801 vs. 941
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
From: Burns, OR
801 vs. 941
I was just wondering what cam would be better for my build Crane 801 or 941?
heres some of my specs.
428 block 30 over
D2TEAA heads ported and polished (possible edelbrock heads)
TRW-L2303NF30 forged pistons
Harland Sharp roller rockers
CJ valves
Shim head gaskets
This is for a 5100lb. 75' F-250 4x4 with 4.10 gears and 31" tires
This will not be a DD and is for max power(that I can afford)
Thanks
Brandon
heres some of my specs.
428 block 30 over
D2TEAA heads ported and polished (possible edelbrock heads)
TRW-L2303NF30 forged pistons
Harland Sharp roller rockers
CJ valves
Shim head gaskets
This is for a 5100lb. 75' F-250 4x4 with 4.10 gears and 31" tires
This will not be a DD and is for max power(that I can afford)
Thanks
Brandon
Lead Driver
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 6,175
Likes: 21
From: Texas
Are you running a manual or auto transmission?
I like the 801 to compliment the rest of that build. But, it's not going to be pretty at the lower RPM range. Do you know what your comression ratio will be with that setup? Just make sure it matches the cams advertised range.
I'm running a Crane Hyd. Roller, modle 349521. It allows it to breathe better at the higher RPMs, but still keeps a decent vacuum at lower RPMs and decent idle. But, the valve train will costs another $800. I'm pushing a 2wd F250 at 4500 lbs, and it still pulls a 4500lb boat well. but, it's a lot of fun at the track as well.
I like the 801 to compliment the rest of that build. But, it's not going to be pretty at the lower RPM range. Do you know what your comression ratio will be with that setup? Just make sure it matches the cams advertised range.
I'm running a Crane Hyd. Roller, modle 349521. It allows it to breathe better at the higher RPMs, but still keeps a decent vacuum at lower RPMs and decent idle. But, the valve train will costs another $800. I'm pushing a 2wd F250 at 4500 lbs, and it still pulls a 4500lb boat well. but, it's a lot of fun at the track as well.
Elder User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
From: Eastern Pa
My son uses the 941 in his 73. He likes it and it runs very strong to 5500. He has 4:10's and 33's right now. I would choose based on the rpm range you think you will be using the most and the cr your aiming at. Crane's description of the 2 cams and where they run the best should help you in that.
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
From: Burns, OR
it is a manual 4 speed and compression ratio should be 10.2 to 10.7 with my setup. and also i have Hooker ceramic competition headers. A little off subject but today at a stop light a chebby challenged me and i enjoyed smoking him!
Thanks,
Brandon
Thanks,Brandon
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,600
Likes: 4
From: Iowa
I calculated compression here:
http://www.kb-silvolite.com/calc.php?action=comp
Assuming 73cc chambers, you should be right around 10.7:1 static compression.
See here for information about the 343801 cam:
http://www.cranecams.com/index.php?s...01&lvl=2&prt=5
Using that, you'd have about 9.1:1 dynamic compression.
According to this article, you'd have to run about 95 octane gasoline, minimum, to not ping. See the chart towards the bottom, and read the whole article:
http://www.popularhotroddingweb.com/...power_squeeze/
I think a better cam would be the Comp 33-240-4. See it's specs here:
http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Se...umber=33-240-4
Using it would lower the dynamic compression ratio down to about 8.6:1, and lower your octane requirement to about 91 or 92.
http://www.kb-silvolite.com/calc.php?action=comp
Assuming 73cc chambers, you should be right around 10.7:1 static compression.
See here for information about the 343801 cam:
http://www.cranecams.com/index.php?s...01&lvl=2&prt=5
Using that, you'd have about 9.1:1 dynamic compression.
According to this article, you'd have to run about 95 octane gasoline, minimum, to not ping. See the chart towards the bottom, and read the whole article:
http://www.popularhotroddingweb.com/...power_squeeze/
I think a better cam would be the Comp 33-240-4. See it's specs here:
http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Se...umber=33-240-4
Using it would lower the dynamic compression ratio down to about 8.6:1, and lower your octane requirement to about 91 or 92.
Trending Topics
Lead Driver
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 6,175
Likes: 21
From: Texas
how about with the Fel-Pro .041 gaskets and the Edelbrock aluminum heads...could he make that work on pump gas?
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
911brandon
1999 - 2003 7.3L Power Stroke Diesel
177
Sep 4, 2022 08:29 PM
bshackelford711
FE & FT Big Block V8 (332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428)
27
Jun 7, 2005 01:27 PM
rusty70f100
FE & FT Big Block V8 (332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428)
26
May 26, 2004 08:58 PM
76 F150 Ranger XLT
FE & FT Big Block V8 (332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428)
7
Mar 5, 2004 05:01 PM
TheImpaler
FE & FT Big Block V8 (332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428)
15
Jan 5, 2004 08:59 PM