Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

After splitting one more Comp Cams tool steel retainer on an intake valve, in Mission last weekend... I think maybe I FINALLY get it....
The components being actuated by the intake lobe in my engine, cannot be properly controlled over about 6500 RPM, without inconceivably high spring pressures.
The exhaust is fine. 200 pounds seat does just fine.

What I am learing, is that there are torque engines, IE, Oldsmobile, Buick, etc ( running to MAYBE 6400-6500 RPM through the traps )... and the are RPM engines, IE, small block Chev / large port BBC Chev, etc. ( going through the traps above 7500 ).
The torque engine can make use of the EXTREMELY aggressive ramps of the "dwell" lobes... knowing that valve train control does not become a factor in the upper RPM.
The high RPM engines require more gentle ramps, which often tranlsates to longer durations... which ends up being a good thing because the duration is needed in order to draw the torque curve up a bit, so it's most effective in the higher RPM engine.

The 409 is regarded by many, including my man at Comp Cams, as a torque engine.... yeah, phrases like, "oh that ol' 409 made a lot of torque" !
sure.... compared to a 283 2bbl, I quess it did.
But it's NOT A TORQUE engine. I've known that for decades.
Unfortunately, it's also not really an "RPM" engine either.
Runs hard in production form, and that's about it.

This puts me in an awkward place for cam lobes. I need a more "RPM oriented" ramp... but no so much a large port 427.
The lobes don't seem to exist in the cam world. I've been to Bullet, Crane, and Comp.
I have a "distributor" account with Comp, so, I'm trying to deal with them.
In response to an email I sent to my guy at Comp, in which I described in extreme detail what I had, what was happening, and exactly what I am looking for in a lobe, I have been informed that they have "created" a new lobe for me.
Now, before committing to all this, I was hoping that a few guys could advise me if I seem to have the right idea.... or am I all wet ? ! !

thanks for listening
I'm sure some of the responses will have words that I can't even pronounce ! !
( I often say to friends that "These Stock / Super Stock guys employ technology that makes the space shuttle look like a hay-baler ! )

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Call Tim Cole at Comp.

Tim Cole
Competition Cams
Performance Accounts Manager
901-795-2400 ext. 575



And 200 on the seat will NOT work on a competitive lobe for your 409. At all. It starts at 250 on the seat, and 525 open.


I'd also strongly suggest Ferrea stainless valves.

Feel free to send me a PM, or an email, and I'll try to help you make your valvetrain work.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

When stuff in the valve train starts going nuts in a Stock Eliminator setting,the first thing you want to do(besides check to make sure that the rocker arm slots are long enough),is to check spring tension. When RPM exceeds the ability of parts to follow each other, studs break, locks come out, valves hit stuff they were not designed to hit, springs go nuts, metal fragments appear around valve train parts, ceramic base lifters shatter with bad consequences,this stuff happens. I used to run a 283 7800 in high gear, never had a problem because I was just lucky,I guess. The 283 had light parts in it. Spring tension was around 125-140 on the seat, 275-300 over the nose.The exhaust valve in a 409 probably weighs close to twice the 283 weight. I would think that the intake would be way worse. That seemed to be the side of the engine you had problems with. I hope it didn't do any more damage to the engine than that.I think that I would start finding out what the big block guys are doing, then move in that direction. I don't remember turning a 409 anywhere near as tight as you do, they really were big torquers . A good 409 would work if you went into the house moving business,that's for sure.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Gee, Alan, I have 230 / 470 on the intake. It's seems good to about 7000. Trouble is, the engine is spinning 7200 through the traps now. I have about .065" piston to valve, and I've never seen evidence of the intake valve ever getting close. The exhaust however, at .035" piston to valve, leaves quite a "map" !... though no actual contact.
Where the valve float tell-tale sign is.... is the valve locks. The exhaust are all nice, clean, and black, like they just came out of the package. The intake are ALL scuffed up, hammering the lip off, and "peeling" the groove in the valve a bit.
I respect your guidance completely, Alan... however, this is my third time around in the valve train, crushing the most spring pressure that can be fit in there... and it just CONSISTENTLY goes out of control. I'm convinced that it's simply an inappropriate lobe for the application.

