284/484 MP camshaft in a 440

Anyone ever ran one in a stock 440? I will be Changing the Intake and Carb on it also but rest is stock. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks Boz

The cam could use some decent compresion in order not to loose to much torque down low.
It's not a bad cam, it just needs certain things for it to perform at it's best. Year 440 dependent, a head milling for a rise in the ratio and a balanced head porting, not much is needed, would do very well.
I say balanced head porting because it is a single pattern cam.

The 440 I will be using is a 75 out of a Town and Country Wagon.

I ran that cam in my '68 GTX. I chose it over the 509 cam because my GTX had power brakes, and the 484 purple cam carried higher vacuum at idle. It was a little lopey at idle, which I think you want, but it did seem to lose a little torque down low compared to the stock cam.

Or if anyone has another suggestion on a good cam. Thanks

In order to make a have way decent suggestion on a cam, tell us what you want out of the car and how you want it to perform and in what area.


Tell us what car it is (Weight if possible) tranny, rear gear ratio, tire size and if there is something else besides a stock stall converter in there. Also, would changing out a converter be OK with you?

Car is a 68 Satellite 727 Trans, 3.23 8.75 going to be a Driver but wanting it to run decent when I get on the skinny pedal. A stall wouldn't bother me either. I was doing some checking and someone said this 440 is only 230 Horse? The 318 in my parts car is 230 horse. Am i wasting time by messing with the 440?

port the crap out of the exhaust side. a lot of mopar cams have more lift and duration on the exhaust as this is the stock heads downfall.

If you do any porting leave the exhaust floors alone...especially on a 346 or 452 head

When you set the advance curve up it will fill the low end back up quite a bit along with the revised fuel ratio and elimination of the EGR system. If you can mill the heads or find some early model closed chamber castings that will cure alot of the compression issues. That engine will smoke the 318 hands down, you are not wasting your time.

the roof and a bowl plunge cut is what i was referring to

Your not wasting time with the 440 even if it is a low compresion engine. A minor milling of the head will restore some compresion. Going up 1 full point to 9.0-1 is enuff to handle moderate cams.

The issue right now is the rear gear ratio. The 3.23 in the car really will not tolorate a cam much bigger than 220* @ .050 and a converter change would only help a little bit.

Your in a little catch22 here between the things that the car has now and what would help.

How fast do you want to go in the 1/4 mile?
Is a gear change OK?

Don't focus in on the HP level. Focus in on the torque output.
IMO, do not port the heads at all at this point, just leave them be and use a split duration cam to help it breath.

What would a good all around gear be?

IMO for some Hwy. useage, a 3.73 gear. Tire no larger than 27-1/2 inchs. Width? As wide as you can stuff unde there.

Personally I'd go with something like this http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=CRN-643904&autoview=sku

It won't bleed off your cylinder pressure and should be great with your 3.23's. Choose a cam that works with the lower compression and you will be a happy camper! Pocket porting the heads is highly recommended, but do not reshape the short side radius on anything. Just blend from the bottom of the valve seat to the port walls. I'd go with a set of 906's because of the superior port design, or 915's for the good ports and added squeeze. You can use a stock 318/727 torque converter for a little more stall for cheap.

I have been looking at a Comp 268h or VOODOO CAMSHAFT #60302 both say work with lower compression.

That's a smaller cam than magnum motors came with from the factory. So it's no wonder it won't bleed off any compression.

you cant bleed off compression only cylinder pressure. theres a big difference

misspoke sorry


but it's still a tiny cam

no need to be sorry i was just trying to stop any confusion

Tell the truth. You're just trying to take up the slack cause "you know who" isn't here anymore:rolling::rolling::rolling:

Personally I'd go with something like this http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=CRN-643904&autoview=sku


To small IMO, I'd go next size up on the Crane list.

272/284 (@ .050) 216/228 - .454 / .480 on a 112.

I run one in a 318 now with 3.21's in a suregrip equiped rear. Does very well, uses the stock converter, zero dead spot down low, runs nice and smooth.

