Thank you both for the replies. I guess that the "ramp" up to .050 has little to do with the effective duration when comparing cams at .050 lift. If cam A has 200@ .050 and cam B has 200@.050 they will act the same if all other factors are equal even though cam A has 35 degrees more total duration at .004 lift. I just thought that the cams with the "steeper/faster" ramps might open the valve higher/longer than the cam with a slower ramp. Please don't misunderstand me,I am not trying to split hairs just curious. I have crossed off the comp 240H from my list because it is just to "tame" for my "327/300" build. I have a set of single non stock valve springs for a sbc that i am getting tested for pressure ect. If these won't work I can buy the springs that I need. The Crane 200511, Clevite 229-1878, Schneider 02527, and Crower 03241 are most of the possibilties for right now. The most that I would consider is something like the Comp 252H although I like dual pattern cams better. It's sad that PAW has gone under after all those years in the market. At this level (190-200 intake duration@,050)does lobe seperation have much effect? Seems to me that tighter (108/110)is the way to go for this type of cam. Any advice on lobe seperation would be welcome. Don't know if this makes any difference, I am going to put 1.84 intake valves in my head. Thanks for the great info. I will be happy to contribute anything that I learn. Jay