Greg, that is the mis-conception ! ! ! !
A large port 409 is really NOT a big torquer ! The 63-65 340 horse small-port car engine, and the truck engines, have fueled that "big torque" belief... but like an L78 compared to a 366 school bus engine.... it's a VERY different animal.
Oh, my valves are 141 and 124 grams.
I got off lucky this time, as far as damage goes. It DID put a light crack in the num 4 cylinder, which was sleeved from the last time this happened. But it doesn't seem to leak coolant there. The head of the valve broke off, and got tossed through the intake, into num 1 intake runner. No problem there. The stem got bent and knocked up away from the piston. Engine still ran, and I actually limped it at 40 MPH to the finish line.
The valve seat area is a bit of a mess, and that's where the coolant leaked. Not catastrophic though.
As far as RPM.... a 63 425 horse 409 ( I'm allowed that cam ), from the factory, routinely gets shifted at 6200-6300 RPM. The late 64 425 HP engine, which used the Z11 cam, would do 6500.

The cam I'm looking at, stretches my advertised duration on the intake, from the current 290, to 299 ( my stipulation to Comp, was that I wanted to maintain my current duration @ .200" ). My concern is that this will really bleed off cylinder pressure below 5000 RPM.
Am I right to be concerned ?

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Call me crazy....but isn't the 409 a 3.500" stroke or about the same a 350 SBC????????????

Call John Partridge at Bullet Race Cams 662 893 5670 and see what he says????????

Bob

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Hi Aubrey, The intake valve chases the piston and will never hit it unless V to P clearance is non existent or something is really out of wack. Valve float will make the exhaust the problem. If you have twice the clearance on the intake as the exhaust your cam is retarded quite a bit which could be causing the lack in torque.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Aubrey, it seems that you have discovered the problem (valve float/lack of control) and Alan has confirmed it also - a bit more spring pressure, a better (or lighter, if possible) valve, maybe a different type of spring, too? You say it's good to 7,000, but I'm wondering if with all the problems you are having if it's possible it's starting earlier and is not quite yet noticeable? Without a doubt, lack of valve control requires more spring to correct it. Good luck.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

A 3.5" stroke is almost identical to the 350Chev, not a big torque motor, add to that, big ports and two fours, not good. A smaller duration, less aggressive cam with a bit of advance would be something I would try if it were me. With a four speed, you should be able to run 125 MPH and keep the engine at or under 7,000 RPM with the proper gearing and cam timing.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Aubrey, so long as without lash, the clearance between the intake valve and the piston is greater than the clearance between the piston and the head, you have plenty. In other words, if you have 0.055" piston to valve, and 0.045" piston to head, you're good.

On the exhaust, you need about 0.075". The piston chases the exhaust valve shut, and the exhaust valves are known for bouncing on the seat. Yes, they'll show a light spot in the carbon on the face of the valve and the top of the piston. If you want to go fast, that's what you do.

Yes Aubrey, you need at least 250 on the seat, and 525 open, you need the same pressure, and the same parts, that we run on a 396/375, or a 427/425.

You really need about the same lobes as we run, you're allowed 0.507" and 0.519", you can run the same lobes, and use pushrod length to kill off some lift on the intake.

I'd take a wild guess and say a good starting point for you would be 254/266/108, in at 106. You might try a 107 LSA, in at 105, to move the power band down.

The Ferrea valves I run in a 427/425 iron head should work, they'll "adjust" the diameter.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

I knew you guys would like this subject !

Yes, short stroke... VERY quick revving.
Phil, it IS good to 7000..... it's the 7400 that it saw on my fastest qualifying run... which BTW, seems to be a pattern. The higher RPM range DEFINITELY had the car going better speed and ET ( though 7400 was NOT deliberate ! ).

If I shorten duration, and / or advance the cam, I'll have to rely on this thing becoming a mid-range torque monster, in order to achieve that elusive 125 MPH. It won't do it.
Paul, when we went back to back on the dyno, and the cam was retarded 4 degrees, the engine torque curve moved up, but didn't change numbers. Peak HP jump by 18, and the engine hung at peak HP through 6700 RPM. It doesn't lay down... and I LIKE THAT ! ! ! !

