'64 365hp Camshaft Specs

[Fred M.]

I'm looking for the original cam shaft specs for a '64 365hp car. Thanks.

[Clem Z.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

I'm looking for the original cam shaft specs for a '64 365hp car. Thanks.

these specs are at .050 lift. duration 254/254,lobe seperation 114,intake open 15/close 59, exhaust 63 open/11 close, lift .485/.485

[Fred M.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

Excellent! Just what I needed. Thanks

[Stephen B.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

these specs are at .050 lift. duration 254/254,lobe seperation 114,intake open 15/close 59, exhaust 63 open/11 close, lift .485/.485

Clem
I'f you were replacing the original cam with a roller do you have one in mind that you could recomend ? I prefer the Comp Cam brand. If you have first had experiance I'm all ears.
Stephen Barrett (21558) 59,66,71,73

[Clem Z.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

Clem
I'f you were replacing the original cam with a roller do you have one in mind that you could recomend ? I prefer the Comp Cam brand. If you have first had experiance I'm all ears.
Stephen Barrett (21558) 59,66,71,73

i would check with comp cams as they know what is available.

[Duke W.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

I suggest you do some research in the archives as the subject of camshafts has been beat to death, but I don't think most guys understand the issues.

You cannot compare mechanical lifter camshaft specs directly to hydraulic lifter cam specs.

If you get a hydraulic cam - either flat tappet or roller - that is similar in specs to the OE cam, you car will be virtually undriveable on the street.

You may be headed for a disaster.

Duke

[Stephen B.]

Re: '64 HP Camshaft Specs

Duke
I too think this issue has been beat to death,but with all do respect there are considerable improvements in HP. and Toque to be had with rollers over a 45 year old design.I simply would like any first hand experiance anyone has and perhaps a Part number.
Stephen Barrett (21558) 59,66,71,73

[Stuart F.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

There is something to be said for "useable horsepower and useable torque" That's been my experience, with all due respect.

Stu Fox

[Stephen B.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

Stuart
I have absolutely no problem with those among us that want to maintain the originality of their ride right down to the grind of the cam,but (her comes the but)I'm not the least bit resistant to improving these old hot rods with mechanical technology that was unavailable 45 years ago.They don't judge the cam yet. I have personal experience with both small block and big block solid lifter motors which were converted to rollers, and I can tell you there was NO down side. 1.15 HP per cube on the dyno ain't to shabby.
I'm looking for input( not an argument) from anyone who has installed a roller in a 283/270 .
Stephen Barrett (21558) 59,66,71,73

[Joe C.]

Re: '64 HP Camshaft Specs

Duke
I too think this issue has been beat to death,but with all do respect there are considerable improvements in HP. and Toque to be had with rollers over a 45 year old design.I simply would like any first hand experiance anyone has and perhaps a Part number.
Stephen Barrett (21558) 59,66,71,73

I suggest you do some research in the archives as the subject of camshafts has been beat to death, but I don't think most guys understand the issues.

You cannot compare mechanical lifter camshaft specs directly to hydraulic lifter cam specs.

If you get a hydraulic cam - either flat tappet or roller - that is similar in specs to the OE cam, you car will be virtually undriveable on the street.

You may be headed for a disaster.

Duke

Hydraulic tappet cam valve lift can not be directly compared to "solid" cam valve lift by a direct correlation to their respective lobe lift, unless you understand that hydraulic cams have zero lash and "solid" tappet cams have lash which generally lies somewhere between .008" and .030". For simplicity's sake, suffice it to say that when comparing a hydraulic and "solid" tappet cam with equal lobe lifts, the valve lift of the hydraulic cam will be larger by the product of the "solid" cam's lash times its rocker arm ratio.

Hydraulic tappet cam duration can certainly be compared directly to "solid" tappet cam duration as long as you understand that "seat-to-seat" duration, or the duration at the point that the valve is first lifted from its seat are measured differently for these two types. The specification for what is known as "advertised duration", AKA "seat-to-seat duration" is written in the SAE Journal as "J604D". For a hydraulic lifter cam, it is simply the duration at .006" valve lift. For a "solid" lifter cam, it is the duration at .004" valve lift; however, .004" valve lift does not occur until the lash is taken up by the clearance ramp (which can be identified on a lobe lift v. angle chart as the part of the lobe where the tappet experiences no jerk and no acceleration).

