Where is everyone? Did you leave your devices at the office?

I'm looking for the best low end torque 292 cam for my truck. The truck has 3.55 rear gears and a 700R4. Something from off idle to around 4,000 rpm. Clifford has this. It seems a bit pricey but has a lot with it.
CLIFFORD

Beater,
Checkout the cams I offer.
All my cams come with lifters.
I also have reasonable spring kits
Choices for you would be my
RV/ Langdon marine cam
HYTORK cam
They can be seen here. https://www.12bolt.com/store/c6/Camshafts.html
You will definitely spend less money and get more support.

Thanks Tom. For some reason I couldn't find your cams when I looked before posting. There is no rpm range in the description of that cam. Do you know it?

This is for the decades old 292 build that is now necessary. It is a truck engine and will have GM TBI. Possibly a turbo later so Ill need forged pistons also. The turbo will be the '81 firebird draw through setup that I have. Because of the low/mid rpm range I'm wondering about head work. I have a set of lumps and roller rockers. Are stock valves big enough? What of compression? I may nee d a different head if I add the turbo and that's not a problem. It seems most of the build info is for race or hot street engines. I'm looking for a gas Cummins.

The truck will be for hauling and towing. We live on a steep 4 mile pull the last 2 dirt. In some spots the rpm will be around 1000 or even a little less. Your thoughts please.

Stock valves will work But Stepping them up will work even better.

Hi Beater,

I have read in the past, over on HAMB, posters mention an interesting concept for what you describe your use to be. Keep the 292 cam as it came from the factory. It was originally designed to haul stuff, not haul ass and is really good at it. The intake and exhaust are restrictive and could use work.

I have a page of the stock factory specs and dyno pull and it seems to be in line with your primary requirements. If I can post it, I will.

Can we post links to other boards on this site?

Regards,
Rick

Page with spec info:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/iri722cGYTWBRdCS8

Thanks for the help guys. It is easier to find high rpm info. Rick the chart is a big help.

Since the 292 was available in trucks from 1/2 ton to 2 ton with standard and auto transmissions I'm sure concessions were made on a one size fits all cam and valve train. As long as I'm building on I'd want to maximize the truck side. Sometime the low rpm cams also give better milage as well. It looks like the stock cams works hard and the bottom end but 292s are notorious gas guzzlers. A lot of that could be gearing.

Beater, as you know Ford sixes are my forte, but I can say for the 7 million 300s built the same cam specs were used for all applications, including industrial. The advance/retard was the only thing that changed slightly over the years. Wouldn't surprise me if GM did the same.
I would say for your needs a cam with the same specs as factory but with an additional .050" lift or so will work well. Mild port work will help too.

The 292 I had in the black truck ran ok - same trans and gears as you have but it was real thirsty. The TBI will certainly help with fuel dropout when your in OD at low RPM - highway cruise.
Look at your tire size and calculate your cruise rpm. Then decide time spent at cruise vs climbing the hill, move the cam choice to suit.
When you turbo it - you will need to sort out how to adjust the 700's line pressure to increase with boost - the throttle position is not good enough as the turbo torque increase is no tied to throttle angle. The vac. modulator line may need a restrictor orifice and a pressure bleed between the orifice and vac modulator. Once manifold goes positive pressure, if the line pressure gets above 220 PSI the trans won't like it for long. You'll need to work the trans pump pressure spring / vs boost. Add a trans line pressure gage into the cab 0-300 psi so you can monitor whats going on.

Thanks, That is kind of advice I'll be needing. I've gone back and re-read the old thread a couple of times trying to refresh my memory. Maybe when it's running with the TBI I won't want to go on to the turbo. Figuring out exactly where it will be running most of the time and getting the power in that range is the goal. I've bee driving this tuck fo years with a 305 that has an RV cam and a turbo 400. It did well one the highway and I never ran out of power buy it was sometimes revving higher and I was having to drive faster than I want. Pretty sure a stock 292 would go a ways to fix that.

Many years ago when we were building this place I borrowed a '46 Chevy 2 ton dump trick from a friend. It had a stock 292 in it. That old truck acted like there was no hill coming up with full loads of sand and gravel. It didn't like the highway a lot.

