Skip to main content

looking for some feedback on The Lunati 10320311LK cam kit. http://www.race-mart.com/Lunati-LTI-10320311LK.html Seems to be very inexpensive. How dose It compare with the George recommended custom cam grind he calls the Cobra Jet profile with the Johnson HT900 hydraulic lifters from Bullet Racing Cams? I also want to get a new dampener . I know the Romac #0203 dampener is recommended . Any less expensive dampeners a good choice ? In an older post some one recommend the D-90006 http://www.flatlanderracing.com/scat-dampers.html . My engine is a 72 351c cj 100% stock so it should have the open chamber heads. So far new parts I have for it are the hall pantera big bore heads and exhaust, blue thunder intake manifold, and a 750 cfm carburetor. I am also considering raising the compression to 10 to 1 with dome pistons. would like a street-able 450+ hp thanks
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
In an older post some one recommend the D-90006 http://www.flatlanderracing.com/scat-dampers.html

That's the one I have on my 383 stroker Cleveland. Nice piece; SFI rated.

quote:
I am also considering raising the compression to 10 to 1 with dome pistons.

Take the money you were going to spend on those domed pistons and buy a set of closed chamber heads. You'll get more bang for the buck (pun intended) - Better flame propagation, increased compression, and less likely to ping than open chamber heads. And if your budget allows, get a set of aluminum heads for even better results. When I priced R&Ring my original open chamber heads I found that I could get Edelbrock aluminum heads for only a few hundred dollars more. Now you have even more options for aluminum heads - TrikFlow, AFR or AFD, CHI, etc.

If you stay with your open chamber heads, you MUST replace your valves. The original Ford valves are a 2-piece design that are friction welded together. They've been known to come apart and drop the head of the valve into the cylinder with disastrous results.

quote:
looking for some feedback on The Lunati 10320311LK cam kit. http://www.race-mart.com/Lunati-LTI-10320311LK.html Seems to be very inexpensive. How dose It compare with the George recommended custom cam grind he calls the Cobra Jet profile with the Johnson HT900 hydraulic lifters from Bullet Racing Cams?

I don't recall the specs on the Cobra Jet cam George recommends, but I think it's pretty close to the hydraulic roller I put into my engine. One thing to note about that Lunati cam kit you mentioned above is that it has a 108 LSA, which is pretty narrow, so you will need a good free-flowing exhaust system. Just something to be aware of. I'm sure others with more knowledge will comment on whether that cam will get you to the power level you're seeking.
If you prefer an off-the-shelf single pattern cam like the Lunati you've mentioned, I'd recommend the Crane 284-H12 camshaft.

specs:

advertised duration 284°/284°
duration at 0.050 228°/228°
valve lift (1.73:1 rocker ratio) 0.554"/0.554"
overlap (based on advertised duration) = 60°
overlap at 0.050 = 4°
112° LSA

I'd advance the cam 3° to 4° beyond Cranes spec,
i.e. intake lobe mathematic centerline = 107° to 108°
quote:
Take the money you were going to spend on those domed pistons and buy a set of closed chamber heads. You'll get more bang for the buck (pun intended) - Better flame propagation, increased compression, and less likely to ping than open chamber heads. And if your budget allows, get a set of aluminum heads for even better results. When I priced R&Ring my original open chamber heads I found that I could get Edelbrock aluminum heads for only a few hundred dollars more. Now you have even more options for aluminum heads - TrikFlow, AFR or AFD, CHI, etc.

Will just changing the head to the older stye closed chamber heads give me a 10to 1 compression ratio? I thought I still had to shave the block or heads or change the pistons.
It's around 10:1 which is fine. Not much to be gained by going higher.
There are thin, "shim" head gaskets that will bump it up another .3 or so but they aren't as good as the blue FelPros. You can get away with them with iron heads but not with aluminum heads and iron block.
You want a 110 camshaft. You do not want a 106 or 108 on the street.
Georges cam is pretty mild. That's why he says advance it.
It's going to have a short rpm range. All done by about 6200rpm or so. That's ok if you're not racing, etc. It will certainly turn more rpm but you will feel "the nose of the car drop" at around 6,000.
Remember on the stock 4v cj balancer, that thing is only good for around 6,000 rpm.
That's what that engine was built and tuned for.
IF you consistently want to go higher you need a HEAVIER balancer LIKE the BOSS or the HO. Don't pick one because it's prettier. Big fat and ugly is better. Big Grin

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 71_Boss_351_balancer
quote:

Originally posted by ttam23:

... Will just changing the head to the older stye closed chamber heads give me a 10to 1 compression ratio ...



