Howards cams

[ozyfordman]

Has anyone got any first hand experience with Howards Cams lobes designed to take maximum advantage of .875" diameter lifters? A couple that I am considering for a 1927 Dodge hotrod with 2v 351c. Engine will be 10.2:1 compression, standard valves with decent port job. They are closed chamber heads opened up to 66ccs with flat top pistons. The heads are set up for screw in studs/roller rockers and flow about 275cfm @ 650". I don`t have the flow sheet handy but can get it if requested. I have a 2v performer manifold and a reworked single plane manifold. May opt for a perfromer RPM if not satisfied with these.I have a smoked over 3310 and a 735 vac sec Holley off a 428CJ that runs very nicely. Not looking for a high revving engine and fuel efficiency is important. Will be using fairly high gears, no lower than 3.5:1 and auto trans, currently has FMX. but have a couple of built C4s. Don`t want a high stall speed converter, so low end torque is important. Will have converter built for combo, probably 2500 to 3000 rpm. Car is mainly a cruiser with very occasion visit to strip. Reason I am asking is that these cams can`t be simulated in EA PRO as the advbertised and .050 figures are way closer together than the program will accept. Example, cam part# 231332-08 has advertised figures of 264 intake and 268 exhaust with .050 figures of 236 intake and 240 exhaust. Lifts are .621 intake and .638 ex on 108 LSA. This is a solid flat tappet cam. There is a milder hyd. f.t. with 220 @.050 and 267 adv. .587 lift also on 108 LSA. I believe that UD Harold designed these lobes but could be mistaken. These cams have only 50 and 51 degrees overlap, so should be very streetable. They even fit the 128 rule for LSA. Could be spring killers is why I am asking.Recommended springs are only 348lbs /inch for both cams. Pipemax likes the lift that these cams offer with time/area figures pretty close to what the engine needs for power at 6000rpm.
Any advice about either of these cams for my application?

[groberts101]

Has anyone got any first hand experience with Howards Cams lobes designed to take maximum advantage of .875" diameter lifters? A couple that I am considering for a 1927 Dodge hotrod with 2v 351c. Engine will be 10.2:1 compression, standard valves with decent port job. They are closed chamber heads opened up to 66ccs with flat top pistons. The heads are set up for screw in studs/roller rockers and flow about 275cfm @ 650". I don`t have the flow sheet handy but can get it if requested. I have a 2v performer manifold and a reworked single plane manifold. May opt for a perfromer RPM if not satisfied with these.I have a smoked over 3310 and a 735 vac sec Holley off a 428CJ that runs very nicely. Not looking for a high revving engine and fuel efficiency is important. Will be using fairly high gears, no lower than 3.5:1 and auto trans, currently has FMX. but have a couple of built C4s. Don`t want a high stall speed converter, so low end torque is important. Will have converter built for combo, probably 2500 to 3000 rpm. Car is mainly a cruiser with very occasion visit to strip. Reason I am asking is that these cams can`t be simulated in EA PRO as the advbertised and .050 figures are way closer together than the program will accept. Example, cam part# 231332-08 has advertised figures of 264 intake and 268 exhaust with .050 figures of 236 intake and 240 exhaust. Lifts are .621 intake and .638 ex on 108 LSA. This is a solid flat tappet cam. There is a milder hyd. f.t. with 220 @.050 and 267 adv. .587 lift also on 108 LSA. I believe that UD Harold designed these lobes but could be mistaken. These cams have only 50 and 51 degrees overlap, so should be very streetable. They even fit the 128 rule for LSA. Could be spring killers is why I am asking.Recommended springs are only 348lbs /inch for both cams. Pipemax likes the lift that these cams offer with time/area figures pretty close to what the engine needs for power at 6000rpm.
Any advice about either of these cams for my application?

Sshhhhhh.. we don't speak those 12x numbers around these parts.. threads get shut down because of them. lol

Ive known of a few guys running those cams and they really liked them for average power gains. Almost bought one for my last motor but ended up with a Jones roller instead. And as you have rightly guessed.. they have pretty aggressive lobes so good quality high lift springs are a must. The thing to keep in mind is that the ramp rates create more overlap window than the advertised seat timing will elude to. Look at the .100 - .200 lift duration figures compared to larger seat duration cams and you'll get a better idea how they might act.


How much does it weigh?

With that moderately sized CID and rpm cap. almost seems like too much lift? Also a bit tougher to find a FT safe springs with that much lift capability and keep the lobes safe.


Other comments. The rpm airgap would likely be better suited and depending on vehicle weight, maybe push the converters stall towards the 3000 mark due to gear multiplication factor of the C4 and 3.5 tear gear.

[Walter R. Malik]

A lot of the Howard's .875" flat tappet lobe profiles were bought from Harold Brookshire's "Custom Designed Cams" company or designed by him after the sale.

May he rest in piece ... but, always remembered.

