help with cam kit

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Nov 01, 04 5:11 pm

ive been offered an edelbrock perfomer plus cam kit (kit number 2192) anyone know if its worth changing my standard cam over,ive got a 1972 jenson 440 with 906 heads and the edelbrock 440 intake manifold,727 with shift kit,standard convertor and 3.23 sure grip.its in a 1968 charger.thanks for any info guys

Kev · Post by **Kev** » Mon Nov 01, 04 5:17 pm

"The heart of the Total Power Package.

Camshaft Kit, Performer-Plus, Mopar 383-440, w/ Camshaft/Lifters/Lube

Edelbrock's Performer-Plus cam and lifter kits are designed for optimum torque from the low-end to the mid-range. They feature smooth idling cams for daily drivers, trucks, vans, RVs, and 4x4s. They offer improved throttle response and torque. Each kit includes a camshaft, hydraulic lifters, assembly lube, and instructions.

Vendor Edelbrock
Product Line Edelbrock Performer-Plus Cam and Lifter Kits
Cam Style Hydraulic flat tappet
Basic Operating RPM Range Idle-5,500 RPM
Intake Duration 050 inch Lift 204
Exhaust Duration 050 inch Lift 214
Advertised Intake Duration 270
Advertised Exhaust Duration 280
Intake Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio 0.420
Exhaust Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio 0.442
Lobe Separation (degrees) 112"

(Courtesy of Summit)

If you've got headers I reckon it's worth fitting.
(Prepare to be shot down in flames by Robbo!)

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Mon Nov 01, 04 5:26 pm

Camshaft selection.....
Here we go, prepare for a long thread chaps.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Nov 01, 04 5:27 pm

Thanks Kev,ive got headers so i think i might go for it,cheers mate

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Mon Nov 01, 04 5:40 pm

If you have been offered it cheap then fine. This is not a high performance cam. In fact it is only slightly 'hotter' than a standard 440 cam. There are better cams out there so if you want to go faster or if you are paying full price for it then buy something else. But this cam should fit and work well without you having to make many tuning changes and it will feel a bit stronger than your existing cam.

Was that alright Kev?

Oh. You will not 'need' headers for this cam but having them is fine.

Kev · Post by **Kev** » Tue Nov 02, 04 11:58 am

Perfect, Dave! I assumed it was cheap and thought it would compliment what he has (esp. with "gay" gears

) and maybe make a bit more torque which he would feel.

Mick · Post by **Mick** » Tue Nov 02, 04 8:58 pm

The hemi grind with 484 lift is a good cam+ 11" convertor and 3.91's would wake it up, or 509 with 10" convertor.
just my 2 penneth.

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Tue Nov 02, 04 9:48 pm

I would have to disagree about the hemi cam. Indeed it gives more intake duration and lift than the 440 cam but you do need a bit more duration on the exhaust side compared to the inlet on a 440.

As for MP cams in general.......

Wouldn't pee on a MP cam if it was on fire.

They are rubbish. Poorly made. Sub standard (these days) materials. Designed 40 years ago with trial and error methods based on even older theory.
Almost every other make of modern cam will make more power than the MP cams.
Slow opening rates, low lift levels...arrgh! Horrible! Stay away I tell you! Don't do it!

Besides he is getting this cam and lifters really cheap. That is the deciding factor here more than anything I think.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Nov 02, 04 11:19 pm

Thats it guys picked it up tonight,as dave says it was cheap,thanks for all the help

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Wed Nov 03, 04 10:07 am

I hate to regurgitate what I read in magazines as facts but... One of the mags dyno tested a RB motor a while back and it had in it a Purple 484 and they swapped a couple of modern cams in and they reckoned the 484 still took some beating. From memory it took a roller to make more "street" power. I'll look it out if I remember as I was kinda surprised an old tech design like that performed so well, as was the guy who wrote the article.

All I remember was the 484 and that the other cams were COMP's new line of "big lifter" profiles with dual patterns. Not sure which grinds.

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Wed Nov 03, 04 1:26 pm

Yup and I had a guy that builds small blocks for small oval track racing tell me he always uses the MP cams and gets good results.

I don't believe a word of it though. As long as nothing else (such as the carb, heads, exhaust etc) is restricting flow then the valve that opens wider and for longer will allow more fuel and air in.

Obviously if you are using stock (or poorly ported) heads (for example) you will not see any gains over a hot MP cam above a cirtain size because flow is limited.

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Thu Nov 04, 04 12:20 pm

I am off work with a heavy cold so I thought I would plug some numbers into desktop dyno and see what comes up.

When you plug in the numbers for a completely stock 440 (stock manifolds) the dyno comes up with 327hp @ 4500rpm and 439lbs torque @ 3000rpm.

Use the Hemi grind on a 440 cam (an actual hemi cam will not work in a 440) and the dyno comes up with 326hp @ 4500 and 423lbs @ 3500rpm. So in fact despite the longer duration and higher lift the hemi grind (in a 440) makes less power!

I think a lot of this may be due to the HUGE overlap on this cam. 60 degrees

compaired to 46 degrees on the stock 440 cam. You will be loosing a lot of cylinder pressure at lower rpms.

Now lets stick headers (with mufflers) on the engine.

Otherwise stock 440 now has 357hp @ 4500rpm and 465lbs @ a lower 2500rpm. Don't let people tell you headers don't make much difference!

Lets see what happens with the Hemi Grind cam. 360hp @ 4500 and 454lbs @ 3500 so slightly better but still not as good overall unless you were using low gears in the axle when you would want peak torque at a higher rpm.

Everone that knows me knows I like the Hughes cams. But on a completely stock engine you are very limited. A bigger cam will not make more power without being able to flow more air through the heads and exhaust. So without a bit of porting or bigger valves etc you are never going to get a lot more.

So I would pick the Hughes 1928BL cam for this engine. It will make 368hp @4500rpm and 466lbs @ 3500rpm but with loads of torque right through the whole rpm range. In fact the torque curve is flat right from 2000-4000rpm. I think it may even make more power. I have found Desktop Dyno undercalculates power with these fast rate of lift cams.

I cannot plug the numbers in for the Edelbrock cam without the exact valve timing figures but I suspect it will be about half way or more between the stock cam and the Hughes cam in performance. Remember that back in the day the stock 440 cam was considered quite 'hot' as it was. So don't expect huge differences in power levels. Just maybe a bit more torque right through the rpm range. If the old cam was a bit worn it will feel much better.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Nov 04, 04 1:12 pm

Dave I think the motor they used for the test was stock heads (with a basic port job), headers, some form of dual plane (probably a Performer) and a regular street type 4 barrel. Not a hugely hot combo, but probably typical of a lot of street driven motors.

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Thu Nov 04, 04 1:44 pm

As you can see from the computer figures above that any cam of around the same size, when combined with stock or near stock parts, will give around the same amount of power. So yeah a chrysler cam can "hold it's own" in situations like that and I was suprised at how little difference there was between them.

But it is still making less power. So why buy one if the aim is to go faster?

The difference really starts when you start adding bigger valves for example. The Hughes cam I picked is not one of their performance cams. Rather it is for slightly hotter restorations and gears no bigger than 3.23:1.

The other issues with Chrysler cams are more worrying. Remember two guys at the Nats using MP cams went home with rounded cam lobes.