Cam for my 1969 302ci

[G Smith]

Hi Guys what do you think Comp cam Nostalgia Plus or Factory Muscle 30-30 any help would be appreciated

[x66 714]

It's been years since I was into my 302 but at that time I used one on the 3849346 Crane Blueprint cams...Joe

[BillOhio]

I will get x33rs to check in. He had somewhat of a cheater cam for his 302 that works real well. 

[69Z28-RS]

Hi Guys what do you think Comp cam Nostalgia Plus or Factory Muscle 30-30 any help would be appreciated

I think most of the major cam makers (including Lunati) have grinds that 'mimic' the Z28 grinds...   just depends on what you want.  I have an NOS '69 Z28 cam in the tube, but not sure I'll ever use it.   I have a Lunati 'blueprint' cam in my 302 right now, but *thinking* about using a roller version in a future rebuild...?

[X33RS]

Yes I've told Bill what I've done to the engine.  When I built our 302 I had the pure stock drags in mind as that's what I built one of our Pontiacs for.  So a lot of attention to details and the camshaft was a big player.  Per rules lift and duration can't be increased so it's still similar to the original cam with tweaks.  The lobe profile is a modern design with a faster ramp, and is a tight lash at .014".  I preferred that to keep the beating to a minimum as longevity was also a concern. Turns out my wife drives this thing daily and has logged 30k miles in the last 2 1/2 years. 
   The rules only state max advertised lift.  In our case that's .485 but the problem with solids is the loss of lift with lash, and on a stock cam that's .030".  Since advertised lift was the goal, per rules, the lobe is actually a .495" lift, with .014" lash giving me .481" lift, within advertised lift, and more than a 30-30 would have with it's lash figured in.   See how rules can be manipulated?   Duration is the same but there are no rules for LSA, so that was tightened up to 112 to bring in the torque curve a little sooner.  Installed on a 110 ICL which also gave me the int/exh valve relationship I was looking for at TDC during overlap.
   The cam does what I wanted, more power sooner in the rpm range, still pulls to 7,000 with a very broad flat curve, still makes 9-10 inches of vacuum at 5,000 ft elevation (14 inches at sea level) and drives around really nice and with a true 11:1 compression it's running perfect on our crappy 91 octane pump fuel.  Idle is very close to stock with maybe a slight hint of more attitude.
If I were to build the engine again, and forget about the PS rules, I would likely go with something completely different as there are more improvements that could be made, but this was in the interest of experimenting to see what could be done with it.

https://youtu.be/IZ0HlEY7b74   

[68camaroz28]

It's been years since I was into my 302 but at that time I used one on the 3849346 Crane Blueprint cams...Joe

Had to laugh Joe as I bought and used a crane blueprint cam but bought it in the early 80’s, so yea a lot of years ago even though the engine was not done until almost 30 years later.

[x66 714]

It's been years since I was into my 302 but at that time I used one on the 3849346 Crane Blueprint cams...Joe

Had to laugh Joe as I bought and used a crane blueprint cam but bought it in the early 80’s, so yea a lot of years ago even though the engine was not done until almost 30 years later.

Lots of stuff changed after the engine was built. I remember buying 12.5 to 1 pistons & shaving .200 of the domes to get to 11 to 1. Also opened the ring lands so I could use stock rings. I think today you can buy closer to stock pistons & better cams but that's what I did then. Still runs strong. Factory 4.56 gears help  
...Joe

[bcmiller]

Depends on what you are going to do. Back in the late 70s when my dad was drag racing a 67 Camaro with a DZ 302 one of the cams we ran was a custom ground Crane 0.620 lift solid roller, 13 to 1 compression, angle plug shaved heads, magneto and ran on aviation gas with an M21 and 4.88 gears.

Cam manufacturers used to have a number to call and would help get you what you want based on your setup and goals. Not sure they do that any more.

[firstgenaddict]

I would run a solid roller, you will not believe how it revs  and EVEN with what seems to be a ridiculously high lift how much vacuum it will make.
The biggest factor in cam design is the flow of the heads. IF you have stock 186's there are numbers out there which are more than adequate to provide to the cam company.
The runners on stock 302 heads have a small volume according to Crower, so you need to get the valves open quick and leave them there to make power, he doesn't slam them on the seat either... lets them down quick almost to the seat then the ramp is very soft so as not to slap the valves into the seats.
Dave Crower designed a killer solid roller for our 302 which made tons of vacuum and lots of low end torque.
Gross lift was .636 and the duration was in the 270-280 range made 14" vacuum and 350 ft lb torque by 3500 RPM. over 500 HP.
 

[ZLP955]

James did you have to use taller valve covers with the >0.6 lift?

[firstgenaddict]

Thanks for asking, until you asked I had not remembered.
I was running needle bearing roller rockers with 69 covers (without drippers) BUT with a thick and thin felpro gasket glued together and then into the valve cover. This photo shows the AL needle bearing roller rockers.

[ZLP955]

Thanks for confirming those details James. Impressive numbers, but I bet far more important was the way it drove and felt compared to a stock Z.

[firstgenaddict]

Yes, Dave Crower asked if I wanted a dyno queen that  would post a number or something that would destroy a dyno queen every day on the street or the track...   consider that when you look at the numbers as well = THAT's what is really amazing, if I just wanted a number, what would it have been? 600?
The fat torque curve is what was FUN!
Made the car easy to drive.

[camaroboy68ss]

I have the Comp Nostalgia Plus 30/30H in my 68's 327. I've been running in now for a couple years and i like the cam. Has a great lump at idle. It replaced a GM L79 cam and that swap really woke that 327 up. I do wish I went with a solid lifter cam instead of the hydraulic version now, but overall I have been happy with it.

[crossboss]

I would run a solid roller, you will not believe how it revs  and EVEN with what seems to be a ridiculously high lift how much vacuum it will make.
The biggest factor in cam design is the flow of the heads. IF you have stock 186's there are numbers out there which are more than adequate to provide to the cam company.
The runners on stock 302 heads have a small volume according to Crower, so you need to get the valves open quick and leave them there to make power, he doesn't slam them on the seat either... lets them down quick almost to the seat then the ramp is very soft so as not to slap the valves into the seats.
Dave Crower designed a killer solid roller for our 302 which made tons of vacuum and lots of low end torque.
Gross lift was .636 and the duration was in the 270-280 range made 14" vacuum and 350 ft lb torque by 3500 RPM. over 500 HP.

Those are some very impressive numbers! That said, a solid roller cam is not for everyone. It will require a lot more maintenance for a street/performance car. It all boils down to want you are trying to achieve. Personally, 'I' would suggest a nice modern hydraulic roller camshaft grind. The small block Chevy has more R&D than ANY engine in existence, so finding the 'right' cam is out there…for each one's taste in driving style.