Like to get some input on this cam.....it's going into this POS slug 8.2:1 350 I'm running....maybe it will help the engine somewhat vs the stock cam?

Imho, you may be better off with the CC 260HE instead..

Or even the 252HE.....

pdq67

with 8.2:1 compression your stuck with a low duration cam, i would try the 252 HE pdq said or the XE 256 which would be my pick, dual pattern with high lift, 110 lsa, and will improve the dcr over stock.

-Ryan

Cool...so what's the 268 good for? I ask cuz it seems like alot of people run this cam. I think Comp recommends an 8.0:1-9.0:1 c.r. with the 268 which is why I was thinking it would work.

I'm running XE262 and it's pretty good but I think more would be better. I have crappy 882 heads with the same compression as you.

Its more than just the cam as always, power/drivability will depend on your intake. exhaust and rear gears.

http://www.compcams.com/Technical/DynoSheets/

that will show you the difference in dynoed power between the cams and a mild engine build. notice how the bigger cams only peak higher while loosing low end while they keep the compression at 9.25:1 (pay attention to rpms on the bottom of the charts)

also looking at those sheets the 262 makes more power than the 268 does in that engine.

IMHO i think with a point less compression, the 256 would make more usable power than the 262 would.

I used this cam in a stock 79 Camaro with a 350, 4 speed,headers, and 3:73 posi gears. The difference was night and day...the old cam fell on it's face after 4200, the 268H keeps pulling well past 5200. A great cam on a basically stock motor, works with all power accessories, including a/c.

John

What was your old cam? Stock?

I figure his stock, '79, 350 motor's cam shoulda been the old -929.. (Or one newer one about as small??)...

The old -929 is: 195/202, 112/108, .390"/.410".

pdq67

pdq67 is right, the old 3896929, used in practically every bread and butter 350 from the late sixties to the early eighties. I have the LCA as 108/116, but I wouldn't argue the point, it's still a dog, no matter what.

John

Originally posted by pdq67:
I figure his stock, '79, 350 motor's cam shoulda been the old -929.. (Or one newer one about as small??)...

The old -929 is: 195/202, 112/108, .390"/.410".

pdq67 Is this the same cam used in a '78 LM1 350?

dirty_dawg,

The same one. Smooth idle and a great grocery getter. But I don't think that's what you want. :D

John

Well actually I think I'm going with a change of plans. I think I'm going to actually make this engine work with the car and swap the ring and pinion. I just figured maybe I can extract a little more power from the engine and it will serve as the heart until the big block is built and goes in.

OH, btw what would be a good stall speed and rear end ratio to use with the XE256 cam? Or maybe even the 252H or 260H cam? I have a TH350 tranny. Would like a good launch not going too overboard.

TD,

It is actually, 108ICA/112LCA/116ECA and called by the industry 112LCA/108ICA..

That's the diff., same thing..

pdq67

Back again, heck for about $80, think about installing a generic "Performer" cam and lifter kit like Summits SUM-K1102!!

It's 204/214, 112/107, .420"/.442" lift!!

It is a VERY GOOD one step up from stock, mild motor cam, IMHO!!!

AND the price is RIGHT too....

pdq67

What's the overall quality of a Summit cam? And what power range is the one you're referring to good for?

pdq67 thanks for the info on cam specs, learn new stuiff all the time. graemlins/waving.gif

John

How much HP can I go up with an XE256 cam or something similar?

I know you're leaning towards the smaller cams, and that really is the way to go with low CR small-blocks like ours. I'm running comp's version of the performer cam, a little less intake duration, and a little more exhaust or the other way around, either way its only a 2 degree difference, same lift and lobe seperation.

I'd say try a a more aggresive grind like the XE256 you mentioned.

If you do decide to go with the 268H, you might want to inquire about the 268AH if you're going to stick with CC, its supposed to be better. If you wan't a revised/better version of the 268H (which Harold designed), try the Lunati 301A5 cam out, he said he designed it to "whup" his older design all across the RPM range.

I would think a stock converter would work fine, or a 600 rpm over stock. The engine should pull good vacume with a fairly smooth idle I would think. The Comp Cams etreme energy 4X4 series would probably work even better with the wider lobe seperation angle. I run one in a 355 in my fullsize chev 4wd and it pulls really strong for such a small cam. I did do some porting though and compression is at 9.3-1. Good lift for such small duration helps to build torque and that's what's needed for a heavy vehicle.

Has anyone run the 268H in a shorter stroke engine (307/327)? How's the midrange (2500-4500)?

The .040" over, about 10 to 1 CR, 327 motor I gave my nephew had a Crane/Cam Dynamics 272/272, 110/105, .450/.454" Energizer cam in it AND it was GREAT in the midrange and above for such a little motor!!

But it did lack a schosh of lowend which is to be expected once you get away from anything from say the Crane 266/266 Energizer and the Performer cam on down to the stock great old -929 cam.. Imho..

pdq67