350 For Torque

[unstable]

I read in Superchevy an article that said the best build power-per-dollar they had done was a 350 ,vortec head, Edelbrock Performer Air Gap intake, Comp XE262h cam engine. The cam is .462 I and .469 E with 218/ 224 duration @.050. They ran 1.6 rocker arms which gave .493 I and .500 E. of lift.

My question is, if I switch to the XR270HR roller lifter cam, would I get the same results. The XR270HR is .495 I and.502 E with 1.5 rocker arms.

Which is the better cam for low rpm torque? Or is there a better cam than these 2 for bottom end torque?

Would someone care to tell me what the ideal build would be for bottom end torque? I figure if I have the torque, horsepower and performance would take of themselves.

[pat mccarthy]

I read in Superchevy an article that said the best build power-per-dollar they had done was a 350 ,vortec head, Edelbrock Performer Air Gap intake, Comp XE262h cam engine. The cam is .462 I and .469 E with 218/ 224 duration @.050. They ran 1.6 rocker arms which gave .493 I and .500 E. of lift.

My question is, if I switch to the XR270HR roller lifter cam, would I get the same results. The XR270HR is .495 I and.502 E with 1.5 rocker arms.

Which is the better cam for low rpm torque? Or is there a better cam than these 2 for bottom end torque?

Would someone care to tell me what the ideal build would be for bottom end torque? I figure if I have the torque, horsepower and performance would take of themselves.

just build the bottom end with good parts and that all you need to do pistons could be from cast hyper or forged same with the rods stock with a recon with new rod bolts or better this would have to do with just how much money you want to throw at it i would run the hyd roller cam just a much better way to go i think there is better cams but that may be just me i would use a custom grind erson. isky or crower or howards before a comp

[SBC]

Those cams look very similar to me.
Except for the price, I think thats why the XR262H was chosen.

The durations are both 218/224.
Similar valve lifts, with the rocker swap.
The XE262H intake closes 4 degrees earlier than the XR270HR.

I believe theoretically the XE262H produces more torque.
But the XR270HR must be a better product???? $126 vs $312.

[techinspector1]

Here are the valve timing specs for the 262 cam.....
Camshaft Specifications
And the specs for the 270 cam....
Camshaft Specifications

You decide.

[tango]

For a SB Chevy 350 that is being built for Torque . You surely do not want a 500 Lift camshaft . And 1.6 rockers will just add to the valve train wear . Also with a 500 lift Camshaft you will need stronger spring and LT4 retainers . And you may have to cut down the valve seal bosses on your Vortec heads . The best way to go is with the XE262H with 1.5 rockers . This set up will make 375 HP and enough Torque to pull tree's from the ground . If you have your mind set on a bigger cam . The 275DEH is as big that I would go . This cam is 219/229 dur at .050 with 462/482 lift and has a 110 L/S . But I have seen some Dyno run on 350s with the XE262H and it make near the same HP as the XE268H . And it's Torque range is down Lower were it is needed on the street .

[erik erikson]

I read in Superchevy an article that said the best build power-per-dollar they had done was a 350 ,vortec head, Edelbrock Performer Air Gap intake, Comp XE262h cam engine. The cam is .462 I and .469 E with 218/ 224 duration @.050. They ran 1.6 rocker arms which gave .493 I and .500 E. of lift.

My question is, if I switch to the XR270HR roller lifter cam, would I get the same results. The XR270HR is .495 I and.502 E with 1.5 rocker arms.

Which is the better cam for low rpm torque? Or is there a better cam than these 2 for bottom end torque?

Would someone care to tell me what the ideal build would be for bottom end torque? I figure if I have the torque, horsepower and performance would take of themselves.

A hyd. roller cam is always going to make a lot more torque.
This is due mainly because of the much stepper ramp rates on the hyd. roller cam compared to the hyd. cam.
Yes,it is true with the 1.6 ratio rocker arms you may cause more guide wear and the rocker arm stud gets loaded up more.

[shawnlee28]

Those cams look very similar to me.
Except for the price, I think thats why the XR262H was chosen.

The durations are both 218/224.
Similar valve lifts, with the rocker swap.
The XE262H intake closes 4 degrees earlier than the XR270HR.

I believe theoretically the XE262H produces more torque.
But the XR270HR must be a better product???? $126 vs $312.

I have xe 262 h in a 305 ,nice sounding cam....

The main price difference between those 2 cams is the xe262h is hydralic lifters ...hence the h designation
The other cam has the hr designation at the end ,on top of being different specs it is a hydraulic roller .....hence the hr designation.
The price difference is the core of the roller cam and the roller lifters price.

Even though it costs more for the roller ,it will give more performance too,the technical term is more area under the curve,which translates into more power for a given duration and lift than a standard hydralic cam ,because of the steep lift ramps ,like Erik mentioned.

[shawnlee28]

Those cams look very similar to me.
Except for the price, I think thats why the XR262H was chosen.

The durations are both 218/224.
Similar valve lifts, with the rocker swap.
The XE262H intake closes 4 degrees earlier than the XR270HR.

I believe theoretically the XE262H produces more torque.
But the XR270HR must be a better product???? $126 vs $312.

