Not sure if I have them; I was thinking you had 60s.

 

Mofoco1, i do t have a 9 inch so i wouldny need those.

f250 warehouse, i have a 60 in the rear if youd be willing to trade just one? Is it the carrier or just the gears?

 

Blue and white, ive never herd of someone referring it as that. That is why i also want 4.10 gears because i think itll help the truck out alot.

 

Yeah, "mild" and "warm" and "hot" and even "lopey" and "RV" (and probably several others) are just generic names given as categories for cams with certain different characteristics. Pretty common in use in some circles.
Because they're just generalizations though there is some leeway and crossover in the use between people. Not an exact science then, but still pretty descriptive when it comes right down to it.

The only one that has ever bothered me though, in more recent years is the use of the "RV" as a description. It's not that I don't think of it as a legit term. I just think it's used too broadly and used to fool too many unwary customers.
With so many tiny variables that can make huge differences in cams, RV is sometimes used to mean mild, smooth and torquey cams for street vehicles and heavy pickups, when in fact some cams have way too much lope, rough idling, poor fuel economy and higher rpm designs. It's just used too broadly these days I think.
So if you're ever looking for a very particular characteristic in your cam choice, beware if someone says "no problem, it's an "RV" cam!"

Paul

 

Very insightful, I want a RV cam some day and really don't know much about the type of cam it is except it is supposed to be a step up from stock cam. More information if you can, I enjoy learning about these old engines and the after market parts we put on them.

 

Given your scenario 4.10's would be more "user friendly" compared to your current 3.54's

 

4:10s over 3:50s will increase your torque to the wheels by 17%, but it will also increase your engine RPM's by 17% as well. Unless you have some head work done or aftermarket heads, 450-500hp is very unrealistic, even with a big cam. I have a 408W with AFR 185 heads, 9.6:1 compression, and a cam that is about 3 steps up from stock, and realistic numbers are more in the 375-400HP range at close to 6000RPM and peak torque in the 3500-4000RPM range. Either way, if you have a cam that is a little bit bigger than stock, and 33s, 4:10s are a nice addition, but hardly a huge seat of your pants difference. You can rev your engine higher in each gear with your 3:50s and get more seat of your pants change than switching to 4:10s. One place where the swap would be noticeable is in 4th gear going up a hill at highway speeds, and where you may have to downshift to 3rd and make the engine scream. The 4:10s are a nice addition here, and in my opinion that is about the only thing worth the swap. If you don't really get on your engine and rarely have it about 3500-4000 RPM, then swapping gears is worthless in my mind.

Lockers in the rear are honestly a PITA. I have had a few and much rather would go limited slip. A quick turn from a stop sign or red light and all you do is chirp tires with locker. I am putting a locker in with my twin turbo Cummins swap against my better judgement, but I just don't trust a limited slip to hold up to the power I will be putting to it.

 

And that's kind of how the term got started (or at least that's what it meant the first time I heard it used in the mid-seventies) and was supposed to indicate a cam that gave you more performance all around, but was not so radical (that's one of those "other terms" that I forgot!) that it made the driving experience on the street too bad. Or make your gas mileage too much worse than it already was.
The way I first heard it, the reason "RV" was used was to indicate more low to mid-range torque for towing/hauling extra loads, and making it a good choice for a gas engine in a motorhome. Unfortunately, at least for smaller cubic inch engines (for example, a 302 instead of a 351 with the same exact cam) some of those so-called RV cams were at the higher end of the spectrum and really were not suitable for their intended use. Sure, they could still be driven on the street, but were often more than the purchaser bargained for.

That's why I don't like to use the term anymore. It just covers way too much of a performance range, when what most of us really need is a narrow range for our individual engines, in our own individual vehicles, with our own individual needs and tastes taken into account.
Sometimes the best way is to call the big cam manufacturers (or I suppose they have online calculators as well) and tell them exactly what you want. They can then narrow it down to literally one single cam grind, or give you the choice of maybe three total, out of their thousands of possible combinations.
Of course, knowing someon's engine that has the exact characteristics you want, and getting the same cam is often the best way. But we don't all have that luxury, and as often as not they're not totally happy with their cam choice either!

