WHat do you guys think of this for 72' 351c?

[1973mach1]

* Advertised duration: 280 intake/280 exhaust
* Duration at .050 in. cam lift: 230 intake/230 exhaust
* Gross valve lift: .530 in. intake/.530 in. exhaust
* Lobe separation: 110 degrees
* RPM range: 2,000 to 6,000
* Mild rough idle

The other cam i bought I was told was kind of small so I seen this one at Summit. I might return the other one. I have a 72' 351c, edelbrock performer intake, 600cfm edelbrock carb, im rebuilding it soon with flat top pistons, should net me about 9.1 to 1 compression, Fmx tranny with stock stall converter, I might go to a bigger stall converter eventually but low on cash so stock has to stay for now. Also planning on 3.70 gears in the future but stock 2.75? will have to stay for now. Guy tells me he thinks it has 3.73 but the tag says 2.75 unless it was changed in the past. Do I want a cam with more low end power for a 73' mach 1? Also will new stock springs on 2bbl heads handle a cam like this or will I need aftermarket springs?

Thanks,
Jim

 

['69Stang]

That should be a good all-around cam, but didn’t it come with new valve springs? You will have to upgrade the valves for that new high performance cam. Also, that cam will like a gear like the 3.73 you mentioned so hopefully that is what is in the axle now. A bigger stall wouldn’t hurt, too. What intake are you running? A good 2v intake (I’m told) is the Weaind. It will help your performance substantially over the stock one.

 

[brianj5600]

If you already have a traction problem, gears and convertor will only make it worse. Lack of o/d and 3.73 will make it a pain if you ever get on the interstate for more than a couple exits. You won't get much, if any reduction in et with gears on street tires. With slicks, gears and tc will help alot.

 

[D.Hearne]

That cam sounds like a Comp Cams 280H hydraulic, the same one I ran in a 400M with 9.7 to 1 compression. Worked fine in the longer stroke 400, but yours will lack some bottom end. You really need better springs with that cam than the stock 2bbl ones. Get new springs that the cam needs. You may also need to go to an adjustable valve train with it too. Or at least adjustable pushrods. After running the Crane rocker stud kit, I wouldn't reccomend it, they're a pain to install and the studs come loose. The smaller of the Summit cams will be a good choice too with your gear ratio and stock stall and heavy car, the specs are similar to the factory CJ cam. It will also work with your stock rockers and valve springs.

 

[1973mach1]

This is the cam I bought allready, its a Summit cam. I think some of the guys here said it was too small of a cam. Is this basically a stock 2v 351c cam? I want something that will give me some noticable power. Would a cam like this have a noticable idle at all over the stock, and would it be much more HP over stock?

Specifications:
* Advertised duration: 262 intake/272 exhaust
* Duration at .050 in. cam lift: .204 intake/.214 exhaust
* Gross valve lift: .484 in. intake/.510 in. exhaust
* Lobe separation: 112 degrees
* RPM range: 1,500 to 4,000

Thanks,
Jim

 

[Ryans67]

That cam you put up first, my buddy put it in his 72 cleveland inside of a 67 mustang. Since thens hes just about changed everything to match the cam, it just didnt have the low end torque, and didnt make for a fun ride. Id go with the bigger cam, as long as your not gonna be dissapointed until you get the stall and complete the build. If you cant wait, go with the smaller one. Ryan

 

[D.Hearne]

This is the cam I bought allready, its a Summit cam. I think some of the guys here said it was too small of a cam. Is this basically a stock 2v 351c cam? I want something that will give me some noticable power. Would a cam like this have a noticable idle at all over the stock, and would it be much more HP over stock?

Specifications:
* Advertised duration: 262 intake/272 exhaust
* Duration at .050 in. cam lift: .204 intake/.214 exhaust
* Gross valve lift: .484 in. intake/.510 in. exhaust
* Lobe separation: 112 degrees
* RPM range: 1,500 to 4,000

Thanks,
Jim

The cam you've listed here isn't even close to the stock 2 bbl 351C cam. It's closer to the 351CJ cam. This cam you've listed is the same one I put into a stock 30 over 400, and it's got excellant bottom end torque. With a 500 cfm Holley 2 bbl and headers, it'll light up the tires in the 77 F100 it's in on demand and has excellant throttle response. It will however not give you a lopey idle, that 280 duration .530 lift cam will. It will not have the bottom end power that the 262/272 duration cam will though. If you want the lopey idle, then go with the 280 duration cam, if you want good bottom end and a cam that'll work with your transmission/gear combo you have now then go with the 262/272 cam.

