1965 30-30 versus LT1 cam

[Duke W.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

I repeat C6 with 6INCH tires Stephen Barrett (21558) 59,66,71,73

Like I said, a pipe dream...

BTW, the topic of this thread is 30-30 versus LT-1 camshafts in case you forgot.

Duke

[Stuart F.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

If impressions won races, the vintage cars would win hands down. At a recent Vette show, following the winter meet, the Vettes that participated in the cruise left the facility such that they had to do a flip flop at the next stop light. Once they made their U-turn many would stop, or from a slow roll, do a burn out. A 67 BB 435 topped every C-5 and 6 w/ a beautiful nose up off the line hole shot. The poor C-5's and 6's with their traction control could not come close. I suppose it wasn't cool, but what the heck.

Like Duke said; back to the subject - I think it was about cams?

Stu Fox

[Mike R.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Just to get everyone thinking, I will point out that the width of a tire does not impact the size of its contact patch. The contact patch of a tire is the load on that tire divided by the inflation pressure (sidewall spring rate is negligible). Changing the width changes the shape of the contact patch and having more total surface of tread area allows softer rubber for a couple reasons.

It turns out that the best contact patch shape is long in the direction of force. You can see this in play with dragsters which have relatively narrow but tall tires producing a contact patch biased towards straight line acceleration.

To encourage more consternation, lateral weight transfer depends only on cg height, track width and cornering force.

Wow how I can wind your clocks up. I repeat C6 with 6INCH tires from a DEAD STOP verses C2 400HP small block. By the way turn off you traction control boys and I'll give you a race.
Stephen Barrett (21558) 59,66,71,73

[Stephen B.]

Re: 1965 3030 verses LT1 cam

Sorry for getting side tracked, just bench racing I guess.Now back on topic.I recently was involved with the rebuild of two of GMs most famous solid lifter motors,a 62 327/340 and a 66 427/425. Both were high quality spair no expense rebuilds with some modern upgrades.Both were bored and new 10 to 1 pitons installed.Both received Comp Cam roller cams and roller rockers.Both were put on the dyno and the results were 327/385 HP 427/487HP both at 6000.
The bottom line here is in my opinion if you are restoring your early Corvette to NCRS standards and will only be driving on and off the trailer, put the stock cam in. If however you drive your old Corvette 1000 to 2000 miles a year you deserve a roller cam. The low end torque is incredible,the top end HP. is incredible,they sound as good or better than the originals and you don't have to be apprehensive about oiling problems Oh by the way both motors run great on 92 octain.
Stephen Barrett (21558) 59,66,71,73

[Bruce B.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Duke,

I don't remember many details about the engine. That was a looong time ago and I didn't build it. A sprint car engine builder in Indiana, Dickie Kercher built it. I know it was a Carrillo rod motor with iron heads but I remember little else. I think it had a roller cam for a while but that may have been the flat tappet at that time. Can't remember. Stahl headers. (expensive) I know it was a 355".
Kercher ran all of his engines on the dyno but I don't have any idea what kind of power this one made.

The car was a dedicated SCCA race car from day one out of New York. (#1330, a real FI car) The car probably only weighed around 2600 with the full cage.

Originally, the car ran consistant 2:40-2:42 lap times at Road America when it had a comp intake and 750 Holley carburetor.
When I installed the FI unit, it ran a best of 2:37. Yes, the car was FASTER with the FI. (I worked on that unit for a week straight)

I was able to get good power up to about 7500 RPM but the FI was the restriction, even though I increased it's original air flow by roughly 15%, or so. (guessing)
Delco FI/TI distributor with an MSD box.

It was a pleasure to drive with the FI. Zero issues.

When the car was sold, the next owner was pretty fast too until a cranking signal valve failed and he removed/sold the FI unit.

Today, the car is completely restored and runs on the Historic race car circuit around the midwest. I haven't seen it for decades though.

Michael,
Jere Stahl is still in the header business and also has the best designed headers. He invented the 4 tube exhaust system and currently produces them in PA.
I visited with him a few years ago and he is an interesting guy. He is still racing except now he is road racing. Held at least 4 NHRA records in the sixties.
He actually built the headers used on the original Grand Sport Corvettes.
There is lots of history in his head. He is a very cool guy.
Bruce B

[Michael H.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Michael,
Jere Stahl is still in the header business and also has the best designed headers. He invented the 4 tube exhaust system and currently produces them in PA.
I visited with him a few years ago and he is an interesting guy. He is still racing except now he is road racing. Held at least 4 NHRA records in the sixties.
He actually built the headers used on the original Grand Sport Corvettes.
There is lots of history in his head. He is a very cool guy.
Bruce B

Thanks Bruce....

I didn't know he was still in the business. I remember that his headers were considered the best in the industry in the 60's and 70's. (and the most expensive) I'm not surprised to hear that they're still the best today.

[Stephen B.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Mike
I like the way you think.
Stephen Barrettt (21558) 59,66,71,73

[Bruce B.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

A few years ago my son and I drove my 65 to Carlisle and while there went out to dinner with Jere and his wife and had a tour of his manufacturing facility. Pretty much old school but still producing custom headers. No finished product inventory, no robot welders, everything made to order.
His wife takes the orders and is super knowledgeable concerning heads and what size and configuration exhaust to use with a specific engine.
He also has a older dyno which he used for testing cam configurations, tuning and header design. He developed some early cam design software a long time ago.
I purchased a 62 Rochester fuel unit from him which was run on his old F/S record holder station wagon.
A really great experience for both me and my son.

