Register now to get rid of these ads!

Mopar experts Cam recommendation

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by v194, Jun 17, 2009.

  1. v194
    Joined: Jan 8, 2008
    Posts: 112

    v194
    Member
    from The South

    A friend is planing his 383 and looking for some suggestions on cam;
    The details:
    3.23 sure grip rear
    4 speed
    Iron stock heads
    67 Fury
    AC
    PS
    PB
    HP manifolds and dual exhaust
    Looking for something to use as a cruiser.
    He doesn't want too much cam that will make it hard on idling or just cruising around but absolutely wants something more than stock.
    What do you suggest spec wise and perhaps which manufacturer do you like.
    Thanks!
     
  2. M.Edell
    Joined: Jun 5, 2009
    Posts: 4,157

    M.Edell
    Member

  3. montclaire
    Joined: Jul 24, 2007
    Posts: 501

    montclaire
    Member

    Just use the stock road runner cam for the 4spd. Little more lope but will idle all day long with no trouble.
     
  4. vntodd
    Joined: Jan 1, 2009
    Posts: 58

    vntodd
    Member

    Yeah, had that .484 lift cam in my old 383 Roadrunner, and it was pretty lumpy.
    I second montclaire, the stock RR cam would work well.
     

  5. fasttimes
    Joined: Sep 15, 2008
    Posts: 181

    fasttimes
    Member
    from NC

    I like to use the Mopar Perf. 509 cam #4120237 292/292 duration with .509/.509 lift, but your brakes will become very mushy due to less vacum but it sound real good and the power band is great. It works best with mild port job. We have it in my brother 440 6 pak 71 Charger R/T with a 3000 stall,3.91 gears, and a progressive offenhauser linkage (not made anymore), so i would go with #4120235 284/284 duration .484/.484 lift came.
     
  6. M.Edell
    Joined: Jun 5, 2009
    Posts: 4,157

    M.Edell
    Member

    I currently run that Cam in my 62 Polara 500 383 with 3.23 gears and stock Converter.Runs great..
     
  7. Another vote for the .484, good all around cam not to lumpy and runs great! .509 is a great cam for a no power car, runs like a striped ass ape!
     
  8. BigBlockMopar
    Joined: Feb 4, 2006
    Posts: 1,360

    BigBlockMopar
    Member

    The MP 284/.484" cam was considered by Mopar as the 'wildest' cam to be used with a stock convertor and gears. I think they were right about that.
    I had that cam in the 440 in my '67 Newport. This heavy car needed some more convertor, but in a lighter car it would be allright.

    In a smaller 383 motor the cam will act 'larger', but with the absence of a stall convertor in a manual car, this doesn't matter that much.

    If the fellow really wants a "cruiser", he should choose a slightly milder cam with not more then 272 or 278 duration.

    I seem to recall the 'roadrunner'-cam has 268 duration. I've got the same cam in my '65 Chrysler convertible with 383. Has a slightly idle when cold but smoothes out when hot.
     
  9. M.Edell
    Joined: Jun 5, 2009
    Posts: 4,157

    M.Edell
    Member

    Its a little Lumpy to me but not bad, but then again I own a Max Wedge Car with a stock Solid Max Wedge Cam, so that little .484 cam feels timid in comparison.The 62 Polara I run that .484 cam in runs power brakes just fine by the way.
     
  10. M.Edell
    Joined: Jun 5, 2009
    Posts: 4,157

    M.Edell
    Member

    Bottom line is everyone is going to have their favorite cam and opinions.It all boils down to what YOU want out of your engine and your car.Now days there are soooo many options on cam profiles it will make your head spin.
     
  11. vntodd
    Joined: Jan 1, 2009
    Posts: 58

    vntodd
    Member

    I have to admit I Loved it when that .484 came up on the cam, and I always loved the sound of the idle (in neutral), but that car wasn't an everyday driver, and I still had the stock convertor in it so it would've been kinda hard to live with...especially at stoplights, when the engine started to chug, and the passenger seat would start to flop around a bit from the shaking.....

    ahhhhh, the good old days.