I have xe 262 h in a 305 ,nice sounding cam....

The main price difference between those 2 cams is the xe262h is hydralic lifters ...hence the h designation
The other cam has the hr designation at the end ,on top of being different specs it is a hydraulic roller .....hence the hr designation.
The price difference is the core of the roller cam and the roller lifters price.

Even though it costs more for the roller ,it will give more performance too,the technical term is more area under the curve,which translates into more power for a given duration and lift than a standard hydralic cam ,because of the steep lift ramps ,like Erik mentioned.

[shawnlee28]

Those cams look very similar to me.
Except for the price, I think thats why the XR262H was chosen.

The durations are both 218/224.
Similar valve lifts, with the rocker swap.
The XE262H intake closes 4 degrees earlier than the XR270HR.

I believe theoretically the XE262H produces more torque.
But the XR270HR must be a better product???? $126 vs $312.

I have xe 262 h in a 305 ,nice sounding cam....

The main price difference between those 2 cams is the xe262h is hydralic lifters ...hence the h designation
The other cam has the hr designation at the end ,on top of being different specs it is a hydraulic roller .....hence the hr designation.
The price difference is the core of the roller cam and the roller lifters price.

Even though it costs more for the roller ,it will give more performance too,the technical term is more area under the curve,which translates into more power for a given duration and lift than a standard hydralic cam ,because of the steep lift ramps ,like Erik mentioned.

[shawnlee28]

Those cams look very similar to me.
Except for the price, I think thats why the XR262H was chosen.

The durations are both 218/224.
Similar valve lifts, with the rocker swap.
The XE262H intake closes 4 degrees earlier than the XR270HR.

I believe theoretically the XE262H produces more torque.
But the XR270HR must be a better product???? $126 vs $312.

I have xe 262 h in a 305 ,nice sounding cam....

The main price difference between those 2 cams is the xe262h is hydralic lifters ...hence the h designation
The other cam has the hr designation at the end ,on top of being different specs it is a hydraulic roller .....hence the hr designation.
The price difference is the core of the roller cam and the roller lifters price.

Even though it costs more for the roller ,it will give more performance too,the technical term is more area under the curve,which translates into more power for a given duration and lift than a standard hydralic cam ,because of the steep lift ramps ,like Erik mentioned.

[shawnlee28]

Those cams look very similar to me.
Except for the price, I think thats why the XR262H was chosen.

The durations are both 218/224.
Similar valve lifts, with the rocker swap.
The XE262H intake closes 4 degrees earlier than the XR270HR.

I believe theoretically the XE262H produces more torque.
But the XR270HR must be a better product???? $126 vs $312.

I have xe 262 h in a 305 ,nice sounding cam....

The main price difference between those 2 cams is the xe262h is hydralic lifters ...hence the h designation
The other cam has the hr designation at the end ,on top of being different specs it is a hydraulic roller .....hence the hr designation.
The price difference is the core of the roller cam and the roller lifters price.

Even though it costs more for the roller ,it will give more performance too,the technical term is more area under the curve,which translates into more power for a given duration and lift than a standard hydralic cam ,because of the steep lift ramps ,like Erik mentioned.

[shawnlee28]

Those cams look very similar to me.
Except for the price, I think thats why the XR262H was chosen.

The durations are both 218/224.
Similar valve lifts, with the rocker swap.
The XE262H intake closes 4 degrees earlier than the XR270HR.

I believe theoretically the XE262H produces more torque.
But the XR270HR must be a better product???? $126 vs $312.

I have xe 262 h in a 305 ,nice sounding cam....

The main price difference between those 2 cams is the xe262h is hydralic lifters ...hence the h designation
The other cam has the hr designation at the end ,on top of being different specs it is a hydraulic roller .....hence the hr designation.
The price difference is the core of the roller cam and the roller lifters price.

Even though it costs more for the roller ,it will give more performance too,the technical term is more area under the curve,which translates into more power for a given duration and lift than a standard hydralic cam ,because of the steep lift ramps ,like Erik mentioned.

[SBC]

because of the steep lift ramps ,like Erik mentioned.

So - that steep ramp is indicated by the lobe lift at 106 Intake CL?

.308 for the H
.33 for the HR

[unstable]

Here are the valve timing specs for the 262 cam.....
Camshaft Specifications
And the specs for the 270 cam....
Camshaft Specifications

You decide.

Thanks for posting the cam specifications, but I still have the same problem. I really don't know how to put cam card information in practical language. I don't know how good or bad these numbers are or will they give me what I'm looking for. I'm hoping someone with more cam knowledge would put this in a form I can understand.

I guess what I'm really looking for is someone to tell me what to look for in putting together a strong torque engine. What range of numbers should I be looking at for the cam and compression ratio? Thanks for all the help, I need all I can get...

[SBC]

What range of numbers should I be looking at for the cam and compression ratio?

5.7" rods, Flat top pistons, 64 cc heads, .038 head gasket and .002 deck will put you at 8:1 with the Hyd Roller cam and 8.24:1 with the XE cam. Based on the intake closing at 61(HR) and 57(XE) degrees ABDC.

This explains it pretty good -

Dynamic Compression - Hot Rod Magazine