A good example of something that has cropped up more and more recently, as more and more of us swap over to fuel-injection of various types, is compatibility with computers and driveability therein. Lots of car owners swear by the Ford Racing E303 cam for instance. Great cam in a carbureted car it seems. But totally horrible in a 302/5.0 in a truck! On another Bronco-specific site the E303 was the cam-of-choice for awhile, until everybody started talking to each other and telling how much they really hated that, while it had good horsepower, the idle quality sucked and so did their fuel economy and unless they had really low gears already, performance suffered.
And the E303 falls squarely into that vague "RV" category with it's specs too. Good example of how RV ain't for everyone then.

Along those thought lines, Crane makes their "Compu-Cam" series which might fall into the RV category too, but are ground with more EFI friendly characteristics (such as a more Ford ECM friendly 112 to 114 degree lobe centerline instead of a 108 to 110 degree range) that won't wreak havoc on the programming in the computer.
I'm guessing not all types of EFI like the same characteristics, but I bet most do.

It used to be that you only needed to look at Lift and Duration numbers to choose a cam. Or at least that's what most thought. But valve overlap, centerlines, lobe centers, lift at .050" (for consistency between ramp designs), roller vs flat-tappet, what advance it's ground at and three or four different materials they're made of. All come into play depending on what you want to end up with.
Do you want/need high vacuum? Do you want/need a velvet smooth idle or do you actually want that bumpity-bump lope in your idle to tell everyone around that you have a hot cam in your otherwise pedestrian Chevy 350 in the T-bucket.
Or do you actually want that smooth idle and massive pulling power out of your little engine in a 6000lb truck.

A bunch of us did settle on a particular Comp-Cams model for our 5.0's in Early Broncos a few years ago. Discussed at length after one of our members on norcalbroncos.com came up with a real stump-puller of a cam for his EFI 5.0 with factory fuel-injection.
And I think some also found one for their carb'ed engines as well, but the main discussion was for EFI. The result was that several other members tried it and loved it and still do.
I bought a slightly milder version (next step down on Comp-Cams' list if I remember) because I needed a little less oomph in the performance department and wanted a little more fuel efficiency and also like less overall lift (keeping it below .500" in general practice) in my Bronco.
Don't have it running yet, but can't wait!

I mentioned engine size, because a larger displacement engine with the same camshaft will usually exhibit milder characteristics than the smaller engine does. So a particular RV cam that fits all Windsor family engines and that the 302 guys don't like in their truck engines, might be just the ticket in a 351 based stroker.
Lots to think about, but even more to read and catch up on. Most of that is from a very fallible memory, so don't take it as gospel from a guru on the mountain top. Just what I've absorbed over the years.
But it should get you close and let you fine-tune your choices based on what others have used, as well as what the cam manufacturers recommend. Or even a Summit Racing tech department recommendation is a good resource too.

Oh, and don't forget that the valve springs are such a critical portion of a modern cam decision, that you must use what the cam manufacturer recommends. Whether it's your own springs (because they fall into the correct category) or their own. Sure, they're trying to sell you some springs. But they're also trying to get you the best experience out of your new cam, and not bust something inside your engine for you to start throwing some blame at them afterwards. The spring choice is that important.
My Edelbrock aluminum heads are the cheap ones compared to the Performer series. And even though they have brand new Edelbrock valve springs, they are specifically not recommended for a roller cam application. The ramp speeds on a roller cam can be much more steep and "dynamic" (to put it mildly!) than a flat tappet cam can be. So the springs need to be made to handle the opening and closing speeds without failing.
So listen to the cam manufacturer when it comes to what type/rating of springs to use.

What was your question again....? Oh yeah, RV cams...
So all that was by way of saying, you can still want a cam in the RV category, but don't go in blindly and let someone else choose your RV cam for you. Make the distinction between the street end of the category and the almost-race end of the spectrum.
Choose the individual cam based on the specific characteristics you want in your driver. And if someone says their cam is an RV cam but won't publish, or doesn't know the specifications exactly, pass on it until you can find out all the gory details.

Paul

 

I forgot to mention that companies like Comp-Cams and a few others literally have a category of cams specifically designed to have a lopey idle. No big huge differences in overall performance or major specifications on paper. But just enough of a difference to roughen up the idle so it has that "big cam" sound at stoplights.
Still a mild-ish street cam, but with that big-cam sound.

