Best cam choice for a 493 on the street

[moparsr2fast]

  Hi guys,

  I am building a 493 with the following:

440 block
10:1 comp
440 source stealth, unported
6 pack induction system 


This is going into my 70 Charger w/3:54 Dana, and stock hipo manifolds w/2.5 TTI exhasust. Basically, I am looking for the most effective cam using all the above parameters.  I am not worried about the horsepower left on the table due to the factory manifolds, but since this is strictly  a street car, torque is where I would like her to shine. The choice I gravitate towards is a Lunati hydraulic roller, specifically the 712 cam. I have 2 questions,

1) How well will it hold up on a street car ( aprox 5k miles per year)

2) Are there more effective cam options.

  I appreciate any and all input guys! 

[69dodge383]

You will have torque no matter what . For the street, not pro street...a 230 @ .050 or better on your cam duration should put you where you need to be and work good with your 3.54. I wouldnt go any lower than that duration wise with 10to1 compression. You can run 93 in this for sure without issue, maybe even 87 if you retard timing and still have a lot of power. I run 93 in my car without any issues and am running a race cam with 10.5to1 and aluminum performer RPM heads.
Post some pics of ur engine if u get a chance

[moparsr2fast]

That 712 roller is within those specs..231 in 239 ex @.050. How will this live on the street? I'm concerned about the bronze dizzy gear.

The Lunati 705 has more duration, 242/252 @ .050 with basically the same lift. It is a simple hydraulic, which makes it more wallet friendly, but won't the higher duration make the 6 pack setup touchier?

 I will post pics when it starts looking like an engine. Right now it is barely a short block  

[69dodge383]

Cam will be fine on street. 2500-2800 stall
Not sure why you want a hyd roller cam. Kind of an extra expense for a "street car". A Hyd tappet cam will work fine for you. 
Try COMP CAM ---> XE275HL or XE274H,
distributor gears are pretty reliable. ,you could always upgrade if you are concerned 

[moparsr2fast]

 I was thinking roller because it I am under the impression that it will make as much, or more power then a more aggressive hydraulic, yet keep things easy to manage with the 6 pack and factory manifolds. 

[firefighter3931]

That "712" lunati is a good choice for your intended application....it'll make lots of low end grunt and have a nice smooth idle with lots of manifold vacuum for easy tuning with the 6 pack. 

The thing i would change is the LSA ; off the shelf it comes with a 110 LSA and with HP manifolds it will work better with a 112* LSA. Lunati can custom grind that profile for you. If you go with any cam using restrictive exhaust your best choice is allways going to be a wide(r) lobe center to reduce overlap and reversion. 

The bronze gear is a wear item and will need to be swapped periodicly. 



Ron

[firefighter3931]

Bob,

Here's a nice & easy build from the Proven Engine Archives that is very similar to what you're proposing. Mike's 500 inch combo is also using unported Stealth heads, HP manifolds and was built for pump gas. Nice big, flat torque curve with oodles of low end grunt. 

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,43911.0.html



Ron

[moparsr2fast]

Thank you Ron!

  I will go through the link in a bit.  I certainly appreciate the heads up on the altered lsa  Also, looks like I will be ordering another dizzy soon!

  Bob

[BSB67]

It depends on what your goal and budget are.  Based on what you have posted, It sounds like a decent flat tappet hydraulic something like the Comp 275 HL on a wider LSA.  You'll leave power on the table, but you'll have a tire shredder which seems to be what most people really want anyway.

If you have a budget for a hydraulic roller, and you don't want to leave any power on the table without changing anything else on/in your motor, go with a street solid roller, Lunati or Comp, it does not matter.  You need to watch though as Lunati and Comp rate their cam seat timing differently.  Seat timing really matters for power in your application.

If you want to get serious about making power with the manifolds (while still being very streetable), bump the compression to at least 10.5:1, and port the heads.

You won't need to buy any special torque converter, run what you have.

[moparsr2fast]

  Thankyou for the input BSB..  I actually am wanting this engine to look and sound like a stock 440 6, but with a whole lot more power then factory. Shredding tires has always been fun, but believe it or not, the 383 2 bbl I just pulled out of the charger, with 65k miles, having just an upgraded electronic dizzy, and the factory hipo manifolds, 1st gear was an easy smoke show reguardless. Lighting the tires at 45 mph in second would be a whole lot more fun. I have always been fascinated  with the F.A.S.T. series cars, and while this car wouldn't be competitive,  it would be just as much fun to pull off the look, and still not worry about the new stangs, goats.ect..
  As for the hydraulic roller, I am currently inclined to use the factory rocker system in order to keep the factory valve covers. With this setup, I may give up power, but I also won't need to concern myself with wiped lobes that can occur with the solids, especially with the higher pring pressures. Set it..forget it. I'm getting old enough that I want to enjoy the car more then constant tinkering. 

