Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 01, 2014, 03:47:16 am

Login with username, password and session length
Team Z Motorsports
Tech Section
* SBFTECH Membership Required *
411147 Posts in 35180 Topics by 8770 Members
Latest Member: trikepapa
Search: Advanced search
Advertiser Inquiries
+ SBFTECH.com Experienced Small Block Ford Tech
|-+ Grass Roots Tech
| |-+ Grass Roots Camshafts
| | |-+ Comp XE256H or Lunati 61001 Cam for Mild 289
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Comp XE256H or Lunati 61001 Cam for Mild 289  (Read 3449 times)
67TXStang
Small Block
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135

Location: Central Texas

« on: October 03, 2011, 10:28:43 pm »

I'm trying to decide on the cam I'd like to place in my 289.  I've screw in studs in C90E heads I'll be using.  A Stealth Intake and 570 Holley Avenger carburetor.

It has a three speed top loader and 3.25 rear gears.  I don't ever go over 5,000 RPMs.  My cruise RPM is at about 2,800 RPM.  I'm looking at these two as their duration best for my operating RPM range (or so I've read).

Anyway, I like the Comp Cams X256H and Lunati 61001 cams.  Both have the same duration on intake and exhaust but the Lunati cam has more lift.  There are other variables which are different (see cam card links below).  If this is the duration which is best, is there any reason not to select the cam with more lift considering neither is over .500?

X256H Cam Card
http://www.compcams.com/Company/CC/cam-specs/Details.aspx?csid=798&sb=2

61001 Cam Card
http://www.lunatipower.com/CamSpecCard.aspx?partNumber=61001
Logged

1967 Mustang Coupe - 289, E-Street Heads, Comp XE256H Cam, High Energy RRs, Wieand Stealth, 570 Holley, 3spd toploader & 3.25 Tru-Trac
unfairlane
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


Location: Halden Norway

« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2011, 07:32:26 am »


  The ols scool Isky Mega 264 would outperform both those cams, giving about the same amount of low-end tourqe but quite a bit more power from 4k. The trick here is to run a bit closer lobeseparation on smaller cams:

  http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234470
   
  for more lobe-sep. info, scroll down here:

  http://orphanyears.blogspot.com/

  the cam:

 
  http://iskycams.com/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1754&cPath=15   
Logged
David Claflin
Adv_SBFTechie
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7168


Location: Redneck Riviera (Ft Walton Beach Florida)

« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2011, 08:45:35 am »

The trick here is to run a bit closer lobeseparation on smaller cams
Really, hadn't heard of that "trick" before.
Logged

1990 Red LX, 306, 75MM, ported gt40's, Holley SMII, accufab longtubes, 3" exhaust, 4.10's
1985 LTD LX 302, ported TW's, XE-264 cam, ported Holley SMII, 75MM-R TB, accufab 1 3/4" longtubes, 4R70W, mach 1 brakes
1988 GT long term project
windsordeath
"The Chad"
Adv_SBFTechie
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1734


Location: JAY,FL

« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2011, 12:11:59 pm »

.


* serious.jpg (6.4 KB, 229x220 - viewed 72 times.)
Logged

unfairlane
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


Location: Halden Norway

« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2011, 05:17:23 am »

The trick here is to run a bit closer lobeseparation on smaller cams
Really, hadn't heard of that "trick" before.


  Simple cam-basics.. Dissapointed
Logged
David Claflin
Adv_SBFTechie
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7168


Location: Redneck Riviera (Ft Walton Beach Florida)

« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2011, 07:52:42 am »

  Simple cam-basics.. Dissapointed
Allrighty then, good luck with that. Dissapointed
Logged

1990 Red LX, 306, 75MM, ported gt40's, Holley SMII, accufab longtubes, 3" exhaust, 4.10's
1985 LTD LX 302, ported TW's, XE-264 cam, ported Holley SMII, 75MM-R TB, accufab 1 3/4" longtubes, 4R70W, mach 1 brakes
1988 GT long term project
67TXStang
Small Block
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135

Location: Central Texas

« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2011, 09:28:13 am »

I'll look into the Isky cam.  I'd been looking a dual pattern cams as I'm using restrictive stock heads and believe it would help to have more exhaust duration.

