Camshaft for my 1968 Coronet R/T

[Curiousyellow71]

http://www.indyheads.com/bbengines.html

....Interested to know more details of your build. Lots more cam in this one off Indys site...but dynos are known to vary.

 

[451Mopar]

Talk to the builder, maybe that is the wrong cam card for your engine?
For the power the engine is making, I would expect closer to 0.600" lift cam?

 

[PRHeads]

The build sheet/parts list doesn’t show which heads are used, but there is a charge for the Indy external oil line kit.
If that is in fact being used, then it would seem that either the “-1” heads were modified to accept that, or they are the CNC ported heads(which use the external lines).
Unless something has changed....... 440EZ-1’s use the stock type thru-head oiling.

The dyno pull posted looks like maybe it was somewhat of a “hero run”.
Not many street cars are running around with 100* water temps.
If the motor was run on the dyno with an electric water pump(and if that’s not how it will be run in the car), then that also frees up a few hp.
Also, were the headers used for the test the same size as what will be run in the car?
Nonetheless, those are very very good numbers for that combo with that little cam.

 

[Challenger340]

T

The dyno pull posted looks like maybe it was somewhat of a “hero run”.
Not many street cars are running around with 100* water temps.
.

The 100* water temp was what peaked my interest as well ?
IMO,
may have been a "numbers" run attempt ?

 

[Challenger340]

Talk to the builder, maybe that is the wrong cam card for your engine?
For the power the engine is making, I would expect closer to 0.600" lift cam?

How so ?
INDY's can easily deliver high 200's to 300 cfm at mid .500's Lift ? and quite fat lift averages ?

 

[1969CoronetR/T]

Finally got in contact with the engine builder. It is bored .055 to make it close to 512 cid. Compression is 10.1 and it is a hydraulic flat tappet. I am having the body shop send the engine back to swap it to a hydraulic roller. For some unknown reason, the body shop specified a flat tappet (cost?). They are correcting their mistake as they never asked me my opinion. The new set-up should improve the already very good numbers. I have TTI headers with a 3" exhaust. I do not have the stall converter but would assume it will be 2500-3000 stall. They did not put the heads on a flow bench to which I would have requested it. Anything else I should knw or ask the builder that would be pertinent to the build?

 

[CoronetDarter]

Ask to see the cam card for the new cam before it's installed.
If you're planning on selling the FT cam, have the builder associate each lifter with each cam lobe. You'll get more interest when selling the cam with mated lifters.

 

[1969CoronetR/T]

I assume he will reuse it. It holds no interest to me.

 

[451Mopar]

How so ?
INDY's can easily deliver high 200's to 300 cfm at mid .500's Lift ? and quite fat lift averages ?

That is why I asked about the heads. Making 600 HP with that mild of a cam is impressive, so the heads must be flowing really well.
Also, the OP mentioned he thought he ordered a roller cam. That is why I said to double check with the builder to make sure what cam was in the engine.
Now it appears the OP is changing to a roller cam. Not sure if it will be dynoed again to see the power difference?

 

[1969CoronetR/T]

Yes, I am having him take the flat tappet out and replace with a roller with a different cam. He will then put it on an engine dyno again. I am excited to see the difference in power and hope the power curve remains at a reasonable rpm.

 

[451Mopar]

In the Coronet Convertible,
I have the Comp Cams shelf grind Hydraulic Roller XR286HR-10 in my 505" stroked 440 with Stealth Heads. I think it is 10.3:1 compression (17cc dish pistons.)
It seems pretty mild in the 505, with torque like driving a turbo diesel, but will spin to 6,000 RPM pretty easy (have a rev limiter.)
The car is a manual trans 5-speed, 3.54:1 dana. I can lug the engine around at 1,500 RPM in 5th which is around 55 MPH

Don't forget that if changing to the roller, the valve springs are going to need to be replaced too.
I used ISKY 8005A Valve springs on my build. They are a 400 lb/in rate spring

XR286HR-10 Specs:
Xtreme Energy 236/242 Hydraulic Roller Cam (3 Bolt) for Chrysler 383-440
236/242 @ 0.050", 0.544"/0.541" Lift @ 1.5:1 ratio, 0.580"/0.577" Lift @ 1.6:1 Ratio. I'm running Harlan Sharp 1.6:1 rocker arms.

 

[qkcuda]

In the Coronet Convertible,
I have the Comp Cams shelf grind Hydraulic Roller XR286HR-10 in my 505" stroked 440 with Stealth Heads. I think it is 10.3:1 compression (17cc dish pistons.)
It seems pretty mild in the 505, with torque like driving a turbo diesel, but will spin to 6,000 RPM pretty easy (have a rev limiter.)
The car is a manual trans 5-speed, 3.54:1 dana. I can lug the engine around at 1,500 RPM in 5th which is around 55 MPH

Don't forget that if changing to the roller, the valve springs are going to need to be replaced too.
I used ISKY 8005A Valve springs on my build. They are a 400 lb/in rate spring

XR286HR-10 Specs:
Xtreme Energy 236/242 Hydraulic Roller Cam (3 Bolt) for Chrysler 383-440
236/242 @ 0.050", 0.544"/0.541" Lift @ 1.5:1 ratio, 0.580"/0.577" Lift @ 1.6:1 Ratio. I'm running Harlan Sharp 1.6:1 rocker arms.

