Another cam ? but this one is for my specific 401 build.

[willysworker]

I've been reading about motor build ups and discovered picking the right cam is best done by experience and matching it to vehicle specifics. I definitely need some experienced help.
Here is the whole story. I have a tired 360 block with a weak cylinder and low oil pressure. It has rebuilt stock 58cc heads, an HEI distributor and an Edelbrock performance package, i.e. 600cfm carb, performer intake, cam, lifters and timing chain set. Also stock exhaust manifolds with 2 1/4" to 3" single exhaust pipe and turbo muffler. All with about 1500 miles. I'd like to swap the above items to a 401 short block that I'm going to have rebuilt. Looks like it will have a .030 overbore with stock 8.5/1 cast pistons.
I've been reading the Edelbrock cam isn't the way to go. What cam is going to give me the best broad power ban from say, 1500 to 4500 RPM's? I'm hoping to just change the cam.
Related specifics. This motor is for my '55 Willys 4x4 wagon which will be doing some 3500 lb. towing and has a T-18 4 spd. with 6.34 1st., 4.10 gears and 33" tires. I like to crawl around at less than 2000 rpm's site seeing off-road. But still need to tow a small trailer or my CJ3a from time to time to distance states at about 3,000 RPM's and 65 mph.

[82Waggy]

Engle 5052-H
112LSA
254,254@.006
209,209@.050
488,488Lift
30 Overlap
1000 - 4500rpm

A single pattern cam with fast ramps that take advantage of the large AMC lifters. Should help build cylinder pressure on 8.5:cr for better torque and give you a good curve. Also has conservative overlap for use with stock exhaust. I would expect peak torque to occur at 3000-3500rpm but the curve should be relatively flat to past 4000rpm with strong off idle response. Should match up great with your intake, carb, and exhaust.

[mika01]

Along the same lines, I picked up a 401 yesterday and this thing looks absolutely mint! I am planning on swapping on a set on 291C heads that have been completely rebuilt, ported, polished gasket matched (intake and exhaust) along with my R4B and 650 AVS Edy. I was thinking of putting in a Summit 8600 cam I have lying around and would like your feedback. Since I'm bumping the compression up a bit it should be OK no?

[82Waggy]

Here we go again. MC, Dusty!!!! LOL!

The 8600 seems to have satisfied many a user. Just make sure your gearing and tire size result in a compatible rpm range.

Oh, and a free flowing exhaust is probably a must with this one due to its' extended overlap range.

[mika01]

T18 tranny with granny low, 321 t-case (until it blows up), Dana 60 HD rear with Detroit and 4.10 gears, 35" boggers on bead locks.
Also full dual 2.5" exhasut

[82Waggy]

Here's a calculator that lets you choose various trannies and txfr cases, rear end ratios, tire sizes, etc.

http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html

Figure out what your rpm range is, be honest with yourself about what speeds you actually drive and the resulting rpm range, and see if it falls into the range the cam is designed for. I think you will find that the resulting rpm at 60mph in top gear is generally what should fall smack in the middle of the cams recommended rpm range.

MC and others have direct experience with this cam and can tell you better than I where it pulls well.

[willysworker]

Engle 5052-H
112LSA
254,254@.006
209,209@.050
488,488Lift
30 Overlap
1000 - 4500rpm

A single pattern cam with fast ramps that take advantage of the large AMC lifters. Should help build cylinder pressure on 8.5:cr for better torque and give you a good curve. Also has conservative overlap for use with stock exhaust. I would expect peak torque to occur at 3000-3500rpm but the curve should be relatively flat to past 4000rpm with strong off idle response. Should match up great with your intake, carb, and exhaust.
thanks for the advice. Have you personal real world experience with this cam?

[82Waggy]

Engle 5052-H
112LSA
254,254@.006
209,209@.050
488,488Lift
30 Overlap
1000 - 4500rpm

A single pattern cam with fast ramps that take advantage of the large AMC lifters. Should help build cylinder pressure on 8.5:cr for better torque and give you a good curve. Also has conservative overlap for use with stock exhaust. I would expect peak torque to occur at 3000-3500rpm but the curve should be relatively flat to past 4000rpm with strong off idle response. Should match up great with your intake, carb, and exhaust.
thanks for the advice. Have you personal real world experience with this cam?

