Re: [AMC-list] cam crap

[Wrambler <wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I forget who you said makes that cam?
I'm wondering exactly what it would really do in action.
Your right, I don't see twisting that engine above 4,000 rpm.
Not unless there is some magic bullet included with the cam?
On top of that you have the mushroom tappet issue, so, it's not a simple
swap out.  Oh, wait,you do have the side covers so maybe you can lift the tappets 
and pull the cam, but still...

  I keep seeing/remembering how short the time in 1st gear was on my 196's.
It was like, let out the clutch hit the gas, shift, well actully more like
push the clutch pedal, clang/shift...  :)

  So, a cam like that may let you run out first/second for less shifting in 
those speed ranges, but with O/D you may have a real woofer.
  When you say torque is flat from 2200-4500, How flat?
At what level? Above or below stock?
  I always tried to pick a cam that would drop off ever so slightly
BELOW max rpm, say about 200 rpm. That usually allowed for better 
torque down low.

  My thoughts are that you want to both rally and daily drive the car.
Are the numbers down enough to matter in low rpm's? 
Are they high enough to be worth the trade off, say you are rallying
those twisties and want to leave it in 2 or 3rd gear and use the engine more?

Mark Price
Morgantown, WV 26508
1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
2004 Grand Cherokee Laredo, 4.7L, Quadratrac II
"I realize that death is inevitable.
I just don't want to be around when it happens!"

----- "tom jennings" <tomj@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: "tom jennings" <tomj@xxxxxxx>
> To: "Rambler AMC, Nash, Jeep and family" <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:12:40 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [AMC-list] cam crap
>
> I forgot to say, the SCDynoSim software when run with the TSM factory
> specs,
> makes total sense. Torque flat from 1500 to 3200 rpm, down only 10% at
> 3800
> rpm. Power peak at 4000 or so.
> 
> With the new cam, it's awful, lousy below 2200, flat within 10% from
> 2200 to
> 4500, power peak around 3600 flat-ish up to 5000, and less torque over
> all.
> That is NOT an "RV" cam. Revving this thing to 5000 is ridiculous.
> 
> The shape of the torque curves SCDynoSim makes compare quite well to a
> half
> dozen engines I've entered in the past that had specs published. I
> don't use
> this software to get absolute numbers, how many ft/lbs or HP, but only
> the
> shape of curves and the relative effects of changes. In other words, I
> tend
> to trust it, and it backs up my sense that this "new" cam sucks.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://list.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list-amc-list.com/attachments/20100212/c0d944c4/attachment.htm>
> _______________________________________________
> AMC-list mailing list
> AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com