budget build questions for the advanced tuners 6825 ecm $0d bin

**1project2many** · 03-19-2017

Comp's online cam selector doesn't show this cam for an EFI application but I think you'll be ok. It looks fairly mild. It's got less lift and duration than the Speed Pro cam in my '57 although the lobes are a little tighter. 35 deg overlap vs 64 on the Speed Pro.

Is this something you have already, or is one for sale at a good price?

Edit: I just started looking at cams for SBC and nearly fell off my chair! $250 for flat tappet cams??? Ouch!!

**jim_in_dorris** · 03-20-2017

It's not an efi application cam, that is why I asked. It is fairly mild, with the 1.6 rockers I am at the limits of lift for the heads. I really can't afford to do to much work at the machine shop, so I limited myself to that cam. I found it at AutoZone for a really good price, but I am waiting until the first of the month to buy it. I have run a bunch of cams through Desktop dyno, and this cam seems like it produces the best numbers for the money I can afford. I am willing to look at other cams, but none of them seem to be very effective with this small a displacement and the 193 heads. I also try to get my torque in as early as possible, so a bigger overlap and looser lobs doesn't seem to work as well for a pickup.

**1project2many** · 03-20-2017

I have a 350 hp 327 copy cam in my truck and that's definitely not an EFI cam. It wasn't as easy to use with the original 1983 Camaro ecm but the 7427 was easy to tune. I wonder if the EFI friendly qualities that were developed in the '80s when no one had access to tuning are still being applied to some of the cams.

Crane makes a couple of low rpm peak cams as well. 114102 is 500 to 4000 rpm while 113971 is 800 - 4600 rpm. I've used the 114102 with excellent results under a carb in a 350 with swirl port heads. The truck had 2.73 axles and a manual trans. The combination was very strong on the highway.
http://www.cranecams.com/uploads/cat...%20Catalog.pdf

**Fast355** · 03-21-2017

Originally Posted by 1project2many

I have a 350 hp 327 copy cam in my truck and that's definitely not an EFI cam. It wasn't as easy to use with the original 1983 Camaro ecm but the 7427 was easy to tune. I wonder if the EFI friendly qualities that were developed in the '80s when no one had access to tuning are still being applied to some of the cams.

Crane makes a couple of low rpm peak cams as well. 114102 is 500 to 4000 rpm while 113971 is 800 - 4600 rpm. I've used the 114102 with excellent results under a carb in a 350 with swirl port heads. The truck had 2.73 axles and a manual trans. The combination was very strong on the highway.
http://www.cranecams.com/uploads/cat...%20Catalog.pdf

I have run the Stock 305 HO grind in several TBI and TPI setups. Has a smooth idle with plenty of vacuum and makes good mid-top range TQ and HP.

Its like 202/207@ .050, .415/.430" lift cut on a 114° LSA and 114° ICL.

I have also used several of the 204/214 @ .050 grinds in them. With .423/.446" lift it would be a stretch to run a 1.6:1 rocker with stock TBI springs. Woth its 112° LSA and 4° built-in advamce it builds more low RPM torque but falls off on the top end more quickly.

**Fast355** · 03-21-2017

I am a little off on the lift of the HO cam. The specs I have are for the roller version used in the 87+ LB9/L98/9C1 engines.

https://m.summitracing.com/parts/mel-ccs-37

https://m.summitracing.com/parts/mel-cl-mtc-1

**jim_in_dorris** · 03-21-2017

That second melling cam makes a lot of ponies on small displacement. I wish the torque was stronger. I really appreciate the responses. I have checked out about 10 cams so far, all of which are not bad cams, but for the $ i have to spend, the comp cam still looks good for what I want. I need to go buy a set of small bore split ball gauges and measure my valve guides, I think I may have to spring for some more machine work. All of the valve stems I have measured (both intake and exhaust from 2 different 350's) are .334-.335 diameter, which is smaller than what I thought they were supposed to be, but having identical sizes between the two heads from different motors makes me wonder if the stock valves were just that size. I have 1 head in the shop right now getting surfaced, it was a little low between the 2 middle cylinders. My son and I took the 882 heads off the 283 Sunday, and the motor looks clean, still has some of the cross-hatch from when it was built. Going to redo the front and rear main seals, and maybe peek at a bearing before I start putting it back together.

**1project2many** · 03-21-2017

Just go turbo. Even a mild cam makes power with forced induction.

**dave w** · 03-21-2017

Back in the late 80's I helped build a budget / non-fuel injected 283. For heads, we used early 80's 305 heads with 1.84" intake and 1.50" exhaust valves. The 283 had 1.72" intake valves and 1.50" exhaust valves. The 305 heads were ready for unleaded fuel, which saved money not having to install harden exhaust valve seats into the 283 heads. The early 80's 305 heads with 1.84" intake valves had a similar combustion chamber cc size similar to the original 283 heads (about 58cc's if I'm remembering correctly). We used the factory 4 barrel intake and quadrajet carburetor from the early 80's 305. The camshaft was a re-ground "Clone" of the Competition Cam 252 torque cam of the late 80's. We also upgraded the ignition system to the early 80's 305 4 Pin HEI distributor. The overall outcome was surprisingly good, the 305 modernized 283 able to hold it's own up against an Impala 327 of the mid 1960's.

dave w