[BSB67]

  Thankyou for the input BSB..  I actually am wanting this engine to look and sound like a stock 440 6, but with a whole lot more power then factory. Shredding tires has always been fun, but believe it or not, the 383 2 bbl I just pulled out of the charger, with 65k miles, having just an upgraded electronic dizzy, and the factory hipo manifolds, 1st gear was an easy smoke show reguardless. Lighting the tires at 45 mph in second would be a whole lot more fun. I have always been fascinated  with the F.A.S.T. series cars, and while this car wouldn't be competitive,  it would be just as much fun to pull off the look, and still not worry about the new stangs, goats.ect..
  As for the hydraulic roller, I am currently inclined to use the factory rocker system in order to keep the factory valve covers. With this setup, I may give up power, but I also won't need to concern myself with wiped lobes that can occur with the solids, especially with the higher pring pressures. Set it..forget it. I'm getting old enough that I want to enjoy the car more then constant tinkering. 

If you believe that you can run a performance hydraulic roller with the stock rocker arms, you are mistaken.  You are also mistaken if you believe that you cannot run adjustable rockers with the factory valve covers.  You have convinced me, a hydraulic flat tappet is for you.

[moparsr2fast]

  BSB,

  I'm not sure I understand why I couldn't run the hydraulic roller with a stamped rocker. Admittedly, I have no experience with roller cams. I have run roller rockers, both MP and Crane in my engines before, so I do know how to set preloads/ clearances. Those have always been the aluminum  rockers under MP covers though. I did post a thread earlier, asking which adjustable rockers would work under stock covers, and ended up with pretty much only 1 response.  Nacho said the PRW rollers would fit, but I am not familiar with that company. I have read the fully rollerized aluminum rockers were to be avoided, so that tends to make one hesitant about their other products. Had there been a more productive discussion in that thread, it may have opened up many other  cam options for me to consider.
  The other consideration is the six pack setup. I have been playing strictly with Mopars since the very early 80s, and have never bothered with a six pack because of how finicky they are suppose to be etc... Well, I am getting to that point where this will probably be my last build. I am used to 500 horse 440s, but never had a stroker. I want the complete stock appearance, more balls then any other engine I have built thus far, and a nice set of street manners conducive to having a cooperative six pack setup. If I am heading in a wrong direction, please, spell it out. I have no aversion to learning different aspects to playing with these engines 

[69wannabe]

It may be possible to run a stamped steel rocker with the proper length pushrod but I don't know how good that valve train will work that way. I have some of the PRW rockers on my 493 and they seem to be an OK set and have been on my engine for a few years now. I am running my stock valve covers on mine also with a COMP XE284 flat tappet hydraulic cam and it has very good street manners. I would rather have a single four barrel carb myself than an expensive 6 pack set up that may run you crazy!! 

[firefighter3931]

The spring rate and lift on a hyd roller is too much for a stock stamped rocker arm. Getting the pre-load set right is very important and best achieved with an adjustable valvetrain. 


Ron

[BSB67]

Comps Pro Magnum, Crane ductile iron, and Isky ductile iron will all fit the stock valve cover with no modifications.  Most aluminum (Cranes, Indy, Hughes, Harland Sharps...) will fit with likely minor modification to the baffle for clearing the adjusters.

Fast off the seat valve rate is important for your application.  Hydraulic roller profiles are generally the opposite,  lazy off the seat.    Then to take advantage of the Stealth head, you should be shooting for .600" lift.  Really can't go there with stamped steel.  If you get a Hyd. roller that will work with stamped steel, it will be slow moving - low lift, and then why bother?

I don't know if you are headed in the wrong direction because you still have not clearly articulated your goals.  What you are planning may or may not make 1 hp/cu.in.  I personally don't think it will, but it could.  This might be a perfect combination for you.  However, your plan will leave 80 hp on the table over my few suggested changes.  There will be little or no difference in how they drive.  You'll need to decide if you want the 80 hp or not, or to split the difference.

The six pac is fine.  If you truly understand how a carb works and how to trouble shoot them, they are not a problem and will work well in your application (and in many others too)

[moparsr2fast]

The comp pro magnum rockers sound like the route I will take. Lets go ahead and set that as a given.


