 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Antique and Collectibles / Studebaker / March 2006ISKY cam
I wonder how this cam compares to the Avanti cams we use. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Studebaker-289-Isky-Iskenderian-cam-camshaft-new- E-4_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33614QQitemZ8042190233QQrdZ1  SignatureJP/Maryland Studebaker On the Net http://stude.com My Ebay items:http://www.stude.com/EBAY/ 64 R2 4 speed Challenger (Plain Wrapper) 63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk 63 Daytona convert. 62 Lark 2 door 60 Hawk 53 coupe rod. > I wonder how this cam compares to the Avanti cams we use. > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Studebaker-289-Isky-Iskenderian-cam-camshaft-new- E-4_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33614QQitemZ8042190233QQrdZ1 The R2+ cam that I got from Ted has the following specs: 268 degrees duration 224 to 228 @ .050 lift lift .447 I don't know what the seperation degrees is. Tim K. This one must be a little milder. 260 degrees duration 216 @ .050, lift.425 lobe separation 110. >>I wonder how this cam compares to the Avanti cams we use. >>http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Studebaker-289-Isky-Iskenderian-cam-camshaft-new- E-4_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33614QQitemZ8042190233QQrdZ1 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tim K. SignatureJP/Maryland Studebaker On the Net http://stude.com My Ebay items:http://www.stude.com/EBAY/ 64 R2 4 speed Challenger (Plain Wrapper) 63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk 63 Daytona convert. 62 Lark 2 door 60 Hawk 53 coupe rod. Would that be more compatible with a smaller bore engine? I am rebuilding a 224 and want a hotter cam but am thinking Teds cam might be a bit much. Bob40 >> I wonder how this cam compares to the Avanti cams we use. >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Studebaker-289-Isky-Iskenderian-cam-camshaft-new- E-4_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33614QQitemZ8042190233QQrdZ1 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tim K. I would think it would be about right for a 224. It's getting a little pricey though. I wonder if it is really new or a regrind? Doesn't look like an old NOS box. Did Isky ever sell new cams for Studebakers? > Would that be more compatible with a smaller bore engine? I am rebuilding > a 224 and want a hotter cam but am thinking Teds cam might be a bit much. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Tim K. Yep, most everyone did back in the day. > I would think it would be about right for a 224. It's getting a little > pricey though. I wonder if it is really new or a regrind? Doesn't look like [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> >>>Tim K. SignatureJP/Maryland Studebaker On the Net http://stude.com My Ebay items:http://www.stude.com/EBAY/ 64 R2 4 speed Challenger (Plain Wrapper) 63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk 63 Daytona convert. 62 Lark 2 door 60 Hawk 53 coupe rod. Watch your cam choice.A cam designed for a certain cubic inch range will be more aggresive in a motor with less cubic inches, within the same family of motors. And likewise,if it is installed in a motor with more cubic inches than it was designed for,it will be lazy. So whats hot for a 350 cubic inch motor might be TOO MUCH for a 283 cubic inch motor,and NOT ENUFF for a 400 cubic inch motor (all in the small block bellybutton family of motors),paraphrasing a cam article in a old Car Craft magazine article. > Watch your cam choice.A cam designed for a certain cubic inch range will > be more aggresive in a motor with less cubic inches, within the same [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > small block bellybutton family of motors),paraphrasing a cam article in > a old Car Craft magazine article. I had a 232 with 259 heads (milled .125 to get the compression up) and when I found the Daytona (R1) cam in the parts book I bought one and put it in. Ran nice and smooth all the way up to 6500 with no torque at all anywhere. I remeber the E4 as being a little more, in which case it probably would not be a happy choice for a 224. SignatureRobert W. Hughes (Bob) BackYard Engineering 29:40.237N, 95:28.726W or perhaps 30:55.265N, 95:20.590W Houston, Texas "The city with too much Oxygen" rwhughe@oplink.net What would you suggest would be the best performance cam for the combination of a 232 with 259 heads? Taking into consideration the heads being milled and larger than stock valves, port work, better manifold, and larger carb etc... Wiz. >> Watch your cam choice.A cam designed for a certain cubic inch range will >> be more aggresive in a motor with less cubic inches, within the same [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > anywhere. I remeber the E4 as being a little more, in which case it > probably would not be a happy choice for a 224. I wonder whether you would need bigger valves for a 232? And you wouldn't need a big carb. Get the smallest 4 barrel you can find and one of those early