mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re:Piper Cam was: Chrome vs. Rubber

To: "Ken Roach" <ken.roach@sk.sympatico.ca>,
Subject: Re: Re:Piper Cam was: Chrome vs. Rubber
From: "Lawrie Alexander" <Lawrie@britcars.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 18:50:50 -0800
Just for comparison purposes, my partner put this cam in his '78 B engine
(which is otherwise stock and has all required California emissions
equipment). There were no problems with valve-to-head clearance. There is a
problem (if you consider it such) with much more valve noise; he's adjusted
them to both the suggested clearances and to tighter clearances, but the
engine still sounds like a threshing machine. As to performance, there's a
bit more mid-range than with a stock cam but nothing to get excited about.

Lawrie
British Sportscar Center

----------
> From: Ken Roach <ken.roach@sk.sympatico.ca>
> To: Chris Delling <saschris@flash.net>; mgs@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re:Piper Cam  was: Chrome vs. Rubber
> Date: Thursday, January 01, 1998 1:25 PM

> Chris,
> I would be interested hearing your experiences with this cam.  I have
> been thinking of using the Piper 270 in my rebuild, but I am
> considered about tractability.  Will this cam idle at 1000rpm or
> below?  Did you have any problems with clearance to the valve cut-outs
> in the block?  Some mag. articles have suggested that you have to
> grind these cut outs to provide clearance with a higher lift cam while
> others seem to ignore this point.  I would appreciate opinions from
> other listers who are using this cam as well.
> 
> Thanx,
> Ken Roach
> "74B

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>