As for the hydraulic roller being lazy off the seat, that is part of not having any experience with these types of cams. I have just learned something valuable without spending all that cash. Which goals were you asking for BSB?  Horsepower/torque, or drivability/dependability?  500 horse is fine give or take. I want that nice flat torque curve that Ron has given links to. I want this car to feel as if I am driving a viper power wise. I want relatively easy maintenance. Setting valve clearances is not a problem, but constant fiddling with carbs because the ambient humidity is different today then last weekend is not where I enjoy spending my time. This is what I was hoping the hydraulic roller would compensate. I simply do not have the experience with the bigger, more aggressive cams.

  If I can gain 80 horse, ( or even 50 for that matter),  not give up the ability to drive the car to the grocery store ( hypothetically of coarse),  and do it with something other then a hydraulic roller, then I am most certainly all ears. I will be taking Ron's advice, and talk to Dywane Porterfor his input also.

  I certainly appreciate the suggestions from everyone. I guess I know enough to out guess myself, but you guys are really helping me to sort all this. 

[BSB67]

It is as much about what you want out of the car....really, what your skills are, and how much you enjoy tinkering.

Have you determined how many miles you will drive a year?
Do you really really like to tinker with the car?   This means that you regularly go under the hood for no other reason than you want to.
Would you mind the sound of solid lifters?  Apparently, some people don't like the noise.
Are you willing to run an electric pump( this is the number one reason I would consider for not running a solid roller).
Will you be going to the track?  This is the only way you will really know if you are making 470 hp, or 570 hp.
How much is in your budget?

So, from simplest, least costly, to fairly serious street car with manifolds:

1) Hydraulic FT with stock rockers
2) Fairly aggressive custom hydraulic FT and adjustable rockers
3) #2 plus ported heads and CR increase
4) #3 and add a more aggressive custom solid FT
5)  #3 and add a custom street roller.

I suggest that you don't do #1.  And based on what you've posted I doubt that #5 is for you.  Other than cost, there is only up side to #3.

[moparsr2fast]

Well, lets see if I can cover these points clearly...

  I would drive these cars as everyday drivers well into the 90s, and even though they don't handle like new cars, let's figure maybe a few thousand miles a year. Cruising isn't like it used to be, but I still love to take em out every chance I get.

  I have found that I do actually enjoy working on these quite a bit, but if it was a finished product, I believe spending a Saturday detailing the car out is more my speed then tinkering. I would be more apt to find a few things to do, and then plan a day to do them as opposed to random tinkering.

The clicking of solids would be music to my ears..

I will be running a carter electric pump. They are very quite, although I have run the Mallory pumps, and the noise was never a nuisance.

I probably won't see a track. I'm getting a bit old to try and cut some fast reaction times, and that would bug me.

While a budget is subjective, I don't mind spending $ if I end up with quality parts that will live on the street.I have ported a number of iron heads, and they have turned out well. I have no problem porting my current stealth heads, but at a later time. Maybe the next time I have a valve job done on them. As for compression, I will be running 10 to 1 on this engine. I'm not looking to have an engine that needs a high octane fuel/additive.  Cam 2 is perfume to me, but other then boosting a tank of 93 octane with a few gallons, that would be about my limit. How much compression were you thinking BSB? Looks like I would fall between 2 and 3..

[BSB67]

Well, lets see if I can cover these points clearly...

 I would drive these cars as everyday drivers well into the 90s, and even though they don't handle like new cars, let's figure maybe a few thousand miles a year. Cruising isn't like it used to be, but I still love to take em out every chance I get.

 I have found that I do actually enjoy working on these quite a bit, but if it was a finished product, I believe spending a Saturday detailing the car out is more my speed then tinkering. I would be more apt to find a few things to do, and then plan a day to do them as opposed to random tinkering.

The clicking of solids would be music to my ears..

I will be running a carter electric pump. They are very quite, although I have run the Mallory pumps, and the noise was never a nuisance.

I probably won't see a track. I'm getting a bit old to try and cut some fast reaction times, and that would bug me.

While a budget is subjective, I don't mind spending $ if I end up with quality parts that will live on the street.I have ported a number of iron heads, and they have turned out well. I have no problem porting my current stealth heads, but at a later time. Maybe the next time I have a valve job done on them. As for compression, I will be running 10 to 1 on this engine. I'm not looking to have an engine that needs a high octane fuel/additive.  Cam 2 is perfume to me, but other then boosting a tank of 93 octane with a few gallons, that would be about my limit. How much compression were you thinking BSB? Looks like I would fall between 2 and 3..

Elevation, cam timing and local gas quality will determine what you can get away with for compression ratio.  I'm at 10.8:1 in western PA.  I have a pretty late intake closing point.  It blow about 185 on the gauge.  I think I'm about maxed out.

Porting and CR increase are big hp improvements, and no down side in reliability or maintenance.