    But you're right maxwedgeheminut, everyone has different ideas as to what is ideal. i was nineteen back then, and I guess in my advanced age I see things differently

    Todd
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2009
  12. you need 9:1 compression at least to run the 284/484 "Street Hemi" cam and be at all satisfied with it, and it would like 3.55+ rear gear and 2200-2800 stall especially with a 383. Great performing cam and sounds awesome when you have the compression to keep any bottom end torque or vacuum.

    As said above, you probably would be happy with the Factory Magnum cam, or something in the 268 - 280 degree duration range.
     
  13. It bears mentioning, get a factory purple shaft cam or one ground by Racer Brown or someone who understands the advantage of the Mopar lifter size - faster ramps take advantage of this and make big power. Chevy grinds will lose you some of the Mopar advantage!
     
  14. M.Edell
    Joined: Jun 5, 2009
    Posts: 4,157

    M.Edell
    Member

    Good Point! Viva La Mopar!
     
  15. moparforlife
    Joined: Feb 21, 2009
    Posts: 351

    moparforlife
    Member
    from Rolla, MO

    Seems to me there are better cams out there than the 284/.484. And everybody puts that cam in everything. I'm not saying a .484 cam won't run good for your application but I think there are better grinds out there. I called up Hughes Enginges for my cam because I didn't want to have just another big block mopar with another .484 cam. I wanted a little bit of an edge on the competition. Hughes cams have low durations and high lifts. I put one in my 440. Idles great and runs great all the way through the RPMs. Give them a call and I'm sure they could recommend you a good one.
     
  16. Darby
    Joined: Sep 12, 2004
    Posts: 426

    Darby
    Member

    A '67 Fury is about as big as a Newport, and 3.23's aren't going to win too many drag races in a C-body no matter what cam you put in it. Build it for torque to get those two tons of Mopar off the line.
     
  17. panic
    Joined: Jan 3, 2004
    Posts: 1,450

    panic

    faster ramps take advantage of this

    That's true - but none of the cams you would ever run in a street car are ground like this, no matter what the ad says.

    The 509 is, IMHO wayyy too much for a heavy 383 4-speed with 3.23.
     
  18. RodStRace
    Joined: Dec 7, 2007
    Posts: 2,657

    RodStRace
    Member

    Getting away from the Trad image of this site, the best thing you can do when choosing a cam is be realistic on how it's going to be used. Drive something similar if possible around the way you intend. Keep track of the RPM range you are using. Borrow some time on a desktop dyno and plug in as much info as possible. Call the various cam Co.s and get pro input (and how the Co.s treat you). After all of this, you will have it narrowed down to a few degrees and a few thou lift. Then buy from the place you feel best dealing with.
     
  19. BigBlockMopar
    Joined: Feb 4, 2006
    Posts: 1,360

    BigBlockMopar
    Member


    True.
    I did various 'upgrades' to the drivetrain on my heavy Newport in it's years. The car had 2 (60+100L)propane tanks in the rear, but it ran on regular gas during the race.
    I started out with the .484 cam, 11:1cr steel '915' closedchamber heads 440ci, dual 625cfm Carter carbs and a stock convertor and a 2.90 (!) suregrip gearratio out of a '64 Imperial in the rear. Car was a dog off the line as predictable. It ran a 15.7 ET.
    After I jetted up the carbs considerably the ET dropped to 15.2.
    Next race I had installed 3.9:1 gears and the car ran mid 14s.
    Only after I installed a 3800 'Dynamic' convertor and an '80s grind mechanical Erson cam with 256 duration and .534" lift the car clocked 13.6 through the lights.
     
  20. Racer Brown makes milder grinds with fast ramps - the other guys use chevy patterns.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.