Dead stock '79 - 318 in a Duster with a 625 Carter carb on top of a LD4B dual plane Edelbrock intake and Hooker headers w/2-1/2 exhaust.
15.14 @ 89 mph on the first outting at the track.

t'll give me 14's no problem after I dial in the distibutor and carb.

To small IMO, I'd go next size up on the Crane list.

Ditto.

There is a great thread over on FABO regarding the Lunati Voodoo cams. Includes dialogue with the gentleman (I forget his name - Sorry) that actually designed them. As I recall there were graphs that demonstrated their superiorty over even the Comp XE grinds. Interesting reading if you're in the market for a hydraulic flat tappet. I'd do a search over there and dig it out. I have Comp XEs in two cars and remember thinking "Damn, I left some horsepower on the table..." after reading that...

Ray

My curiosity got the better of me and I went looking for this. Here's the link:

http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/showthread.php?t=25865

Harold Brookshire is the gentleman's name - the founder of Ultradyne Cams. Hired by Holley to design the Lunati grinds.

No graphs; just charts - my memory is failing... HUH???

Takes you to another link which is the Team Chevelle website...try not to get permanently sucked into bowtie-world boys...and if you do...just ship those pesky old Mopars down my way...

:grin:
Ray

Don't think this would hurt a bit. Summit makes what amounts to a blueprint "stock" cam and is a really good piece.
http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=SUM-6401&autoview=sku

I've known people who have run these, and they run really well. Won't break the bank either. I can tell you since the chances of me doing any more racing isn't great, there are only a couple of cams I'll consider running. One is my favorite BB cam, which my friend Bob Karakashian makes. It IS a blueprinted stock cam and is made to run well with manifolds. BOY does it run. For small blocks the only cams I'm considering are the Voodoo cams. Nothing fancy or over complicated.

It's fun to go fast, but I don't like breaking stuff or doing a job twice.

ramble off.....I've been sick

The Voodoo cam I was looking at is a 3 bolt design. Does that matter as long as I purchase the right timing set? Are the gear drives on ebay any good? I found one being sold by a place called race parts for $69.Thanks

Doesn't matter as long as you match the timing set. I've always kinda believed "you get what you pay for" so I don't think I'd buy a "gear drive" for $69. However, I'd pay $69 for a double roller timing set.....and probably have:grin:

I was just wondering all the ones on ebay were $60-$99 but they don't say what brand they are. I was wanting to get a noisey one I like the way they sound. Thanks

1 or 3 bolt design doesn't matter. I muself would skip the gear drive and use a good timing chain like a Cloyes or Rollmaster and be done with it there.

Is there a reason for not running a Gear on them? Thanks

Yes - the same reason that you like them...TOO NOISEY!!! Anything making that much noise under (through???) one of my hoods better be a source of forced induction and say "BDS" or "Dyer" on it... :grin:

If you're really gonna go the gear drive route, buy yourself a brand name one and don't mess around with that Shang-Hai junk on e-bag... You get what you pay for...

Best possible advice: Re-read Rumble's post and follow his directions. He laid out a perfectly sound plan for you; Cloyes or Rollmaster. I have Rollmasters on a couple pieces of my junk - NICE PIECES.

Ray

I's say you're on the right track. Another one to look into is LUN-80440LK and the .445" MP cam, but I think the MP cam will require more compression. Lift is pretty irrelevant here. I'd look more closely at the intake closing event as that's the single most important factor in cam selection. That's the point you start building cylinder pressure. Following the mfgr's recommended compression ratio guidelines is the best thing you can do to to avoid problems. The Magnum cam is a great cam but it requires some compression.

I have a similar Crane cam (as mentioned above) in my 8.5:1 CR 455 Olds powered jet boat and it's responsive as hell, works great with the stock QJ and goes straight to 4400 RPM! My 72 Porsche 911 came with 7.5:1 CR (now has 8.0:1) and blows 150-160 PSI of cranking pressure. It also pulls nicely to 6000 RPM. Lift is not the end all be all of cam selection.