Beater,
I think the best setup for your torqey 292 is 1.84 valves w/ bolt in lump kit and my RV cam. Nice low rpm setup. The low duration cam will help the low compression motor work well. This cam will also work well with a lower boost turbo setup.

Thanks Tom, That's good advice. I'm torn on piston choice. Will I ever get to the turbo? If I do I'll need forged pistons and a bit lower compression. If I don't get there I'll want higher compression for max power. I agree on the 1.84 Stock exhaust? I have lumps and a tube header for now. refi-diy's comments about the TV cable on the 700R4 might help make the turbo decision. If I get it going and am happy without the turbo I'll just skip that. I'm pretty sure a healthy NA TBI 292 Would fill my trucking needs. A guy I knew used to tow his backhoe over the Sierras one.
That Cam could use stock rockers, springs and pushrods?

Beater I sent you some specks on 3 cams which I think will very good for what your after all are hyd. cams and good from idle up to 5500. The 5500 is the biggest of the 3.

Thanks Larry, those look good. I found the one I was thinking of it is from Crower. In 292 it is a special order probably because of volume. It says it is for a stock engine but I'm sure some mild head work, a bit more compression, TBI, and a header will work with it. With the planned tire size and gearing it will be turning right at 2000 rpm at 70 mph.

The cam is the first one on the page.
CROWER

Yeah because the cam has notches in it to clear the rods. I was going to send you that same link . lol

I called and ordered one. They don't sell many of these so they take one of their other 292 cams and regrind it to these specs. Maybe a shortage of blanks? I remember about the notches. He said the other mods I have planned will work with this one. It uses stock lifters, rockers, springs, and pushrods. Pushrods may need some thought depending on head and block deck cuts. It really shouldn't even need screw in studs though I think I have a set. I have a set of roller rockers too. They would take even more stress off of the system. Probably overkill.

Now for some pistons. I have a new set of 0.040 over Silvolites #1249 that are listed as 8.0 to 1. They have pins and rings. They should be fine. By the time the head and block are shaved some and the right head gasket 9.0 to 9.5 should be within reach. That's enough. I have a set of reconditioned rods and an almost new crank. Probably a bearing set kicking around somewhere.

Many years ago a

Could this be the place when a 194 head could be a good thing?

I have reread some posts here about 194 heads including the near toxic one where Toms famous dyno test were quoted extensively. There was a lot of information but I am not as convinced now as I was then. The tests were mostly made at 2000+ rpm and the 194 head was bone stock. I'm not sure what cam was used with it because I lost my test results in a computer crash.

I have several heads with a few 194s among them. I just purchased a Crower cam with a working range from idle to 3500 rpm with a red line at 45000+. In this application 70 mph will occur at 2000rpm and it will do much of it's work well below that. Would a 194 head with 1.84" intakes & 1.60" exhaust valves and lumps be a help or hinderance? The pistons are rated a 8.0 -1, The head gasket is a Fel Pro 1025 .041". No head or block decking yet. (I think)

MILEAGE COMPU-PRO / Performance
Level 1 - Enhances mileage and torque in stock engines. RPM Power Range: Idle to 3500 / Redline: 4500 plus.

Beater
Are you looking to just bump the compression a little more? IT should give you between 9.1 to 9.5-1 depending other things coming into play It could go a Little more But not a lot. You could do the same with a Flat top and Now jump to about 10-1 on compression.
But with the 1.84 it would only take Minor unshrouding of the valve.

As for the head studs You could always pin them If your going to use stock rockers. Running roller rockers it is always better to go with the studs. A Plus is you would be a step ahead if you wanted a Bigger cam.

I was just thinking that I need to put a head together anyway and sense I have both types of heads that this might be a build where a 194 could give a little bump in compression and still handle the flow. 9.1 to 9.5 would be fine in this case. Are the old thin (0.021") shim steel head gaskets good?

I keep going back to Bill Fishers recommendations on building a street 270 GMC compared to a race version. It seems that there is a point at lower rpm that smaller is better. When I built the 270 in my old pickup in 1978 I took his advice and used a small port head and frankly don't remember valve size. It has served me well and has hundreds of thousands of miles on it. It does well through the range from idle to 5500. If I made a mistake is was cam choice. I would give up some upper Rs that I don't use much for a little more grunt around 2000. Though I've never run out of power.