My cam may be a little "out there" already, Alan ?
264 / 272 @ .050", on a 108.
I've contacted Ferrea a few times about making valves for me.... they flat out REFUSE.
2.20" / 1.735", but about .100" / .125" shorter than BBC.
Spring installed height is also much shorter than BBC... it's basically the same as small block. My current spring was Comp's strongest beehive, with a 11 gram tool steel retainer. Shimmed stffer on the intake, the spring was almost stacked.

At this point now, I'm willing to give up 10 potential HP, by using a softer ramp intake lobe. Due to recurring disasters, this engine's cylinders are right at ..074"- 075" over.
In addition to this, due to multiple repairs, and grinding that has gone on with these heads, they would no longer pass tech. I have another pair of virgin large port castings... actually they are the "better" 583 's. I don't want to take chances with the them.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Aubrey, I can get the valves made, and you can actually use the extra 0.100" installed height. I can have them made from the same blanks my valves are made from. Do not worry about getting the valve stem shortened. You adjust for the longer installed height by using a longer pushrod and a longer rocker stud, if necessary.

What is the largest diameter valve spring you can fit on the head without cutting the spring seat? If you can get a 1.540" or 1.550", that's ideal, if not, we can make something work.

What is your current installed height? You need at least 1.850 or so, if you have 1.750", which is small block height, then 0.100" to 0.200" longer valves would work much better. Between 1.900" and 2.050" is ideal. The right retainer and/or keepers can make that happen.

I'm not at all a fan of the beehive valvesprings for what you're doing. There are regular valvesprings that are a known quantity, we KNOW they'll work with the lobes you need, and with the valves you need, and they'll work at 8000 RPM.

By the way, with the modern lobes used on the really fast 427 Chevy Stock Eliminator engines, that cam is huge, no one I know running a 427/425 runs nearly that much cam, and they're turning 1000 RPM more than you, and making more HP. If you need more RPM, you can spread the LSA out to 109, or even 110, that will let it carry further without nosing over.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Aubrey-- I put BBC valves in the 3814690 409 heads a long time ago.I still have the complete engine I did it to. Trim your guide bosses for a positive type seal(no O ring ),install a 2.19" BBC valve,use a BBC stock eliminator type spring,retainer and lock, then use a 1.72 BBC exhaust valve.A 427 3/8' pushrod with a stock rocker works on the intake, and the 409 3/8" pushrod for the exhaust will put you in the infield of the ballpark.There is a century or two of stock eliminator engine building experience on this forum trying to help you, we all like your car and want to see it absolutely fly. It does sound like your cam is about 6 degrees retarded. You need about .060" minimum P/V clearance on the intake, and .090-.100 on the exhaust.More spring tension on the exhaust will eliminate the bounce. If the engine goes flat above a certain point, I would blame the exhaust springs, if it putters through the intake, then that's the one with the low spring tension. Also, dyno results don't always carry through to the track. The best dyno is the drag strip.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Been there, and done all that, Greg ! On my old 64 Pontiac convertible, that's almost exactly how my heads were done. I sold that car to build this one !
One thing is for absolutely sure... there is no possible way on earth that I could achieve .100" piston to valve on the exhaust, without taking 20 degrees dutration out of the cam, and milling the piston a WHOLE lot !
It's all good... really. and the trouble is that it never really does "nose over"... especially down at sea level in Mission. Exhaust valve is always good... but probably due to a much more gentle lobe. No bounce.
It's just the damn intake.
BTW, the track... sea level ( as opposed to dyno )... yes, that was a lesson !

Alan, much longer valves create a new problem in geometry... particularly on the exhaust valve, because of the angles of the rocker stud in relation to the valve. Not ideal at all.
Not to mention, I already have my valves sunk into the heads at least ..050" deeper than stock ( piston to valve is a real problem )... so longer valves would be way up there.

Good news is, yes, I can fit 1.55 spring. That was my old combination.
Results were the same.
Maybe I should mention that my heads, at .510" lift, flowed 288 / 212.
Certainly not the potential of a large port BBC.

The right retainers and keepers ?
yup.... been chasing that one for a while !