Not specifically. I do have considerable experience with cams in general as they are applied to various compression ratios and gearing. I have been leaning towards Engle cams lately as they have grinds specifically designed to take advantage of the large AMC lifter, whereas many others are simply applying chevy grinds to an AMC cam core.

I recommended that one to you because it will help build torque in a stock CR engine by closing the intake valve a little earlier, and won't suffer too much from intake dilution during the int/exh valve overlap period in your rpm range when using a stock exhaust system. It is intended to make power in the rpm range you described. I doubt you could do much better but might bias some characteristics a bit one way or the other (but that would really be splitting hairs).

[willysworker]

Engle 5052-H
112LSA
254,254@.006
209,209@.050
488,488Lift
30 Overlap
1000 - 4500rpm

A single pattern cam with fast ramps that take advantage of the large AMC lifters. Should help build cylinder pressure on 8.5:cr for better torque and give you a good curve. Also has conservative overlap for use with stock exhaust. I would expect peak torque to occur at 3000-3500rpm but the curve should be relatively flat to past 4000rpm with strong off idle response. Should match up great with your intake, carb, and exhaust.
thanks for the advice. Have you personal real world experience with this cam?

Not specifically. I do have considerable experience with cams in general as they are applied to various compression ratios and gearing. I have been leaning towards Engle cams lately as they have grinds specifically designed to take advantage of the large AMC lifter, whereas many others are simply applying chevy grinds to an AMC cam core.

I recommended that one to you because it will help build torque in a stock CR engine by closing the intake valve a little earlier, and won't suffer too much from intake dilution during the int/exh valve overlap period in your rpm range when using a stock exhaust system. It is intended to make power in the rpm range you described. I doubt you could do much better but might bias some characteristics a bit one way or the other (but that would really be splitting hairs).
You write cam speak very convincingly Sir, I just wish you or someone had some seat time or better yet a dyno print out to back up the theory part of all this. Where is it you've gotten your considerable experience if you don't mind me asking. It's very interesting to find the differing opinions between you and jeeps4ever. I really have to take note of his stated 100 AMC motor builds, of which 25 were for personal use. It's from the mild 360 build options thread you and he responded too. It seems it all comes down to your, should match up great verses jeeps4ever's Summit 8600, does work well. However, I'm not convinced either way yet. An open mind is a frustrating thing at times. thanks for you posting.

[82Waggy]

Thanks. Built my share of motors back in the day. I suppose my advice is worth no more than you paid for it - take it or leave it.

360's and 401's won't react equally to the same cam, and no one cam is appropriate for each gear set.

PS: Since you want to see a Dyno sheet, check out donwags 401 build, in the general chat section I think. He used a Comp XE256 cam that MC does not like, yet it makes over 400ft lbs from 2000-4400 rpm. So I guess there are those that like imperical evidence and others that like seat of the pants experience. Pays your nickle and takes your chances.

[mika01]

You write cam speak very convincingly Sir, I just wish you or someone had some seat time or better yet a dyno print out to back up the theory part of all this. Where is it you've gotten your considerable experience if you don't mind me asking. It's very interesting to find the differing opinions between you and jeeps4ever. I really have to take note of his stated 100 AMC motor builds, of which 25 were for personal use. It's from the mild 360 build options thread you and he responded too. It seems it all comes down to your, should match up great verses jeeps4ever's Summit 8600, does work well. However, I'm not convinced either way yet. An open mind is a frustrating thing at times. thanks for you posting.
I couldn’t have put it as eloquently as you but X2

[jeepsr4ever]

Well what feels comfortable to you guys is what it really boils down to. I have enough knowledge of camshafts as 82 does to get you right where you need to be but considerations must be taken for carb type, intake, gears, vehicle weight, compression, tires...ect ...ect. One guys could be happy with a duration of 209 because he is leaning it all under 3000rpm. Others like to rod a little with a 224 duration which can work well with a performer intake a a vaccum secondary 600cfm edelbrock carb.

With enough knowledge of the moving parts and power requirements I believe me and 82 would have the same cam specs :idea:

[82Waggy]

I couldn’t have put it as eloquently as you but X2

Hey look guys, I understand your frustration. Coming on to these boards looking for advice usually leads to all kinds of varying responses. If you can pick some wheat from all the chaff you are doing good.

