1965 30-30 versus LT1 cam

[Ralph A.]

I have a 1965 327 365 HP with a roller cam, I would like to go back to solid lifters what should I use the 3030 cam or the LT1 what do you think. I also have a 370 rear end in my car, all advice is appreciated thanks

[Larry M.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

I have a 1965 327 365 HP with a roller cam, I would like to go back to solid lifters what should I use the 3030 cam or the LT1 what do you think. I also have a 370 rear end in my car, all advice is appreciated thanks

Ralph:

Your car was born with the 30-30 cam. But this cam is a bit much for general street use without at least a 4:11 rear.

I would recommend the LT-1 cam...........unless you are trying to get back to original, or love the sound of the 30-30 cam at full song.

Is your trans close or wide ratio? Probably a close ratio. This makes a difference with the 30-30 cam.

I LOVE the 30-30 cam sound and performance with four-tube equal-length headers, Thrush mufflers or open exhaust, and a 4.88 posi rear. Better than organ music when reving around 5000 to 7500 RPM

Larry

[Michael H.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

If you are RESTORING your 65, I definitely vote for the correct original .030-.030 cam.

[Michael F.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Heres a link to a Forum thread. Some of the responders are members here also.

Lots of good info.

All of the responses were excellent and gave very informative info. But in the end I am following MikeM,65tripleblack,JohnZ overall advice. I am going with the 30-30. But I am very tempted to try the old 097 cam just for curiosities sake. Could be the sleeper of the three in my app.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c1-a...ect-a-cam.html

[Duke W.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

There have probably been more discussions about OE mechanical lifter cams and cams in general as there have been about engine oil.

Most are just myth, misinformation, erroneous interpretations and conclusions, and unsubstantiated opinion if not unintelligible babble, but detailed specifications, full rev range analyses with various simulation programs, and full rev range dyno tests are there if you spend some effort to do a little research starting with searching this Web site.

Duke

[Michael F.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

There have probably been more discussions about OE mechanical lifter cams and cams in general as there have been about engine oil.

Most are just myth, misinformation, erroneous interpretations and conclusions, and unsubstantiated opinion if not unintelligible babble, but detailed specifications, full rev range analyses with various simulation programs, and full rev range dyno tests are there if you spend some effort to do a little research starting with searching this Web site.

Duke

True. GM put a lot of money into engineering the factory grinds.

Thats why I am sticking with factory cams. Unless I decide to build a new motor from the ground up with modern heads,exhaust, etc..

Too many variables for non-engineer types like myself. I don't have the time and money to try 5 different cams.

[Michael H.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

simulation programs,
Duke

I've never driven a "stimulation program" but I've owned/driven a LOT of real cars with both the 30-30 and the LT1 cams over the last 47 years. In my opinion, there's no contest. My choice is definitely the 30-30.

If a smooth idle is something that really rocks your socks off, go for the LT1. But for a restored car that should look and sound/run like it did 40 years ago, it's got to be the correct original 30-30 cam. And I don't agree that an LT1 cam can sound just like a 30-30 cam at idle.

That special sound is part of what we all love about those old cars. And not many people really care if the LT1 cam produces slightly more torque at 2500 RPM. Just exactly how important is that, anyway? These old cars aren't race cars today. They're classic cars that usually just idle around in and out of drive-in restaurants or car shows. We don't race them now.

[Duke W.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

In your earlier post, you were saying that you can tell the difference between a Duntov and LT-1 cam. I countered by saying they both idle at 900@12", so how can you tell? I'm still waiting for your answer.

Now you are saying the the LT-1 cam idles different than the 30-30. Well, yeah, it only pulls 10" at 900.

The second guy who built a "327 LT-1" from a '65 L-76 was also worried about that.

His final comment on the subject after several months driving the Beast is that he can't tell the difference in idle, but the engine has gobs more low end torque with more top end power and revs (I had to beg him to keep it to 7000 because the power curve shows what appears to be a little valve float at 7250.), which is more a function of the head massaging than the cam - regardless of whether the cam is a 30-30 or LT-1.

Duke

[Michael F.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Hate to split hairs. But isn't the "Duntov" cam the 097? I didn't know the 30-30 cam called the "Duntov" too.

[Michael H.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

In your earlier post, you were saying that you can tell the difference between a Duntov and LT-1 cam. I countered by saying they both idle at 900@12", so how can you tell? I'm still waiting for your answer.

