I always had thought my cam was a pile of crap and recently ran it on dynosim.
The specs are 282/292 advertised duration at .006
204/214 at .050
.484/.510 lift
107/117 centerline
112 lobe seperation

Here's a comparison between the mtf-4 and crane 901
901 relationship to the MTF-4 cam
rpm hp tq
1000 +17 +89
1500 +17 +60
2000 +19 +52
2500 +21 +44
3000 +22 +40
3500 +21 +31
4000 +13 +17
4500 -1 -1
5000 -18 -18
5500 -29 -27
6000 -36 -31

Melling description: Class 1 torque camshaft, good daily usage, economy, light towing, smooth idle, power range 1200-4700 rpm.

Here me take on the mtf-4: What torque?, what economy is there with inefficiency, light towing is right!, yeah you have smooth idle when you have 14 deg inital since you have no bottom end power, Oh yeah the 4700-12,000 rpm power range wow! just what every truck needs.

 

Have you actually tried one in a vehicle? Just because some computer program says it doesn't work, doesn't mean that's the case in the real world. I've heard too many cases where the DD program was wrong.

 

I actually like those cam specs very mild daily driver I got 350hp at 5000rpm nice flat tourqe curve in the mid 350's.....with a 360 motor.DD2k

 

I agree, DD is not etched in stone. It's someones computer SIMULATION of what MIGHT happen. It gives you the possibilities and the chance to compare different cam profiles.

With .204 duration at .05, that's a real mild replacement cam. The lift is up there, helping move some air, creating low end torque. Nice wide centerline helps widen the power band.

All in all, it does not look to far off base.

 

I don't think the cam is very good either. Desktop dyno is not good enough to trust in every situation but I think it gives you a good idea. The numbers might be off a little but the power curve seems to be close in its shape to real results. I don't think that .050 duration has anything to do with the idle. I think overlap has everything to do with it. That cam has a whole lotta overlap and very little .050 duration. You will get an engine that sounds like its out to play a big game but really doesn't make a lot of power.

Of course this is all comparative to todays more modern grinds. Back in the day that was probably a decent grind to run. Melling makes great quality stock replacement cams but I would never look their way for an aggressive performance cam. They seem to be more into the stock replacement business anyway.

In a flat 1/4 mile race I think the 901 would net some better times especially in a heavy vehicle with average gearing.

 

I have the melling mtf-4 cam in my truck now and i have no lowend power of anykind. i run 14 btdc and still have no power. If you look at the the melling cams they all tend to have alot of advertised duartion and very little at .050. Maybe running the cam based on seat to seat duration makes it look whimpy on the bottom end but i don't know. 282/292 duration at.006 is a bit much for an rv cam imo. they cam i want to put in a 500+hp cleveland has the same advertised duration but 246/256 at .050. And as ratsmoker said desktop dyun gives a good indication of what is going on. The overlap for the mtf-4 cam is 63 degrees and the 901 is 42 degrees. and as ratsmoker also said about all noise and no go it totally applies to my truck. And when timing is at 38 total you could read your bicycle past it but your ears would hurt. I run 50 some total degrees and still have a slug until high rpm.

 

The last comparison post on melling!
901 vs crap melling #2 (24205)
#2 specs
214/224 .050 duration
292/302 adv duration
.510 lift
.536
107/117 centerline
112 lobe sep
73 0verlap

901 specs
204/216
260/272
.510
.533
111/113
112
42 overlap

901 relationship to crap cam #2

rpm hp tq
1000 +30 +159
1500 +33 +115
2000 +35 +90
2500 +37 +78
3000 +42 +73
3500 +39 +59
4000 +32 +42
4500 +13 +15
5000 -10 -9
5500 -31 -29
6000 -45 -40

And for those skeptical poeple that think i am comparing a big cam to the 901!