My background is aero engineering. My engine building experience is not nearly as extensive as MC's or some others on here, but I have built several motors of my own to include 351c'c, BBC, couple SBC's, P455, have played with various set ups on a few of those, and have worked with many other types of my friends motors. I'm currently building two AMC's for myself and used to work in a 4wheel drive shop doing engine swaps and mods on Jeeps back in high school 30 years ago (my past with Jeeps is why I have come back to it now). I know what has worked for me and others and I have done considerable research on the subject, so I don't think my experience is worthless nor do I think you will find that I have referenced anything contradictory to modern cam dynamics.

OK?

Thinking seriously of using that little green emoticon :smile:

[82Waggy]

With enough knowledge of the moving parts and power requirements I believe me and 82 would have the same cam specs :idea:

Yup.

Pretty tough to provide anything but general advice. If you want to squeek that last 30ftlbs your gonna have to do a little more homework.

"Hello, engine room, where's my drink!" :razz:

[mika01]

OK this might be a silly question, but from looking at some specs of the stock 401 cam on another board, is there really a big difference between it and the Summit 8600?

[willysworker]

Well what feels comfortable to you guys is what it really boils down to. I have enough knowledge of camshafts as 82 does to get you right where you need to be but considerations must be taken for carb type, intake, gears, vehicle weight, compression, tires...ect ...ect. One guys could be happy with a duration of 209 because he is leaning it all under 3000rpm. Others like to rod a little with a 224 duration which can work well with a performer intake a a vaccum secondary 600cfm edelbrock carb.

With enough knowledge of the moving parts and power requirements I believe me and 82 would have the same cam specs :idea:


I can sure tell you more about my needs and what I'm running for parts. What should I add to the list above? If you have the time and can help me get to that in-between you and he cam spec. Awesome. Or is it that simple, that I can just look for a cam spec'd between the Engle and Summit.

[82Waggy]

OK this might be a silly question, but from looking at some specs of the stock 401 cam on another board, is there really a big difference between it and the Summit 8600?

yup

[Blown7]

Thats why I stay out of cam advisory threads, way too much variables with different combinations to give any great advice.
Even the same cam timed differently with changes of induction will give different results. You just gotta learn for yourself.
although I do like the numbers of the Engle cam :wink:

Jeff

[82Waggy]

I'll go ahead and go out on a limb and tell you what I think the difference would be between the two cams based upon your build and set up as you have described it.

I believe the Engle will build more peak torque and do so around 3000rpm, give or take a few hundred. I beleive the summit will build less overall peak torque, the peak torque it does build will be around 3500-4000rpm, and low end will be considerably less than that of the Engle. The Engle will probably start to fall off at around 4000rpm. If you were to bump static compression up a bit, you could retain the bottom end that woud otherwise be lost with the Summit, and, in that case I would not recommend the Engle due to the likelyhood of detonation under load coming into the picture due to high cylinder pressure with pump gas. I might still choose a different grind than the 8600 if higher compression was available, however.

Now that is all relative and may be splitting hairs. Both are better than stock for building cylinder pressure.

[willysworker]

I couldn’t have put it as eloquently as you but X2

Hey look guys, I understand your frustration. Coming on to these boards looking for advice usually leads to all kinds of varying responses. If you can pick some wheat from all the chaff you are doing good.

My background is aero engineering. My engine building experience is not nearly as extensive as MC's or some others on here, but I have built several motors of my own to include 351c'c, BBC, couple SBC's, P455, have played with various set ups on a few of those, and have worked with many other types of my friends motors. I'm currently building two AMC's for myself and used to work in a 4wheel drive shop doing engine swaps and mods on Jeeps back in high school 30 years ago (my past with Jeeps is why I have come back to it now). I know what has worked for me and others and I have done considerable research on the subject, so I don't think my experience is worthless nor do I think you will find that I have referenced anything contradictory to modern cam dynamics.

OK?

Thinking seriously of using that little green emoticon :smile:

sorry, waggy didn't mean to imply your input was of less value than seat of the pants impressions. Just that the 8600 group does have a bigger voice. Really nothing personal, more about numbers of people, an experiences with AMC.
But if the two cams are really only a few HP and foot pounds apart then I have another value to weigh in. I have just found info about some manufacturing problems the 8600 might have, lobes flatting in 5,000 miles or less. That's a deal breaker, why would I even consider such a cam. Engle's cam is twice the price ($160) but maybe well worth it. I already spent $85 buck on the Edelbrock junk. Summit 8600 doesn't sound like what I want in my motor. Funny quality wasn't mentioned before. So thanks 82 waggy, I think you have shone me a winner with this cam. I've emailed Engle to get their final input. By the way, know of a cheaper place to get this cam?

