isky 262H cam

[1967JMG]

anyone have any experience with this(isky 262H) vs the 264H from CI?
Looking to making something that has decent torque but still get good gas mileage... And probably a trip to the Florida keys in the summer(about 900 miles round trip)...

 

[falcon1963]

The isky will give you more low end & midrange, but the ci cam might produce ???? a little more top end.
The isky requires stronger springs than the ci cam, so i would guess the isky has a faster rate of lift.
For regular street driving the isky would be the better choice, with a cam with this short duration. :

 

[rbohm]

The isky will give you more low end & midrange, but the ci cam might produce ???? a little more top end.
The isky requires stronger springs than the ci cam, so i would guess the isky has a faster rate of lift.
For regular street driving the isky would be the better choice, with a cam with this short duration. :

8) actually its the other way around according to the manufacturers. the isky cam works in the 2000-5500 rpm range where as the CI cam works in the 1400-5000 or the 1600-5200 rpm range depending on which lobe separation angle you choose. check these links out;

http://www.iskycams.com/onlinecatalog.html
http://classicinlines.com/products.asp?cat=115

the CI cam is the better street cam.

 

[1967JMG]

thats what i thought. but is that taking into account the 4 degrees advance recommended for the CI cam? Im sure 4 degrees advance on the isky cam would put it in the same range, would it not?

 

[wallaka]

All I know is that the CI cams have a much more modern grind than the Isky stuff, more area under the curve, etc. Should be better all-around.

 

[falcon1963]

What kind of carburetion do you have on your 67 mustang????
What year cylinder head do you have & what is your static compression??
The isky cam has 262 advertised duration, 208 @ .050. with a 109 L/C
The ci cam has 264 advertised 214 @ .050.
Depending on your carburetion the choice is yours.
Comp cams xtreme energy cam is the most modern design with more area under the curve than the other cams. Your choice depending on what your engine specs are.

 

[1967JMG]

Autolite 2100, 9:1 CR, OZ 250 head. The 2 cams for CI I am looking at and trying to compare the isky cam to are the 264 110 and the 264/274 110(which ive read is recommended with the OZ head). Im get extremely good gas mileage at the moment and just dont want to sacrifice too much. Im trying to get the best of both worlds here with just a tad bit more emphasis on the performance end :mrgreen:

 

[CobraSix]

I went with a Comp Cam's 260H.

It is almost a stock profile, just with .1 more lift.

Idle is still smooth, with a very minor lope to the note. no noticeable difference on mileage other that the fact the car breaths so much better.

 

[falcon1963]

Since you only have 9:1 compression, the isky will be a better choice than the comp 260 for increased street performance but still retain decent fuel mileage.
If you just want more performance go with the ci 264-274.
If you want still want more performance go with schneider cams or one of comp cams xtreme energy camshafts, but you will need stronger valve springs to handle the more aggressive profile.

 

[1967JMG]

what if instead of the oz head this was for a CI aluminum one?

 

[rbohm]

what if instead of the oz head this was for a CI aluminum one?

8) it doesnt really matter. the cam is the heart of the engine, the head is the lungs. the better you can breath, the more power you are going to make. the cam profile determines where that power is made.

 

[CobraSix]

Since you only have 9:1 compression, the isky will be a better choice than the comp 260 for increased street performance but still retain decent fuel mileage.
If you just want more performance go with the ci 264-274.
If you want still want more performance go with schneider cams or one of comp cams xtreme energy camshafts, but you will need stronger valve springs to handle the more aggressive profile.

I'm curious as to how the compression ratio will make one cam better than another? (I'm not being sarcastic, cam theory is one of my weak areas).

 

[wallaka]

The higher your static compression, the more overlap you need to bleed off excessive peak pressure. This helps prevent detonation, but lowers torque. You have to rev higher and have more duration/lift to compensate, making more horsepower than a smaller cam would. With lower static, you can run a smaller duration/lift, low or no overlap cam to gain much more low-end torque. It will suffer at higher rpms.

 

[rocklord]

Isn't it the other way around; the more overlap you have that bleeds off excessive peak pressure, the higher your static compression needs to be to maximize the performance benefits of the cam?

 

[rbohm]

Isn't it the other way around; the more overlap you have that bleeds off excessive peak pressure, the higher your static compression needs to be to maximize the performance benefits of the cam?

8) at higher rpms. when building a street engine, you need to be aware that when you reduce valve overlap, you increase dynamic compression, and that can lead to detonation if cylinder pressures go too high.

 

[wallaka]

Isn't it the other way around; the more overlap you have that bleeds off excessive peak pressure, the higher your static compression needs to be to maximize the performance benefits of the cam?

Whichever. Most people pick the target compression ratio first since it's not easily changed and pick a cam to match. Either way, it works out the same.

 

[CobraSix]

And how with force compression affect this?

 

[wallaka]

And how with force compression affect this?

??

Forced induction? In that case, you want no overlap or the pressure will blow the intake charge out of the open exhaust. High lift, sure, but not as much duration and more LSA. Turbo and superchargers like different profiles for the exhaust, but they are more alike than different.