| Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| I need a recommendation for a Hydro cam https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37783 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | MotoGrey [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | I need a recommendation for a Hydro cam |
I have a '84 D-100 I bought last month. I use it for delivering parcels under 1000 lbs. in my side business. I would like to bring the fuel mileage up from 15.8 @65 mph to 20 mpg. It has a single bbl, lean burn, A-904, lock-up?, 3.21 gears and 205 / 75 / 15 tires. The single exhaust under 2" and snakes around with constricting bends at greater than 90 degrees. I am planning a conversion to HEI. I need some help with dist. recurving. I have an '82 head that has been shaved .100, has stainless oversised valves from Egge. It has been ported and bowl blended. I am converting to Super Six with a new holley 2280 from Dan. I want to consider upgrading the cam when I change the head. I don't know what the original cam specs are for 1984. (anyone know?) I have talked to Ken at Oregon Grinding. He has a grind with: 210 and 203 @ .050 260 and 252 adv. duration .417 and .401 lift. enough? lobe sep. @ 110 degrees. Will this be enogh cam, or do I need to request a different grind. Josh, I have tried to find the book you reccommended. Could refresh me as to the title and author. Thanx, Ray |
|
| Author: | Joshie225 [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Since this is an economy build with a stock torque converter I think that cam is a good choice. Do make sure that the duration is greater on the intake as you posted. The book I recommended is Performance With Economy by David Vizard. http://www.amazon.com/Performance-Econo ... 0931472091 |
|
| Author: | MotoGrey [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | I have to confirm that |
Quote: The book I recommended is Performance With Economy by David Vizard. http://www.amazon.com/Performance-Econo ... 0931472091
thx, Josh. I ordered one on EbayWhen he gave me the numbers they were all in reverse order of what I listed. I cant imagine the exhaust geting all larger parameters than the intake. |
|
| Author: | Joshie225 [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Most dual-pattern cams have longer exhaust duration than intake duration. Do not let them grind your cam this way. Many engines benefit from the longer exhaust duration as the exhaust ports do not work as well as the intake ports. Slants have better exhaust ports. Tell Ken you want the longer duration on the intake side or you won't get it! |
|
| Author: | 6shotvanner [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I see you have a head shaved already for your build.When I asked about this sometime ago on my hydro slant I was advised that it wasn't all that simple because of rocker geo/push rod length.Question then how are you dealing with this issue? Inquiring minds yada yada.. 
|
|
| Author: | Reed [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I too am very interested in how performance cams can be adapted to the hydraulic slant since I plan on building a mild street performance hydraulic motor for my brother's Duster. |
|
| Author: | MotoGrey [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I see you have a head shaved already for your build.When I asked about this sometime ago on my hydro slant I was advised that it wasn't all that simple because of rocker geo/push rod length.Question then how are you dealing with this issue? Inquiring minds yada yada..
Oooh good piont. I guess I'll to get somme shorter push rods. |
|
| Author: | Reed [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hang on, Mopar offered performance hydraulic cams and I don't believe they required special lifters or other modifications to the valve train. I believe the most aggressive Mopar hydraulic cam had a lift of .420. Can anyone confirm (a) the max lift and (b) that you could use the MP hydro cams with stock lifters and pushrods? |
|
| Author: | pmarvetz [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you have the choice why wouldn't you put in a solid lifter cam? All things being equal they do make more power right? |
|
| Author: | Joshie225 [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: If you have the choice why wouldn't you put in a solid lifter cam? All things being equal they do make more power right?
Most people do put in solid lifter cams as most of us have solid lifter equipped engines. On the power issue I'd have to say it depends. You can easily grind a really mild solid that underperforms a hydraulic profile. Solids usually show gains at high RPM which isn't an advantage with most 225s. The problem with hydraulic cams in slants is not the cam itself, but the goofy non-adjustable valve gear and top-fed lifters. If we could use conventional side-fed hydraulic lifters and the adjustable valve train I think many folks would do so.
|
|
| Author: | D-Ram 1596 [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have been wondering about this too, I have an 87 D-150 and the 0.38 lift hydraulic cam dosen't scream performance at all, specially in a truck. Found Mancini Racing had a couple of used cams for cheap, but they were mechanical and I decided to just wait. |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: The problem with hydraulic cams in slants is not the cam itself, but the goofy non-adjustable valve gear and top-fed lifters. If we could use conventional side-fed hydraulic lifters and the adjustable valve train I think many folks would do so.
Eh? The top-fed lifters are pretty well unique to the Slant, but what problems have they caused for you? And why would you need (or want) adjustable rockers on a hydraulic-lifter engine? The point of hydraulic lifters is to eliminate the need for valve lash adjustment.
|
|
| Author: | Joshie225 [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The adjustable valve train makes it much easier to accommodate head and/or block milling than valve gear that has only the small lifter plunger travel. It's much easier and less expensive to unwind an adjusting screw than to buy shorter pushrods or shim the rocker shaft. |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK, yeah, I can see that, but it also complicates the (slant-6) lifter oiling path considerably. Relative to production, approximately nobody would ever even think of modifying the valvetrain, so providing means for doing so would have been needless expense for Chrysler, and very likely would've reduced the dependability of the valvetrain in stock operating conditions. For those who want to run a hydraulic cam with very high lift, I can't see it being that big of a deal to go get special pushrods. |
|
| Author: | Charrlie_S [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: For those who want to run a hydraulic cam with very high lift, I can't see it being that big of a deal to go get special pushrods. I have worked on two V-8 Mopars, this summer, with that problem. One was so bad, I told the customer to take the heads back to the machine shop, and get them redone. The valve stem hights were all over the place. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|