Mstrbndkr,
Take a look at the Engle line up at www.englecams.com.
You can not compare a Chevy to a Ford or a Ford to a Chrysler because the cylinder heads are so different. A prime example is a Ford FE. The exhaust side of the head flows so poorly that the cam has to be a dual pattern biased heavily to the exhaust side. A BBC has substantialy different intake runner lengths in the same cylinder head so this creates problems with the intake side of the cam when choosing lift and duration that does not exist with a Mopar. So do not think that since a grind works in a Ford or Chevy it will work in a Chrysler.
Randy
randallb,, You are so right with your post above, masterboondoc is better staying with the stock specs of Mopar for the cam on his RV, changing specs might kill the gas mileage, and yes what does the Chevy/Ford cam grinds have to do with Mopar cams, "most gearheads should know this"...
* This post was
edited 03/13/08 12:50am by timmac *
Randy ...POINT well taken about cyl heads flow being majorly diff .... BUT we are not talking Pro Stock or Nascar "action" here .... it is a low rpm, minor valve lift situation. The very few listing that I have seen for different RV cams .... most all diff brands of motors have had very similar cam specs.
timmac .... you and your stone-age TBI ! ... do you consider yourself a gear-head? ...then you MUST know that when most(if not all) of the Mopar stuff built way back when ....mpg was not a consideration at all. You think that NONE of the cam people have done NOTHING to improve the fuel-efficency of the OEM products ?
BBL to the others ...I have to go right now.
THX
* This post was
edited 03/13/08 12:37pm by MasterBoondocker *
timmac wrote: randallb,, You are so right with your post above, masterboondoc is better staying with the stock specs of Mopar for the cam on his RV, changing specs might kill the gas mileage, and yes what does the Chevy/Ford cam grinds have to do with Mopar cams, "most gearheads should know this"...
Since the cams have been "Standardised" at the 0.50 it doesn't matter what engine they go in.......
The majority of Comp cams are ground with a 4º advance in them and are mostly installed straight up BUT if someone wants to play the advance/retard cam stuff you better run it on a dyno program for the best results........
Since the cams have been "Standardised" at the 0.50 it doesn't matter what engine they go in.......
The majority of Comp cams are ground with a 4º advance in them and are mostly installed straight up BUT if someone wants to play the advance/retard cam stuff you better run it on a dyno program for the best results........
I'm for setting and forgetting.
Jim
Reply :
However he is trying to get specs from modern 2000-08 cam spec's for chevy/ford and I don't think any of those spec's will be any good for a 70's dated mopar big block, big changes in emissions, fuel inject verse carb and lower octane fuels, etc,,, one should be looking at different 70's big block cam spec's for changes in this area, my experience from the past that some changes outside of stock spec's fuel mileage suffered,, want to gain more MPG in a carb RV is to upgrade to a better fuel/air management like a Holley TBI or a multi/port inject,, also a electronic distributor will be a great upgrade verse a point type...
* This post was
edited 03/13/08 01:43pm by timmac *
Does he know what the stock cam presently used is???
For our "Heavyweights" a dual pattern cam is much better for our purposes and for a 8.1 chebby the Lunati voodoo 204/213 cam is easy on the gas and provides great torque.
Electronic ignitions like a (HEI) once setup properly wake them engines like they are new.....#1 place to start.
masterboondoc wrote >>>> timmac .. you and your stone-age TBI ! ... do you consider yourself a gear-head? ...then you MUST know that when most(if not all) of the Mopar stuff built way back when ....mpg was not a consideration at all. You think that NONE of the cam people have done NOTHING to improve the fuel-efficiency of the OEM products ?
Reply :
Unless the OEM installed a large lift cam in motor,,[usually not] changing cam lift from stock will not see much mpg increase and might go down in mpg unless you could do a dyno test for results,, changing intake manifold from stock does very little to nothing for mpg,,, driving a RV with a 'stone-age' carburetor is hurting your mpg in most cases,,,, Put $$$$ into a fuel inject system verse a old carb and your mpg will go up and motor will burn cleaner,, no dyno test needed with fuel inject system to prove mpg increase over a carb,,, The Holley 2D TBI is a low cost/easy to install alternative fuel inject system verse the multi-port type fuel inject system,, [around $1000.00 for Holley TBI,, around $2500.00 for multi-port]..
FYI >>>> I have been thru a lot of motors, even performance intakes and such and as always gas mileage suffered,, over the years I have learn that stock OEM motors most of the time '85%' is at its best for fuel mileage,, fuel inject is the best money spent for fuel mileage over a carb,, you can spend lots of time and $$$ on cams, manifolds, etc and your dollar to fuel mileage ratio increase will not be worth the time and $$$.. Spend $1000.00 one time on the Holley 2D TBI verse a carb, cam, manifold, etc and you should get your $$$ back pretty fast at today's gas prices,,, not to mention it will burn cleaner,, runs smoother and becomes a full flex fuel RV..... Just my 2 cents...
Go Flex Fuel its COOL..
I am taking my RV and family to Venice Beach Cali tonite will be back latter this week..
Jim ... I had the specs of that 71 cam in one of my service manuals ,... but I must have loaned that manual out. It is around the same lift specs ... but the duration is NOT split. ALSO .. the lobe-centers are much smaller than the aftermarket part.
I am NOT "up" on the camshaft selection and 2008 knowledge as I should be. But I would LIKE to be.
Offline