That is the same cam I ran in the 500.

 

[BLK 68 R/T]

I think you’re better off sticking with the FT cam or if your dead set on a roller, go with a solid roller for the street. The HR is not a popular swap for the BB Mopar due to lifter bore issues and they (lifters) are heavy and hard on the valve train. Roller cam swap is going to be a minimum of $2000 if you go with quality parts. That’s my 2 cents on it.

 

[451Mopar]

I did use the Hydraulic rollers from Hughes Engines. They were less expensive than the Comp Cams lifters at the time I bought them (like 10 years ago.)
The engine I am working on now will have a mild solid roller cam. I thought the hydraulic roller would be quieter, but with all the roller parts and rocker arms, the valve train sounds almost like a properly adjusted solid roller anyway. The Comp cam ($460) and lifters ($562) cost would be about $1,022.
The Hughes Engines Hydraulic roller lifters #HRC 91774 costs $480, so $82 less cost using the Hughes lifters.

Anyhow, switching from a flat tappet to roller cam, the springs will need to be changed, and most likely the roller lifters will require shorter pushrods too.

On the 505" Trick flow 240 head 10:1 engine I sold to my friend Dan, it used the Lunati Voodoo Solid Roller #40230732LK
It is a 243/249 duration @ 0.050", 0.578"/0.585" lift @ 1.5:1 ratio. I ran 1.6:1 rockers on it too. It was still pretty tame.
Went solid roller for better high RPM valve train control (no rev-limiter on the car) so I can use stiffer valve springs, and the lifters are lighter than the hydraulic lifters. I think the cost was less also. $665.52 for cam and lifters. The FT240 heads with the solid roller springs have the pressures these cams recommend too.

Also on Hughes site:
http://www.hughesengines.com/TechArticles/12hydrauliclifters.php
The new 511 stroker (currently looking to be B-1 B/S heads) 11:1 compression, I am looking at the Voodoo Solid Roller one step larger #40230733LK
It is a 249/255 duration @ 0.050", 0.585"/0.600" lift @ 1.5:1 ratio. Again, I'm using 1.6:1 rockers on it too.

 

[Challenger340]

I think you’re better off sticking with the FT cam or if your dead set on a roller, go with a solid roller for the street. The HR is not a popular swap for the BB Mopar due to lifter bore issues and they (lifters) are heavy and hard on the valve train. Roller cam swap is going to be a minimum of $2000 if you go with quality parts. That’s my 2 cents on it.

IMO, this is very good advice which I will add as my 2 cents as well.

We Dyno test every BB Mopar engine we Machine/Build here before it leaves.... and as a standing policy we will NOT use/install a Hydraulic Roller Cam in a BB Mopar without a very close inspection of the Lifter Bores for wear.... or just going ahead and bushing the Block Lifter Bores.

Anybody telling you different, and close inspection is not required, and they use/bolt in HR Cam & Lifter setups in BB Mopars "all the time" with no issues is either:
1.) NOT Dyno'ing all their BB Mopar HR Cammed Engines builds before they leave to SEE the upper rpm power losses ?
or
2.) has very limited experience with BB Mopars anyways.

BB Mopar Lifter Bores were never designed for sealing Oil Pressure against the higher V/Spring pressures associated with Hydraulic Roller Cams..... and their unusually short/small wear area directly below the Oil gallery in the Lifter Bore is prone to more severe wear/Oil pressure leakage OUT away NOT into maintaining HR Lifter preload than other Engine designs that accept retro-fit Hydraulic Roller setups with good success.

I will invite anyone here reading this with access to a dis-assembled BB Mopar Block.... to take a flashlight and go LOOK at the short lifter sealing area in the Lifter Bores directly below the Oil gallery.... and the typical 'half-moon' wear area present to SEE what I am referencing here ?
Some Blocks are worse/more worn in this area than others ?
The least worn/good condition Lifter Bore BB Mopar Blocks having greater success in retro-fitting HR setups.... some people do indeed experience NO issues whatsoever... we have as well ?
Nonetheless,
all 'used' Blocks will exhibit at least some wear in this area.... the majority of which then experiencing at least some higher rpm curve breakdown on the Dyno due to Oil Pressure leakage in this area NOT maintaining Hydraulic Roller Lifter preload against the higher HR V/Spring Pressures for the HR Cam.

Long story short.... and given the above
We as see no reason once the added "roller" expense is factored in....no matter same-same HR or Solid Roller.... not to very simply opt in favor of a very quiet running Street type tight-lash Mechanical Roller Cam....
instead of the "Hydraulic Rollers" which can potentially be problematic in some BB Mopar Blocks for the above reasons outlined.
With the added benefit that the Solid Roller makes more power than the similar sized HR anyways !