[82Waggy]

sorry, waggy didn't mean to imply your input was of less value than seat of the pants impressions. Just that the 8600 group does have a bigger voice. Really nothing personal, more about numbers of people, an experiences with AMC.

But if the two cams are really only a few HP and foot pounds apart then I have another value to weigh in. I have just found info about some manufacturing problems the 8600 might have, lobes flatting in 5,000 miles or less. That's a deal breaker, why would I even consider such a cam. Engle's cam is twice the price ($160) but maybe well worth it. I already spent $85 buck on the Edelbrock junk. Summit 8600 doesn't sound like what I want in my motor. Funny quality wasn't mentioned before. So thanks 82 waggy, I think you have shone me a winner with this cam. I've emailed Engle to get their final input. By the way, know of a cheaper place to get this cam?


Like I said the 8600 is better than stock, so many would naturally think it was fine, which it is for some things. I have heard of the quality issues before, but have also heard that they had gotten better.

Problem with a lot of the "rumours" is that there are many, MANY, installation variables that could have caused cam failure, or one persons better impressions than another of the relative power made with a given set of cam specs.

All I or any one else can really do is stear you in the general direction. There simply is no one "best cam" for any engine.

I don't have an alternative source for Engle.

[Dusty]

9.8:1 trw pistons with 34 to35 b"* total advance on a 3601 with either a 3601 with a 750 or a 3601 with a 3601 on a 770 both with berformer (-8better bvottom end /)O or a ( airgap on a 770 or 750 ) have workewr well from bottom to top.


on a 401 a little too much for a 360 but a stock compression 401 401 its stiull a ddecet cam but compression helps.]


dd

[82Waggy]

9.8:1 trw pistons with 34 to35 b"* total advance on a 3601 with either a 3601 with a 750 or a 3601 with a 3601 on a 770 both with berformer (-8better bvottom end /)O or a ( airgap on a 770 or 750 ) have workewr well from bottom to top.


on a 401 a little too much for a 360 but a stock compression 401 401 its stiull a ddecet cam but compression helps.]


dd

Must have had a big night out on the town LOL! :razz:

[82Waggy]

But if the two cams are really only a few HP and foot pounds apart then I have another value to weigh in.

The point is that they could be miles apart depending upon rpm range and loading.

Keep in mind you specified that this was for your Willy's Wagon (a relatively heavy vehicle), that you were using stock exhaust manifolds with a single pipe (a relatively restrictive exhaust system), specific gearing and tire size, and you want to tow a 3500 pound load at 3000rpm, as well you want to grunt around on the trail at 2000rpm. Under those constraints you do not want to run a lot of overlap or it will bog down and lose power. The 8600 has an overlap of 53degrees - the 5052 has an overlap of 30degrees.

Contrary to popular belief, duration is not the issue for building power.

[Dusty]

Must have had a big night out on the town LOL! :razz:

Dude you aint kidding it was a train wreck last night

[willysworker]

Been playing around with the calculator 82 waggy posted. That's a very good one! A keeper, thanks waggy. Never seen one that has all the transmission and transfer-case's covered. My T-18a and D20 w/ 3.15 terra low gears even. Waggy FYI, My Willys weighs 4200 lbs.(2200/2000)with 40 gals. of gas(a Wagoneer weighs 4600). It has a 86/1 crawl ratio. With me, the wife and a couple hundred pounds of camping gear, not heavy at all. On the highway, the grunt of the 401 should keep me in 4th gear most of the time, even towing. Looks like 3rd gear at 55 is 3880 rpm's and should be good for pulling grades. 4th gear at 60 mph/2500rpm will be do-able on the long flats. The Willys body style does not do high speeds very well. A 4500 rpm limit is more than enough. I keep hearing the 401(2.25") exhaust manifolds flow quite well, and my exhaust has all mandrel bent tubing and a big open muffler. I think this package will be fine.
I'm waiting for the Engle tech Dept. to reply to my email. The 5052-H looks like the cam I'm going with. Thanks again for everyones input. Special thanks to 82waggy, I never would have looked at an Engle cam. When I get this thing back on the road, I'll give an up-date with my seat of the pants report. Over-n-out

[82Waggy]

Cool.