It appears there is some difference of opinion here.  Does anyone else have a suggestion on which cam would work best in my application?
Logged

1967 Mustang Coupe - 289, E-Street Heads, Comp XE256H Cam, High Energy RRs, Wieand Stealth, 570 Holley, 3spd toploader & 3.25 Tru-Trac
juiced coupe
Six figures worth of don't give a f*ck
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6208


Location: Pascagoula, MS
The land mass between New Orleans and Mobile


« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2011, 03:10:21 pm »

The trick here is to run a bit closer lobeseparation on smaller cams
Really, hadn't heard of that "trick" before.


  Simple cam-basics.. Dissapointed

We could go and try to explain it, but this is the most straight forward answer you will get:

The intake lobe has an opening event and it has a closing event.  This is what is important.  Together they yield DURATION.  The center of these events is known as the INTAKE LOBE CENTERLINE (ICL).  Now lets move to the exhaust.  The SAME can be said.  The exhaust has an opening even and a closing event.  The center of those 2 events is the LOBE CENTERLINE (ECL).

Now here is where it gets tricky.

It is the DESIGNED events that yield CENTERLINE.

(ICL + ECL) / 2 = LOBE SEPARATION ANGLE (LSA)

LSA is a RESULT of the PROPER events.  LSA is NOT a designed feature.

The cam events are what makes the cam.  Simple lift and duration are pointless.

The cam events
The rate in which the lobe accelerates
The lift
the dwell at lift

These are what makes the intake center & exhaust center.
The centers make the LSA.
Not backwards.

If someone's focus is LSA, run the other way.

Logged

Just a 12 second car with a 11 second engine.....that runs 10s
http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,20009.0.html

Quote from: Monte Smith
Bottom line, if it was the hot ticket, the fast guys would do it.............they don't

You might need some Titanium rods and a flow bench!  LMAO on floor
juiced coupe
Six figures worth of don't give a f*ck
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6208


Location: Pascagoula, MS
The land mass between New Orleans and Mobile


« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2011, 04:36:54 pm »

Back to the original topic:

I'm trying to decide on the cam I'd like to place in my 289.  I've screw in studs in C90E heads I'll be using.  A Stealth Intake and 570 Holley Avenger carburetor.

It has a three speed top loader and 3.25 rear gears.  I don't ever go over 5,000 RPMs.  My cruise RPM is at about 2,800 RPM.  I'm looking at these two as their duration best for my operating RPM range (or so I've read).

A little more information would be helpful. Other than studs, have your 351 heads had any other upgrades? I would assume that your 289 has been rebuilt at some time during its life, any thing changed (different pistons, etc.)? Any other changes/upgrades? Exhaust, ignition, fuel, etc?

While some of these things may seem trivial, its better to have too much information.

Also, budget. Are you set on a hyd flat tappet or is a roller a option? Based on the information you have given, I think a stock HO roller would be a nice fit. The price of the lifters would hurt a little, but they would open your options for future upgrades.
Logged

Just a 12 second car with a 11 second engine.....that runs 10s
http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,20009.0.html

Quote from: Monte Smith
Bottom line, if it was the hot ticket, the fast guys would do it.............they don't

You might need some Titanium rods and a flow bench!  LMAO on floor
67TXStang
Small Block
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135

Location: Central Texas

« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2011, 04:49:31 pm »

Aside from the screw in studs and a valve job, the 351 heads are stock. 

The 289 engine was rebuilt a while back (unkown mileage).  At that time, they replaced the pistons with some stock compression Silv-O-Lite pistons.  They have four valve reliefs in the top.

I replaced all the fuel lines, plan to add a new fuel pump and I'm using a 570 Holley Street Avenger carburetor which is about a year or so old. 

I've some 1 5/8" headers and 2.5" mandrel exhaust. 

I've not really considered a roller cam.  I'm expecting to spend about $500 to replace the cam, lifters, springs, etc.  I could spend more if it is worth it to go with a roller cam.  Would performance be much better with a roller cam than with the cam options I originally presented?
Logged

1967 Mustang Coupe - 289, E-Street Heads, Comp XE256H Cam, High Energy RRs, Wieand Stealth, 570 Holley, 3spd toploader & 3.25 Tru-Trac
juiced coupe
Six figures worth of don't give a f*ck
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6208


Location: Pascagoula, MS
The land mass between New Orleans and Mobile


« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2011, 05:47:44 pm »

Aside from the screw in studs and a valve job, the 351 heads are stock. 

