OK, Wizzards

[Nate S]

There’s no magic here. Cam specs like this are available today and the physics hasn’t changed. “New” designs that put more lift in the same duration simply break the accepted cam design rules of the previous 100 years. More valve accel and velocity plus springs to match, therefore higher forces. Then, when people start wiping cams they blame it on materials only and not the design of the cam.

You could probably tease a bit more out of an “old design” cam, giving up valve float rpm. I wouldn’t even think about one of those that disproportionately increases lift for the same duration. That path needs the bigger valve springs if you don’t want to give up a bunch of rpm.

 

[Dodge Bros]

If those valve springs are the VS967’s used in the TRW-Fmogul- speedpro days the max lift on them is .50”. The springs were 100 lbs @1.86” and 236” @ 1.36”. Then they came out with there battleship single spring, VS865R with a lot more spring rate. That era could be either spring, from the first post I think it is probably a 967.

We have that same 230/230 109 cam in a 71 340, so I could see it being kind of boring in a 440. The 967is too light of spring for a fast rate like a Comp XE of any larger size. Biggest cam for those springs imo would be a 292 magnum, an old Mopar 484 cam, or one of the gentler Howard’s cams design for .842” lifter so long as the lift out at the valve is around .5”. Like their 742221-08 or maybe one step bigger in a custom grind. I think the 2221 is 235@ .050”. Of those the comp 292 will probably float the valves first, then 484 Mopar would come in next, and the Howard’s gentler .842” design is likely going to fair the best. Not suggesting you should do it or not, that is just what the possibilities are with the 967 springs. I’d say stick with a single pattern or close to a single pattern with the LSA tight or you will run out of spring.

I have the other spring ( VS865R) on a XE 284 with stamped steel rockers, as close a you can run from coil bind (you have to check it). IMHO that is the biggest cam with those. I think both those springs have been defunct for years.

 

[Challenger340]

1968 440, .030 over, 480/480, 230/230 @ .050
109lsa. Valve springs are Sealed Power w/100
closed/286 open. What available modern day
camshaft would work with this 26 year old
technology? I really don't want to be changing
valve springs should a cam failure occur.
This engine was rebuilt 26 years ago, and just
recently broke in. I'm not looking for killer
numbers. just want something a little hotter
than stock.
2300-2500 stall converter
1-7/8 custom headers
3.55 A/R Suregrip
1-1/2" custom tube frame
Approx finished GVW 3600 lbs
Engine: .030 over (8.0/8.5/9.0) CR?
(head work/gasket thk unknown)
L2266F pistons
forged crank/internally ballanced
452 heads untouched
Performer dual plane
Holley 750 cfm carb.
OEM oil pump/remote mt filter (6 qt system)
3000 cfm electric fan/3 core aluminum rad
Elec Holley fuel pump
Thanks in advance

With the current supply chain issues and today's questionable parts ?
I don't think changing Cams right now on an otherwise well running engine is worth the potential headaches ?
I would just leave it alone.... and drive it.

 

[1STMP]

If those valve springs are the VS967’s used in the TRW-Fmogul- speedpro days the max lift on them is .50”. The springs were 100 lbs @1.86” and 236” @ 1.36”. Then they came out with there battleship single spring, VS865R with a lot more spring rate. That era could be either spring, from the first post I think it is probably a 967.

We have that same 230/230 109 cam in a 71 340, so I could see it being kind of boring in a 440. The 967is too light of spring for a fast rate like a Comp XE of any larger size. Biggest cam for those springs imo would be a 292 magnum, an old Mopar 484 cam, or one of the gentler Howard’s cams design for .842” lifter so long as the lift out at the valve is around .5”. Like their 742221-08 or maybe one step bigger in a custom grind. I think the 2221 is 235@ .050”. Of those the comp 292 will probably float the valves first, then 484 Mopar would come in next, and the Howard’s gentler .842” design is likely going to fair the best. Not suggesting you should do it or not, that is just what the possibilities are with the 967 springs. I’d say stick with a single pattern or close to a single pattern with the LSA tight or you will run out of spring.

