I know someone here can answer this. What was the first use of the 097 cam, and was there a GM performance cam before that? If so, what were the specs of it? Thanks, Gene.
The 097 Duntov cam came out in '57. Before that the 077 cam was used for hi perf applications. I'm not positive about the specs, but I believe duration was the same, but the 097 had more lift than the 077 cam.
The 097 Duntov camshaft was introduced with the 283 V8 for the year 1957. It is recognized as being the first high performance camshaft from Chevrolet. I installed a NOS 097 in the '57 283 that's in my '55 Delray. Considered now as a mild performance camshaft but based on the lobe separation has a great sounding idle. I carefully degreed it when I assembled the short block and it has surprising amount of off idle performance. I tightened up the valve lash to slightly increase the duration. As a 80 year old Chevy engine builder it brings back great memories of the '60s.
Valve Lift .395/.401 Advertised Duration 287/287 Duration At .050" Lift 228/230 Lash setting 0.012" intake and 0.018" exhaust per the internet.
I'll suggest the L79/327 grind, hydraulic, great cam for a street 283...... no lash adjusting. I think many of the major cam mfgs have been reproducing them for many years.
There was also the little known ‘077 cam introduced in 1956 for the dual quad Special Performance 265. I’ve never seen the specs for it, other than the mention that it shared the same timing events as the ‘097 but the lift was reduced a bit. Duntov designed both of them, but contrary to popular lore he did not design the 30-30 cam. Not the best photos, but that’s all I could find. Edit- Maybe I wasn’t clear, I meant to say that the lift was reduced on the ‘097.
My favorite was the 30/30 valve clearance solid lift . I can remember buying cam and lifters 45.00 , over the counter . I think it was a 327 365 HP cam , just can’t remember . It’s a monster compared to the 097 cam .
Dave, you're right on the money my friend! The 30/30 cam is a whole different animal than a 12/18 Duntov cam. The 30/30 was the best logical upgrade for an L79. A great cam for the bigger cubic inch street engines. There was a reason that Chevy made those cams... because they worked! That goes for the Duntov AND the 30/30. The difference was technology and a sign of the times. Even in the Z28's, the 30/30 was a proven performer. My only pet peeve is that people call out Duntov and 30/30 as the same cam. They're NOT! There's no such thing as a Duntov 30/30 cam!!!
Now this is definitely not a recommendation. In 73 I had a 67 SS 396 Chevelle. It had been a drag car for its whole life, only had a little over 2000 miles on it, all 1/4 mile at a time. It was on its 4th engine, a junkyard dog 396 2 barrel engine that the owner stuck in it to sell it. I had a 62 CJ 5 that I had stuffed a small block into, and we made a deal, my CJ and $200 for the Chevelle. The body and interior were almost perfect, only a bit of wear on the clutch pedal. Being the genius that any 19 year old is, I pulled out the big block and put in a small journal 327 I had assembled starting with a 327-365 horse fitted block. Used a crank from Stahl and Associates, high performance small journal rods, Z28 oil pan with the windage tray, pump and pickup. Cloyes True Roller timing set, 492 angle plug heads with all new valves, springs, retainers, rockers push rods, and the only non stock parts were the valve seals. I had the heads machined for the Perfect Circle seals. The intake was the original Edelbrock Tarantula TM1 with a 750 Holley double pumper. Ignition was a dual point Corvette distributor without vacuum advance, and with the mechanical tach drive, which never was used on that car. Hooker Super something or other headers with 2.5 inch dual exhaust to the back bumper. Now for the cam… I used Chevy’s non road cam last 3 numbers 754! And matching lifters. The springs were mentioned above, but were actually Isky as recommended for that cam. That engine was good to 8200 rpm, but so soggy below 3500 or so. The rear gears were 4.10 in a 12 bolt and the transmission was an M22 close ratio with 2.20 low gear. So no surprise that it was soggy. But bring the revs up to 5k, side step the clutch and hang on! And mileage, let’s say it fit the saying, the only thing that it couldn’t pass was a gas station! Btw, we used copies of that cam in quite a few dirt engines, for the limited or sportsman class engines. Those engines were restricted to 318 ci, so 302 0.030 over typically. They worked good at Lebanon Valley, long straights and tight turns. You needed an engine that could come off the corners between 3500-4000 and pull to 8000 or more. We put that distributor in once and a tattle tale tach. Took it out right after the first heat race as we saw over 9000 rpm on the tattle tale. We really didn’t want to know after that….
Back long ago in the '60s; I built a little 272" Chevy with a Crane "blueprint" version of that '56 2x4 cam seemed pretty snappy in a T bucket.
The 754 cam was the was the biggest cam you could get for a small block with standard lifters, also known as the 2nd design "off road special" cam. The only one bigger was the mushroom tappet cam. I'll be damned if I can remember the part number, but I know it only had a 6 digit part number vs. a 7 digit part number like the rest of the hi-po cams.
I knew a guy who, against my (and everyone else's) advice, put that cam in a '71 Malibu 350 with a TH350 transmission. A kid on a 10 speed bike could beat it from 0-40.
I made this tool to clearance the block for Chevy mushroom lifters when a friend bought the 366293 cam. The cutter is 1” and the shank was ground to .840 to pilot in the lifter bores. A large 1/2” drill was used and cutting cast iron to a shallow depth it worked easily. The cutter is a back facer, you put the tool in the lubed up lifter bore, slip the 1” cutter on and give it an 1/8 of a turn to lock it on. Doubtful if this will happen but it’s available if someone should have the need.
I read the words “mushroom lifters” earlier today. Would they have been similar to Ford’s Y Block lifters?
Chevy lifters are .842 and the face of the SBC mushroom lifters was .970. The Chevy lifters have a totally different look than the Y-block lifters.
The big end “mushroom” rides on the cam correct? Has to be installed from the cam side correct? If yes to both, that would qualify as “simular” to a Y Block, no?
Correct. The best reason I might have for Ford’s decision to use the mushroom lifter that the Y-block had was cost savings. They had a one piece lifter that cost less to manufacture, but then again rocker arms that needed adjusters. Eventually drivers came to appreciate the convenience of hydraulic lifters.
Our rules at the time didn’t allow the mushroom lifters, or roller cams in the sportsman class. That changed in 78 when the rules changed and allowed roller cams, and magnetos in the 320 modified class. Notice the wording changed from sportsman to 320 modified…
I’ve used the 097, the L79, and a 30-30 all in 283’s. Personally I liked the way a solid lifter cam sounded when you are standing beside the car especially with cast iron exhaust manifolds. Today when I get to hear a restored 270 hp 283’s or 365 hp 327’s they bring back “good” memories. Neither have the big rump-rump of what cams are being used today and the engines have steady idle that doesn’t tear up motor mounts but you know has power. I’m also not a fan of 5-600 hp of sound-alike big blocks with 3” exhaust dumping under a car where you can’t hear yourself think or let alone ride in very long… I guess I’m an antique now too.
Which is why the 56 won’t be getting one along with other factors that a cam with that duration requires attending to. Carina want’s the Hot Rod sound and thinks a cam swap is all thats needed.
Probably because they didn't want to sell a car to the public with a torque convertor that has a stall speed that would be needed for that kind of a cam; not that they were available when that cam was released... That doesn't mean they aren't available today and in thousands of cars out there. Ever hear of a dump valve?
The Jalopy Journal