I guess I should stop talking in relative terms. When I was reffering to the weight of your vehicle, I was thinking relative to a race car that would rev up quickly and not load the engine down too much - most of what we have been talking about are relatively heavy vehicles, especially when towing a trailer or climbing a mountain trail.

Same issue regarding exhaust - relative to headers or a race car with no mufflers, our exhaust systems are more restrictive.

[willysworker]

just got off the phone with Chris at Engle Racing cams in Cali. Nice guy. He said the 5052-H was taylored specily for big lifter AMC's, and 1000 to 4500 rpm's. He grinds to order and I'll have it in about a week. Sweet. Later

[82Waggy]

Can't wait to hear how your wife had to pry you off the seat after you get on it the first time.

Cheers!!!

:lo1l:

[pablorg]

Like I said the 8600 is better than stock...

82Waggy, how does the Summit 8600 compare to the Edelbrock Performer Plus cam?

What would you recommend for my 1981 CJ-7, 3.54 gears, T-176, 32" tires, AMC 360 V8 with Edelbrock EFI, Aluminium Heads and Shorty Headers.... ?? :t:

I want to make better power at higher RPMs than what I currently make with the Edelbrock Performer Plus. But I also want a decent low end torque... Is this asking for too much??

Thanks a lot!

[82Waggy]

What compression ratio are you running ?

[82Waggy]

82Waggy, how does the Summit 8600 compare to the Edelbrock Performer Plus cam?




Assuming both were installed on the same intake centerline, the 8600 has a slightly earlier intake closing point which should help build a little more torque (only 3deg difference). It also has a wider LSA and more lift which should widen the torque curve and extend the rpm range from that of the Performer. Both of these have similar duration at .006 tappet lift so I would not expect much a shift in peak torque rpm, though the 8600 does have faster ramps with a wider .050 duration.

With Edelbrock's 54cc heads I would guess you have around 9:1 compression. Your tranny has pretty low 1st and 2nd gears so getting it moving should be easy - but you did say you wanted to retain bottom end torque. Check out Engles 5052H or 5054H - both of these should be an improvement on the Performer.

[Goose]

Hey Willys.. If I may make an observation.. the exhaust manifold vs headers thing.. Those headers would be the cheapest horsepower you can buy.. the stock manifolds are fine and will work, but from my experience 15-20 hp is about what you can expect even on a stocker 401.. plus a bump in fuel mileage.. I am one of those guys that usually puts the headers on first on a stock engine.. and maybe it's the combo of the new exhaust and headers or whatever but it is a seat of the pants difference. Just a thought.

(by the way I'm guessing at 15-20 hp since it would take that much to be noticeable in a 5800 lb rig.)

[pablorg]

Assuming both were installed on the same intake centerline, the 8600 has a slightly earlier intake closing point which should help build a little more torque (only 3deg difference). It also has a wider LSA and more lift which should widen the torque curve and extend the rpm range from that of the Performer. Both of these have similar duration at .006 tappet lift so I would not expect much a shift in peak torque rpm, though the 8600 does have faster ramps with a wider .050 duration.

With Edelbrock's 54cc heads I would guess you have around 9:1 compression. Your tranny has pretty low 1st and 2nd gears so getting it moving should be easy - but you did say you wanted to retain bottom end torque. Check out Engles 5052H or 5054H - both of these should be an improvement on the Performer.

82Waggy: Thanks a lot for your advice! I think I will be rebuilding my 360 in about 6 months so I will definitely take a look at the Engles 5052H and 5054H....
If you don't mind, last question: what is the difference between these two Engle cams?

[Dusty]

http://englecams.com/catalog/old_catalog.php


:idea:


Engle 5052-H
112LSA
254,254@.006
209,209@.050
488,488Lift
30 Overlap
1000 - 4500rpm

A single pattern cam with fast ramps that take advantage of the large AMC lifters. Should help build cylinder pressure on 8.5:cr for better torque and give you a good curve. Also has conservative overlap for use with stock exhaust. I would expect peak torque to occur at 3000-3500rpm but the curve should be relatively flat to past 4000rpm with strong off idle response. Should match up great with your intake, carb, and exhaust. :idea:

[82Waggy]

82Waggy: Thanks a lot for your advice! I think I will be rebuilding my 360 in about 6 months so I will definitely take a look at the Engles 5052H and 5054H....
If you don't mind, last question: what is the difference between these two Engle cams?

Basically a difference in the rpm range at which peak power is produced, the later being a bit higher up.