Factory flat top pistons & 1970 (D0AE) heads are nominal 10:1, factory flat top pistons & 1971 heads (D1AE) are nominal 9.7:1.



quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:

... Georges cam is pretty mild. That's why he says advance it ... It's going to have a short rpm range. All done by about 6200rpm or so ... That's ok if you're not racing, etc. It will certainly turn more rpm but you will feel "the nose of the car drop" at around 6,000 ... stock 4v cj balancer ...



The cam is not that "mild", the engine will lope at idle and accelerate hard anywhere in its powerband. But the engine will have usable manifold vacuum, low rpm power and a willingness to rev to high rpm (wide power band). Its a good hydraulic version of the Boss 351 cam. The intake duration reinforces the natural power band built into the heads (peak bhp at about 6000 rpm), as does the design of the Blue Thunder intake manifold.

I advise advancing the cam to place the exhaust valve opening and intake valve closing events where I believe they should be, thus improving low rpm power, raising dynamic compression, avoiding low rpm reversion and improving high rpm over-rev. As with any 351C equipped with 4V heads, the top end pull shall hinge upon the size of the carburetor, the exhaust system, the ignition, the valve springs and the push rods ... not so much upon the camshaft. I've seen engines equipped with the cobra jet cam rev to 7000 rpm (only 205 degrees duration at 0.050).

I agree with Doug the new crank damper needs to be a heavy one designed to contend with the torque trying to twist the crank in the 6000 to 7000 range. There's a big harmonic somewhere above 6000 rpm that needs to be dampened.

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:

... Don't pick one because it's prettier. Big fat and ugly is better ...



Reminds me of an old song ... If you want to be happy for the rest of your life ...
quote:
Originally posted by 1Rocketship:
Does this mean the HEAVY Boss harmonic damper is a better choice for a high revvving (7,000rpm) Cleveland than the ATI damper?!...Mark


Not according to ATI! Big Grin

The Boss dampener (or HO) is now expensive and elusive, plus IF you found one you could afford or were willing to afford, you need to spend another hundred bucks to have it rebuilt first before you use it.

I think by the nature of the car all of the Panteras should have had them BUT as they say that's ancient history now.

You need to do the best you can for a balancer but the Boss balancer, I think is the best of the lot. It's also the heaviest. Heavier is better in this case.

When you untie the hands of the Ford engineers, they do know what they are doing and what their engines need to work right.

Ugly can be beautiful GP.
quote:

Originally posted by 1Rocketship:

Does this mean the HEAVY Boss harmonic damper is a better choice for a high revvving (7,000rpm) Cleveland than the ATI damper?!...Mark



No, the heavy ATI damper is the damper with the best feedback amongst grass roots racers. They claim it prevents the production block's bulk heads from cracking when raced with the oem crank at 8000+ rpm. It the only damper I've ever heard people claim to do this, and I've heard it from a hand full of people.
quote:
Originally posted by George P:
quote:

Originally posted by 1Rocketship:

Does this mean the HEAVY Boss harmonic damper is a better choice for a high revvving (7,000rpm) Cleveland than the ATI damper?!...Mark



No, the heavy ATI damper is the damper with the best feedback amongst grass roots racers. They claim it prevents the production block's bulk heads from cracking when raced with the oem crank at 8000+ rpm. It the only damper I've ever heard people claim to do this, and I've heard it from a hand full of people.


That right there is a great feed back. I'd go with that.

My only comment on it vs. the old Boss balancer is, there is an entire generation that doesn't know it ever existed.

Even my engine "builder" shrugs his shoulders and says the 4v balancer is ok.

It probably is ancient technology now by today's standards BUT if you look at all of the balancers that came from the factory on the FORD performance engines, they are all HUGE and heavy.



