Do many of you guys run them? i was playing with desktop dyno and, in theory, i could run a lot more duration with a solid cam... it would not only bring horespower up a lot, it would keep torque the same or even bring that up too. this seems like a sweet deal seeing as ive been torn between bottom end and mid range of a smaller cam, and the top end of a bigger cam. can you really have both? the only drawbacks to a solid cam that im aware of are tuning problems, need for adjustment more often, price, and availability. the #'s i got with dd have me wondering why everyone and their dog isnt running one though. so what gives...am i missing something here, or were the dd programmers just smoking crack? oh, and what about running a solid cam in a daily driver? thanks for any thoughts.

 

You have to run about 10 degrees more duration on a solid to get the same equivalent to a hydraulic, the reason being is you "lose" duration as the solid cam valve train takes up the clearance you've set in the valve-lash. In other words a solid cam at 234-244 would be equivalent to a hydraulic at 224-234. Solids do make more HP because they can grind steeper ramps than what can be used on hydraulics plus you won't get valve float untill you spin over 7,000 RPM compared to around 6200-6400 RPM on a hydraulic. The down side to a solid cam at least for the 429-460 series is that most of those engines did not come from the factory with adjustable valve train so now you have alot more expense to run the solid. You'll need to install guide plates, adjustable rockers, hardened push rods, etc.
One other note, I've run solids on the street in the past and have not needed to adjust the valve train more than once a year. Deen

 

Thanks deen, a few other things...will the cam wear faster or is that not even an issue? also, like i said earlier, desktop dyno shows that a solid split cam makes more torque way down low than a hydraulic cam with 20 degrees less duration, and of course a lot more horsepower. is that kind of torque realistic?

 

I have DD2000 with the cam C.D. what two cams are you talking about? I'd like to run the numbers myself. Give me the MFG's cam number: example Lunati #40136
Also a solid lifter cam will not wear any faster than a hydraulic as long as you follow the MFG's break-in procedures unless your running a real high lift solid with radical spring pressures. Deen

 

well, i dont have the cam cd so i go off what i can find in catalogs. i guess the two im talking about are the lunati 41605 and the comp 268H-10. the lunati is a solid lifter 237/247, .559"/.572", 110 ls, 106 cl. i picked the comp because its what im currently running, and it always seemed to make good torque compared to other hydraulic grinds on the dd. its 218/218, .494"/.494, 110 ls, 106 cl. i know what youre thinking, this isnt apples to apples since the comp is a single pattern with a lot less lift, but i have tried dual patterns with the only difference being 10-20 degrees duration and come up with basically the same results. the difference i find with these particular grinds is that the solid outperforms on the top end by nearly 60 horsepower, yet on the bottom end, is only down about 5 ft-lbs at 2k, and then passes it up after that, peaking 500 rpms later (than the comp) with almost 20 ft-lbs more. oh, the engine ive been running these with is a 429, ported D3VE's (with actual flow #'s), 10:1, 780 cfm, dual plane, large headers/open exhaust.

by the way, someone posted awhile ago asking about a solid lunati cam, i think it was even the one referred to above, when i replied to you about running #'s on the dd and said i thought it would be a bit large, im probably going to have to take that back. i had accidentally been running it as a hydraulic lifter cam. if dd is right, that cam would be just about perfect for your application.

 

>by the way, someone posted awhile ago asking about a solid
>lunati cam, i think it was even the one referred to above,
>when i replied to you about running #'s on the dd and said i
>thought it would be a bit large, im probably going to have
>to take that back. i had accidentally been running it as a
>hydraulic lifter cam. if dd is right, that cam would be just
>about perfect for your application.

That was me. That's the cam(Lunati 41605) I'm going to go with. I talked to a local shop today about cams and the guy there said I should run an Erson hyd. grind that they sell at the shop. I ran the #'s on DD and didn't like them. Much less torque and about 25 less hp overall. The cam he recommended was a 310/310 adv. dur, 226/226 dur@.050 111*LS. Just curious, what numbers did you come up with on DD with my combo? And if you don't mind, what are the actual flow numbers on your heads? I'm going to bring the valves down to the machine shop tomorrow and talk to them some more about my heads. They said the heads should flow about 300cfm/intake. They didn't tell me flow #'s for the exhaust.

 

Hey mike, when i said i had "actual flow numbers", i just meant actual flow numbers from a set of ported D3's, not necessarily mine. i dont even recall where i got the flow data from, but i remember reading what the guy had done to the heads, and it was similar to what i plan to do to mine. he didnt hog them out or anything, just a 3 angle valve job, some bowl porting and port matching for both intake and exhaust, ground down the exhaust hump and slightly enlarged the port, and smoothed everything out. also, i seem to remember it not saying, but i assumed pressure drop was 25". anyway, all that aside, here are the #'s:

.1" 83.5/58.9 (int/exh)
.2" 162.2/112.9
.3" 213.7/135.1
.4" 237.7/155.2
.5" 264.3/168.4
.6" 286.1/170.9

when i run your combo with those flow numbers, big valves, and 9.5:1, im getting 519 lb-ft @ 4k and 456 hp @ 5k. im betting youre heads will flow a lot more than that though if theyre being professionaly done. also, youll probably be running a bit more compression. add that to the fact that dd2k doesnt account for roller rockers or dual planes with a lot of top end (the stealth), and ill guess youll be putting out well over 500 horsepower at the flywheel. but thats just a guess.