aluminum manifolds that come up on Ebay from time to time. > What would you suggest would be the best performance cam for the > combination of a 232 with 259 heads? Taking into consideration the heads [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> anywhere. I remeber the E4 as being a little more, in which case it >> probably would not be a happy choice for a 224. You mean like a 390scfm and the valves from a 259 standard head are big enough? Early, as in fits a WCFB? Wiz. >I wonder whether you would need bigger valves for a 232? And you wouldn't >need a big carb. Get the smallest 4 barrel you can find and one of those [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>> anywhere. I remeber the E4 as being a little more, in which case it >>> probably would not be a happy choice for a 224. My 232 liked the bigger valves in the 259 head until I put the R1 cam in. It also had a 600cfm AFB off of some Buick which worked just fine once the car warmed up. Full throttle on a cold engine gave instant and serious bog. Of course I was doing this in the early 60s. I also discovered the oiling problem - extended running above 4000 rpm wound up with all the oil up in the heads and not enough in the pan to protect the rods. SignatureRobert W. Hughes (Bob) BackYard Engineering 29:40.237N, 95:28.726W or perhaps 30:55.265N, 95:20.590W Houston, Texas "The city with too much Oxygen" rwhughe@oplink.net I intend to put something similar into my lark to get it around while I build up a serious HP engine. I'm not sure I will put a 600cfm but what will work will work. Wiz. > My 232 liked the bigger valves in the 259 head until I put the R1 cam in. > It also had a 600cfm AFB off of some Buick which worked just fine once the > car warmed up. Full throttle on a cold engine gave instant and serious > bog. Of course I was doing this in the early 60s. I also discovered the > oiling problem - extended running above 4000 rpm wound up with all the oil > up in the heads and not enough in the pan to protect the rods. I had an Isky cam put in my latest project... but it's of the Mopar series. Lee >I intend to put something similar into my lark to get it around while I >build up a serious HP engine. I'm not sure I will put a 600cfm but what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> with all the oil up in the heads and not enough in the pan to protect the >> rods. Hey Lee, Do you mean you are working on a mopar or some sort of adaptation? Wiz. >I had an Isky cam put in my latest project... but it's of the Mopar series. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>> with all the oil up in the heads and not enough in the pan to protect >>> the rods. I'm having a 331 Hemi rebuilt to drop in my '62 Lark convertible. Lee > Hey Lee, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>>> up with all the oil up in the heads and not enough in the pan to >>>> protect the rods. You're just trying to attract some flames, right? Not enough arguing over the weekend? ;) p.d. > I'm having a 331 Hemi rebuilt to drop in my '62 Lark convertible. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com *** SignatureWTF is Oujdeivß? http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3762&version=kjv to contact me try Oudeis via softhome.net > I wonder how this cam compares to the Avanti cams we use. > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Studebaker-289-Isky-Iskenderian-cam-camshaft-new- E-4_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33614QQitemZ8042190233QQrdZ1 The R2+ cam that I got from Ted has the following specs: 268 degrees duration 224 to 228 @ .050 lift lift .447 I don't know what the seperation degrees is. Tim K. That's the same grind that I have in my 52 ragtop, 289 with a new AFB. Not too radical, but does have a lope at idle. I sent in a cam to Isky and had them grind it. IIRC it was $60, but that was about 7-8 years ago too! Jim Looking at the spec card it looks to be a little lumper than the standard r1 r2 cam. Henry > I wonder how this cam compares to the Avanti cams we use. > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Studebaker-289-Isky-Iskenderian-cam-camshaft-new- E-4_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33614QQitemZ8042190233QQrdZ1 Several years ago I came across an ex=show circuit 57 Hawk that some dimwit had cut up, but I managed to salvage a brass dash plaque from Isky with those specs etched on it It's on the firewall of my '55 now mebbee I should buy the cam that goes with it On another note about that Hawk It had a complete white Speedster interior in it One seat was broken but the upholstery was like new Somebody had already claimed it though That is a "very" mild cam ladies and gentlemen. 216 degrees at .050 - on the edge of mild, low to low mid rpm 110 lobe center - very good, all rpm, better as rpm increases .425 lift (minus the lash) - mild, low rpm This would be a grocery getter cam in a 289, not much more in a 259..........and "maybe" (like others have said), because of the lobe center angle....a nice cam for a 224 engine. Mike |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.