XE274HR cam, unhappy ?!?!? - Page 2

LX XLR8R · 01-01-2002, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HAITHAM
, Moreover did LT headers will help ?

honeslty..i will NEVER EVER buy a set of shoties again..they are a pain in the ***..for the lil more time it takes to put in long tubes you will not get burnt wires, will be cooler under the hood, cleans the engine bay up and makes more hp/tq..down low and up top..any new mustang that i will ever make will have LT nomatter how stock it is and i will tell that to ever person thats asks

like i said be this cam really needs a 70mmTB to run to its really well....good intake and heads are a nesicity also..ive tried 58mm and 65mm and they run out up top and dont feel right down low..its just not matched up

Mach 1 · 01-01-2002, 01:13 PM

you must be talking about equal length shorties, because nothing you said applies to unequal shorties, other than the horespower/torque comment.

Unit 5302 · 01-01-2002, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by COME CORRECT
What is your vaccum at idle; with that cam your whole power has move up. It may not come until 2800 RPM; what is your fuel pressure settings. and last but not least are the vavle adjusted correctly.

Actually, low rpm and idle quality should be good. With that shitty 216* intake duration and 112LSA it should make for good vacuum and decent low end.

I will never understand why somebody would go with that cam though. Piece of **** in my opinion. I don't see the need for the exhuast to be that favored, and quite frankly, you're always making sacrifices.

In this case the guys at comp cams have people believing they have a great cam by going to insane lifts with small durations and favoring the exhuast side so they can keep up with the word of the day. In actuality, lifting that valve up like that is killing hp left and right that you would have with a longer duration lower lift cam, and it's hard as hell on the valvetrain. I'm suprised it doesn't bend pushrods like an LS1. The profile on that cam has got to be crazy steep putting a ton of pressure on the pushrod as it has to lift on a near vertical surface. Throw into the mix you have to run an expensive high quality valvetrain or wreck pushrods, rockers, and springs. Oh well, it's the Crane 2030 "miracle cam" of the day

Mach 1 · 01-01-2002, 06:58 PM

what are you talking about unit? the duration on that cam is 224@.050, not 216.

Roller cams dont really have a problem with high lift as you imply. It may not be the best for power though, as you suggested.

Unit 5302 · 01-01-2002, 09:17 PM

I was thinking XE264, sorry. 216/224 .545/.555. I think those are the specs for that cam off the top of my head.

It may be roller, which will help a great deal with stress, but with a profile that steep, it's still going to side load those pushrods quite a bit. I'm not talking high lift, I'm talking steep lift. High lift is fine, with a long duration that doesn't make such a steep incline on the cam profile. Roller or not, the more sheer the profile, the greater the sideload on the pushrod. Without a roller setup, it would likely snap pushrods.

Mach 1 · 01-02-2002, 01:45 PM

Im not sure I follow you. Surely the lifter itself is absorbing any side load, and since roller lifters are roller, and they are tall and the bore they sit in is tall, I just dont see much load being transfered to the push-rod itself.

I run a comp cams profile with low duration and high lift, and I certainly havent suffered any excessive valve train wear. But from the sounds of it, you know more than comp. cam engineers, so why dont you fill us in?

01-01-2002, 01:13 PM	#22
Mach 1 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,866	you must be talking about equal length shorties, because nothing you said applies to unequal shorties, other than the horespower/torque comment. __________________ 2002 GT 1993 GT (SOLD) '93 Mustang GT RHC member #142

01-01-2002, 06:58 PM	#24
Mach 1 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,866	what are you talking about unit? the duration on that cam is 224@.050, not 216. Roller cams dont really have a problem with high lift as you imply. It may not be the best for power though, as you suggested. __________________ 2002 GT 1993 GT (SOLD) '93 Mustang GT RHC member #142

01-02-2002, 01:45 PM	#26
Mach 1 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,866	Im not sure I follow you. Surely the lifter itself is absorbing any side load, and since roller lifters are roller, and they are tall and the bore they sit in is tall, I just dont see much load being transfered to the push-rod itself. I run a comp cams profile with low duration and high lift, and I certainly havent suffered any excessive valve train wear. But from the sounds of it, you know more than comp. cam engineers, so why dont you fill us in? __________________ 2002 GT 1993 GT (SOLD) '93 Mustang GT RHC member #142

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Another unhappy Dodge owner	Dave_mustang_50	Stang Stories	2	07-18-2004 08:03 PM

01-01-2002, 09:17 PM	#25
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	I was thinking XE264, sorry. 216/224 .545/.555. I think those are the specs for that cam off the top of my head. It may be roller, which will help a great deal with stress, but with a profile that steep, it's still going to side load those pushrods quite a bit. I'm not talking high lift, I'm talking steep lift. High lift is fine, with a long duration that doesn't make such a steep incline on the cam profile. Roller or not, the more sheer the profile, the greater the sideload on the pushrod. Without a roller setup, it would likely snap pushrods.