cam
Thread Starter
CMOC Addict
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 606
From: IN MY GARAGE
cam
Hey All.I know this topic has probably beed asked to death but i need an answer. im building a 92 5 litre and need to make a decision on a cam.. Its going to be basically stock but would really like to have a nice lumpy sound. i have been told a B cam also a e cam.. need suggestions and a reason if possible
Border Patrol
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 651
From: Burlington ON
I'm far from a cam nerd but i've heard unless you plan on changing the heads. I would leave the stock cam.
B cam is more of an agressive sound then the E Cam
E Cam you will have a better chance of passing emissons test
E Cam tends to work better with Blower Applications
some people will tell you they are outdated. I know of a few cars putting out solid reliable power with both cams.
Also look into the Trickflow cams.. like the stage 1
B cam is more of an agressive sound then the E Cam
E Cam you will have a better chance of passing emissons test
E Cam tends to work better with Blower Applications
some people will tell you they are outdated. I know of a few cars putting out solid reliable power with both cams.
Also look into the Trickflow cams.. like the stage 1
There is absolutely NO point in changing out the stock HO cam, its not going to net you any real power gains, if you were doing heads and intake, then yes, but as it stands, no. Your best bet, if you want that extra bit of power is to get some new valve springs and then put on a set of FMS Cobra 1.7 roller rockers, they can typically be found in the classified section of many forums and on e-bay for cheap, they work great and are awesome quality, but you will definitely need new valve springs.
I personally run the TFS stage 1, but it doesn't match my heads well (the bias is a little jerried) so I'm getting a custom from Jay Allen that will better match the engine.....
I personally run the TFS stage 1, but it doesn't match my heads well (the bias is a little jerried) so I'm getting a custom from Jay Allen that will better match the engine.....
CMOC Addict
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 500
From: Montreal
What are your plans for the car? What are you doing with the engine? If you've got a stock 302 and just want the sound, then install a B-303 cam. You will not see any respectable power gains, you will actually lose some low end power but it will sound nice. Personally, on a stock 302 my suggestion would be to install an adjustable timing chain set with the stock cam retarded 2*, install some better lightweight valve springs/retainers and 1.72 roller rockers.
With that said, give us some more details as to your goals and plans and what (if anything) will be done to the 302.
SS
With that said, give us some more details as to your goals and plans and what (if anything) will be done to the 302.
SS
CMOC Veteran
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 407
From: Lidsville, Ontario, Canada
With all this new emissions BS coming into effect, leave the stock cam alone. It's a pretty good piece and will get an NA car into the very low 12s [some have gone upper 11] with good heads/intake/t-bod/maf etc.
My 89 LX had a stock 160000 KM bottom end and I bolted AFR 165s, Edelbrock performer EFI [I port matched the lower to the AFRs] 1.7 RRs, 65 mm t-body, 75mm pro-m MAF and 24 lbers, T5-Z, 3.73 gears and it went 12.301 @ 111.05 MPH at St Thomas in November of 2004 when they re opened for that last chance test and tune cause the weather was nice. 60 foots were terrible, there was NO track prep etc.. With a few small tweaks that car had an 11.90 in it, [hell maybe just a good hooking track would got that] and the guy I sold it to this past spring bolted the stock catted H on that I gave w/ the car [it has an off road X] and flew through the emissions test just like it did when it was stock.
Yeah it might have gained 10-15 HP from a properly designed cam [I dont think a B or an E would have gave it as much] but then there's the emissions issue, yeah the E cam is "smog legal" but with them tightening it every year..................................
Besides that stock cam with them heads/intake would pull all the way to 6000 no problem anyways.. ran low 12s, and it idled almost as quiet and def. as smooth as stock. Fuel mileage was hurt either... made it from here to Chicago on a hair over 3/4s of a tank.. [674 KM] I'd have loved to have seen my old LX with a 15 PSI turbo kit. 
My 89 LX had a stock 160000 KM bottom end and I bolted AFR 165s, Edelbrock performer EFI [I port matched the lower to the AFRs] 1.7 RRs, 65 mm t-body, 75mm pro-m MAF and 24 lbers, T5-Z, 3.73 gears and it went 12.301 @ 111.05 MPH at St Thomas in November of 2004 when they re opened for that last chance test and tune cause the weather was nice. 60 foots were terrible, there was NO track prep etc.. With a few small tweaks that car had an 11.90 in it, [hell maybe just a good hooking track would got that] and the guy I sold it to this past spring bolted the stock catted H on that I gave w/ the car [it has an off road X] and flew through the emissions test just like it did when it was stock.
