jrblanke

Has anyone put the performer intake and cam into their SBO? I have a 64 330 that runs pretty good but I was wondering if anyone had improved their acceleration and gas mileage by upgrading with this package. I was looking at the Performer RPM intake and cam, but with my rear differential ratio, the performer would be optimum for my application.

88 coupe

It takes more fuel to make more power, and vice-versa. Your choice.

Norm

J-(Chicago)

A performer will buy you a few horsies, but not enough to waste $200 and a day of labor on in my opinion.
Since you are concerned with mileage as well, I'd spend the money on a carb rebuild instead. We have a carb rebuilder here on our site, actually.

Redog

I have the performer manifold on my car, and I'll probably go with the cam and lifters in a few years

Oldsguy

Quadrajet was always a good choice too.

Olds64

I will second that. Quadrajets are awsome carburetors. I also like Edelbrocks. I don't care too much for Holleys.

jrblanke

Thanks for the replies guys.

I have an edlebrock carb on right now. Not sure of the model number, but it looks exactly like the carter AFB. I believe it is a 14--. Do you think the performer package would improve efficencey? That is really what I was looking for?

GoldOlds

The first step toward better performance could be doing something about that 2.94 rear end. Of course gas mileage would suffer accordingly. But to be realistic, even a "mild" cam could/should have numerically higher gearing than 2.94. I've honestly never understood why lumpier cams need numerically higher gearing, but it seems to be a fact.

- GoldOlds

jrblanke

I believe the reason for a taller rear end for a lumpy cam is because a lumpy cam has the power range at a higher RPM. A taller rear end would put the operating RPM in that optium cam range.

In regards to the performer package (Camshaft and intake manifold), I was looking to improve low end efficency with the better flowing intake manifold and a modern cam grind. I am not sure what the stock 330/290 horse camshaft duration at .050 is but im sure it is not a lot. Im looking for a mild duration cam between 205/215 and 220/230 duration at .050. Is anyone running one of these?

captjim

I have an Engle 16-18, good all-round torquey cam. .477/.488, 210/216 on a 112. This in a mild 9 to 1 355 with a Performer intake. All the Performer cam is is the old 204/214 generic grind. I don't like them, slow lazy ramps that do not build cylinder pressure. I am not as familiar with the 330 specs, do you know the true CR of that engine? 230 duration @ .050 is a LOT for a 330, IMO. But, it all depends on the engine cr. Olds engines typically do not need a lot of gear, kinda like Buicks. Our 71 Skylark has a 2.76, my Cutlass had 3.08s with an 8 to 1 355 and ran fine, high 14s, fun to drive. Make lots of torque at a low rpm, and you don't need a ton of gear. If it was a 2.14 or something, I would agree.

jrblanke

Jim,

The 330/ 290 horse has 10.25:1 CR.

James

88 coupe

I don't know what you said, but your "lumpy" cam would raise the power band and need lower, not higher, rear end gears.

Perhaps GoldOlds misuse of the term "numerically high", caused your confusion.

Ain't gonna happen. That cam and manifold are designed to flow more efficiently at higher RPM. Raise the power band and you lose low end.

You will get more bang, for less buck, if you have the advance recurved to match your engine. Or you could get it "half azzed" close by replacing the distributor with an HEI. The original carb would probably help your fuel mileage, a bit.

I'm happy with the stock cam in my 330.

Norm

Olds64

You just need to decide what to do based on everyone's suggestions. Everything mentioned has merit and will improve the streetability of your vehicle. Manifold, cam, distributor, and rear gears are common parts to replace on a street/strip car. The two easiest and cheapest things you could do would be to put an HEI distributor in your car and rebuild and tune your carburetor.

GoldOlds

Exactly how did I misuse the term numerically higher? Example - 3.55 is numerically higher than 2.94, is it not ("numerically" being the operative word in that particular term)? The original response to my post made sense to me.
Anyway, getting back to the original question (sort of), I think a set of 3.23 gears would be perfect for any cam that can be described as "mild." Just my 2 cents.

