.590 MP Cam Opinions
- Thread starter Schober Motorsports
- Start date
67 B-body
Well-Known Member
BTW,,, I also use 1.6:1 ratio rockers, so my lift is higher than the listed 590....
Just remembered something about the Girdle,,,
I had to run the mill across the front area nearest the front crankshaft counterweight... It didn't have the room I wanted!!
Just remembered something about the Girdle,,,
I had to run the mill across the front area nearest the front crankshaft counterweight... It didn't have the room I wanted!!
383man
Well-Known Member
67coronetman
Well-Known Member
383MAN / Ron i listen to what you say and what you have done with your setup and there are lots of good info from others out here but i see what your car does with the setup you have and it works very well i am building my motor with the same crank and a few other changes but my car has been lightened up so i would say if i get it rite i should move pretty good with it and i am going to run a solid lift cam in mine... Oh yes my Indy SR Heads flow 334.5 @ 700 mild port work done.
68 HEMI GTS
Well-Known Member
i agree, Ron's car really is impressive for the parts used. hoping my 511 performs within a few tenths of Rons 493.
- Local time
- 9:46 PM
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 35,486
- Reaction score
- 45,891
- Location
- Pasadena, Texas
I like going fast for cheap. Makes it more interesting too 
Here's one fairly old school combo a buddy and I did in 1980 using the .509. The car: 69 road runner with some fiberglass and Lexan, 440 with L2295 slugs, prepped 6 pack rods, back yard ported 906's with 2.14/1.88, slightly worked Torker intake, 850 DP, 2" headers and MP ignition. Stall was left foot controlled but mostly left @6k and shifted at 6800. Car also had ladders and 14x32's mounted on 10" rims and 4.88 gears. The rims allowed the tires to grow a bit on the top end. Just about everything was used including the Holley 110 pump. Are rebuild kits still made for them? This thing was extremely low budget and only the engine machining was outsourced. This is also the car I cut my teeth on (no pun intended) doing rear end work. Running it that way netted 10.60s. Was it the best combo possible? Nope but it was pretty decent using swap meet parts. IIRC, the only thing that was bought new for this car was a set of 4.88's. Even the slicks came off of Tommy Costales' car when it slowed down a couple of hundredths. And we had fun beating the high dollar cars with our beater (no pun intended again!) and boy did a lot of them hate it too :grin:
Here's one fairly old school combo a buddy and I did in 1980 using the .509. The car: 69 road runner with some fiberglass and Lexan, 440 with L2295 slugs, prepped 6 pack rods, back yard ported 906's with 2.14/1.88, slightly worked Torker intake, 850 DP, 2" headers and MP ignition. Stall was left foot controlled but mostly left @6k and shifted at 6800. Car also had ladders and 14x32's mounted on 10" rims and 4.88 gears. The rims allowed the tires to grow a bit on the top end. Just about everything was used including the Holley 110 pump. Are rebuild kits still made for them? This thing was extremely low budget and only the engine machining was outsourced. This is also the car I cut my teeth on (no pun intended) doing rear end work. Running it that way netted 10.60s. Was it the best combo possible? Nope but it was pretty decent using swap meet parts. IIRC, the only thing that was bought new for this car was a set of 4.88's. Even the slicks came off of Tommy Costales' car when it slowed down a couple of hundredths. And we had fun beating the high dollar cars with our beater (no pun intended again!) and boy did a lot of them hate it too :grin:
lewtot184
Well-Known Member
ron has a solid no frills combo in a beautiful car. what would it do with a roller and an intake and carb that flowed more air? just thinking.
Mike Gaines
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 7:46 PM
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,101
- Reaction score
- 4,329
- Location
- Ahwahnee, (Fresno) California
Ron....You missed my point...He was talking about consistant 10.50's NOT high 10.70's.
You have a fantastic combo of which you should be proud...and you know I mean that...but.....as I said...he would need something close to what I described to get a 3800lb car to go 10.50.
