Where'd the
come from I typed in 8.........
| Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| Cam in a 170 https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13386 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Murch [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Cam in a 170 |
I have a 170 that has low mileage and runs good. I've collected about everything I need to convert to a 2bbl set up. I wanted to put a cam in. I read on this sight about cam choices. MP244 .414 sounded good. I called Chrysler and it's no longer available, and also none came up on a locate. Is the Comp cam 252s too much fo a 170? By the way I don't want anything radical, just a little more oomph. |
|
| Author: | emsvitil [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The late model cams (71+) are very close to the MP244 specs (244/224/26... 109LS, .414) and probably would give you the same results |
|
| Author: | Slant6Ram [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Going mild? |
If you are going for the mild upgrade option, I can pull one of those 71-80 model cams for a reasonable price. How does $30+ shipping sound? That barely pays my time to pull it out and pack it up. I've yet to try the 252, but I doubt it will be overkill even for a 170. For the price of a new 252 cam, how about Another option, is do a little searching for a newer 225 engine in your local backwoods junkyards. That engine swap wouldn't be a great deal more involved than a manifold and cam upgrade to the existing engine. Just a suggestion. |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree that the '71-'80 cam is the best factory-installed unit, and can be a very inexpensive upgrade if you have the stock '60-'64 cam, but: •I've found the engines seem to run noticeably better with the MP244 than with the '71-'80 cam, despite the identical advertised duration (lobe shape influences engine behaviour...) and •Depending what year 170 the OP is working on, it may already have the '65-'70 stock cam (240°/236°/16°/0.395"), in which case going to the '71-'80 cam would probably not be worth the effort—unless, of course, the original cam is wiped. The 252° cam...well, sure, OK, but check the rear cam journal carefully for proper drilling. That's one of several disturbing faults those cams are coming through with. The other one is a pestilent inability to adjust the valves properly so the engine runs right and the valves don't make noise. The MP244 cam is indeed discontinued with no more remaining. I like this cam in my '62 so much that I sent my last new-in-box MP244 to Doctor Dodge so his reliable cam grinder could read and archive the profile. Now in addition to Doug's custom grinds, anyone can order an MP244 from his cam grinder. |
|
| Author: | emsvitil [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I agree that the '71-'80 cam is the best factory-installed unit, and can be a very inexpensive upgrade if you have the stock '60-'64 cam, but:
•I've found the engines seem to run noticeably better with the MP244 than with the '71-'80 cam, despite the identical advertised duration (lobe shape influences engine behaviour...) I've compared the MP244 and 71-80 cams on desktop dyno..... The MP244 has more slightly torque and HP (5-8) and more difference as the RPMS go up. Then I retarded the 71-80 cam 2 degrees. The difference was 0-1 (MP244 better) So with some fiddling, the 71-80 cam should match the MP244 Of course you can fiddle with the MP244 and get the advantage again............... |
|
| Author: | emsvitil [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Where'd the come from I typed in 8.........
|
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I've compared the MP244 and 71-80 cams on desktop dyno...
I've compared 'em on seat-o'-the-pants dyno! 
|
|
| Author: | Murch [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Slant6ram, I do have a 225 I'm curently working on. It won't be ready to put in until over the winter time. Believe it or not the 64 Dart is my daily driver (until the winter). According to an article Doug wrote the cam swap didn't seem to difficult (without removing the engine). Dan, I'll look into the MP244 through Doug, I wasn't aware of it's availability. Thanks, Dale |
|
| Author: | Charrlie_S [ Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The main factor about installing a lager cam in the 170, is the zero deck height. A 170 engine cannot accept as large a cam as a 225 with out notching the pistons. Don't go more then a mild cam on the 170. I reccommend checking the piston to valve clearence, with any cam install, but always do that if the head has been cut. With my 170, the biggest cam I could use had .434 lift and 264* duration. My deck height was .002, with a .022 steel shim head gasket, and the head milled .100. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|