Yeah it might have gained 10-15 HP from a properly designed cam [I dont think a B or an E would have gave it as much] but then there's the emissions issue, yeah the E cam is "smog legal" but with them tightening it every year..................................
Besides that stock cam with them heads/intake would pull all the way to 6000 no problem anyways.. ran low 12s, and it idled almost as quiet and def. as smooth as stock. Fuel mileage was hurt either... made it from here to Chicago on a hair over 3/4s of a tank.. [674 KM] I'd have loved to have seen my old LX with a 15 PSI turbo kit.
CMOC Newbie
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Schlodes
With all this new emissions BS coming into effect, leave the stock cam alone. It's a pretty good piece and will get an NA car into the very low 12s [some have gone upper 11] with good heads/intake/t-bod/maf etc.
My 89 LX had a stock 160000 KM bottom end and I bolted AFR 165s, Edelbrock performer EFI [I port matched the lower to the AFRs] 1.7 RRs, 65 mm t-body, 75mm pro-m MAF and 24 lbers, T5-Z, 3.73 gears and it went 12.301 @ 111.05 MPH at St Thomas in November of 2004 when they re opened for that last chance test and tune cause the weather was nice. 60 foots were terrible, there was NO track prep etc.. With a few small tweaks that car had an 11.90 in it, [hell maybe just a good hooking track would got that] and the guy I sold it to this past spring bolted the stock catted H on that I gave w/ the car [it has an off road X] and flew through the emissions test just like it did when it was stock.
Yeah it might have gained 10-15 HP from a properly designed cam [I dont think a B or an E would have gave it as much] but then there's the emissions issue, yeah the E cam is "smog legal" but with them tightening it every year.................................. Besides that stock cam with them heads/intake would pull all the way to 6000 no problem anyways.. ran low 12s, and it idled almost as quiet and def. as smooth as stock. Fuel mileage was hurt either... made it from here to Chicago on a hair over 3/4s of a tank.. [674 KM] I'd have loved to have seen my old LX with a 15 PSI turbo kit.
My 89 LX had a stock 160000 KM bottom end and I bolted AFR 165s, Edelbrock performer EFI [I port matched the lower to the AFRs] 1.7 RRs, 65 mm t-body, 75mm pro-m MAF and 24 lbers, T5-Z, 3.73 gears and it went 12.301 @ 111.05 MPH at St Thomas in November of 2004 when they re opened for that last chance test and tune cause the weather was nice. 60 foots were terrible, there was NO track prep etc.. With a few small tweaks that car had an 11.90 in it, [hell maybe just a good hooking track would got that] and the guy I sold it to this past spring bolted the stock catted H on that I gave w/ the car [it has an off road X] and flew through the emissions test just like it did when it was stock.
Yeah it might have gained 10-15 HP from a properly designed cam [I dont think a B or an E would have gave it as much] but then there's the emissions issue, yeah the E cam is "smog legal" but with them tightening it every year..................................
Besides that stock cam with them heads/intake would pull all the way to 6000 no problem anyways.. ran low 12s, and it idled almost as quiet and def. as smooth as stock. Fuel mileage was hurt either... made it from here to Chicago on a hair over 3/4s of a tank.. [674 KM] I'd have loved to have seen my old LX with a 15 PSI turbo kit.
CMOC Veteran
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 407
From: Lidsville, Ontario, Canada
Those runs were with a 26 x 8.5" ET Drag, but like I say, it was cold out, and when i say no track prep I mean it. Literally pull up to the burnout box, get out of car, spray some water in the water box with their hose, get back in car, do burnout and then go make yer pass... :laughhard
I had that against me that day and as well, my Trac - Loc decided it was going to start going out on me. I mostly got 1 wheel on my launches that day, except for two one where I got a 12.30 and another on a 12.44 pass @ 110. But it would spin the slicks two full rotations then would bark from hooking and shoot off.. 60's were 1.80s. And got ONE 1.73 as I bogged it and left at 4000-4200 which was how I went 12.30.
I had that against me that day and as well, my Trac - Loc decided it was going to start going out on me. I mostly got 1 wheel on my launches that day, except for two one where I got a 12.30 and another on a 12.44 pass @ 110. But it would spin the slicks two full rotations then would bark from hooking and shoot off.. 60's were 1.80s. And got ONE 1.73 as I bogged it and left at 4000-4200 which was how I went 12.30.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