Just shows what is out there because people asked for it. Some just like different things in their engines than others. Me, I'm a smoother-is-better kind of guy when it comes to the type of vehicles I own and the driving I do.

Paul

 

This is off topic but I feel it must be said.....in the modern age of the internet and perfunctory replies it's quite refreshing to read such a detailed and insightful explanation of an OP's query.

Kudos to you 1TonBaseCamp (Paul) well done.

 

Thanks 1TonBasecamp, for that very detailed explanation of various cams and characteristics. Hopefully we didn't detour to much for Kyle from the original intent of this thread if so I'm sorry.

 

No problem with the cam explaination, i love learning even if it does deter away from my post.

My engine has head its heads ported with larger valves aswell (2.08 int. And 1.78 exhaust if i remember correctly)
Seems to me it wouldnt hurt to put the 4.10s in but it sounds like it would be that noticable of a difference. The reason im going towards a locker is that it can put down 100%of the power to the tires but simce its an auto locker itll disengage in corners with none to light throttle. However ive never driven with a locker so i couldnt tell you how accurate that is.

 

Well, they (lockers) are almost never as seamless or invisible as they'd like you to think.
The good news though, is that the longer the wheelbase the less you notice them in daily use. So in an old Bronco you'd feel it in almost every tight turn, while in a Crew Cab long bed, you'd probably not know it was even back there.
And you can also drive accordingly, and not always be on the throttle through corners and such.

But even that is inconsistent between brands, models and individuals. Not to mention the driver's relative sensitivity to such things.
I actually have a Detroit locker in my '68 Bronco. Not by choice, because I'm not a fan for my type of use. But it was there when I bought it and I'm not of a mind to pull it out just for being there. It's not dangerous on dry pavement, but I'd hate to rely on it being civil to me when it's raining because I'm kind of an aggressive driver even in the Bronco.
On the other hand, I had a buddy with an eBay Detroit Locker (supposedly used in a circle track car) that he put in his '73 Bronco and it was quite literally un-drivable!
I drove it myself when he was trying to diagnose a "pulling and wandering" issue he had after finishing the restoration. I literally made it to the first-second shift (NV4500 trans) whereupon the truck decided to shift over three quarters of a lane to the left and decided that I was going to turn right back around and change my shorts. Couldn't believe he made it to my house alive.
It was that extreme and I kid you not, that description is in no way an exaggeration. Well, other than the "empty the shorts" comment, since I kind of knew what to expect. But the pulling was that extreme.

It was probably a combination of the more extreme modifications to the suspension along with the locker, but changing out the Detroit Locker for a Detroit Truetrac eliminated 99% of the dangerous handling.
I can drive mine all day in the dry, but because my power-to-gearing ratio is so high, I have to modulate the throttle very carefully through corners. If I don't I can light up both tires with a little extra push on the throttle. It's fun in a way, but frustrating when all you're trying to do is merge into traffic.
A stock Explorer engine (full smog and all) coupled to 4.56 gears turning barely 30" tall tires will do that sometimes.

So it can be hit-or-miss with a locker on the street. And you certainly want to maintain your tire's air pressures and monitor their wear to make sure that the tires on the rear are always the same effective diameter.
Where I would for sure recommend against any kind of an automatic locker would be if you drive in icy or snowy conditions on the road very often. For sure having both wheels putting power to the ground is a benefit in the snow (especially off road) but even a long-wheelbase truck could find itself swapping ends going around a corner on a slippery road if you're not careful.

I might be overstating the effect as far as some are concerned. There are legions of Detroit lovers and probably many here that have had good luck with theirs. They can chime in with their experiences and you can get both sides of the coin to help in your decision.
But I don't think my thoughts on them are out of line either.

Paul

 

Oh, and thanks for the kind words too guys. I like to talk. And type!
I have a fair amount of knowledge on a lot of subjects, but master of none as they say. So just as long as I at least try to stay accurate, maybe it can help someone.

Thanks again.

Paul

 

Thanks for your input. Even though you tend to dislike them and have a terrible story i think im going to find out for myself. Im sometimes hard headed that way. I found a cheap set of gears that someone pulled to put in higher numerically gears and were just sitting and i might have a found a locker for a decent price aswell (although it makes me nervous buying a used locker)