So this 292 is aimed at the best truck engine I can build mostly with what I already have but because I have a lot of it I can put some $$$ in it. I know the 230-292 head will work just fine but wondered if the 194 might be the best choice. Where else will I use one? I'll end up doing about the same thing to either head. Think pulling a 16' two axle trailer with my tractor on it up a pretty rough steep 2 mile rocky dirt road. I some places the rpm will be around 750- 1000,.The rest of it's easy.

I've decided to use a 250 rather than a 292 in my pickup and when I get the block back from the machine shop I'm going to order the HyTork camshaft kit from Tom's to give me low end torque and fuel mileage. In the fuel department I picked up a Holley Sniper unit and will used it on a Clifford intake.

Went out and looked at a 194 head #324435. It is very clean and everything looks good. Definitely not much room for bigger valves. How can I tell if it has been milled?

I looked at Tom's HyTork but decided on the Crower' I'm going to revive the GM TBI from years ago. Do you have everything you need for the 250?

Everything plus, even some spare everythings, even still got your 292 sitting behind the shop. I'm going for fuel mileage (only 1 gas station within 65 miles) but still have the power to tow my small trailer to swap meets if they ever get this virus under control.

Damn! I have to get some hearing aids. That's the first time I read what the problem is and actually saw it. All this time I thought it was pirates, Chinese Pirates! I though they were coming to steal all of our toilet paper. That would have more likely been Arab Pirates.

I'm hoping with the right cam, compression boost, TBI, and a good gearing choice I can help the milage. If not I'll find a Cummins.

I pulled another nice clean 194 head out of the pile. Same number.

Beater what ever you do DO not use a flat top in that 292 with the 194 Head. YOU"LL be well over 12-1. I guess I miss read something. I didn't think you were going with a 292 a dished 292 piston and the 194 will put you around 10-1 I thought for some reason you were building a LOW Deck motor. AND I looked up the cams LOL as 292 build Sorry for the Bad info as to the comepression.

BUT yes dished about 10-1 FLAT tops well Over 12-1 and do you mean 3824435 ?? if so IF that head has not been milled it is a 61cc head YEAR is a 62. A casting 3788415 would be 72.80cc 62-67
and casting # 3864883,385056 60.32cc. 3788380 62.03cc

That would have more likely been Arab Pirates.

Not acquainted with sanitary practices in the 3rd world?

I had Crower make me a custom billet solid roller cam. It was an obscene amount of money.

Yes, #3824435 I found two of them. The pistons I have are Silvolite # 1429+.040" Advertised as 8.0 to 1 CR. PISTONS I have both the Fel Pro # 1025 gasket at .041" and a steel him one at .025". I also have a set of PES lumps I got from Leelites many years ago. With Larry's prediction of maybe around 10 to 1 compression ti might be a puller.

I've been playing with numbers this afternoon. In a post on another site Tom said a stock 194 head would flow about 170 CFM. Ranging from 100% to 80% VE a 292 flows: 85-68 CFM at 1000 rpm
170-136 CFM at 2000rpm
255-204 CFM at 3000rpm
Depending on VE a stock head would become restrictive between 2 &3 thousand rpm. My cam does it's work from idle to 3500. With the small valves and ports the velocity would be high at low rpm. Lumps would raise the head flow some. It may or may not need 1.84 intakes & 1.60 exhaust valves and un-shrouding of them making the chamber bigger. I'm thinking a stock head with lumps might be a great low rpm torque head. Highway rpm would be right at 2000.

"That would have more likely been Arab Pirates.

Not acquainted with sanitary practices in the 3rd world?"


It's about the old tradition of eating with you right hand and wiping with your left. Theives were punished by having their right hand cut off. Therefore one hand does it all and no one would ever eat with you again.
I think Im getting cabin fever. I hope that's not a symptom of Chinese Pirate Virus.

This one was only $225.

Are there flow numbers out there for a 194 head with stock valves and lumps?
Trying to glean what I can from different places as to increase percentages that might be gained by adding lumps. I've read around 10% to 15%. That could move the 194 to a possible 187 to 196 cfm without any other work. Tom got about 24% on an open chamber head with 1.84" intakes, lumps, and porting. This is at .50" lift.