Relatively small fast rate solid FT work well with manifolds.  There is a concern with fast rate hydraulics remaining stable in the upper rpm range.  When it is time to get into the weeds on specific lobe profiles you should call Dwayne.  He has used a couple of fairly fast profiles, but short of the extreme energy profiles that will stay stable and continue to pull well above 6000 rpm.  For maximum power under the curve, you'll probably be shifting 600 rpm above peak power.

[moparsr2fast]

  You might be slightly higher in elevation. I am in central  Illinois, so it shouldn't be much. The best we get here is 91. 110 is available in a neighboring town, or I can always buy a 50 gallon drum per season, and mix so much to a tank. I figure that 10:1 with aluminum heads is doable on 91 if I keep her around 36 degrees.

  I have to admit, I was slightly suprised when you initially suggested a smaller fast rate solid. I get twisted up when the subject of solid vs hydraulic, vs roller comes into play.  The unstability of a fast rate hydraulic at hi rpm makes sense, but why the hydraulic roller i suggested is considered almost to small, while the solid you suggested is more in line. It doesn't just illustrate clearly in my head yet.

Dwayne is next on the list, but for now, I am heading North the Minnesota. The wife has family there, and a stroll in the Park is in order this year. I'm hoping to get the call into Dwayne next week sometime. I will keep you posted. ( well, actually anyone who is reading this thread) 

[BSB67]

I did not give a cam size for the solid FT, I merely said a relatively small solid FT.  I did not compare your cam to a suggested solid.  Nor did I say that your hydraulic was too small.

[moparsr2fast]

I did not give a cam size for the solid FT, I merely said a relatively small solid FT.  I did not compare your cam to a suggested solid.  Nor did I say that your hydraulic was too small.

 My apologies, I was talking to my engine builder the other day, and he told me the roller was small for that dislacement.  You mentioned the 275 hl, but yes, it was suggested by 69dodge383. When I looked those cam specs up, that was when I was suprised

[ACUDANUT]

  Hi guys,

  I am building a 493 with the following:

440 block
10:1 comp
440 source stealth, unported
6 pack induction system 


This is going into my 70 Charger w/3:54 Dana, and stock hipo manifolds w/2.5 TTI exhasust. Basically, I am looking for the most effective cam using all the above parameters.  I am not worried about the horsepower left on the table due to the factory manifolds, but since this is strictly  a street car, torque is where I would like her to shine. The choice I gravitate towards is a Lunati hydraulic roller, specifically the 712 cam. I have 2 questions,

1) How well will it hold up on a street car ( aprox 5k miles per year)

2) Are there more effective cam options.

  I appreciate any and all input guys! 

How are you getting a 493 out of a 440 ?

[BSB67]

I did not give a cam size for the solid FT, I merely said a relatively small solid FT.  I did not compare your cam to a suggested solid.  Nor did I say that your hydraulic was too small.

 My apologies, I was talking to my engine builder the other day, and he told me the roller was small for that dislacement.  You mentioned the 275 hl, but yes, it was suggested by 69dodge383. When I looked those cam specs up, that was when I was suprised

Well, I finally broke down and looked up the 712 cam.  Everything Ron said about the 712 Lunati is spot on....."...for your intended application.....". Your builder is also correct, the cam is small for most 493 cu.in hp applications. But your application is different.  Of the Lunati hyd rollers, that is the one I would pick (with wider LSA), and probably put 1.6 rockers on it.  Ideally, I would like to see about 236° on the intake at 0.050" for a hydraulic in this application.  But I would also rather be a little small than a little big.

[firefighter3931]

Well, I finally broke down and looked up the 712 cam.  Everything Ron said about the 712 Lunati is spot on....."...for your intended application.....". Your builder is also correct, the cam is small for most 493 cu.in hp applications. But your application is different.  Of the Lunati hyd rollers, that is the one I would pick (with wider LSA), and probably put 1.6 rockers on it.  Ideally, I would like to see about 236° on the intake at 0.050" for a hydraulic in this application.  But I would also rather be a little small than a little big.

That's what i was thinking Russ....small port window, large displacement. It's going to be all done at 5500 or less so the modest (for a 493) "712" hyd roller could be an option. Typically, the hyd rollers don't rev high due to the weight of the lifters & being hydraulic....hence the slow lazy ramp speeds. But in this case with a port limited cylinder head it's not going to matter what cam you stab in there....it's all done early. With that in mind the hyd roller is an option, allbeit an expensive one.

Can a flat tappet cam make the same power....sure, and then some. I like solid cams and they are very reliable as long as you use the correct lube and valvetrain components. Most .875 profile (moderately agressive) flat tappet solids will make more power than a comparable hyd roller at 1/3 the cost. 

Good discussion 


Ron