Lunati HE 262/.393 06101. I ran this cam in a 350 and a 307 about 10 years ago per the speed shop owner. The old 929 kicks it's butt all the way around. I have compared it to many stock type cams on Desktop dyno and it stays at the bottom of the list. Could you shed some light as to where it could be a good cam?

Marty,

Now you see the problem with DD, etc. Paper specs do not mean much compared to real life.
Lunati's specs are 262@seat, 201@.050, .393 valve lift, 112 LSA. You say it does not work and the 929 is much better.
In the mid-80s, when the 305 IROC-Z came out, a certain team from Conneticut(sp?) sent me some STOCK IROC-Z hydraulics with the 929 on them. I didn't have an exhaust that would pass tech, too much lift. However, my 254H was close enough to the 929 intake. The 254H is 254@.0045, 199 @ .050, .401 valve lift, and we cut their cams on a 112 LSA, using the stock 929 exhaust.
Putting these cams into their 305s, they picked up 35 BHP (255 BHP) with a completely random stock engine, and 55 BHP (275 BHP) with a blueprinted 305. The 350s were making over 290 BHP with this cam. They won the SCCA Stock championship 2 years in a row, they were never caught with an illegal cam, and they had to pass an exhaust sniffer test prior to each race.
I suspect the Lunati to have very low high-lift area. If it is pointy-looking, it HAS small high-lift area.
The 254H is in the exact same family as the 272H, etc.

UDHarold