Respectfully, Mike
You have a fantastic combo of which you should be proud...and you know I mean that...but.....as I said...he would need something close to what I described to get a 3800lb car to go 10.50.
Respectfully, Mike
383man
Well-Known Member
You are right Mike as I believe I miss read it. Sorry about that and thank you all for the kind words. Ron
deaks
Active Member
My car has gone 10.14 at 132.88 mph with a stock stroke 440 and .590 cam.
Tex013
Well-Known Member
deaks
Active Member
Keith Dunnuck did some cam testing in a sb and the similar size hughes cam made 17 hp more than the MP .590
Mike Gaines
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 7:46 PM
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,101
- Reaction score
- 4,329
- Location
- Ahwahnee, (Fresno) California
700lbs lighter is same as 7/10's in Elapsed Time....1/10 for every 100lbs lighter...3100 lb cars are naturally faster...I wish I woulda started with an A-Body car now not a B-Body...lol...
383man
Well-Known Member
I used to race an A-body years ago and do love them but even if my 63 is heavier I love the coolness of the Max Wedge era cars and will give up 500 or so pounds because I love the Nostalgicness of my 63. If I wanted to go as fast as I can then yes I would go A-body. I also loved the fact that the Max Wedge cars were very fast stock since they woulld run 12's bone stock with just cheater slicks and the cutouts open. Course I still love all the Mopar muscle cars but we all have our favorite. Ron
Schober Motorsports
Well-Known Member
I'm with Mike on this one... Should of started with a Dart!! Anyway, do you guys know what is the typically the highest lift I can run on stock 452 heads assuming that I get the correct springs without getting the valve guides/spring seats cut down? Aluminum heads are out of my budget right now, but will be the goal in the future.
383man
Well-Known Member
I would not push over about .500 lift with stock heads and no guides cut down. My .484 I ran on stock 452 heads was only about .050 from the valve retainers hitting the tops of the guides. In fact they left some marks in the stock seals that were right up against the tops of the guides when the valve was open and the retainers pushed them that close. I hear some guys have got away with the .509 cam and stock heads but I dont like to push my luck. Ron
4406
Well-Known Member
Buy some used aluminum heads to start with. They don't need to flow 350 to go 10.50. Talk with your engine builder if you have not bought the cam yet. You can get there with the correct camshaft.
Ray
Ray
66Satellite47
Well-Known Member
Ya, you need to cut the guides down to use anything above .500. The 452's are OK but need a fair amount of grinding to get the kind of power you'll need 906's might be easier to get the flow. I agree with Mike Gaines that you need 650 HP or more to get consistent 10.50's @ 3800#. The 590 is an old grind, but some old stuff still makes power. The cam I ran last summer was a similar Cam Dynamics piece from 1975. I went 11.09 @ 121.5 at 3670#, but that's with mildly ported EDE Performers and 500". In the early '80's my 446" '65 Coronet went 11 teens with that old cam at 3550#. If I were you, I'd be thinking about working up to the 10.50's by lightening the car and adding higher HP parts as you can afford. Lots of good info & experience shown here.
67coronetman
Well-Known Member
I am with you on that Ron i love the old super stock look of my car that is why i don't change plus i love the Mopar B-Bodies very much 63-67 are my Favorites..
- - - Updated - - -
Now i had a good friend who ran a 440 with 906 heads with some work and bigger valves and he ran the 292/509 mopar cam and he did it with the stock rocker arms which i told him to change but he never had a issues ... I would not run those i would have at least used a set of 1.5 roller rockers just my opinion...
66Satellite47
Well-Known Member
The concern is if you don't cut down the height of the guide & run a higher lift, you take the chance of the retainer contacting the guide. Doesn't matter if the rockers are stock or roller. You need adequate retainer to guide clearance. I've always had to cut the guides down for the cams I've run. Just say'n.
Similar threads
