Hi Guys,

Trying to finalize the setup of my engine and select a cam. Seen alot of stuff lately on cams and figured I'd rather have a Lunati/UD Harold cam over a Comp. Here is what I am looking at, also wondering about my piston selection.

454 2 bolt 40 over
206 closed chamber heads, 2.19, 1.88 valves
stock crank and rods
going with an Edelbrock RPM or RPM air gap
3:31 gears
Turbo 400 tranny, or 200-4R if I can find one for a good price
2400 stall converter
1.7 rocker arms, probably full rollers

Here's the story on my piston selection. Was originally going to get KB202's and get around 9.2-9.3 CR but now I'm wondering if I should get the speed pro's that will get me to 9.8 or so. Trying to get about 425hp and 500ft lbs of torque out of this combo if possible, and still use my power brakes. Hoping this should get me into the mid 12's or lower. Does the cam card say what springs to use with it, if not I would need to know what springs to get and lifter. Doesnt matter to me if it is a solid or hyd cam.

Thanks,
Joe

Hey Joe,

Same Dilemma here, and actually our motors are realy close... mine is a 454 BB 9.5-10-1 comp .030 over Air gap 2 manifold, Edelbrock Rect. port heads, 750 carb and 3:73 gear in my 73 Z. I actually got to get some advice from UD Harold on what cam to use in my engine. He is really high, and recommends the 290 R. This is a UD cam, Part #Lun502A1. I wanted a good roller, great hi performance on the street, but not too radical. This cam is advertised by Lunati as "very streetable, with a slight lope at idle" I was looking for someone here who actually uses this cam, but nobody has replied that they are actually using it. Computer simulation with my combination shows really good HP and torque numbers thru 6000 rpm, about 577HP and 505 lbs of torque @6000. UD said I would really love this cam on the street, and that it would still work power brakes etc. But the only thing that concerns me, is that it has a lot of lift for a street motor??? Just don't know for sure, and as I said, I want something not too radical or obnoxious that I can't drive it. Here are the specs. .630 lift on int/exh, .244 int. dur./ .255 exh. dur. Lobe 112.

I spoke with a "big block-gear head" friend of mine who told me that even though it has high lift and there is 11 degrees of separation on int. and exh. that with it being 112 on LSA, that it would keep it tamed down pretty well. I am really considering this cam for my motor, and thought you might want to know about it. I just wish I could find someone actually using it. let me know what UD tells you as well.

Mike

Sounds like a nice setup Mike. Rollers are nice but I dont want the extra cost of a roller. Heck I wasnt even going to use roller rockers until the clowns on Ebay sent me the wrong valve covers. Figured I might as well use the tall covers I got since the boneheads dont like to respond to e-mails. I was looking at sticking to a flat tappet hydraulic cam, but after seeing some replies on other posts I dont want to loose out on anything if a solid will work better.

Hey Joe,

I completely understand. I was doing the same thing, I was looking at the Edelbrock Hydraulic for the 454. A very nice cam, and with my set-up, I was still getting good numbers. However, when I was looking at the HP gains I was getting by going to a roller, I guess I could not resist the temptation to go with a roller cam. Anyway, I don't want to mess up your post to UD Harold, so I will say good luck.

Mike

70 ELCO JOE,

You might check the archives here on Team Chevelle. Several months ago there was a real dyno test posted here of a 280/288H12, which is now the Lunati 302A7LUN. This cam has 223/231 at .050, .530"/.550" valve lift, and 112 LSA.
It was in a similar engine, maybe 10.2:1, but made over 530 ftlbs of torque around 3800 and 491 BHP around 5800. It had a very flat torque curve, and I believe it worked power brakes. If the owner is still around, he may give a driving report. It will work with your converter.

UDHarold

Sweet thanks Harold, guess I wasnt looking in the right spots.