Help me LA'ify my soon to own 5.9!

[kawahonda]

Heads paid for.

Ported/polished EQ318 heads
1.94 intake, 1.6 exhaust
comp dual valve springs
Flows ~300 CFM.
Resurfaced

[kawahonda]

We also talked about re-using the factory "hi stall" converter. He's supposed to send me some cam options next. Will share when I get them.

[RUNCHARGER]

IMO the factory 340 convertor could work quite nicely with a stroked small block as long as the camshaft is chosen properly to work with it.

[kawahonda]

I made the first non-factory looking move today: I ordered a Kevko M302 oil pan. I had to. It would be stupid to mount up a stock 5qrt (I think)capacity oil pan up to a 408 stroker. I increased it to 6 quarts. Built-in windage tray.

It clearly doesn't look stock, and it really upsets me, but I think this hopefully is the only thing I need to do that won't look right. Obviously, an oil pan is only visible if you get on the ground and look upwards. So I'm willing to live with that in turns to have many many miles of perfect operation.

Just be prepared when I post photos soon that's the only thing that will look off. Otherwise, I aim for this to be a near 100% 340 resto, given the LD340 intake and given the EQ heads.

Continuing on....

[kawahonda]

He's recommending #2, but is questioning if #3 would work...

Layman's thoughts on these cam options?

408 stroker, LD340 intake, prob ~9.2-9.5:1 compression (whatever is a good 91 octane pump gas option), Iron Heads (EQ Ported/polished), factory 340 HIPO torque converter, '70 HiPO manifolds (headers later, maybe), 3.73 gearing, 440 AVS carb, recurved point dizzy...

[RUNCHARGER]

It's a stroker I'd be tempted to go to #3 but either one will work.

[kawahonda]

Wonder if there's a cam out there that would be in-between #2 and #3.

Need mechanical eccentric.

[RUNCHARGER]

I doubt it. Maybe CP will weigh in on what works better with exhaust manifolds though. There is a science on that, probably more duration on the exhaust than the intake.

[kawahonda]

@Chryco Psycho

My builder just told me that if I choose anything other than those two cams then I will be wasting his time.

Seems like I need to make a decision with either #2 or #3.

I want street drivability, but I'd like her to open up very well at the strip.

I always tell my builder that it must "pass the grandma test". That means, grandma should be able to start up the car, and drive it to get groceries and come back in at the bare minimal. No weirdness.

But I also want something that sounds a little meaner than stock and opens up nicely when it needs to. Want to be in the 13s. Don't want to over cam. Don't want to under cam.

I wouldn't build this engine for headers...they may never go on. But I'd like the option to use headers in the distant future if I ever decide to break the looks in the future when I have more grey hair.

[Chryco Psycho]

I will look at this better in a day or 2 , , life has been crazy here with everyone trying to leave before the airport & flights shut down , I have been running on 5 hr sleep or less for over a week straight .
My fIrst thought is Why Comp cams , they do not design good cams for Mopars , I would be looking at Lunati , Engle or Hughes instead , you are throwing away power with comp in a Mopar
With manifolds the key is to reduce overlap so instead of 110 or 112* centerline you need a 114*  , you can get them custom ground at this spec , also lift is free {adds power without changing the way the engine runs] so get as much as possible for the duration . 

[gzig5]

I think you are going to have more than enough power when you stick your foot in it with either 2 or 3.  Two will give you better driveabiliity around town but will still probably burn the hides off at will.  I'm sure either will sound sick.   People think that they want/need a "race" cam but you have to be dedicated to living with it every day. #3 is going to have less vacuum at idle if you have power brakes.

FWIW #2 is fairly close to the XE275HL I picked up but as a roller probably has more area under the curve.  There are sound clips out there on most of these off the shelf cams.  If you really want to get exactly what you want, then spend an extra $100 and have Jones, Bullet, or one of the other Mopar specialists grind one for your head flow and application.  Shelf cams are a compromise most of the time.

[kawahonda]

Thanks for the replies.

Been listing to XE274 sound clips, and it's definitely not stock sounding.

That's not a bad thing, but yea, it appears that it will have some good lope.

Having a 110* overlap: is that bad for manifolds? I'd like the cam to "work" with manifolds, but possibly work even better if/when I do make the switch to headers. So yea, I wouldn't overly focus on spec'ing it ou for manifolds unless it causes issues.

The XE274 appears to be better than off-the-shelf Hughes cams as far as providing more lift. It actually looks pretty good (if not better) compared to Hughes....more lift.

[73_Cuda_4_Me]

I have the 274, and it's a kick-ass cam, lopey idle, but really likes a taller stall TC... really gets cooking above 3000 rpm

I thought it was too much for my stock TC and 3.23 gears...

Put a OD trans in with lower 1st gear and 2900 stall, tuned the carb, and WHOA BABY!!!

[kawahonda]

That's good to hear...makes me think with my 406 stroker and 3.73s the 274 would probably be tits....Probably will increase the factory stall of 2200-2400 to a few hundred RPMs higher...

With 1.6 rockers it will clear .560 lift.

[Chryco Psycho]

The way it works is the exhaust ,leaving if there is a long header tube, creates a vacuum behind it & if both the intake & exhaust valves are open this can significantly help cylinder filling at mid to higher RPM , with manifolds you don't create the vacuum very well & in some cases actually cause reversion causing poor cylinder filling & contamination of burnt gasses , so as little a 2-4* seems it can make a big difference