Taking a poll, which cam would you use and why? Wednesday, 12-Apr-2000 17:53:56 Message: 188.8.131.52 writes: Building a 1914 for a friend, 42x37.5 new style 044's, with good size ports (nothing too crazy) 8.5 :1 comp, 1 5/8 merge. 45 Dells, Future plans WILL include close ratio gear box in a full bodied oval window (1900 lbs) We are trying to decide on either a w120 with 1.25 rockers, or a K8 with 1:4's (The later being my choice) Any opinons out there? Darren K
Re: Taking a poll, which cam would you use and why? (jerry) (12-Apr-2000 18:18:32) Re: I would suggest K8 with 1.4's and here's why. (Jim Ratto ) (12-Apr-2000 22:24:47) Re: Re:Thanks for the info Jim! (Chas) (12-Apr-2000 23:00:29) Re: Re: Re:No, I think Berg rockers are great, but Scat's are a good copy at an awesome price. (n/t) (Jim Ratto) (13-Apr-2000 00:51:47) Nice Jim and Thanks! (n/t) (Sentot Musa) (12-Apr-2000 23:43:56) Re: Taking a poll, which cam would you use and why? (DLH) (13-Apr-2000 00:01:56)
I have had very good luck with the k-8 in my little motor (1641cc) I tried the gamet and this cam works well over a very broad RPM range. I have 40 x 35.5 valves lots of port work and 48 IDA's
We built a 1914 for my buddy's '67 a few years back, some of you probably have read about it here or in some of my newsletters, anyway it was a "Sweep The Floor" engine that we were experimenting with. Here's the main ingredients:
-Rimco 69mm cwt crank
-Rimco Super Rods
-used Mexican uni-case
-Engle FK8 straight up with Scat lifters
-Pauter "A" heads, not welded, 40 x 35.5 (awesome heads!)
-dual 48 IDA with 40mm chokes
-Phoenix 1-5/8" header with 2.5" Flowmaster
-full size pulley
-Scat 1.4 rockers
-Mallory pump and Holley red reg
This motor flat screamed. We ran it against my 13 sec (then best et for mine was 13.76 with street tires) and it came damn close to keeping with me, like within a fender length. This 1914 had a real mean powerband above 4000rpm, the sound would change from the typical 48IDA growl to a high pitched shriek as the tach needle flung itself to 7500rpm. Yet it was perfectly driveable. Your combo sounds quite similar.
Another reason? Of course, I can't expect to convince you with the above info, because the cam was only PART of that awesome combo that worked better than we thought it should have. Here's my other reason: The 120 has more lift at the lobe, meaning the entire valve train has to follow the cam ramps more through the extra lift (equals more wear down the road). I am an advocate of using 1.25's on the 120, I have seen the power come out of doing this, but I think it does make for a "rampy" combination, I think more so than the FK8 with 1.4's. I don't know for sure, but I plan on examining this by plotting the lift figures per crank angle degree on both of these setups and then let you all know what I find. And from what I understand and have read, "rampy" cam profiles aren't always that bad when you're looking for throttle response, torque, and snappy midrange. I am sure these profiles play havoc at elevated rpms though, eating valvetrains for lunch.
I feel the FK8 would be a great choice for this combo. Look at Web Cam too, they offer a great product (heat treated) and excellent service/cutomer support. Oooooops....there I go advertising again.
Re: Taking a poll, which cam would you use and why? Thursday, 13-Apr-2000 00:01:56 184.108.40.206 writes: k-8 would be my choice, not to crazy has good all around drivability and still produces alot or power with the right heads DLH