Now you are saying the the LT-1 cam idles different than the 30-30. Well, yeah, it only pulls 10" at 900.

The second guy who built a "327 LT-1" from a '65 L-76 was also worried about that.

His final comment on the subject after several months driving the Beast is that he can't tell the difference in idle, but the engine has gobs more low end torque with more top end power and revs (I had to beg him to keep it to 7000 because the power curve shows what appears to be a little valve float at 7250.), which is more a function of the head massaging than the cam - regardless of whether the cam is a 30-30 or LT-1.

Duke

I'm not dazzled by your numbers. My point is... what's your point??? What are you trying to proove?
How many people really care how much HP these engines make at 2500 RPM? No matter what cam you install, these old cars are still just old cars. You can't make a C2 perform like a new C6.
I don't understand what you're after?

And yes, there IS a difference in the exhaust note. All three cams mentioned (097, 346 and LT1) have their own distinctive sound.

I'm all for better connecting rods and todays better oils but that's for a completely different reason. I don't think that trying to make more HP in these old cars is in any way logical.

[Larry M.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Hate to split hairs. But isn't the "Duntov" cam the 097? I didn't know the 30-30 cam called the "Duntov" too.

It isn't. Duke was comparing the Duntov 097 cam to the LT-1 cam in his sentence/statement above.

Larry

[Ralph A.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

I'm not dazzled by your numbers. My point is... what's your point??? What are you trying to proove?
How many people really care how much HP these engines make at 2500 RPM? No matter what cam you install, these old cars are still just old cars. You can't make a C2 perform like a new C6.
I don't understand what you're after?

And yes, there IS a difference in the exhaust note. All three cams mentioned (097, 346 and LT1) have their own distinctive sound.

I'm all for better connecting rods and todays better oils but that's for a completely different reason. I don't think that trying to make more HP in these old cars is in any way logical.

Thanks for all the advice, I think I'm going back to the original stile 3030 cam does anyone know where i should start looking thanks thanks Ralph

[John D.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Ralph, Jerry Bramlett and old JD have a nice 30-30 we tell people about on occasion. Maybe once a week or so. Whew!!!
Part number is CS118R by FM (Federal Mogul). Now be careful Ralph and don't end up with a CS113R as that's a copy of the 3736097 cam.
Buy the FM solid lifters also. AT992.
Meanwhile if you use the search at the top of the page you can be reading a month of Sundays about this subject. Maybe 6 months.
Good luck, JD

[Ralph A.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Ralph, Jerry Bramlett and old JD have a nice 30-30 we tell people about on occasion. Maybe once a week or so. Whew!!!
Part number is CS118R by FM (Federal Mogul). Now be careful Ralph and don't end up with a CS113R as that's a copy of the 3736097 cam.
Buy the FM solid lifters also. AT992.
Meanwhile if you use the search at the top of the page you can be reading a month of Sundays about this subject. Maybe 6 months.
Good luck, JD

OK thanks JD I'll give them a call tomorrow .

[Joe C.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

I'm not dazzled by your numbers. My point is... what's your point??? What are you trying to proove?
How many people really care how much HP these engines make at 2500 RPM? No matter what cam you install, these old cars are still just old cars. You can't make a C2 perform like a new C6.
I don't understand what you're after?

And yes, there IS a difference in the exhaust note. All three cams mentioned (097, 346 and LT1) have their own distinctive sound.

I'm all for better connecting rods and todays better oils but that's for a completely different reason. I don't think that trying to make more HP in these old cars is in any way logical.

Michael,

I disagree.

My .030" over 327 (331) was tested on a chassis dyno on a humid, 95 degree day, at 2:30 PM with the fan howling at full lock. I neglected to remove the air cleaner, and I neglected to open the hood. The plugs were fouled, particularly numbers 4 and 6, which were misfiring badly. I should have been more careful so as to achieve a valid test.

The pull started at 1700 RPM with 248.65 ft-lbs of torque, but the engine began misfiring badly by 4200 RPM due to the fouled plugs. Max power for the run was 308.50 RWHP at 4200 RPM. The path of the power plot was headed for 340-350 RWHP had the engine been allowed to develop peak torque.

The engine looks stock from the outside with the exception of the LT1 intake manifold, headers, and the 750 mechanical secondary QFT carburetor. The cam is a 30-30. And, yes, it has Crower Sportsman rods.

This season should provide a more accurate test, God willing.