little man testing out the new playground :D

wonder how many bolt went down that intake :eek:

needs alot of work, but i will be at the spider lake clean-up;)

Looks like your little man is about the same size as ours! :cool: Truck looks good; needs a lot of work as you said, but that's half the fun. :D

not to bad for $250. plus its an oregon vehicle so i wont have to smog it :D

Damn good for $250. :eek: Looks like it's ready for a Qjet, and already has headers. How far do you plan to go into the engine - or does that depend on what you find? If it needs a valve job, you might want to go to the '308 swirl-port castings - same high-flow characteristics as a Magnum, but direct bolt-on for older LA's. Cost me $180/ea to put the '302 heads on mine - thanks AutoZone!

One of the books that turned up on Tuesday was "Chrysler Engines - The Best of Hot Rod Magazine" which has some very interesting recipies for LA's; including a 318 virtually identical to mine, which ended up at 330 hp, and with a nice flat torque curve. This one was built and tested in stages; the '302 heads alone (ported, with 1.88/1.60 valves) were a 41-hp improvement over 2.02/1.60-valve 360 heads. I've not looked at the 360 articles in much detail, but it seems like the '308 heads are worth more on the larger engine. Interestingly the 302's on a 360 are only a very small improvement over stock, while the 308's on a 318 don't help much either.

I finally settled on the '759 cam; 260/268 duration and .430/.450 lift. It seems about right for the 318, and does pretty good in the 360, especially at the low end. Desktop Dyno shows this cam in a 360 with a 780 cfm carb, stock heads, and small-tube headers makes just under 300 hp @ 4500 and 370-380 lb/ft torque everywhere from 2000 to 4000 rpm. I really wanted to run the old 340 cam, but this was just a much better choice.

Getting the rear springs under mine has proven to be much more of a PITA than modifying GM springs for the front! These rears were the EZ-ride, came with spacers for 1/2" bolts. Truck came with 5/8 bolts. Got new spacers and shackle bushings coming from ORD, but more lathe work will be required. Seems like everyone (NAPA, Pro-thane, Skyjacker, etc.) thinks these should be 1/2" bolts, but it just ain't so.

i must have read your mind on that engine combo. exactly what i was plannin ;)

We have that exact same cam in our '83 Power Ram. It has a 360 bored .030, stock heads, Summit headers, stock cast iron 4bbl intake, Edelbrock 650. It's got 3.21 gears. It wakes up about 2500 or so but has enough low end to spin the tires on gravel/dir(we farm) with just very moderate throttle. It winds out nice to about 6000-I don't wanna take it any higher. 4 wheelin in the snow is fun!! I can stop in about a foot or so of snow and stand on it in 4high from a dead stop and both axles kick up a nice snowstorm!:D It could use a different torque converter because I can't even get a chirp out of it on pavement, it just kinda bogs until it winds up, then it goes! Kickdowns are a blast, gravel or asphalt!

I too have desktop dyno and according to it this motor is at about 300hp @4500 and 392 ft-lbs @ 3000. One of the local stereo/ricer speed shops in town is gettinga chassis dyno so I would like to run it to see what we have for rear-wheel hp.

Good luck on your project!

what? um, i crawl so a cam that gets it around 2500rpm is out of the question. i want low rpm idle and very good throttle reponse. was thinking about this cam, now i'm thinking stock 340 cam.............

I'm not tryin to say this cam doesn't have any low end, it does, just not as much as may be desirable. Honestly, I think it would be just fine for a crawler since you'll have deeper gears and a better TQ. That and the fact that I didn't get to install the cam advanced a few degress with offset cam keys like I really wanted to, which moves the powerband down a tad and helps in low-end torque. It's actually kinda fun to stick it in 4high on gravel and stand on it. It takes off pretty good since it can actually get traction.:D If I were to do it again I would go with a Hughes "real Chrysler" cam. Go to their site and check out their cam info. Start with the FAQ http://www.hughesengines.com/www/hughesengines/cams/cam_faq.asp. They've got a ton of excellent cam information and if you call them they can help you pick the right cam for your combination.

Here's what they say in reference to the Mopar cams--

Mopar Performance camshaft note:

When replacing a Mopar Performance camshaft with a Hughes Engines Real Chrysler camshaft, use one that is 5º to 7º smaller at .050" tappet lift for increased power in all RPM ranges.

stock converters are around 1200-1800 stall right? that cam installed a few degrees advanced should work. i'm gonna go for it. hughes has a very good website and products, i just like the price of the MP cams.:D
hey Lloyd, how big are the chambers on those 308 heads?;)

They'll be around 70 cc. I should have porting templates for those heads arriving this week; they don't make 'em for the 302 heads, but an old fellow here says that the port shapes are similar enough to be of some assistance. They are designed for 2.02/1.6 valves and I'll be going with 1.88/1.6, but my intention is to scale in that plane using my scanner and gimp (linux version of photoshop) and cut new ones out of sheet stock. If you'd like to use something like this, let me know.

I don't think the '759 is very big for a 360; your stock cam is around 256 if memory serves, so it's not much of a change. It does hold the exhaust open quite a bit longer though. For comparison the stock 318 cam is a 240/248 with only about .370 of lift from ~ 1974 production on (or so I've read). I don't think you'll be able to notice OR measure any loss in low-end torque with the '759 vs. the stock 360 cam. OTOH the '761 will make quite a bit more power but you'll notice some low-end gone with that one. Looking at DD runs with my 318 setup using stock valves, and a stock cam vs. the '759 I see the same total torque; but with the stock cam it peaks at 346 lb/ft @ 2000 and falls off pretty rapidly above that; with the '759 torque peaks at 347 @ 3500. The '759 makes 327 lb/ft @ 2000 while the stock cam makes 328 @ 3500. Total area under the curve (from 2000-3500 rpm) about the same, just a different shape; and only 20 lb/ft difference across that rpm range - and the '759 has 20 degrees more duration than my stocker. It does buy 117 hp @ 5500. In the 360 the '759 looks awfully flat from 2000 to 4000. I don't have the exact specs for the stock 360 cam in front of me, so can't make that comparison just yet. Let me see what I can find.

From what I found it looks like the factory cam for the 2-bbl. 360 from 71-74 had .410/.412 lift and 252/256 duration. From 75-on it was a single pattern, .410 lift and 252 duration. Same source says that the factory 360-4bbl. cam was the old 340 (auto trans.) piece; 268/276 duration and .430/.444 lift. I seem to remember that the '78 Lil' Red Express Truck had a hotter cam than these; probably something on the order of the '992 - 280 duration and .474 lift; while the '79 Lil'Red used a milder cam like the old 340 stick. If you're going ot pull the intake to look for bolts anyway, you might as well put a dial on a lifter and see what you've got. It may not pay to re-cam that engine.

Edit: and I've gotta retract what I said about the 761. It's much too close to the old 268/276 cam for the 340 (now called the '782) which actually may be in your engine now. Both the 761 and the 759 were designed around the 782 - the purpose of the 759 was to make the same HP with more torque; the purpose of the 761 was to make the same torque with more HP.

i believe the factory 360 four barrel cam was just slightly bigger than what came in the 318's. the 340 cam only came in the E-58 interceptor 360's. it makes a big difference going from the stocker to the 340 cam. it should make even better power with '759 cam and those '92 heads.:D