The other important duration specification is the duration at .050" valve lift, which is the arbitrary point at which most experts have agreed that any appreciable fluid flow begins to take place. As long as one compares a mechanical v hydraulic camshaft using these 2 durations (J604d and "duration at .050" valve lift), then one will have a valid comparison. It is with lobe lift that the disparity exists, and so long as the two types are compared by using valve lift durations, then there is no confusion, whatsoever.

One key fact to remember when comparing camshafts as to aggressiveness of lobe flanks: difference, in degrees, between J604d durations and durations at .050" valve lift. The smaller this number, the more aggressive the lobe and the larger the number, the milder the lobe. For instance, the "30-30" cam has J604d durations of about 310 degrees and .050" durations of 254 degrees, for a difference of a whopping 56 degrees! This is one very big reason why the cam develops poor torque at low engine speeds. By comparison, some aggressive racing flat tappet cams (which have poor durability) and many durable roller cams have deltas between J604d and .050" valve lift durations in the high thirty to mid forty degree range. This enables the cylinder to develop more pressure at low RPM's (much less "bleed down" because of the large lag between when the valve is first lifted from the seat and the point where any appreciable flow occurs: .050" valve lift).

[Fred M.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

these specs are at .050 lift. duration 254/254,lobe seperation 114,intake open 15/close 59, exhaust 63 open/11 close, lift .485/.485

Clem, not having any luck in locating a commerical cam close enough to the original specs. Would you happen to have the GM part # for original cam? Thanks again

[Clem Z.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

Clem, not having any luck in locating a commerical cam close enough to the original specs. Would you happen to have the GM part # for original cam? Thanks again

the GM part #3849346

[Joe C.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

Fred,

The GM number was: 3849346. Affectionately known as the "30-30" cam. Used in 1964-65 Corvette with L76 and L84, and 1967-1969 Camaro with Z28.

The Federal Mogul Speed Pro, PN: CS118R is as close a match as anyone will find. Built using original specifications. This is the cam of choice for anyone desiring a faithful engine rebuild with identical characteristics to original.

Did you say that you'd like to specify a similar cam in a hydraulic roller, or was it someone else?

[Stephen B.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

Fred,

The GM number was: 3849346. Affectionately known as the "30-30" cam. Used in 1964-65 Corvette with L76 and L84, and 1967-1969 Camaro with Z28.

The Federal Mogul Speed Pro, PN: CS118R is as close a match as anyone will find. Built using original specifications. This is the cam of choice for anyone desiring a faithful engine rebuild with identical characteristics to original.

Did you say that you'd like to specify a similar cam in a hydraulic roller, or was it someone else?

Joe

I'm looking for a similar solid lifted roller for my mildly modified 59/283.I simply want to know i'f anyone else has done this ,and if so what part number .I don't want all the down side of a 50 year old design.I have friends that have coverted their vintage Corvettes to rollers with NO down side.I'm just picking others brains and experiance.
Stephen Barrett 59,66,71,73

[Joe C.]

Re: '64 365hp Camshaft Specs

Joe

I'm looking for a similar solid lifted roller for my mildly modified 59/283.I simply want to know i'f anyone else has done this ,and if so what part number .I don't want all the down side of a 50 year old design.I have friends that have coverted their vintage Corvettes to rollers with NO down side.I'm just picking others brains and experiance.
Stephen Barrett 59,66,71,73

The 30-30 is probably too much cam for a 283. I would advise buying a solid roller version of the 097 cam with slightly more lift. The advantage will be that you can move the valves faster with a roller than with a flat tappet, with no durability issues. This buys you noticeably more torque across the entire rev range. There is no sense in using anything much higher than 1.94/4, or .485" on the inlet side with your heads. If you are dead set on a variation of the 30-30 rather than a variation of the Duntov, then it would be advisable to open up the lobe centers in order to decrease overlap somewhat. A suggestion might be a solid roller version of the 30-30 ground on 116 or 118 lobe centers, with the same valve lift, but with faster ramps.