 

[ddonaca351]

I personally am not a fan of the square pattern cams for Clevelands. IMHO they are a chevy design modified (and not that well) to other motors. The C has good / great intake ports and poor / average exhaust ports, again imho it is much better served with a dual pattern, exhaust biased cam. The lunati Bracket Master or Bracket Master 2 comes to mind... .536 / .562 if memory serves. I think the dual patern design lends itself better to motors like the C which have a bottle neck at the exhaust port. Just my .02

Dave-

 

[C.Harris]

Typically larger camshafts move the power band further up the rpm range. However you are packing a good amount of cubic inches and if your guess is right that you have a set of the steeper gears (your 3.73s), that will help compensate for the small trade-off in low rpm power. The larger cam should have a real strong mid range pull...which will be plenty useable on the street. But the 2.25" exhaust is really small. You may want to consider an upgrade real soon with all the plans you have. Fords have a tendency to like a dual pattern camshaft profile favoring the exhaust side, but in the Clevelands case, even in 2bbl (early model) form they have much better exhaust ports than the 302s or 351s, so it becomes a little less crucial. I have had good luck with both Comp Cams and Lunati (more specifically their Brack Master cams), but did try a Summit cam and it was a decent piece, unfortunately their (204/214 duration @ .050) camshaft wasn't enough for my modded 302...not the cam's fault. Bear in mind too that a lot of companies have tech lines that you can call to get advise and recommendation on a specific set up...however it has been my experience that they are usually on the conservative side. Either way, good luck, a cam is an excellent choice to start waking things up

 

[1973mach1]

Thanks for the replies. Think with that Summit cam, Hedman headers, 600cfm carb, Performer intake and flat top pistons, the 73' will have some throw you back in your seat, tire smoking bottom end power? Im hoping to start the rebuild in a week or two once I get the parts I need. I got a new Edelbrock timing set, there not good for any extra HP are they?

Thanks,
Jim

 

[D.Hearne]

The timing set itself does nothing for HP gain, unless you count advancing or retarding it.

 

[Jonstantine]

i would get the bigger cam
i have the smaller cam (edelbrock performer) and while it moves my 66 mustang (289) pretty good (probably around mid 14's in the quarter)
your car weighs 1k lbs more than mine does
and also, mid 14's is not all that great nowadays... a new honda will run that

while i do have much of the same stuff you have (stock heads, stock converter, 2.8 gear) i desperately want to improve all of those things and once i can afford it... i will

my advice would be to be patient and get the bigger cam and better heads (or really work over your stock ones) new intake better gears and converter all at the same time and put it together once you have the funds to do so
although, i would be wary of getting low gears if you are not going to have OD and are going to do any 65+ mph driving

unless you dont mind shying away from newer SS's and well equipped honda's
i would go with the "more power cam"

 

[D.Hearne]

i would get the bigger cam
i have the smaller cam (edelbrock performer) and while it moves my 66 mustang (289) pretty good (probably around mid 14's in the quarter)
your car weighs 1k lbs more than mine does
and also, mid 14's is not all that great nowadays... a new honda will run that

while i do have much of the same stuff you have (stock heads, stock converter, 2.8 gear) i desperately want to improve all of those things and once i can afford it... i will

my advice would be to be patient and get the bigger cam and better heads (or really work over your stock ones) new intake better gears and converter all at the same time and put it together once you have the funds to do so
although, i would be wary of getting low gears if you are not going to have OD and are going to do any 65+ mph driving

unless you dont mind shying away from newer SS's and well equipped honda's
i would go with the "more power cam"

Apparently you've never run against or run a car with a 351 Cleveland before. You may want to rethink your statement until you do. You are making the same wrong assumptions about the 351C as the small block Chevy boys did " back in the day" and regretted it after being beat by even a 2 bbl 351C motor. The Clevelands better heads allow it do run a smaller cam than other designs and still perform better than most other engines of the same displacement.

 

[Mosse]

... and that smaller cam matches your performer setup better.

