Welcome to Club Hot Rod!  The premier site for everything to do with Hot Rod, Customs, Low Riders, Rat Rods, and more. 

  •  » Members from all over the US and the world!
  •  » Help from all over the world for your questions
  •  » Build logs for you and all members
  •  » Blogs
  •  » Image Gallery
  •  » Many thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of posts! 

YES! I want to register an account for free right now!  p.s.: For registered members this ad will NOT show

 

Thread: 350 For Torque
          
   
   

Reply To Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1
    unstable is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lexington
    Posts
    5

    350 For Torque

     



    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.

  2. #2
    pat mccarthy's Avatar
    pat mccarthy is offline CHR Member/Contributor Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    bay city
    Posts
    10,471

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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

  3. #3
    SBC's Avatar
    SBC
    SBC is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Magnolia
    Car Year, Make, Model: 69 Chevy Nova 283 4-spd
    Posts
    443

    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.
    There is no limit to what a man can do . . . if he doesn't mind who gets the credit. (Ronald Reagan)

  4. #4
    techinspector1's Avatar
    techinspector1 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hemet, CA, USA
    Car Year, Make, Model: '32 Henway
    Posts
    10,893

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

    You decide.

  5. #5
    tango's Avatar
    tango is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,355

    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 .
    Attached Images
    Last edited by tango; 02-21-2008 at 01:50 AM.

  6. #6
    erik erikson's Avatar
    erik erikson is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    clive
    Car Year, Make, Model: BLOWN 540 57 CHEVY
    Posts
    2,878

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  7. #7
    shawnlee28's Avatar
    shawnlee28 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    so.cal
    Car Year, Make, Model: 66 c 10 fleetside longbed
    Posts
    1,944

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Its gunna take longer than u thought and its gunna cost more too(plan ahead!)

  8. #8
    shawnlee28's Avatar
    shawnlee28 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    so.cal
    Car Year, Make, Model: 66 c 10 fleetside longbed
    Posts
    1,944

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Its gunna take longer than u thought and its gunna cost more too(plan ahead!)

  9. #9
    shawnlee28's Avatar
    shawnlee28 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    so.cal
    Car Year, Make, Model: 66 c 10 fleetside longbed
    Posts
    1,944

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Its gunna take longer than u thought and its gunna cost more too(plan ahead!)

  10. #10
    shawnlee28's Avatar
    shawnlee28 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    so.cal
    Car Year, Make, Model: 66 c 10 fleetside longbed
    Posts
    1,944

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Its gunna take longer than u thought and its gunna cost more too(plan ahead!)

  11. #11
    shawnlee28's Avatar
    shawnlee28 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    so.cal
    Car Year, Make, Model: 66 c 10 fleetside longbed
    Posts
    1,944

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Its gunna take longer than u thought and its gunna cost more too(plan ahead!)

  12. #12
    shawnlee28's Avatar
    shawnlee28 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    so.cal
    Car Year, Make, Model: 66 c 10 fleetside longbed
    Posts
    1,944

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Its gunna take longer than u thought and its gunna cost more too(plan ahead!)

  13. #13
    SBC's Avatar
    SBC
    SBC is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Magnolia
    Car Year, Make, Model: 69 Chevy Nova 283 4-spd
    Posts
    443

    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
    There is no limit to what a man can do . . . if he doesn't mind who gets the credit. (Ronald Reagan)

  14. #14
    unstable is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lexington
    Posts
    5

    Build for torque

     



    Quote Originally Posted by techinspector1
    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...

  15. #15
    SBC's Avatar
    SBC
    SBC is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Magnolia
    Car Year, Make, Model: 69 Chevy Nova 283 4-spd
    Posts
    443

    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
    Last edited by SBC; 02-23-2008 at 08:36 AM.
    There is no limit to what a man can do . . . if he doesn't mind who gets the credit. (Ronald Reagan)

Reply To Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Links monetized by VigLink