Alright then. You are going to at least upgrade the springs, regardless of which cam you choose. Spring choice will depend on the cam. The basic tools to change springs can be had at the parts store for under $20.

I assume you are still running the stock rail rockers. They should be fine with smaller cams, but I would spend $20 on a set of poly locks. They make valve adjustments easier and don't damage the threads on your studs like a normal rocker nut.

I also recommend picking up some lightweight, checking springs and a adjustable pushrod.

The 289 engine was rebuilt a while back (unkown mileage).  At that time, they replaced the pistons with some stock compression Silv-O-Lite pistons.  They have four valve reliefs in the top.

Your 351 heads have valve sizes similar to many smaller aftermarket heads. You will need to verify piston to valve clearance. While some people check with the heads on (with a dial indicator), I prefer to clay the pistons. With this method, you can also verify radial clearance at the valve relief. The above mentioned light springs will be handy here.

If you plan on pulling the heads beforehand, the price difference in gaskets is small.

I've not really considered a roller cam.  I'm expecting to spend about $500 to replace the cam, lifters, springs, etc.  I could spend more if it is worth it to go with a roller cam.  Would performance be much better with a roller cam than with the cam options I originally presented?

Have you ever broken in a flat cam? I hate that shit. Even with good oil and additives, I still get nervous every time I do it. Not a issue with a roller cam, the hardest part will be changing the distributor gear. Also, roller lifters are reusable should you decide to upgrade at a later date.

If sticking with a stock HO cam, ~$500 shouldn't be a problem. If using a aftermarket cam, factor in the cam price and possibly a rocker upgrade. That could easily be another $350-500.

In the past, I have had 302s with cams similar to the ones you posted. I wasn't impressed. On the other hand I had a 84 GT in college with a junk yard engine (88 Lincoln long block, 92 HO cam) with a Stealth, 650 DP, and long tubes. With a T5 and 3.27 gears, the car was a blast to drive. Plenty of low/mid power and would pull past 5000 cleanly. No track times but my brother had just bought his 98 Cobra at the time (ran a best of 13.48, bone stock). On the street (I know), they were about even at 1/8 and his car would pull away about 3 length on the big end.

In short, I'd take the stock roller any day.
Logged

Just a 12 second car with a 11 second engine.....that runs 10s
http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,20009.0.html

Quote from: Monte Smith
Bottom line, if it was the hot ticket, the fast guys would do it.............they don't

You might need some Titanium rods and a flow bench!  LMAO on floor
67TXStang
Small Block
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135

Location: Central Texas

« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2011, 06:55:33 pm »

Thanks for taking the time to respond Juiced Coupe.  I'll look into what is involved in a roller cam conversion. 
Logged

1967 Mustang Coupe - 289, E-Street Heads, Comp XE256H Cam, High Energy RRs, Wieand Stealth, 570 Holley, 3spd toploader & 3.25 Tru-Trac
liljoe07
"Gentleman Joe"
Adv_SBFTechie
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8676


Location: Cartersville, GA
Feed your MILD side


« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2011, 08:02:54 pm »

The trick here is to run a bit closer lobeseparation on smaller cams
Really, hadn't heard of that "trick" before.


  Simple cam-basics.. Dissapointed

Granted you did say "here". But the application would depend on this. On the other hand, there are many examples that refute what you say. In regards to the article, it also says that the cam the Isky was tested against, were larger in duraton. if the engines they were used on cant take advantage of the larger duration. Its not a fair test.
Logged

89 Coupe:
302- Canfield 195's, Jay Allen Cam, Holley Systemax II, Comp Cams 1.6's,75mm TB & MAF, 24lb Inj, 4.56's, 3" Exhaust, 3" Spintechs, QuarterHorse, BE/EA

Well since you friggin disagree with every damn suggestion, just rebuild the piece of shit.
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines



408 Stroker