I guess it wasn't as much as I thought. Billet roller cam $425.42,lifters $362.78, rocker arms $344.55. Billet crank $4250, Billet rods $1483.76. These are jobber prices.

That's a lot! It may all be decent prices, but that's a lot!

Then it all gets covered up with a $1400 oil pan.

According to Tom's site the stock open port head flows 168.5 cam at .500 lift/
With 1.84 intakes and the boss removed flow is 195.6 cam.
With lumps installed 215.6 cam.

On another site Tom said the stock 194 head would flow about 170 cfm. This makes sense to me because at the beginning the 1.74 valves are not as shrouded as they become with larger valves, It also makes sense that there would be some gain by installing lumps in the 194 head with stock valves and that if that gain covers the rpm range where the engine will be used a cheap high compression low rpm would result.

Hey Tom, PM sent on a head

Beater
The stock head/ 1.72 valve in a 194 will flow (with the Boss in the head) about 177. With out the boss about 189 and with MY tear drop designed lumps the head will flow right around 204cfm to 216cfm depending on the lift. And port work done.
And these numbers are based off when I was doing the design & Flow bench work & testing on the first design lump kits.

That is impressive. That would do me fine and not be restrictive till around 3000 rpm. This engine shouldn't go there or above often.

The stock valves with the lump will get No performance gain. I have tested this on flow bench and Dyno.
You must upsize the valves to see a gain.

My cams are 225 to start and come with lifters.

Thanks Tom. So how do people get a bump from just removing the boss? I have read in some places a 10-15 hp gain from just removing the boss.

Once that restriction is removed the next restriction is the stock valve? Then the lump and porting finish it off?

I didn't know I was buying that gasket from you. I never even looked at the seller.

So Tom what your saying there is NO cfm gain with the stock Valve and the Lump ?? & no hp gain??

That is what I have found in testing.
The lump may have added a few CFM, but not a noticeable amount of power on dyno. That is with stock valve size.

In these things I am always stunned that such small numbers make such a big difference. The difference in the area covered by a 1.72" valve and a 1.84" valve is 0.3357 of a square inch. The difference in the circumference is 0.377" and diameter 0.12".

So where the difference comes is in how much more fuel mixture can flow through the larger hole doing the time the piston is on the intake stroke and the intake valve is open. Velocity is important to both move enough mixture[to fill the cylinder and to keep it mixed. If the new hole is too big the velocity can fall off.

I don't think it can work. These things are just a fad that won't last.

I didn't mean to re-open the 194 can of worms. I will need a head for my truck and the cleanest nicest one I have is a 194. I do think that since we have opened the Club to All inline Engines that the truck versions need to be a part. The tow truck and race car both using the same engine is like the old handgun and rifle cartridge combinations.

Here is a 194 head offered on eBay. They offer a open chamber head too.

LINK

The seller responded to my questions about these heads. He said the 194 would boost compression about one point. He has no flow data. The chamber volumes are 65CC and 72CC. Thats keeping them pretty small for those big valves.

Now using the stock 250 head will their be any appreciable gain using lump ports? I am also building a low RPM ( idle to 3500) truck motor to use pulling a small trailer if the swap meets ever start again.

Gary I have an idea for the swap meets. You could get one of those mister setups people use to cool their decks and run it around the canopy of your space. Use an alcohol solution to sanitize everyone and everything. Maybe the Margaritas would work.

Beater
there are a few 194 heads ( castings) that run the 72cc's And that is the same as Or very close to the other heads 230,250,292.
And the CCs can range from 72.? to 74.00 CCs So really Not matter which head you want to run with IT is in Best interest to un-Shroud the Valves If you want the Head to breath the best that it can to start with. NO matter Which head that it is. Bottom Line.

And one more thing The 194 head That I built That RE-set a Old track rec. flowed Over 250 cfm and If I remember right it had around 62 CCs on the chamber. MAYBE??? a touch more

I just posted that link to show that they are out there. I have no intention of spending that kind of money on a head for this truck. If I can do something to improve it some I will. The 72CC head he sells is the 230-292 head.

I'll get Leo's book out again and do some studying. The biggest mystery in that book for me is the mere mention of building a six cylinder head using two 181 four cylinder heads. It would be a 12 port that would bolt on with all the valve stuff in the right place.

