Slooow Going

[Snicklefritz]

I'm not sure if this would be of any interest to anyone but I thought I'd start a thread to post pictures of my parts collecting; perhaps posting photos publicly will deepen my commitment should I get distracted. As the title suggests I anticipate this will not be updated frequently.

The first photo is a '68 302 with sentimental value. It belonged to a buddy of mine who was our high school auto shop teacher (after I graduated) and had this motor in the shop for students to learn on; he acquired the engine when he left teaching there and, when his house was destroyed in a fire, he offered it to me. The second photo shows headers I bought off ebay at a pretty good price. I wasn't 100% decided on what type of headers I wanted but this deal came along and here I am. They're Patriot brand fwiw.

 

[Pushrod]

The old 302 is looking good Snicklefritz, parts collecting was the adrenaline that got my project in high gear. Keep making progress, pal.

 

[409T]

IMO, a 302 is the BEST engine for a T-bucket. Short stroke, rapid response, you will like it.

 

[Snicklefritz]

The old 302 is looking good Snicklefritz, parts collecting was the adrenaline that got my project in high gear. Keep making progress, pal.

thanks for the encouragement, pushrod. i appreciate it. each part is one step closer to making it a reality rather than just a picture in my head.

 

[Snicklefritz]

IMO, a 302 is the BEST engine for a T-bucket. Short stroke, rapid response, you will like it.

it is a good design. because of this engine's sentimental value i want to keep much of it stock, no aftermarket heads or stroker kit, and given my project goals i'm not interested in big bumps in power. a quality rebuild, a cam that compliments the stock heads and near stock compression. nothing sexy i guess; heck i'm rebuilding the points distributor. but rest assured the will be a 4 barrel induction. thanks for the positive input.

 

[iajjpop]

I have a 305 Chevrolet bored 30 over and a rv cam,4 bbl ,headers, runs real good in a light car. All the power l need. Sounds good with the cam l have. Pretty good m.p.g.

 

[2old2fast]

I have a 305 Chevrolet bored 30 over and a rv cam,4 bbl ,headers, runs real good in a light car. All the power l need. Sounds good with the cam l have. Pretty good m.p.g.

Just curious as to your mileage ????

 

[Snicklefritz]

I have a 305 Chevrolet bored 30 over and a rv cam,4 bbl ,headers, runs real good in a light car. All the power l need. Sounds good with the cam l have. Pretty good m.p.g.

i had a mind to run an rv cam as well. what brand do you have?

 

[2old2fast]

i had a mind to run an rv cam as well. what brand do you have?

You certainly don't need towing power ( RV cam) better off with an l-79 cam , lopey Idle , good mid range power ( I sound like a cam company ,lol.

 

[Island Girl]

You certainly don't need towing power ( RV cam) better off with an l-79 cam , lopey Idle , good mid range power ( I sound like a cam company ,lol.

I can't understand the RV cam interest either . . .

A T versus an RV couldn't be any more polar opposite in cam requirement. . . . but I'm a good listener

 

[Snicklefritz]

if you read my explanation above i think my interest makes sense. but i could also pose the question why anyone would need an engine that makes more power beyond mid range and above in a street-driven car that weighs half as much as a typical muscle car. many rv type cams seem to offer power from bottom end up to mid range and for the roads i drive it would be the most useful. those still wondering why i want to emphasize torque should also be asking that to anyone installing a blown big block in their t. talk about torque from down low! *edit: as for a lopey idle: sure that's cool but 1) i'm confident the car will sound good with lake headers 2) some rv cams offer a bit of a lope

 

[Island Girl]

The 302 was a massively oversquare design with a much bigger bore than stroke, this isn't the recipe for a torque monster. Additionally, to make torque at lower rpm takes more than just a cam, it takes small ports and low runner volumes to be able to create high inlet flow velocity that promotes efficient cylinder filling at low rpms when there's little flow inertia to help out..

The problem with having all that, is that it progressively strangles mid to upper rpm efficiency.

If your motor has truck heads, ands since you said that you don't want to change them, perhaps the RV cam wouldn't be the worst choice, but if it has passenger car heads, then it's designed for a decidedly higher and wider operating RPM range than you would have in a motor intended for truck or RV use.

Another thing to consider, is that an RV obligatively spends a lot of time in the lower rpm range due to its weight, where a T just isn't similarly constrained. This is reason in itself to not target low range torque as a build/design priority.


There are plenty of cam choices from all the manufacturers that would be well suited to a light vehicle for the type of driving conditions you expect to see most often.

Call their tech lines and see what they recommend once you've given them all the info they ask for about your motor/trans and vehicle.

If some of them outright recommend an RV cam, then I'll gladly be having crow and humble pie for my Christmas dinner.

 

[Snicklefritz]

The 302 was a massively oversquare design with a much bigger bore than stroke, this isn't the recipe for a torque monster. Additionally, to make torque at lower rpm takes more than just a cam, it takes small ports and low runner volumes to be able to create high inlet flow velocity that promotes efficient cylinder filling at low rpms when there's little flow inertia to help out..

The problem with having all that, is that it progressively strangles mid to upper rpm efficiency.

If your motor has truck heads, ands since you said that you don't want to change them, perhaps the RV cam wouldn't be the worst choice, but if it has passenger car heads, then it's designed for a decidedly higher and wider operating RPM range than you would have in a motor intended for truck or RV use.