 

[ddonaca351]

Thanks for the replies. Think with that Summit cam, Hedman headers, 600cfm carb, Performer intake and flat top pistons, the 73' will have some throw you back in your seat, tire smoking bottom end power? Im hoping to start the rebuild in a week or two once I get the parts I need. I got a new Edelbrock timing set, there not good for any extra HP are they?

Thanks,
Jim

Jim, with the tall (highway) gears that you currently have, and the weight of the car, and the stock converter, the cam you have will work well. Put a good 2.5" exhaust system under it, and the motor should make an honest 300 hp with a torque curve, as flat as a table. (thats a good thing)
For future upgrades, my personal choice (with your situation) would be a shift kit, and a stall converter. NOTHING TOO DRASTIC, you dont have the combo for that, just about an 1800. (a stage 1 if you will...)
Your stock one probably stalls at like 1000. Just the few extra rpm, combined with firmer shifts will help acceleration, and make it more fun to drive. The numbers might not be staggering, but the fun factor will probably be quite high.
Oh and just fyi, when youre gettin' it on, shift at like 5000. With the cam and manifold package you have, there is no point working the motor harder than that. Keep it down in the meat of the torque curve, and you should turn better times. (like the stock 5.0 cam)
Good luck with the rebuild...
Dave-

 

[1973mach1]

Thanks for the help guys, after thinking about it for awhile im condsidering going to 4v heads. All's I would need is the new heads, headers, and manifolds I think so it would be an easy swap and if I sold my 2bbl intake and headers i'd break even. I worried about the low end power on the 4bbl heads but even though the torque to Hp ratio doesn't seem anywere near the 2bbl heads they still from what I seen make more torque then the 2bbl heads in stock form and cut alot of time off the 1/4 mile. Plus the intake options seem alot better for the 4v heads. Eventually with some 3.70 and shift kit it should take off pretty well. Any opinions on the 2bbl vs. 4bbl?

Thanks,
Jim

 

[D.Hearne]

The 4bbl myth about not having good bottom end is just that, a myth. If you want to spring for a set, go with quench heads. I doubt though that you'll break even after selling your 2 bbl heads and intake though. I just bought a set of rebuilt ready to run 2 bbl heads for $200.

 

['69Stang]

You.ll love the quench 4v heads if you get them. That cam should be fine for them also. Run 10.5:1 – 11.0:1 compression. A Blue Thunder intake would be perfect for your set-up. 3.70 gears and you are good to go.

 

[Jonstantine]

hearne, i didnt say he'd be slow
but i doubt a stock 2barrel cleveland is all that fast

chevy guys "back in the day" didnt have brand new SS's to drive around
if a stock 2barrel cleveland runs under 14 in the quarter i will crap my pants
yes i know the boss 351 was the fastest mustang produced in that era... stock is not boss -- so dont lecture me like i dont know what the hell im talking about
the performer cam dies after 5500 rpms;
if he had a cleveland in a 66 mustang id be vary wary... but its a 73 which ways around 1000 lbs more than my car... which means he needs 100 more hp out of his motor
which he might get... which would make him about as fast as me... and i already said that aint ****

so what i said I, let me stress the I, would do
is wait until i can put a combo together that will make maximum acceleration

i did not say anything bad about the cleveland
all i said is i wanted to squeeze more out of my engine than that cam and that he might want to do the same

i think the cam is a little mild
and considering i own that cam in my daily driver, i think i might have a little knowledge on the subject that may be relevant

and yes, the smaller cam would match much better with what he has now...
which is also why i said upgrade EVERYTHING....

 

[D.Hearne]

Moving a heavier car quicker in the quarter requires a good bit more torque, not just HP, and even the 2 bbl headed 351C has a good 100 ft'lbs more than your 289 will have. His car even with the smaller cam would give your's a run for the money. Sort of like when I ran a Chevy guy one night with the 67 big block Stang I had. At that time it still just had a stock ( 390 )60 over short block ( cam unknown) and an iron 428CJ intake and 780 Holley backed by a 3 speed Toploader and 3.00 rear. The Chevy guy had a built 350, 4speed and 4.11 rear. I didn't blow his doors off but all thru the run, the Stang just steadily pulled away from his 69 Camaro, hell he went thru first and second gear before mine finished 1st gear. Torque makes all the difference, and the Clevelands have got it, even in stock form + the heads to breathe long past the point when others run out of breath with a similar cam profile.