I think that my 427 balancer weighs 15 pounds then there is a two sheave cast iron pulley that gets mounted to it as an assembly. Close to 20 pounds total.

The Boss 302, 289 HP and Boss 351 are all in the same catagory weight wise.



I had built a stroker 427, built with a 428 crank, 427 block, 428cj balancer, 427 flywheel precision balanced. The flywheel was wrong and they took weight off of it to balance the assembly.

The 427 as an assembly is neutral balanced all the way through. The 428 is neutral balanced only to the thrust bearing bulkhead, then Detroit balanced to the flywheel.

Because it was a 428 crank, not a 427 crank, it needed to be balanced as a 428.



I supplied them with a 427 flywheel. Neutral balanced. That was wrong.

The engine balancer technician said that was ok and took weight off of the flywheel to Detroit balance it.

There was something not right with the engine as soon as it was started for the first time. All the bolts on the bottom end loosened up within about 20 miles and 20 minutes initial running time.

The engine was out of balance. It had to be completely taken apart and everything redone. It was lucky that the main thrust bearing bulkhead of the block didn't break?

427 Ford blocks will crack right through the main thrust bearing bulkhead when not balanced right. Worse than the Cleveland block. The crack is so bad it will saw tooth the main thrust bearing bulkhead, not just hairline it like the Cleveland does.



The flywheel should have had weight added to it. Mallory metal. You can't take weight off of it. There isn't sufficient mass left to dampen the vibrations.

On a Ford you NEVER touch the balancer or flywheel. You add Mallory metal to the crank if you HAVE TO.

$10,000 mistake by the engine balancer. COST ME $10.000, not him. He just said, "sorry, I don't know what happened here".



Tuition is expensive these days I guess?

The only mass I could add to the engine at that point was not Mallory metal, it was mas Tequila por favor. WHAT A FREAKIN' DISASTER!
This is what happens when "your majority of experience is in balancing Chevys!", and unfortunately that is the vast majority.

If you say I don't know WTF I'm talking about, I'll let you go through the debris and make your own determination.

I say, do not listen to those guys. They don't know what they are doing. Their mistake is just going to cost YOU, not them. This ain't no 9th grade auto shop class. It gets complicated really fast. Too complicated for some. A lot of them never went past 9th grade anyway.


Just for the sake of discussion, not that it really matters at all now, but I'd be interested in what the reciprocating assemblies were on all of those "cracked" Cleveland blocks. Anyone want to cover my bet that they were all internally balanced and weight was taken off of the balancer and flywheel?


You want the biggest ugliest mass you can get on these things. Ugly is beautiful. Smiler
Last edited by panteradoug
quote:
On a Ford you NEVER touch the balancer or flywheel. You add Mallory metal to the crank if you HAVE TO.

Just for the sake of discussion, not that it really matters at all now, but I'd be interested in what the reciprocating assemblies were on all of those "cracked" Cleveland blocks. Anyone want to cover my bet that they were all internally balanced and weight was taken off of the balancer and flywheel?

I've never heard that take on balancing before. Interesting discussion. I guess I'll just have to see how long my internally balanced 383 Cleveland stroker lasts with its lightweight knife edged crank, neutral balanced aluminum flywheel, and neutral balanced SFI harmonic damper (Scat Powerforce+ D90006). Note that the Centerforce aluminum flywheel and Scat Powerforce damper both have removable counterweights for internally balanced engines.

I've only logged 3,000 trouble free miles so far, but only time will tell.

Anyway, fascinating discussion.
The point of not "touching" the balancer and the flywheel is that those are the two most likey items that would eventually need replacement.
If the person that balanced the engine changed the factory setting on them instead of matching the internals to them, then in the event of replacement, the entire assembly would need rebalanceing.

Theoretically the advantage to internally balancing an engine to neutral is that it makes all components an easy direct replacement quickly like under race situations.

Race teams like that.

Not much advantage to a street engine though.


Nothing wrong with knife edging a crank at all.


People have different opinions of aluminum flywheels. Preference really.
quote:
Theoretically the advantage to internally balancing an engine to neutral is that it makes all components an easy direct replacement quickly like under race situations.

Race teams like that.