[John D.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Wow!!! What a post and a half. And all because of a members simple question. Poor Ralph wanted nice part number of 30-30 cam.
In case it got lost with the 60 posts or so: CS118R Fed. Mogul.
If you have any trouble getting it Ralph holler but not here please.
Back to work, Old JD

[Michael F.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Wow I feel sorry for the OP. This 30-30 thread slid right of the track!

I guess that would be a suspension problem?

[Jason S.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Something tells me I'm going to regret re-stirring up this hornet's nest.....but this is a subject I've been wondering about particularly in regard to my car.

The car is a '63 SWC, and technically is a 340hp car with the 3794129 intake, 3461S AFB, and 2.5" cast iron 901/902 manifolds.
It has the 2:20 1st gear BW T10, and according to the codes on the diff - it was a CF 4.56 originally, although it must have been changed out to a 4.11 ring/pinion at some point (I've measured it). During the upcoming restoration I have been considering changing it to a 3.70 to make it somewhat more livable at expressway speeds if I decide to drive it on the expressway......I haven't made up my mind just yet.

With all that said............
A previous owner had rebuilt the engine years ago with 2.02/1.6 valves (remember the '63s were actually 1.94/1.5 even though most people think ALL camel hump heads are 2.02s), stock style Hi-Po pop-up pistons (I'm assuming the compression would be somewhere between 11:1 and 12:1 depending on how much decking of the block and heads affected "the math"), and replaced the '63 #3736097 cam with the "30-30"#3849346 used on the 365hp engines.

A couple questions came to mind:
1) If I got to the point I wanted to have this car judged, would a judge pick up on the fact it has the 346 cam rather than the 097?
2) Given that the 365hp engine went to a holley carb and different intake (and 2.02 valves, which I inadvertently have) - could it be argued this cam may not be "matched" to work with the AFB and 129 intake - i.e., if power is my concern, and not judging points.
3) Mr. Barrett - do you have the P/Ns for the Roller cams you are referring to?

I ask all these questions because I will be rebuilding the engine and detailing it soon - so answers to these questions would come at a perfect time. Aside from the "logical" answers to the above, I'd love to keep the 30-30 cam because I do love how it sounds, and pulls revs.

[Joe C.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

Something tells me I'm going to regret re-stirring up this hornet's nest.....but this is a subject I've been wondering about particularly in regard to my car.

The car is a '63 SWC, and technically is a 340hp car with the 3794129 intake, 3461S AFB, and 2.5" cast iron 901/902 manifolds.
It has the 2:20 1st gear BW T10, and according to the codes on the diff - it was a CF 4.56 originally, although it must have been changed out to a 4.11 ring/pinion at some point (I've measured it). During the upcoming restoration I have been considering changing it to a 3.70 to make it somewhat more livable at expressway speeds if I decide to drive it on the expressway......I haven't made up my mind just yet.

With all that said............
A previous owner had rebuilt the engine years ago with 2.02/1.6 valves (remember the '63s were actually 1.94/1.5 even though most people think ALL camel hump heads are 2.02s), stock style Hi-Po pop-up pistons (I'm assuming the compression would be somewhere between 11:1 and 12:1 depending on how much decking of the block and heads affected "the math"), and replaced the '63 #3736097 cam with the "30-30"#3849346 used on the 365hp engines.

A couple questions came to mind:
1) If I got to the point I wanted to have this car judged, would a judge pick up on the fact it has the 346 cam rather than the 097?
2) Given that the 365hp engine went to a holley carb and different intake (and 2.02 valves, which I inadvertently have) - could it be argued this cam may not be "matched" to work with the AFB and 129 intake - i.e., if power is my concern, and not judging points.
3) Mr. Barrett - do you have the P/Ns for the Roller cams you are referring to?

I ask all these questions because I will be rebuilding the engine and detailing it soon - so answers to these questions would come at a perfect time. Aside from the "logical" answers to the above, I'd love to keep the 30-30 cam because I do love how it sounds, and pulls revs.

1. If you intend to try for a PV, then, yes the cam change will most likely be picked up.

2. The 30-30 cam is actually a much better match to your "big" valve heads and engine displacement. The Duntov cam was designed for the 283 engine using 1.94/1.5 valves. The higher lift (.485/.485) of the 30-30 takes advantage of the larger valves. The Duntov low lift (.395/.401) leaves a lot of power on the table. The Holley was 585 cfm. Not sure of the flow for the AFB, but I don't think that it will make much difference unless you live in the upper rev range. Probably no more than about 15 HP at the peak.

[William C.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

I'm with Michael!

[Joe R.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

For what it's worth I would not give you a dime for a truckload of 346 cams (also the LT-1 is a dog). IF you want to continue having any torque from your engine after you change to the 3.70 rear I would recommend going back to the 097 camshaft.
This is spoken from the hands of experience with 097 and 346 camshafts.

JR

[Joe C.]

Re: 1965 3030 verces LT1 cam

For what it's worth I would not give you a dime for a truckload of 346 cams (also the LT-1 is a dog). IF you want to continue having any torque from your engine after you change to the 3.70 rear I would recommend going back to the 097 camshaft.
This is spoken from the hands of experience with 097 and 346 camshafts.

JR

The 097 is too small. It DOES however, have nice short (efficient) clearance ramps, which is why I always recommend using it on a 327 with 1.6:1 rocker arms

The 346 is too big. Well, not really too big but EXTREMELY inefficient with its humongous clearance ramps

The LT1 is "just right". It does, however use the inefficient 30-30 lobe on the exhaust side, with a much better designed intake lobe