Another thing to consider, is that an RV obligatively spends a lot of time in the lower rpm range due to its weight, where a T just isn't similarly constrained. This is reason in itself to not target low range torque as a build/design priority.


There are plenty of cam choices from all the manufacturers that would be well suited to a light vehicle for the type of driving conditions you expect to see most often.

Call their tech lines and see what they recommend once you've given them all the info they ask for about your motor/trans and vehicle.

If some of them outright recommend an RV cam, then I'll gladly be having crow and humble pie for my Christmas dinner.

i'm not looking for a torque monster merely an improvement over stock given the limitations of the heads. from the factory the 302 makes notably more torque than horsepower and my thought was to keep that ratio but improve upon it some.

the heads for the 302 are the same regardless of application and the ports are as you described; unless they are opened up they eventually become a hindrance so again the idea to to work with what i have. i don't recall the factory compression ratio but think it's in the 9 to 1 area and i don't want to lose any more with too much overlap. of course when the time comes i'll talk with a trusted expert on the subject but operating range is operating range regardless if it's an rv cam or a lopey cam. and nearly every rv cam i see, certainly the ones that attracted me, have a range up to 5500; more or less above mid range for an american v8.

the simple fact is if a torquey, moderate rpm, engine will move a heavy car well (i've driven many that have) it will move a car weighing half as much or more, better. i really think people are getting hung up on the rv thing.

 

[Snicklefritz]

The 302 was a massively oversquare design
If some of them outright recommend an RV cam, then I'll gladly be having crow and humble pie for my Christmas dinner.

that's gotta be better than blood pudding.

 

[Spanky]

i'm not looking for a torque monster merely an improvement over stock given the limitations of the heads. . . i really think people are getting hung up on the rv thing.

This is a case where you can have your cake & eat it, too! That engine will definitely move your T-bucket down the road smartly, and a little more aggressive cam will improve performance and enhance the hot-rod sound. Most cam grinders will give you good advice when you tell them what you've got.
Note: we're all enjoying giving you "sage advice!" And we are really looking forward to what you actually wind up with.

PS - My cam was recommended by the grinder, and it's performance envelope is within the 1500-5500 RPM range. I am very happy with the results! Vrooom-vrooom!

 

[Indycars]

Sounds like a job for simulation software maybe.

 

[Snicklefritz]

This is a case where you can have your cake & eat it, too! That engine will definitely move your T-bucket down the road smartly, and a little more aggressive cam will improve performance and enhance the hot-rod sound. Most cam grinders will give you good advice when you tell them what you've got.
Note: we're all enjoying giving you "sage advice!" And we are really looking forward to what you actually wind up with.

PS - My cam was recommended by the grinder, and it's performance envelope is within the 1500-5500 RPM range. I am very happy with the results! Vrooom-vrooom!

you pretty much nailed it. it may or may not seem odd but i'm less concerned with the hot rod sound and more on results. if the cam gives a bit of moxie so be it but a v8 with lake headers ain't going to sound bad no matter. moreover i think there are cams out there that have that sound but still qualify as one focusing on low and mid range power.

for my goals and type of driving a low end/broad power band will work nice; the key here being build goals i think people need to bear in mind. but i'm getting ahead of my self as it's just the direction this thread took.

i do enjoy and value the input to test my assumptions and to learn from other viewpoints. i tend to either under or over think things so if i disagree with someone it's only because i put some thought into something. i may end up agreeing with an opposing/different opinion but you'll have to be a good salesman.

since i've little experience with the small block ford i had been picking the brain of those (ford guys and gals) who know that works for the engine as i outlined it. seems most of them agree the "rv" cam route isn't a bad choice all things considered.

 

[Snicklefritz]

so i'm not sure yet whether i'll buy a frame and body separately from different or the same source, or score someone's unfinished project. to be determined by cash flow and opportunity i suppose. if i do the former is it better to get a frame first or does it matter? figured bodies aren't universal and it's better to modify a body rather than other way around.

 

[HenrysT]

so i'm not sure yet whether i'll buy a frame and body separately from different or the same source, or score someone's unfinished project. to be determined by cash flow and opportunity i suppose. if i do the former is it better to get a frame first or does it matter? figured bodies aren't universal and it's better to modify a body rather than other way around.

Did you say you have the cam already? If you don't, call a few cam co. and ask them what they recommend. If you do
have the cam, ask them anyways, drive your car with it and if you don't like, go from there.
I'm going to use my motor that I was going to use in my 3/4 ton 4x4 work truck. It has a comp cam hyd. roller, PN#12-409-8 with a RPM range of 1,000-5,000. I have it already, so I'll try it, if I don't like it, I know I can change it out in an afternoon.

 

[Indycars]

Why not give me some numbers to go by for a engine simulation and then we can change out
the camshaft to see how that effects the torque curve. I'm pretty sure there will be several of us
that will be learning something new.

RV cam is just a name, just like 3/4 or full race cam, what the hell does that mean. There are probably
as many opinions as stars in the sky. Let's try and see how close we can get to some facts using some
science and actual numbers.

Snicklefritz, don't let my enthusiasm get in the way, you may have made your decision. I have a love
of HP. But it's not my car or my money, just let me know or not.

Love your avatar, unfortunately I do remember the Munsters. So yes I might be older than dirt or
close anyway!