Got it! Totally get what you're saying now.

quote:
Not much advantage to a street engine though.

Agreed. But, there was a significant advantage to my wallet having my forged rotating assembly internally balance by Scat versus having my local machine shop/builder do it. He actually recommended I go this route.

quote:
People have different opinions of aluminum flywheels. Preference really.

I LOVE how quick revving my engine is, but did take some getting used to having to keep the revs up at slow speeds. No more idling through a parking lot like I used to be able to do. Otherwise, not much change in driveability.
The cost of a hydraulic roller cam has dropped down to the point that running a flat tappet cam doesn't make sense to me, A roller cam will allow you better performance all around, idle, vacume and acceleration. Their is also no break in on the cam and no need for special lubricants, all modern engines run roller cams, their is no comparison on longevity, reliability and power options.
quote:
Originally posted by ttam23:
looking for some feedback on The Lunati 10320311LK cam kit. http://www.race-mart.com/Lunati-LTI-10320311LK.html Seems to be very inexpensive. How dose It compare with the George recommended custom cam grind he calls the Cobra Jet profile with the Johnson HT900 hydraulic lifters from Bullet Racing Cams? I also want to get a new dampener . I know the Romac #0203 dampener is recommended . Any less expensive dampeners a good choice ? In an older post some one recommend the D-90006 http://www.flatlanderracing.com/scat-dampers.html . My engine is a 72 351c cj 100% stock so it should have the open chamber heads. So far new parts I have for it are the hall pantera big bore heads and exhaust, blue thunder intake manifold, and a 750 cfm carburetor. I am also considering raising the compression to 10 to 1 with dome pistons. would like a street-able 450+ hp thanks
quote:
The cost of a hydraulic roller cam has dropped down to the point that running a flat tappet cam doesn't make sense to me, A roller cam will allow you better performance all around, idle, vacume and acceleration. Their is also no break in on the cam and no need for special lubricants, all modern engines run roller cams, their is no comparison on longevity, reliability and power options

So what would be a good roller cam ? Right now i am will most likely buy the Crane 284-H12 camshaft. get some 70 closed chamber heads and
a D-90006 thanks for all the help
quote:
Originally posted by captaintobeys:
I have my balancer infront of me. D2ZX. Which balancer is it?


It's the one that you want. The original application is for the '72HO Cleveland. It is also the over the counter service part for the '71 Boss 351. That one has an engineering number on it of D1ZX.

The two are for all intents and purposes the same. The D2 isn't as valuable as the D1 since when you restore a car, in this case a '71 Boss 351, you want what was installed on the car when built, which would have been the D1ZX balancer.

Both of my Boss balancers have been the D2ZX.

The only thing that you want to consider is whether or not you should have it rebuilt by a balancer specialist. The consideration is that really valuable/desirable parts, like this, HAVE been "lost"...somewhere, so make sure you make it a point that you want this thing back, not a substitute.

There are a bunch of people that are going to tell you that yours is junk, that you want the ATI, then ask you if you want to sell it. Wink

It's also the one, more likely than not, that the factory race teams would have used on the Pantera back in '72. So that kind of adds desireablity to a Pantera owner. Unless you feel the right thing to do is cut the car up and stick a Corvette engine it it? There are those around too? Big Grin

This could be one of their Panteras?

Attachments

Images (1)
  • anycar1
Last edited by panteradoug
The spec's of the right cam, is all about you, that said all the major cam manufactures now offer a complete spectrum of grinds, from mild to wild, but the power options you are interested in can be calculated by the specialist at the tech center, every cam maker has a tech center and will be glad to offer their help to you, they don't charge for their advise, get a couple of opinions, Crane, Comp, Lunati,Isky, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by ttam23:
quote:
The cost of a hydraulic roller cam has dropped down to the point that running a flat tappet cam doesn't make sense to me, A roller cam will allow you better performance all around, idle, vacume and acceleration. Their is also no break in on the cam and no need for special lubricants, all modern engines run roller cams, their is no comparison on longevity, reliability and power options

So what would be a good roller cam ? Right now i am will most likely buy the Crane 284-H12 camshaft. get some 70 closed chamber heads and
a D-90006 thanks for all the help

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×