Many have also done it with the V8 heads. but that is a bunch of work either way.

Fabricating a head will cost more than buying a 12 port.

The 194 head will serve you well for your intended purpose!

Thanks, That is where I'm headed, so to speak. If it doesn't work it's only bolted on.
The 292 is a great truck engine stock. If I can make it a little better at the bottom end I'll be happy. I have everything I need with the exception of a .030 over block. There mat be one of those too.

Beater,

Since you have a plethora of hardware. Use head studs and stage a few head, intake, carb combinations, and see which one you like best.

Regards,
Rick

Beater
Just don't try to run a flat in that 292 with the 194 head.
because you will end up with more compression then you want, Stay with a dished piston. stock dish or no more then the LP piston.
Unless you have one of the 194 heads that has the 72cc.

No flat tops, Pistons are Silvolites dish rated at 8to1.

The combination I'll like the best is whatever gets the truck back on the road. A new set of heads for the 350 that's in it now is looking better and better.

Tom if you need a 292 Block I have a complete engine sitting in the shop you can have.

I hear you on that note. It's always cheaper at half the cost lol.

Gary. I have a few but if I don't have a good on I'll take you up on that. i have a 0.080 over 250 that might make a good truck engine if light doesn't shine through the cylinder walls.

Cheaper doesn't seem to be what we do, nor does easier.

NOPE that is for sure. Doing it right the first time mite cost more but cheaper then doing it Twice.

My new truck cam from Crower came in the mail yesterday, pretty quick I think since they had to grind it. Just a reminder low lift, low RPM, high torque, and fuel economy designed to work with stock valve train and head.
Advertised Duration: intake.240 exhaust .248
Total lift: intake. .438" exhaust .450"

I've decided to to basically use the Sissle "Econoflow" head as descried on Page 90 of Leo's book for a model for my head.

"The head bolt boss in the middle of the intake ports should be shaped like a wing, but left in place. Removing the boss will gain about 5 CFM on a stock valve size head, but the subsequent loss of velocity in the port will more than offset the gain."

Beater
I have a Head done up with the winged shaped Boss If you need or want pics. It is sitting on a 230 I have here in the shop.

Thanks Larry that would help. The picture in Leo's book doesn't show much.

Larry,

+1 what Beater wrote . The pic in the book looks like a normal boss. If you can post, that would be great. If not, please PM pic to me too.

Thanks,
Rick

I can give it a quick buff up so I can get some good clean photo's.
But I may need your guy's email to get you the photo's. Seeing that i'm no longer a Paid member of this club. I may not be able to post or send you the photo's here.

The bosses have been welded to a wing shape/ knife edge.

That would be fine I'll send you my email address

Pic's have been Emailed guys I hope you get them.

I don't know much about what all this means but here are my cam specs. I'm going a different direction.
Crower steel billet solid roller cam
intake duration 268 deg. lift .479
exhaust duration 272 deg lift .479
lobe seperation 114 deg.
rocker ratio 1.75 7/16"

I don't understand cam specs. Numbers that look very similar to me seem to do quite different things to an engine.

The cam number that represents the largest change per degree of difference is the LSA: large number means smaller overlap.

That would make for a good turbo, blower, super charger, or some NOS motor hehe.

Sorry Larry I messed with it for two hours and I can not get the pictures on here. I'mat try again when I'm a little calmer. That is why there are so few pictures on this site.

I got it this morning but I can not delete this post. Another issue here is that we can not edit or remove our old posts.

Here are pictures of an intake port with a "wing" welded to the front of the head bolt boss to lessen the effect of the boss on air flow. The back side of the boss is not changed because of limited access to weld and add material. This was done by Twisted6 and sent to me. Thanks Larry.

I'm running a 4-71 blower and 3 Rochester 2 bbls

Nice mick53 do you have any photo's?.

Thank you beater for up loading those.

If the boss was narrowed as much as possible while shaping to help flow how much wall thickness would need to be left to assure proper head bolt torquing?

Can the boss be removed and replaced with a wing shaped piece?. Just thinking'

Gary, Anything can be done but is it worth it? Do you and I need it? I just posted some thoughts on the other thread.

jalopy45

That was done a long time ago and it was made of Alum. There was a Templet in one hot rod mag. that was true to size. I made a few back in the mid 80s before I started making the bolt-in tear drop style lump.