If you have everything else to support the longer duration, like higher CR, proper induction, free flow exhaust, big gears to let it rev up to optimum rpm, etc, then the longer duration can result in more peak power without much loss in bottom end. If you don't have everything else to support the longer duration they can often lead to a loss in overall power and usually lose torque, vacuum, and throttle response at the bottom end due to a later intake valve closing point and more overlap - so be careful about your choice. If you don't run up to the higher rpm ranges or are lacking any of the supporting features, stick with the shorter duration cams.

Duration in and of itself only shifts the point at which peak rpm is produced (about 500rpm higher for each 10degree increase in total duration) with little increase if any on the maximum torque value produced. When in doubt, go with shorter duration.

PS: On the flip side, if you are running relatively high compression, closing the intake valve too early can result in excessive cylinder pressure ("dynamic", or "running" compression ratio) that may lead to detonation (ping), especially under load such as when towing or grunting up a hill - so you need to look at the whole package.

I use a couple of calculators to estimate dynamic compression ratio and then choose a cam with appropriate specs - after running I may make changes if I want to shift from the baseline this process establishes.

[pablorg]

Thanks a lot for your advice

[pablorg]

If you have everything else to support the longer duration, like higher CR, proper induction, free flow exhaust, big gears to let it rev up to optimum rpm, etc, then the longer duration can result in more peak power without much loss in bottom end.

82Waggy, after reading this again.. :oops:

Is 9:1 enough for the Engle 5054H? I am guessing I have all the other requirements that you list.

Also, what do you think of the CompCam 270H and XE262?

Thanks in advance,

[Dusty]

Here is a repost of something i posted from the thread "Mild 360 build" that is about 8 below this one on the engine forum, you might want to check it out too there was alot of good cam and engine comparisons. MC talked about Lazer cams IIRC, 82 waggy really went into detail on LSA and cam selection as well did quite a few other people. might help you in your quest


Im going to repost... copy this and slide it in, food for thought on some of the combos and how they seemed to work

360-270h 9.2:1 ran good 600 and a perfomer
360- 258EX 9.0:1 ran good ran out of steam above 3500-4 k but still ran well 500 edelbrock/ performer intake not too impressed overall though
401 - Crower 284hdp 512/525 lift 112 lobe 9.8:1 r4B combo ran great, towed was lots of fun. probably would have been a little better with a sightly lower duration to put the power about 500rpm lower to be practicle but was still fun
401- 8601 9:1 51cc heads on 8.5:1 pistons with the 8601 / performer - good. fun with a t-18
401 - howards .479 222dur@.050 292dur 114 lobe sep- 8.5:1 torker (dotn ask) and 600 - good
401 - Howards .479 cam - 10.2:1 and FI - so so think it may have been the fuel injection hindering performance
401 - 512 lift 274 dur 226@.050 112 lobe sep 10.2:1 with performer and 750 pretty fun mild idle great through to 5000/ 5500 4.56's with 35's will let w=you know how it works as a 9.6:1 combo soon
401 - 9.6:1 270H Air gap and 770 so-so with a 670 and performer the same motor picked right up works great as a tower and mileage getter 3.92's on 33's
390 - 10:1 R4B -700 - 276HDP Crower- OK performance done too soon rpm/power wise left a little to be desired on the mid upper and top end. in a 72 Wagoneer with T18 4.10s 32's
401 - 9.8:1 EX262h Comp - airgap and 750 pretty nice combo was snappier off the line with a performer but the airgap opened up mid and tops. tows pretty good in a J20 they said it was a 110 lobe sep but when it arrived the card said 112
360 - 10:1 343 pistons - EP20HYD Engle - Performer/700. Nice combo compression could have been a little lower but overall liked this combo it did really well with a TF727 and 3.92's in a J10. Had no problem on pump gas but towing it liked premium from time to time.

theres a few others in there
Oh yeah current cherokee is a 401 9.8:1 witht he 260h in it and 354 gears on 31's (&32's) and a TH400 performer and 750 edelbrock tows great but she is done at 4000 rpm so kicking down to passing gear and trying to extract a few more rpms out of the motor with a trailer is not an option just staying in direct gear does pretty good on most hills loaded


i know its always been weird, the power does always seem to be there i can say the 280h in a 360 with a torquer and 800 was Way too much lol on 9.2:1. the PAW cam was close to the 270h in profile not the 8601.