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

When I first started racing the Firebird, I changed the rear gear in it. The first time I ran it at the Etown national event it started popping and banging at around 6700. Around 100 ft before the finish line. After the race I checked the valve springs. Found them to be at 200 and 380 open. Bingo! I thought. Changed the springs and retainers. Had 450 open. The next race I almost able to get to the traps ! I figured what is wrong now. When I got home I was going swap a fresh engine anyway.
When I took that engine apart to get the cam and lifters and other assorted parts, I found 3 loose pucks on the bottom of the lifters. The camshaft was a Bullet. I checked the numbers on the cam for the lobes. When I looked up the lobe profiles, the were dwell torque lobes . When I asked John Partrige about this, he told me those lobes were never meant to run over 6500. He told me that I need a asymmetrical rpm style lobe. So I ordered one from him. The cam he sent me went to 7400 with no problem, and I never broke any valvetrain after that. You are on the right track, sounds like you need a profile change.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Hi Aubrey, advancing the cam 4 degrees or more would give you a significant increase in exhaust V to P clearance and much more mid range torque.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

I'm not the tech expert that many on this forum are. For consideration sake, I'd explore this avenue. I bought some parts in Ohio from a guy that runs in I/SA, yes, it's a sbc. He told us he was running a real aggressive, big cam. After talking with people running similar combinations. He found that changing to a smaller cam, different headers, his car actually picked up. Food for thought. I'm finding stock to be much more challenging than running brackets. I don't even have a car ready for the track yet!

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

I've been wasting my breath saying the same thing for years. It's nice to see that another header guy is thinking the same way that I do. I don't know just what that says about you though Mark.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Aubrey, those flow numbers are not nearly as low as you think. I'm betting if you sent the heads to the right person to have them done, they'd be even better, especially with the right valves. You have enough cylinder head to make good HP at 6800 RPM with a 0.060" over 409, the biggest problem is probably the intake manifold.

For your cylinder head flow, your cam is too big, especially if it has some sort of wildly aggressive lobe on the intake.

Mark is right, the right headers could reduce the need for all that duration on the exhaust, provided you even need that much now.

With good valvetrain control, 0.055" on the intake and 0.075" on the exhaust is plenty of clearance. With the right cam lobes and the right valvetrain, control should not be a problem.

Working with pushrod length will probably solve some of the problem with longer valves. There's no such thing as "ideal" valvetrain geometry in Stock Eliminator for most engines. The restrictions of the class prevent it. We're not anywhere near ideal with the big blocks, yet we have not had a single valvetrain failure in over 5 years. I think 2006 was the last time we had a valvetrain failure of any kind, and the problem was solved with the correct rocker studs.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

This is GREAT !...
I'm 3 times as confused as I was before ! ! !
HE HEE !!

Facts and numbers

The engine makes about 45 HP more than anybody ever did with even a "resembling Stock" 409 before.
Speed through the traps is at least 4 MPH faster than anybody ever went.
My bottom end is legal... piston/rod weight is dead on, combined combustion chamber volumes of the block and head, are safely within spec.
All that I have done different from everybody else with these things, is a big-azz camshaft, and big-azz headers ! Seriously, when tested... went from an EXCELLENT set of 1 7/8" tube, to my own 2" stepped to 2 1/8". Torque curve moved up, peak torque went up by 17 ft lbs, and the engine made 21 more HP.

The old "torque thinking" just doesn't seem to apply to this short stroke engine. Unrestricted ( for the CID ) carburetor CFM, I believe, is also a reason to pursue the escape of the mid-range torque concept ?
I dunno ?.... other than the intake valve going out of control... this damn thing really works.
So, at the moment anyway... fix what's "broke" ( square cam lobe )... and leave alone, what seems to be a really good "package".

assymetrical cam lobe ?
THAT may be the very compromise that I need !

You guys are amazing... Between the support I get here, and the practically "out of body" experience of attending places like the race in Mission... I'm getting hooked on this REALLY bad !

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

assymetrical cam lobe

Opening ramp is different than closing ramp. Rate of lift might be fast open and softer on the closing side.

A symetrical cam has the same opening and closing ramps...

Cam companies tried all kinds of unique designs.