[ozyfordman]

Thanks guys for the replys. I haven`t weighed the car but I would estimate 3000lbs. Its not registered yet so I can`t find out until I can drive it. It is a 1927 4 door Dodge Bros sedan, chopped 3 inches and chanelled 8 inches, all steel. No running boards and cycle mud gaurds, 4 inch dropped I beam front axle and disc braked 9 inch with 4 link and coil overs. There is lots of chassis cross bracing.
I wonder if these lobes were spintron tested. The springs recommended look soft for the lobe rates and the catalogue lists the same springs for their less agressive grinds. Given a similar roller would have 440 lbs/inch or there abouts for this lift, I am worried about valve train stability/harmonics. Is there a particular spring package that you would recommend?
When I add cam data in EA PRO, I can use advertised or +.050 figures. If I use advertised, it drops about 15 degrees off the +.050. Same if I use .050 figures, it adds near 20 degrees to the advertised figures. The calatalogue doesn`t give the valve events, so I am a bit lost. Even with the lower +.050 figure,it makes plenty of power for what I want compared to more ordinary grinds. How much seat and nose pressure is too much for these grinds, being flat tappet? 3/8 pushrods might be needed also, and I am set up for 5/16. Valves are .342 stem stainless steel, so are pretty heavy. Look forward to your feedback and welcome any other input from members who have an opinion.
Evan

[Geoff2]

Couple of comments/suggestions.

Use Beehive or the new Comical springs to reduce spring tension & increase reliability.
If you want fuel efficiency [ I presume you mean economy ], you don't want a Holley anywhere near the thing....
Use a Carter TQ off an XC Falcon. More power, better economy. PM if interested for required modifications.

[hoffman900]

Just something to keep in mind, the 128 rule may not working as planned with Harold’s lobes due to their “unsymmetricalness”. I know Mike Jones said Harold’s lobes like to be more advanced than his in the 1980’s before he figured out what’s Harold was doing. Best talk to Howard’s or someone else who has a lot of experience with those style lobes.

Remember, Harold’s lobes have a delayed opening on the intake side vs. the closing side. So below a certain lift point, the cam acts smaller on the opening side, ask Howard’s if they can give you the actual valve events.

+1 to what Walter said. Harold shared here he worked very hard to improve his designs, and what Howard’s has would be superior to the old Ultradyne/Bullet stuff.

[hysteric]

Couple of comments/suggestions.

Use Beehive or the new Comical springs to reduce spring tension & increase reliability.
If you want fuel efficiency [ I presume you mean economy ], you don't want a Holley anywhere near the thing....
Use a Carter TQ off an XC Falcon. More power, better economy. PM if interested for required modifications.

Hey Geoff im curious in why you think the TQ's from the XC's are the pick of the litter?

[paulzig]

Does 128 even work on a Cleveland, I thought it was 131 or 133.. I lose track

[ozyfordman]

The 128 comment was tongue in cheek.No disrespect to DV intended.Groberts 101 got the pun. I will email Howard's Cams and see if they will give me the valve events. These flat tappet cams have as much lift as many rollers. If there is a down side it would be valve control. Probably safe with an auto but a missed gear over rev would probably end badly. Are most Ford cams ground for Chev lifters? Got me wondering why these grinds aren't more popular. Wonder what Cam King would say and if he designs similar lobes for clevelands.

[hoffman900]

The 128 comment was tongue in cheek.No disrespect to DV intended.Groberts 101 got the pun. I will email Howard's Cams and see if they will give me the valve events. These flat tappet cams have as much lift as many rollers. If there is a down side it would be valve control. Probably safe with an auto but a missed gear over rev would probably end badly. Are most Ford cams ground for Chev lifters? Got me wondering why these grinds aren't more popular. Wonder what Cam King would say and if he designs similar lobes for clevelands.

It comes down to distance to the edge of the lifter the designer wanted to run. The thing is, a lot of lobes are designed specifically for the smaller .842" tappet and are just used on about everything else. Using those lobes with a .875" or a .904" lifter is fine, except you're just giving up performance potential. So unless specifically stated in the catalog, assume it's for a .842" lifter. Also, different lobe families will run different edge distances, depending. A design set to maximize a .875" for example is going to be very sensitive to lifter bore placement due to the margin of error being reduced (distance from the edge of the lifter) to maximize velocity.

There are the only Harold mechanical FT designs I see at Howard's:
MECH FT seat 0.02 0.05 0.20lift LASH 1.5000 1.5200 1.6000 1.6500 1.7000 1.7200 1.7500
F2433488 287 272 243 155 0.349 0.016 NO .5232 .5302 .5581 .5755 .5930 .5999 .6104
F2473558 291 276 247 159 0.356 0.016 NO .5337 .5408 .5693 .5871 .6049 .6120 .6227
F2493635 293 278 249 161 0.364 0.016 NO .5453 .5525 .5816 .5998 .6180 .6252 .6361
F2513635 295 280 251 163 0.364 0.016 NO .5453 .5525 .5816 .5998 .6180 .6252 .6361
F2533667 297 282 253 165 0.367 0.016 NO .5500 .5573 .5867 .6050 .6233 .6307 .6417
F2553667 299 284 255 167 0.367 0.016 NO .5500 .5573 .5867 .6050 .6233 .6307 .6417
F2553683 299 284 255 167 0.368 0.016 NO .5525 .5598 .5893 .6077 .6261 .6335 .6445
F2573753 301 286 257 169 0.375 0.016 NO .5630 .5705 .6005 .6192 .6380 .6455 .6568
F2593683 303 288 259 171 0.368 0.016 NO .5525 .5598 .5893 .6077 .6261 .6335 .6445
F2633683 307 292 263 175 0.368 0.016 NO .5525 .5598 .5893 .6077 .6261 .6335 .6445
F2673683 311 296 267 179 0.368 0.016 NO .5525 .5598 .5893 .6077 .6261 .6335 .644