I's say you're on the right track. Another one to look into is LUN-80440LK and the .445" MP cam, but I think the MP cam will require more compression. Lift is pretty irrelevant here. I'd look more closely at the intake closing event as that's the single most important factor in cam selection. That's the point you start building cylinder pressure. Following the mfgr's recommended compression ratio guidelines is the best thing you can do to to avoid problems. The Magnum cam is a great cam but it requires some compression.

Meep - Meep!

A most excellent and true post. Lift is not a major concern. More is merrier, but worth only a few ponies on an average build. Theres power to be found if you set it up in a race engine arena, but your not there or going there are you.

Street cams in street engines, even a decently hot one, doesn't require a big lift at all. Just a well executed plan.

Theres more than one way to skin a cat. It just depends on the little details and how far you wanna take the trip down that path. (Read $$$$$$)
Most guys just go for a good rebuild type of shortblock and add the required pistons for the intended target build, add cam, heads, intake and headers. Then call it a day from there.
(Read $$$)

Theres nothing wrong with that at all. No sir. It's done 99% of the time and it is just fine. I've done it before and I'll do it again.

Tell the truth. You're just trying to take up the slack cause "you know who" isn't here anymore:rolling::rolling::rolling:

thats just friggin wrong. i hope all your kids are born naked and look like the mail man

:HappyNewYear:

i knew that would call ya out lol

I'm here...btw:grin:

im here 2

but need to be there working on my coronet

then you should go there.

and not be here.

now.

maybe later.

im back here now

lol

I'd go with a set of 906's because of the superior port design, or 915's for the good ports and added squeeze. You can use a stock 318/727 torque converter for a little more stall for cheap.

Meep-meep, not to stir the pot inside a great conversation on cam shaft selection, but everything I have read (and heard) so far indicates there is nothing wrong with the 346 or 452 head castings (which are likely on Boz's 440), in fact they may be a better choice due to the hardened seats for todays fuels. I have posted in another thread, flow bench results on all 915, 906 and all of the "smogger" heads done by Mopar muscle magazine. Here are the links:

Introduction to Mopar cylinder heads:
http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/i...ads/index.html

Part 1, Flow bench results
http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/t...ads/index.html

Part 2, Flow bench w/porting results
http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/t..._ii/index.html

Btw, I do not profess to be an expert on engine and driveline, thats why I am here!

Cheers!

By far the laziest camshaft I've come across in over 30 years...much..much..much better choices out there.

By far the laziest camshaft I've come across in over 30 years...much..much..much better choices out there.

Funny, but I have had similar experience with the .484 cam. I think it needs compression. The .474 has been nothing short of spectacular. I used to run an Isky .465" 280 deg in a 383 and it was great too.

Meep-meep, not to stir the pot inside a great conversation on cam shaft selection, but everything I have read (and heard) so far indicates there is nothing wrong with the 346 or 452 head castings (which are likely on Boz's 440), in fact they may be a better choice due to the hardened seats for todays fuels. I have posted in another thread, flow bench results on all 915, 906 and all of the "smogger" heads done by Mopar muscle magazine. Here are the links:

Introduction to Mopar cylinder heads:
http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/i...ads/index.html

Part 1, Flow bench results
http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/t...ads/index.html

Part 2, Flow bench w/porting results
http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/t..._ii/index.html

Btw, I do not profess to be an expert on engine and driveline, thats why I am here!

Cheers!

No sweat. It's all about sharing experience and knowledge. I'm just reporting on what I've done and read over the years. I spent a lot of time reading the factory performance bulletins and tried to apply that thinking to my own cars. I'd say I was doing well with my little 383 in a 68 RR back in the day. Like I said in another post; it's all about getting the atomized fuel in to the cylinder (wet flow) and however it's done is good enough. It's also about creating the most average HP over the usable RPM range, and the only way to know for sure is to keep changing parts and recording the results in a scientific manner. You just gotta get your hands dirty. My 66 Belvedere is going to be my seat of the pants dyno.

BTW, the links didn't work for me.