Even going back to my days racing in Jr. Stock around 1970 there were distinctly different cams. We were limited to stock springs and pressures and valve train. Some cams we used could not be run much past 5800 rpm and one would run right up past 6000 with no problem....Stickshift hydraulic cam small block Chevy.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Aubrey could you go to a taller tire to kill some rpm through the traps? Some great feedback on this thread

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

I'm paying attention here... so,
Cams aren't that expensive. I already have a set of good "civilized" headers.
I'll get two cams. One how I "feel" it should be. The other with 10-12 degrees less duration, and run it in the correspondingly somewhat lower RPM range. I have the 4.88's to use in place of my current 5.13's.
For testing purposes, I'll use my current heads.
I'll make that my goal before the end of this season.

Currently, the engine never sees below 4500 RPM on a run.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

That's a bit too much drop between gears. It needs to stay up above 5000.

I'd expect to use a 5.14 with your combination, I think you'll find the 4.88 won't run well. Consider that most run a 5.00 or 5.14 with a 396 or 427, both of which have 0.250" more stroke.

The secret to going fast is average HP between around 5200 and 7400, and having it recover really well from the shift. You cannot give up average HP to get peak HP, or it will not recover from the shift.

Call Tim, see if he has the lobes to grind you a cam with between 254 and 258 in the intake, and 266 to 268 on the exhaust, between 108 and 110 LSA, 109 LSA, in at 107 is probably a nice compromise. If you can't tighten up your RPM drop, you really need to look at a 107 LSA, in at 105. It may not make great peak numbers, it might not look great on the dyno. But on the dyno, it does not have to recover from the shift, in the car, it does, and if it drops below 5000, it's probably way below peak torque, and won't recover well.

The modern big block lobes will be stable to 8000 RPM, provided you have 250 on the seat, and 525 open, you need a spring rate around 525-550 per inch. You cannot control that big intake valve with anything less. If you're not running at least a 7/16" x 0.125" wall pushrod, it will never work. The pushrod will be a secondary spring, and make everything surge and bounce, even with a gentle lobe.

For a single step header, I'd expect to see something similar to an 1-7/8" to 2", with 16"-17" long steps, for a total of a 32"-34" primary, and a collector about 16"-18" long, merge style, tapering from 3" to 4". If you went for 2 steps, split the 2" section into a 2" and a 2-1/8" section, each about 8" long. That's a real simple merge, you could do more if you wanted.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

On the gear change, of course it doesn't drop to 4500. Transmission has only a 2.83 first gear, so in terms of modern drag racing stick shift... it's almost a close ratio.
I know... not enough first gear for a 3640 pound car.
Also, these engines have a nortoriously long torque curve... never a lot, but very flat. A wider spread in gears would be better. Peak torque is at 4600-4800... still within 5 ft pounds at 5400 RPM. More gear spread would allow the engine to fall back into the real "thick" of the torque.
Simple math, if I lower the RPM range of the engine, I have to go taller gear ratio in order to retain trap speed.

Alan, I don't know WHAT you are using for a spring, but I've studied the hell out of this, and I can't find a single spring that will get near those figures. Also, in these engines, there's no room for a 7/16" pushrod ( the "pinch" in the intake port, adjacent to the pushrod hole, is already paper thin ). Can't be done. I have 3/8" Manton.
Also, header tube length under about 42", with a merge collector... ? Impossible, period. Chassis will not allow it. My headers are about 33"-34" long.16" total collector length.

maybe it's just destined to remain a slug ? ! ! !

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

"Currently, the engine never sees below 4500 RPM on a run"


You'd better be making peak torque no higher than 4300 rpm.

200 rpm above peak torque is the basement. If you drop below that it won't recover.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

You might get by with a 3/8" x 0.125" wall. Consider a dual taper, Trend has a dual taper 3/8" - 7/16" pushrod, it's 3/8" on the ends, and 7/16" in the middle. Trend will measure for you to see if they can make something work.

You do not have to run a single spring any more. They opened the spring rule up.