On a recent 401 built i liked that 262EX from comp i think it would be pushing it for a low compression 360 but then again maybe not it might be a little large but may offer an interesting package.

several friends run the 8601 and 8600 and both of which have seemed to work well in the right applications the 8601 in a 401 with higher compression and 8600 in a lower compression 401's and in 360's the 8600 has proved to be nice when coupled to a 9:1 or 8.8:1 a performer and 600 or so carb. but i have not recently built anything personally that i can comment on, just what others have done and how it has performed

[82Waggy]

82Waggy, after reading this again.. :oops:

Is 9:1 enough for the Engle 5054H? I am guessing I have all the other requirements that you list.

Also, what do you think of the CompCam 270H and XE262?

Thanks in advance,

IMO 9:1 CR is just right for the 5054H, and happens to be the cam I am going to use first in my 9:1CR 401 build. Assuming I have done my homework correctly, I hope to have hit the cam choice right the first time.

The comp 270H is a higher RPM cam, probably better suited to a street car - happens to be near the top of my list for my 390 Javelin project.

XE262 is a split duration cam with a shorter LSA, more overlap, and later intake closing point, which, when compared to the 5054H, would suggest a narrower torque curve, less vacuum and throttle response, lower running compression and therefore lower bottom end torque, peak torque at higher rpm, maybe more peak power at higher rpm, and is recommended for an RPM range of 1800-5800. Whether or not it would be right for you would depend alot on your gearing and general rpm operating range.

[pablorg]

IMO 9:1 CR is just right for the 5054H, and happens to be the cam I am going to use first in my 9:1CR 401 build. Assuming I have done my homework correctly, I hope to have hit the cam choice right the first time.


Thanks again 82Waggy for sharing your knowledge. :t:

So when are you firing up that 401? Do you have the Edelbrock MPFI setup in it?

[pablorg]

Here is a repost of something i posted from the thread "Mild 360 build" that is about 8 below this one on the engine forum, you might want to check it out too there was alot of good cam and engine comparisons.

Thanks Dusty for the heads up. I am trying to make up my mind about the choice of cam for my 360.... Since I don't have much knowledge on the subject I am trying to get the most info and learn a bit. :sa:

[82Waggy]

Thanks again 82Waggy for sharing your knowledge. :t:

So when are you firing up that 401? Do you have the Edelbrock MPFI setup in it?

Sometime this summer, and Yes, I am using the Edelbrock MPEFI.

[Dusty]

:t: :sa:

[82Waggy]

Thanks Dusty for the heads up. I am trying to make up my mind about the choice of cam for my 360.... Since I don't have much knowledge on the subject I am trying to get the most info and learn a bit. :sa:

Keep in mind that a given cam will act larger in a 360 than it does a 401 due to the difference in valve to displacement ratio and piston dwell time. For example, due to the longer stroke of the 401 it takes more crank degrees of rotation to get the piston moving up off of BDC than it does in a 360, so a 401 can stand to have the intake valve close a little later and still make similar cylinder pressure (assuming static CR is the same). Both engines also use the same intake valve size (if stock anyway), so a 360 will fill cylinders quicker and does not therefore need quite the same overlap to get the job done as the 401. But now we are getting to deep in all of this. #-o

[pablorg]

Keep in mind that a given cam will act larger in a 360 than it does a 401 due to the difference in valve to displacement ratio and piston dwell time. For example, due to the longer stroke of the 401 it takes more crank degrees of rotation to get the piston moving up off of BDC than it does in a 360, so a 401 can stand to have the intake valve close a little later and still make similar cylinder pressure (assuming static CR is the same). Both engines also use the same intake valve size (if stock anyway), so a 360 will fill cylinders quicker and does not therefore need quite the same overlap to get the job done as the 401. But now we are getting to deep in all of this. #-o

That makes sense. :t: As a side note, I wonder if the difference in weight of your Wagoneer and my CJ-7 would make up for the difference from a 401 and a 360... 111!!! If so I can guess my outcome when you try the cam in your Waggy this summer :mrgreen:

[oldscout401]

I'm waiting for the Engle tech Dept. to reply to my email. The 5052-H looks like the cam I'm going with. Thanks again for everyones input. Special thanks to 82waggy, I never would have looked at an Engle cam. When I get this thing back on the road, I'll give an up-date with my seat of the pants report. Over-n-out
Well hows that cam working out?