How much cam is too much?

[mag2555]

His chioce of the 220 head works for me!

[MadBill]

Have your cake and eat it too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jfkNgdWTuo

[cv67]

I bet his 220 head and 230ish cam will be just fine, thats a mild cam for a 400

[Frankshaft]

I bet his 220 head and 230ish cam will be just fine, thats a mild cam for a 400
230cc on a 383 with too much cam its not undrivable. No need for tiny heads .

But how is the transient throttle response?

[cv67]

Like playing basketball..I cant jump anyways.

(Actually better than my 350 was but I hear what youre saying)

[427dart]

Go with a mild Hyd. Roller. I had GREAT success with the Comp.Cams XE-274 HR in my 9 to 1 comp. Ford 351W with the smaller TFS 195 High Port heads. I believe the .050 duration was in the 224 Int. 232 Exh. range with .560 lift on a 110 LCA.

[Frankshaft]

Like playing basketball..I cant jump anyways.

(Actually better than my 350 was but I hear what youre saying)

I was actually joking. That term gets used on here a lot, especially when talking about engines where the head may be a bit big for the combo. It's really never been defined.

[Frankshaft]

Go with a mild Hyd. Roller. I had GREAT success with the Comp.Cams XE-274 HR in my 9 to 1 comp. Ford 351W with the smaller TFS 195 High Port heads. I believe the .050 duration was in the 224 Int. 232 Exh. range with .560 lift on a 110 LCA.

Not being sarcastic, don't take it that way please. But, compared to what? Did you try anything else to compare? But that cam would work for the op. I personally would go with the next bigger one if we are using comps xe catalog grinds.

[427dart]

The Chevy version is the XE- 276.
As far as my old 351W... with 9 to 1 comp. ,C-4 auto with 2400 11inch convertor and 3.89 gear it was very nice on the street in my 2970 lb.
1985 Mustang LX and would run easy 11.50's @ 119-120 all day. I'm sure there could be other cams that could work better if you wanted to try them but this one worked well for my build.

Nice little runner! https://youtu.be/9zT2Pko7QGk

[CamKing]

Building a 9.5:1 sbc 406, afr 220 heads, edelbrock dual plane intake, 1-3/4 headers, 750 holley, in a street el camino, (no racing just street bashing)
I want to get the most driveability and still have good horse power. Will limit it to 6,000 rpms (so it lasts longer)
Question: how much cam can i use? I know most will recommend a 1,000$ roller but is it that mych better than a good hydraulic flat tappet?
Or have the rollers evolved so much that you can use a high lift and still be streetable?
(No gears/stall in this car. But 4 speed auto with low first gear)

With an RPM limit of 6,000rpm, you want to put peak HP around 5,500-5,600, you'll need a cam around 224/232 @.050"
With a hydr roller setup you can make about 20-25 more HP then a hydr flat tappet setup, but the cost is 2-3 times as much.
For your application, I would go with hydr flat tappet, and save the money. You'll never notice the power difference on the street.
Here's what I recommend.
224/232 @.050"
.330"/.334" Lobe Lift
110 LSA

[jet1]

One thiog to watch for is your dynamic compression ratio. It is really effected by the camshaft and if you use too much cam it can drop low enough that at a cruise rpm you efficiency can get low enough that you can actually start washing the cylinders with unburnt fuel.

[Charliesauto]

383 pump gas with that camshaft and AFR195's OTB

That should be great on fuel economy

How would it effect it?
How do you increase fuel economy and hp at the same time, doesn't it normally require more fuel consumption to increase hp?
Surely your not just trying to create drama on a tech thread as opposed to just answering the OP's question?

Headguy may be looking at the same thing I noticed, the very impressive BSFC numbers.

If the numbers are correct, they have achieved tremendous efficiency for an engine with the parameters given.

Another possibility is the HP numbers are inflated to make the customer happy, which would account for the unrealistic BSFC numbers.

[Frankshaft]

That should be great on fuel economy

How would it effect it?
How do you increase fuel economy and hp at the same time, doesn't it normally require more fuel consumption to increase hp?
Surely your not just trying to create drama on a tech thread as opposed to just answering the OP's question?

Headguy may be looking at the same thing I noticed, the very impressive BSFC numbers.

If the numbers are correct, they have achieved tremendous efficiency for an engine with the parameters given.

Another possibility is the HP numbers are inflated to make the customer happy, which would account for the unrealistic BSFC numbers.

Oh come on Charlie, there is no happy dynos out there. It's a myth. I bet that will get 25 miles to the gallon. That's the first thing I look at, the bsfc's, But the customer is happy, that's all that matters.

[user-30257]

How would it effect it?
How do you increase fuel economy and hp at the same time, doesn't it normally require more fuel consumption to increase hp?
Surely your not just trying to create drama on a tech thread as opposed to just answering the OP's question?

Headguy may be looking at the same thing I noticed, the very impressive BSFC numbers.

If the numbers are correct, they have achieved tremendous efficiency for an engine with the parameters given.

Another possibility is the HP numbers are inflated to make the customer happy, which would account for the unrealistic BSFC numbers.

Oh come on Charlie, there is no happy dynos out there. It's a myth. I bet that will get 25 miles to the gallon. That's the first thing I look at, the bsfc's, But the customer is happy, that's all that matters.

The customer is only happy until he brings his car to the track and is 20mph and 2.5 seconds slower than the dyno suggests.

[Charliesauto]

Building a 9.5:1 sbc 406, afr 220 heads, edelbrock dual plane intake, 1-3/4 headers, 750 holley, in a street el camino, (no racing just street bashing)
I want to get the most driveability and still have good horse power. Will limit it to 6,000 rpms (so it lasts longer)
Question: how much cam can i use? I know most will recommend a 1,000$ roller but is it that mych better than a good hydraulic flat tappet?
Or have the rollers evolved so much that you can use a high lift and still be streetable?
(No gears/stall in this car. But 4 speed auto with low first gear)

The 220 cc heads are on the large side for your application. If you already have them, use them.

I despise hydraulic lifters in real performance applications. If you can afford it, get a mild mechanical roller set up. If not a solid flat tappet would be my second choice.

Something in the 226-228/234-236 range with enough lobe lift to get you close to .550" lift at the valve with whatever rockers you have and 109-110 seperation would work well for you. If you stay with a non roller, you will need a decent rocker ratio(1.65:1 or more) to get the desired valve lift with any lobes I am aware of.

If you can mill your heads and or play with your gasket thickness to achieve 10:1 compression, then move up a little in duration.