Taking a poll, which cam would you use and why? Wednesday, 12-Apr-2000 17:53:56 Message: 18.104.22.168 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
Click here to reply
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 22.214.171.124 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
Have you ever ran Engle 120 or like cam in small motor? Thursday, 11-Jan-01 20:56:39 126.96.36.199 writes: I want-make that NEED more power. I'm thinking of just putting better heads on my motor or waiting and building a larger motor. Anyway I have 1776-CCW crank,full flow, dual 40webers w/32 vents, stock ported heads. running engle 110. I have pretty much made up my mind to just get some better heads and more radical cam. Only thing holding me back is I'm scared that the bigger cam will kill the bottom end and make the car undrivable. It needs to be able to pull forth gear around town(40-45 mph). Anybody running a simular grind in like size motor, your input would be great. Thanks! James2
Click here to reply
I have a 120 and I love it... (scott s) (11-Jan-01 21:42:59)
My broken mouse motor has similar specs: 1755cc. Stock heads with good p/p. VZ-30cam (298 dur/ .507lift). Dual Solex 40P11's (32mm vents.). This motor ran great...Pulled to 7,000rpm (yes, on stock valve heads). The cam made the bottom end (below 4,000rpm) a little soggy, but drivable. (40-45 in 4th is a little jerky, have to down shift for hills). It blew up before I could take it to the track, but fealt like it could do 14's...She will be resurrected before the spring..... (n/t) (Ohio Tom) (11-Jan-01 23:07:04)
Re: James go with bigger heads but the cam depends on a few things... ( Mark h) (12-Jan-01 00:00:59)
here´s my combo>>> (karl) (12-Jan-01 01:20:10)
Power isn't the issue when you swap from a 110 to a 120, but your engine power band will be very different. If you'll purchase some better heads, try to have more lift but stay conservative with the duration on a small engine as a stock stroke one. (n/t) (Loïc Charpentier) (12-Jan-01 01:11:15)
my brother had one in his 1641 with 40 webers, ported stock heads and 8.5:1 1 1/2 merged(more) (john f) (12-Jan-01 01:24:53)
I had a 1641 with an FK-8... (Justin) (12-Jan-01 08:02:07)
I had a 120 in a 1641cc, similar to John F's brother, car ran like a scalded dog. When I tore that motor down I put that same cam and lifters in 1955cc motor. It was broken in correctly and I always mark my lifters to the proper lobes. 120's are great all around cams. (n/t) (Ollie Frey) (12-Jan-01 11:45:20) Mr.Lutz built me a 1776 w/120+heads and trans/close ratio....hauls ass! (n/t) (RJ) (13-Jan-01 12:35:06)
Runnin a 1585 w/ FK-8 and 1.5:1 ratios here. (n/t) (n8) (13-Jan-01 13:16:22)
Re: Have you ever ran Engle 120 or like cam in small motor? (mike b, N.O.) (18-Jan-01 13:02:43)
I have a 1776 with a 120, 8.5:1 CR, Street Eliminators(42x37.5), and IDA's. It also has a 2100lb. Pressure Plate. It runs cool and strong and is my daily driver. With the heads and the pressure plate it pull HARD out of the hole and keeps pulling to 6000+ rpm. I highly reccomend it.
P.S. I get about 16-19 mpg around town and 20-23 on the highway, with a personal best of 26 hwy. Average combined mpg is about 19. It would be better if I could keep my foot out of it! :-)
Re: James go with bigger heads but the cam depends on a few things... Friday, 12-Jan-01 00:00:59 188.8.131.52 writes: If you build the same motor with some ported 40x35.5 heads and maybe some 34mm chokes it will really pick up mid to top end power with out really effecting the low end , good or bad. This is assuming you have a 1 1/2 merge and 8to1 or so compr. If you go with a 120 the motor will definately run alot different. It will make even more power top end but your bottom end torque will get real soggy. You will be trading one for the other. If you have a lighter car with a 4.37 R&P I would say go for the 120 but if you have a later car with higher gearing then I would stay with the 110 and just go with the bigger heads. The heads will make a good amount of power if they are done right. Make sure to match port the manifolds Good Luck, Mark h
here´s my combo>>> Friday, 12-Jan-01 01:20:10 184.108.40.206 writes: i run a 125cam with stock heads & programmable fuel injection, 1 3/8" exhaust. no power under 2500rpm, but it made 95bhp on the engine dyno at 6500. i would definitely go for bigger heads and stay with the 110 cam. if i would have done that, i think i would have lost a few hp at 6500 (with the small valve heads) but have gained a lot of drivability in the lower rpm range. just my 2cents karl
it ran great and hauled ass. he could keep up with 1835's through the top of 3rd no problem. and he daily drove it --anywhere--
tore it apart when the 1500 case cracked after 120,000 of hard(very hard) use.
i say go for it
the 120 is my favorite cam in almost any engine
9.35:1 compression and bone stock heads with dual springs. I ran 36mm Dells on 93 octane from the pump, 1700lb PP, and a bone stock '66 tranny. That engine screamed to 7000 with no problems. Bottom end wasn't too much of a problem...there was little stumbling when the RPM's were low. I don't know what times it would have run, but I do know that I was slightly faster than my friends 1904 engine w/close geared tranny.
Couldn't you just step up to ratio rockers for the same effect as a more radical cam?
mike b, N.O.