I have the other spring ( VS865R) on a XE 284 with stamped steel rockers, right at coil bind (you have to check it). IMHO that is the biggest cam with those. I think both those springs have been defunct for years.

Thanks for the explanation.
The springs are VS675. (should have stated this
prior). This is some good info and will be saved
for future reference. I plan on running what's
there for it's useful life.
26 years ago, I had no clue as to what a 440
was capable of, and more or less, left the
selection of the internals up to the builder.
He's no longer with us so I have no brain
to pick, but there are many here.

 

[Dodge Bros]

I need to look it up but I think the vs675 is the same spring as the VS967. Was the direct replacement anyway. I will try to look it up.

 

[Dodge Bros]

I looked the spring up. The VS675 and the VS967 same or very close to the same spring. Coil bind is 1.28, max lift is .520” with them if set up at 1.86” and .060” from coil bind at 1.28”. The older TRW books list .5” max lift, and might have a slightly higher coil bind. VS967 is at the bottom of the bigger photo, sorry it is hard to see, has some additional info though.

 

[dvw]

Why are you so worried about changing springs? You’re talking swapping a cam for a minimal gain. The springs you own now are pretty light on seat pressure. Your present combo works. What is the need to swap the cam? If your going to swap a modern grind you might as well get all the benefits of a more modern spring as well.
Doug

 

[1STMP]

I looked the spring up. The VS675 and the VS967 are the same spring. Coil bind is 1.28, max lift is .520” with them if set up at 1.86” and .060” from coil bind. The older TRW books list .5” max lift and .080” from coil bind. VS967 is at the bottom of the bigger photo, sorry it is hard to see, has some additional info though.

View attachment 1212515 View attachment 1212516

Thanks for all the info. It's exactly what I was
looking for.

 

[1STMP]

Why are you so worried about changing springs? You’re talking swapping a cam for a minimal gain. The springs you own now are pretty light on seat pressure. Your present combo works. What is the need to swap the cam? If your going to swap a modern grind you might as well get all the benefits of a more modern spring as well.
Doug

Thanks for the reply, Doug.
I'm not swapping out cams. Merely looking for
what type of cam would work with the springs
I have. If and when I do swap, whichever cam is
chosen will be more aggressive, and the
appropriate springs will be purchased.

 

[Nate S]

I looked the spring up. The VS675 and the VS967 are the same spring. Coil bind is 1.28, max lift is .520” with them if set up at 1.86” and .060” from coil bind. The older TRW books list .5” max lift and .080” from coil bind. VS967 is at the bottom of the bigger photo, sorry it is hard to see, has some additional info though.

View attachment 1212515 View attachment 1212516

For future searchers, this spec is nearly identical to the Melling VS-430, sold as a 383/440 magnum direct replacement.

 

[MelroseMopar]

I have read all the reply's and not really found a direct answer to your question. There is a ton of really good information, but if you are looking for an answer to the question on what cam someone has run and had luck with that fits your parameters I would say the comp cams 274/286, Lift .488/.491 would give a boost but still be able to use the rest of the components that you have. JMO It has a very nice sound and a nice lope, quick throttle response and plenty of torque .

 

[Carcinogen]

Springs wear out, need to replace with new cam or at the very least take them off and measure what spring tension is left.

They probably have a couple bad from sitting open for a long time.

 

[joemish]

This I know. The question is what cam (today)
could replace this cam without a spring change.
One that is hotter than stock, given the
stated spring pressures. Thanks.

(310) 217-9232 Isky call for answer.

 

[Mr. Mike]

Automakers didn't go with roller lifters as a favor to you but to lower warranty costs replacing wiped cams and dished lifters caused by today's oil.
Consider a cam swap at the next rebuild and enjoy it with what it has.

 

[JC Boatguy]

Just my two cents...cam failures are propably most likely because the catylist engines require reduced zinc and phosphorus in the oil, which was very good for cams.

 

[Cranky]

Automakers didn't go with roller lifters as a favor to you but to lower warranty costs replacing wiped cams and dished lifters caused by today's oil.
Consider a cam swap at the next rebuild and enjoy it with what it has.

Automakers went to roller lifters because the ZDDP additives were being removed from the oil because it poisons cat converters prematurely.