in production with a heavy car.. And got a better intake and exhaust setup.. I'm just looking for the cherry on top for my build. And these look quite promising.. I'd rather be sure and get knowledge as destroy it

Changing the LSA from 106 to 110° changes the overlap of the MP 276 cam from 64° to 56°. A Comp Cams 264 is only 44° overlap, so no, the LSA change does not account for the change in observed engine behavior, but the overlap does. Bottom line is the MP 276 cam with its long seat duration and relatively short .050" duration is an ancient profile and makes for a poor street cam even if it does check at only 218° at .050" lift.

_________________
Joshua

Which is also why looking at the advertised, .020 and .050 durations can hint as to the slope of the ramp when looking at a bunch of cam lobe specs...


Josh is leaving quite a few good nuggets of knowledge on cam characteristics...

Overlap is important also if intake reversion is an issue, and if it will bleed the cylinder down and will need a bunch of compression ratio
to make up for that...
At the extreme, if the pushrods are pretty stout and keep pushing the stamped rocker arm will crack just beyond the rocker shaft collar when the rod end keeps going and
the keeper is bottomed out on the guide... If it's too close you can also hammer the guide loose... (Been there done that...LOL)

I would hate for a 170 guy to put a higher lift cam in and find that the valve lift exceeds the clearance to the pistons during that chase down the bore...just thinking of all
the scenarios.
Yes, and no... a few years back in talking with Ken at OCG and a couple of other Cam companies, there are only a couple of manufacturers of cam blanks...
so when the demand is there, they run a pallet full of blanks and then ship as requested to the cam grinding companies...I doubt that any one of these companies
has 20-100 blanks in their bin (OCG prefers to regrind an original and only uses a new blank if requested by the purchaser...but I haven't had a problem with using their new blank on
big cam turning high rpms), so it will be russian roulette of old blanks from local stock, and what is left in stock at the manufacturer to ship on demand...
It's not that, but if you've been at this a while, and have built quite a few engines you really become wary when someone says they have better slant cams...

I mean literally: did they computer model these cams? Did they use real flow bench numbers on the modelling? Did they plug one into a test buck and see how it ran at 700 rpm to 6500rpm?

Like I said, that 256/256 CCX with .466 lift looked really good for a 9.66:1 engine on the drawing board... but was doggy under 2000 rpm...the Erson 280/270 in a 10:1 build was much better 800 rpm, in traffic, and on the highway and worked well at the track for a compromise that isn't a full race engine...
We've been bit quite a few times on new products here (and some of us have burned our own paychecks having to road test this stuff out of curiosity so others don't lose their money on it, if it
doesn't work out...just sayin').

Nothing turns off an enthusiast like a cam swap in a car, after you just installed your brand new build...

1) Nobody here said, "the DC/MP 276 cam is a great street cam", it can be used with the right juicewheel.
2) Joshua stated the amount of lift on the Hughes cam was concerning, none of Us are holding one to check exactly what that is, or to compare it to the Comp. unit He referenced, which obviously has a higher lift rate than the above DC/MP unit.
3) I make no judgments about a cams performance until I see it run in a real engine.
4) Giving good advice is always good, LSA & overlap vary with lift rate, for sure. How about, "if You want
to run a cam with"X" lift, You'll need some machine work on the head" vs "useless on a stock head"?
My point here is there seems to be an intentionally negative vibe towards Hughes, & that goes for FABO as well. Even when there's no basis for it, it's there. I don't know whether these cams are junk or not by a sheet of paper, let the real world tell Us, does He have dyno sheets etc.? A member on FABO ran a set of Hughes Bigmouth heads, & felt disappointed, then found out the grass wasn't greener when He tried a set of somebody else's "hot ticket" units.
We are capable of being helpful w/o being so negative, that's all........................................

I thought the "fast ramp" cams always wanted more lash and not less? Then again I have been wrong before!

_________________
2 Mopars come with Spark plug tubes. One is a world class, racing machine. The other is a 426 CI. boat anchor!

12.70 @ 104.6

I have no dog in this fight, nor do I have any grudge against Hughes. But I will note I've been around since before they started selling Mopar stuff and they came in as a sort of "we're cheaper than the really good guys". They were among the first to usher in the lower-price speed parts (engine internals). That's not a bad thing, it just is what it is. Most of all, they have the big 'red flag' I assign to any car parts vendor - they show no hesitation in bragging about how great they are. If someone is good, I'll notice it - I don't need them to tell me.

I am curious about this tight-lash spec as well, maybe I purchase a suitable cam for one of My projects for X-mas, lol! I need very few excuses for these things sometimes!
GregCon, that's the issue, I don't see it as a "fight". And as much as I don't like it, marketing & bragging sells, & there are a LOT of great products and shops that went under. I know personally a few top-notch body Guys that just can't make a living restoring or modifying even tho' They were/are some of the best to do it. It can be a tough business, yes I like to think quality and reputation is all one needs, but sadly that is not always enough.

I'm stoked that we have some new cams to argue over.

_________________
“Buy the ticket, take the ride.”
― Hunter S. Thompson

I wouldn't be scared of trying one, but they're all too small for my taste.

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.

I'm interested in seeing the three race profiles they have coming.

_________________
“Buy the ticket, take the ride.”
― Hunter S. Thompson

A fast ramp cam will use less lash. There maybe other ways to get there, but remember ‘lash’ is lost motion at the valve. The larger the lash the more the lifter has to travel around the cam to start the valve opening process.
The large mopar lifter allows a steeper cam lobe than a small chevy lifter. And that is where you need to be careful. Chevy cam lobe profiles are probably a lot like any other performance part. In sheer quantity they dominate the market. A lot of aftermarket cam and regrind suppliers likely have mostly Chevy profiles designed around the small Chevy lifter.
The last cam that I had re ground at Oregon, I was on the phone with Ken for some time trying to find a mopar grind in the lift and duration that I was after. Finally found a Ford profile that fit what I wanted. The Ford lifter is larger than a Chevy, not quite as large in diameter as a Chevy.

And like DI mentioned, you can compare the relative valve opening speeds by subtracting the .002 or .020 duration from the .050 duration. The smaller the difference the faster the valve is getting to .050 lift.
If you use Advertised Duration as the numerator you are guessing as there is no industry standard that defines where Advertised Duration is measured.

_________________
Doo Ron Ron and the Duke of Earl are friends of mine.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX8Nj8ABEI8

Dadtruck, this is what I'm getting at, the numbers on a sheet of paper are just that. And comparing them others is just not reliable, and I've been at this a long time, I have also come to only trust My degree wheel, dial gauges, & eyes to tell Me how 2 cams look in comparison. Then there are valvetrain dynamics, fast opening & closing ramps are harder on parts, & require more spring to maintain control over things. But for a given head to head in the off/on seat timing, they will make more HP, IF those needs are addressed properly. Hughes' big claim to fame is the use of the .904 lifter diameter in the lobe profiles for the V-8's, and at a time when only Ultradyne & the series of Mopar lobes Comp had were there for comparison. Yeah, is Engels grinding them? I dunno, but again, I'll hold judgement 'til I see them run......

I emailed them and they sent me their cam cards for the new cams. The intake and exhaust closing events don't seem right though. The note on the cam card says @ .050" lift. I've never seen them listed like that. Here's a link to the files. Hopefully it works.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-3QoO ... bEU-YU91Pm