These are some of the last commercially available Harold Brookshire designed FT lobes as well:
http://www.lunatipower.com/ProductGroup ... 343&cid=58

[RevTheory]

Just something to keep in mind, the 128 rule may not working as planned with Harold’s lobes due to their “unsymmetricalness”. I know Mike Jones said Harold’s lobes like to be more advanced than his in the 1980’s before he figured out what’s Harold was doing. Best talk to Howard’s or someone else who has a lot of experience with those style lobes.

Remember, Harold’s lobes have a delayed opening on the intake side vs. the closing side. So below a certain lift point, the cam acts smaller on the opening side, ask Howard’s if they can give you the actual valve events.

+1 to what Walter said. Harold shared here he worked very hard to improve his designs, and what Howard’s has would be superior to the old Ultradyne/Bullet stuff.

The last time I spoke with Howard's (a little deeper in than the phone cam speccer guys) he said that the guy designing the lobes now apprenticed under Harold and was pretty damn good. His words.

[hoffman900]

Just something to keep in mind, the 128 rule may not working as planned with Harold’s lobes due to their “unsymmetricalness”. I know Mike Jones said Harold’s lobes like to be more advanced than his in the 1980’s before he figured out what’s Harold was doing. Best talk to Howard’s or someone else who has a lot of experience with those style lobes.

Remember, Harold’s lobes have a delayed opening on the intake side vs. the closing side. So below a certain lift point, the cam acts smaller on the opening side, ask Howard’s if they can give you the actual valve events.

+1 to what Walter said. Harold shared here he worked very hard to improve his designs, and what Howard’s has would be superior to the old Ultradyne/Bullet stuff.

The last time I spoke with Howard's (a little deeper in than the phone cam speccer guys) he said that the guy designing the lobes now apprenticed under Harold and was pretty damn good. His words.

He did and use to post here as “dacaman”. They both worked (Harold remotely) at Custom Camshaft Company (Arrington Performance) and Howards bought everything, including the Landis. You can find the CCC NASCAR stuff on eBay. I’ve been half tempted to buy one to analyze it to see how they were designed

Here is one: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Dodge-R6-P8-r6 ... 0005.m1851
and this guy has a bunch: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nascar-dodge-R ... 0005.m1851

[RevTheory]

Shoot, go for it. That would be pretty cool to have just to see what Harold did on each side of the ramps. As much as I respect Godbold, I'm not all that keen on a hyd/roller profile that snaps the valve shut so aggressively that you can hear it.

Do you know who's doing the new Lunati stuff?

[hoffman900]

Shoot, go for it. That would be pretty cool to have just to see what Harold did on each side of the ramps. As much as I respect Godbold, I'm not all that keen on a hyd/roller profile that snaps the valve shut so aggressively that you can hear it.

Do you know who's doing the new Lunati stuff?

Billy like all the lobe designers have lobes that are hard on valvetrains and ones that are easy, and everything in between. Harold had a few different ramp designs that he essentially cut and pasted on to different lobes. Most lobe families from anybody are pretty much done that way, they’re just blown up or shrunk (for example, for the same style lobe / aggressiveness, the designer would have produced say 20 lobes in increments of 2* @ .050” and changes in peak lift and everywhere in between for tuneability purposes. They should all be dynamically the similar within the same family). This is why you can’t just pick a cam lobe out of a catalog on a whim and you really need to talk to the guy who designed it (or have an Adcole or a CamProPlus readout, and know what you can get away with for a given combination).

Not sure on Lunati. They probably sub it out to a consultant if they even are having new lobes made. Being a lobe designer seems kind of pointless anymore for the pushrod stuff. There are tens of thousands of designs out there and talk about market saturation. Seems to me the future is designing bespoke lobes as a consultant, and even then, if you’re that intelligent, you’ll make more money in another industry. There are lots of “Made in the USA” cams out there that are really just a copy of something one of the dozen or so notable designers in the last 80 years designed.

[RevTheory]

I can't tell you how many times I've had the lobe list up from Bullet, Comp and Howard's squabbling in my mind over 2* at .200 and a couple of thousands of lobe lift and I'm thinking, "pick one, dammit!"

I do call up and try to get deeper than the front desk to make sure I'm not doing something stupid though. I had one instance where I was speccing a cam for a rock-crawler and although the lobe looked good on paper, the guy at Bullet (can't remember his name now) steered me right away from that particular lobe family. He was kind enough to save me from myself.

He completely agreed with the specs but I chose the wrong lobe family for what I was doing.