Not sure what you mean about the headers. If your headers are 33-34" long, with a 16" long collector, that's about what I was suggesting, length wise. A merge collector will fit where a plain collector will.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

HEE HEE !!... I could use a pushrod that has the bottom 3 inches 7/16" in diameter, but I'd have to put the pushords in place, then install the heads over them ! !
My pushrods ARE those ridiculous, almost solid wall things.

No more "stock spring arrangement" ?
HHMMM. they really are loosening those rules, aren't they ?

The header tubes can finally merge together, under the frame, at about a 30 degree angle back from straight out the sides, approximately 12" from the outside of the car.
A merge collector piece such as this one that I just used on headers that I built for a customer car.... would actually exit out from under the front fender, extending about 6" outside the car !
Can't be done.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Aubrey ,You can get Manley to make valves on there Gen2 custom stainless blanks.Also look at how much coil bind clearance you have ,too much may cause spring bounce or surge.We agree with Billy Nees and others ,the headers are probably to big.We see engines that get The National Dragster Tune Up ,Big headers,Big carb,bag of ice on the manifold and take 2 quarts of oil out:).Bill C.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

I know, Bill... the 'ol "bigger is better" thinking.
I suupose I could try and justify it by saying that it alreadhy has the "bigger" carburetion... and that I was just trying to follow suit ?

Anyhow
I just had a lengthy conversation with the Stocker guy at Comp Cams.
One thing I know for sure now... you guys with the BBC's, spinning big RPM, are NOT using a lobe that resembles this intake lobe that is on my cam. He confirmed that it is NOT an RPM stable lobe... especially with inherently heavy valves / high ratio rockers.

So, I have taken heed to everybody's recommendations and advice.
And it looks like I WILL build a new set of headers.

If I can retain even half of what I learn around here, maybe I won't blow up again... and maybe even go faster ? !

thanks guys

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

THE stocker guy at Comp Cams = Tim Cole, or Chris Padgitt.

You're in good hands now if that's who you're talking to.

You're going to love what a good stable camshaft and valvetrain does for your engine program. You will now be able to use the cylinder head flow and the carburetors you have.

Let me know if you want to see about getting some REAL good stainless valves for that thing.

When you get the engine right, you should be able to use about a 3.05 first gear and a 5.14 rear gear. Just be ready to get it in second gear real quick.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Yes Alan, I called Tim Cole, as you recommended. He took it like a hot potato, and passed it off to Chris Padgitt !
Ah yes, they too, want me to go away !

Chris is the fellow who originally did this lobe for me in 2004. Like so many, he too, I believe, catagorized this lump as a "torque engine".
I dunno ? maybe I broke that "mold" ?

Anyhow, I'm REALLY excited about this lobe that he came up with !
Also, because I learned from here, that I'm not limited to a single spring anymore... he discovered a dual spring that will fit right in, standard length valves.

Valves.?
YOU BET !
I'll be bugging ya' !

With the bit of tire spin that I get... second gear already comes instaneously !
The transmission gear change ( probably actually a tranamission change ) will be a winter project. At the moment, get this dealt with.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Considering that the exhaust ports for a 409 do not have a large cross section area, I agree with Mark, 1-7/8" is as big as I'd go with the 1st diameter. Not sure I'd go as small as 1-3/4", but it might work.

I think the 4-2-1 or tri-y is probably the ticket for a stick car especially. But you need the right cam to take full advantage of them, and you have to make sure you can get the correct firing order cam for the headers you build. You might be surprised how small and exhaust lobe you can run with a 4-2-1 header, and what it will allow you to do with the intake lobe and the LSA. Considering the lift limit on the intake lobe for the 62 409, that might be a really big deal.

Re: Stocker Cam Lobe Profile ?
 

Aubrey,
I had a similar issue with the Hemi at first. Lots of valve float at 6200rpm, I called the guy that the short block, heads and cam came from ( I bought them separately as funds came together ) and he told me I needed more spring pressure. Long story short I think I could have put springs for a roller cam in it and it still would not have done any good.
I finally called Tim Cole and gave him the card number for the cam, He actually laughed and asked who in the hell had sold me that cam then stopped when he saw the fellows name on the order sheet. He asked me if I wanted a cam that would work and I told that I would indeed like that.


It goes thru the traps at 8000rpm now. Thanks Tim!