801 relationship to crap cam #2 (In my truck build)
rpm hp tq
1000 +17 +94
1500 +19 +66
2000 +18 +48
2500 +20 +41
3000 +20 +35
3500 +22 +32
4000 +22 +29
4500 +22 +25
5000 +19 +20
5500 +11 +9
6000 +8 +6

 

Based on the specs you posted, the Melling has more duration at .050 than the 901. It also has more overlap. Based on that fact, it's a better "topend" rpm cam than the 901. No wonder you don't have a good bottom end. And I also might suggest that if you have no bottom end, you might just have the cam indexed wrong in relation to the crank. Did you degree it ? If you want good bottom end you need a cam that's made for that, you can't expect a cam that's got a 300 degree advertised duration to give "good bottom end", it just isn't going to happen. I ran a Holman-Moody HM-310 grind in my old 427 ( stroked to 454) in the 80's and it also had a big overlap with a long duration ( 310 degrees) it, too didn't have good 'bottom end" but the top end was fantastic. Don't bad mouth Melling for your wrong decision to use their cam for something it wasn't made for. Your problem would have happened with any other make of cam too , more than likely.

 

Baddad, take a look at mellings description of the cam. It is bad.

Melling description: Class 1 torque camshaft, good daily usage, economy, light towing, smooth idle, power range 1200-4700 rpm.

The advertised power range doesn't click with the specs.

All of mellings cams seem to be this way. BIG numbers in the advertised, small numbers on the .050 specs in relationship to the advertised, low lifts and incorrect power range descriptions.


Fordeverpower, your specs in the first post and the post down a ways are different on the advertised.

 

That's true, that the intended purpose is off, hadn't really paid attention to that. But then again, I never do, I just look at the specs to see what it's made for. I also noticed that his specs don't jive between posts. One place he says that the Melling has a 73 degree overlap, the next , it's got 63 degrees. I guess both his and Mellings have mis-prints.

 

Fordever....

I ran a Melling years ago in a 72 Chev. long bed 1 ton...If I recall correct, it was 308 duration and only .515 lift.....it would only Idle @ 1050 to 1100rpm...

And it was a total PIG getting off the line.. but that Cam in my 2000lb A/EA Ran like a rocket Ship!! but back then we didnt have computer designed cams..

But it would run out of breath @ about 5500rpm with 4:11s in the rear end... I had tried to build the engine for torque...but I was Misinformed on the cam??

My Melling Distributor sold me that cam...I have learned a little since, Vey little but a little..

 

hey baddad457, i have the melling mtf-4 which as the 63 overlap. I posted the class level 2 cam from melling to show how crappy it is as well which has the 73 overlap. MOST all of the melling cams have high adv duration and low .050 figures and kinda high overlaps. There cams would be fine if they didn't have race duration on about all of them. Then as i figured people would complain that the second melling was bigger than the 901 so I compared it to the 801 (in my truck buildup). In a more modified engine the 801 would whoop the melling class 2 cam.

And thanks Ratsmoker and russ for helping explain how crappy these cams are.

And i did not buy the cam or rebuild my motor. i bought my truck when it had 2000 on the rebuild and then i tracked down the builder and machine shop. I just told my builder the other day that the melling cam was junk and he said that " I think they are wider then they say". I don't what he meant exactly buts that want he said.

 

Well Fordever there not really a crappy cam..they just have there place..Like I said with the A/EA we ran consistent 9.80. with it...and of couse with head work and another cam we droped into the High 8s.. which aint to bad for a steel body 48 tupolino... Oh the memeries!!! LOL! I'am going to the pool for a bit!!! Russ

 

[QUOTE=RapidRuss
But it would run out of breath @ about 5500rpm with 4:11s in the rear end... I had tried to build the engine for torque...but I was Misinformed on the cam.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it ran out of breathe due to the heads, and not the cam? Ever thought about that? Or could have been due to the carb, or intake or both? Point is, fordeverpower shouldn't bad mouth that cam or Melling just cause it didn't work in his application.

 

Well I dont know BD... My heads were Ported and polished and relieved and CCd..
I ran a Edelbrock torquer on it and a 750 holley, but who in the sam hell knows?

all I can say is the cam ran like a Raped Ape in the Altered? at 2000lbs and a 3000K stall...The End... Russ