88 coupe

When referring to a lower gear, it is called a lower gear.

If one chooses to add the redundant modifier, it is done, as follows: 3.55 is lower (numerically higher) than 2.94.

Here it is again:

Taller = higher (numerically lower) = confusion.

Inaccurate communication, defeats the purpose of this forum.

Here it is again:

He is looking for a cam/intake combination that will work with the gears he already has.

Norm

GoldOlds

I know what he was asking for; thought I'd throw in an alternate (yet still related to the subject) suggestion. I didn't know that was against the rules. Honestly - and may God strike me dead if I'm lying - I've heard the prefix "numerically" added to many conversations relating directly to gear ratios; some of these conversations I've had have even been with experienced and talented mechanics. But since you know so much better than everybody else, I'll type the word "n*********y" from now on if you find it so offensive.

- GoldOlds

88 coupe

No one said it was.

Interesting statement, but it does not qualify as documentation.

I have never heard the modifier used by itself. I have, however, seen it used on the Internet.

But, what you, or I, may have heard, or not heard, has nothing to do with anything.

It would seem to me, that experienced/talented “mechanics” would know the difference between high and low gears.

Nothing to do with what I know. Everything to do with what you do not know.

Nothing to do with being offended. Everything to do with accurate communication.

I will simplify it for you:

Numerically higher = lower.

Taller = higher.

It is normally phrased this way, in order to eliminate any possible confusion.

Your improper use of the above phrase, is what caused the confusion.

Norm

GoldOlds

I don't see anyone else huffin' and puffin' about it, so where's the confusion? I'm guessing everyone knew what I meant, just like everyone knows that "Six Pack" and "Tri-power" are both references to a trio of 2bbl carbs . . . most of us just don't feel the need to chronically respond to single posts with a dozen nitpicking comments. This pointless debate has already brought this thread WAY off topic, so I won't respond to your next barrage of commentary. That way, nobody else will have to read it anymore and you'll get the last word - that should make everyone happy. To the entire readership, I apologize for letting this thread get so far off course.

To the original topic, I think there's plenty of good advice here to go on. Additionally, I'm sure most reputable cam manufacturers will have a toll-free tech line to help guide you in the right direction after you give them the appropriate information (application, tranny, gear ratio, compression ratio, converter, etc.)

- GoldOlds

tonycpe

All i can say to goldolds is 88cpe is right, but don't take it personally. as for the cam , i am pulling that same one out of my car next week, i think its a pretty good street cam.

88 coupe

He knew it all along, as shown by the following:

And he posted it because he did not expect anyone to call him on it.

I agree. Edelbrock chose that grind for good reason and, obviously, it did what you wanted it to do.

The question is: What does the OP (original poster) want it to do?

He wants it to compliment the Performer manifold,

with two specific goals in mind.

Obviously, you were happy with the power gain. How much improvement did you see in your fuel mileage?

Already addressed in posts #2, #12, and at the bottom of #15.



I do not get involved in cam choices, for two reasons:

In this case, I will make an exception.

An excellent cam, when used in the application it was designed for, and I am happy that it fits captjim's needs.

These profiles, were designed for use with the '70s “smog engines”. They moved the power band lower, in order to “recoup” some of the power losses associated with the lower compression ratios. Since it was most widely known for its effectiveness in “motor homes”, it was commonly known as the "recreational vehicle" or “RV” cam.

Cylinder pressures, at low RPM, in your (and my) 330 are already above the practical limit for todays gasolines. We do not need an RV cam that will raise them even higher.

At the other end of the power band, we can expect our peak HP to occur at considerably less than the 5000+ we get with our stock cam. We can also expect our HP to fall, by a similar margin.

If I was looking a cam to meet the OPs goals, as I understand them, I would investigate the factory 300 HP/327 Chev grind. It worked very well in several of my Chevs, and in one of my 324 Olds. I suspect, however, that it is very similar to (if not the same as) the one that came in our 330s.

Norm