Anyway the fit has to be tight to the port so you can get the right torque on the head bolt. And you need to make sure that the treads have sealer on then Or you will end up with water in the intake port, as the head bolt is in the water jacket.
I hope this helps.
PS. it also had a small tab like at the back of the port and a small indent was made in the back of the port to help keep the wing in place.

Now to the head I have on my engine now, it is an integeral head with a 2 bbl. base which will work with my 2 bbl FI body, for a truck are they all that bad? I know a lot of the early ones were prone to cracking and it does come with a dual exhaust. Not sure what the engineers had in mind, maybe if it wasn't something to do with torque? I have other heads

Around .100" thick on the sides is adequate.

Thanks Scot, That will give me a good Idea of what I can do.!

Never heard about this site, thank you for sharing. Do they deliver abroad? As I am currently in my property in Cyprus

Has anyone tried a hydraulic roller cam for street use? Thinking along the lines of durability.

Mike Kirby did several for the street about 10 years ago. I heard they've been performing as expected as far as longevity and no maintenance.

I went with Tom's aka 12 bolt Hytork cam kit and doing a little port work on the head so all the ports are matched to the intake and exhaust (nothing excessive) and grinding the port dividers into a wing shape. Using a 2bbl fuel injection on an Offenhauser intake and hopefully using a set of cast exhaust header, I'm hoping to hit 200 HP. Also using roller rocker arms and dual valve springs.

Sounds good. What injector setup are you going to use. I'm going to try the early 90s GM and my MegsSquirt again. If I have trouble with it again I'll buy one of the new kits.

Now I got my hands on an Affordable Fuel Injection unit which uses the GM throttle body and keeping the Holley unit for a backup. They are both 2 bbl units but the GM unit is easier to get parts for and a lot lower cost and works with a stock HEI distributor.
https://affordable-fuel-injection.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIraSq37jU6QIVNSCtBh0mPgyyEAAYASAAEgIW6vD_BwE

Thanks for the link I can read some there.

When EFI DIY and I did the demo at Bonneville in 2008 we put a GM TBI with a MegaSquirt on the 270 GMC in my '53 Chevy pickup. He had in running in about 30 minutes. We had a big vacuum leak because no one had an allen wrench. And we didn't get to drive it because the fuel line kept blowing off. I had prepped the truck at home for the connections but not quite well enough.
I'm bringing that thread back up so I can restore the pictures. I could spend the rest of my life restoring pictures here thanks to Google/Picasa.

Interesting to see someone access this factory info--Everybody here seems to think the 292 is such a "torque-monster--please post the dyno graphs for the two barrel 283 V-8 and we will see the 283 comes out on top--it's more of a engine size thing rather that some romantic illusion we have for the "mighty six"

1965 C10 specs:
[img:left]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k0Zrxk38vWQodOsDcZWcf1wdR3Vt_2Xz/view?usp=drivesdk[/img]

Dynos from back in the day:

283:
[img]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k28etC8ZCKKblYjAyZVUszY2wtzgMMib/view?usp=drivesdk[/img]

292:
[img]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k4iwTvc_3qhptQzPZGFtzmW9rn3ngHrS/view?usp=drivesdk[/img]


So the 292 has a broader torque curve which is also higher at lower RPMs (from idle). Especially the net numbers.

If you wanted to, a V8 could be built with a smaller cam, valves, ports, restrictive manifold and small carburetor - which is where the "torque monster" fable comes from.
The number of cylinder confers no benefit except packaging.

+1

Cylinders effect primary and secondary balance which can be corrected at a small power loss.

Interesting. For my needs torque off idle is more desirable. My truck won't see much freeway time. Thanks for those charts.

Sorry, not sure what you mean?
An L6 has primary balance, but still (as always) rocking couple.
V4, 6, 8 (but not V12) engines are always out of balance to some degree.

my bad, I had mis-read those graphs years ago, your a$$ is blackest !!!....use the net numbers as they represent the more real world conditions--good work finding those graphs !

You do have to take into consideration the TQ and HP scales are different. TQ is x2 making the curves look funny.

If you look at the cert, those are GM dynos toward the end of 1964 for the 1965 models.