CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 30, 2014, 12:22:52 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
102490 Posts in 12091 Topics by 4669 Members
Latest Member: paulmanta
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  Restoration
| | |-+  3030 duntov camshaft
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [All] Print
Author Topic: 3030 duntov camshaft  (Read 18523 times)
69er
Member
***
Posts: 30


View Profile
« on: April 08, 2007, 04:05:13 PM »

Jerry,

I noted an original 1969 z28 3030 camshaft sell on ebay without the lifters for several hundred dollars.
I also found that GM performance parts sell the 3030 camshaft manufactured through crane camshafts.
They list the cam as having the same specification with the addition of being blueprinted. The cam
comes in a kit with the solid lifters. Is this a good replacement for a worn original camshaft or should the
restorer try to buy an original camsaft?

69er
Logged
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2007, 05:55:15 PM »

In my opinion it should be better than the original.
Logged
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2007, 06:03:10 PM »

Yes, the new blue printed cams are much better.  We did have two of the Crane cams wipe on us about six years ago.  Must have been a bad batch of cores or the parkerizing was bad.  We've been using the Comp Cams version of the 30-30 now.  Haven't had one fail during break in since.  Make sure you use a bottle of EOS with your engine break in.  Very important.

Good luck, 

Jerry
Logged
sam
Member
***
Posts: 232


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2007, 09:40:40 PM »

Jerry, Have you seen better performance in the Comp Cams then you did in the Crane version of the 30/30 or about the same?  Thanks!
Logged
1968RallySport
Newbie
*
Posts: 12


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2007, 10:47:34 PM »

Jerry is right about using the EOS. I'm using the crane version. The first one I didn't use EOS & the cam went flat right away. BTW the crane version seems to make lots of power Smiley

Daryl
Logged
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2007, 09:28:26 AM »

Anybody have a part number for that 30/30 Comp Cam?
Logged
69er
Member
***
Posts: 30


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2007, 03:27:11 PM »

I'm not sure if it's a comp camshaft or crane camshaft. But, it's sold through GM performance parts.

Here are the part numbes.
12364052 blueprinted replacement for factory part number 3849346 (mechanical camshaft)
12364054 blueprinted replacement for factory part number 3972182 (mechanical camshaft)

So, Jerry would this camshaft be acceptable for a restoration of a 1969 z28?

69er

Logged
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2007, 06:28:27 PM »

I'm pretty sure those are Crane cam numbers. 
Logged
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4048


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2007, 09:50:27 AM »

I'm pretty sure those are Crane cam numbers. 

Those are GM part numbers for the Crane-manufactured blueprint versions of the "30-30" and LT-1 cams (they're "kits" - cam and lifters). The Crane number for the "30-30" cam only is 967251, and for the LT-1 cam only it's 969551.
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2007, 04:27:06 PM »

I looked through all the comp cams and I am not sure which one is comparable to the 30/30.
Logged
Flowjoe
Member
***
Posts: 340


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2007, 05:07:38 PM »

I looked at Comp cams when getting a cam for my '70 LT-1 (ended up with the Crane manufactured GM kit...thanks JohnZ)

the following is from the comp cams  online catalog:
NOSTALGIA PLUSTM    Hydraulic Flat Tappet Camshafts

HYDRAULIC-Sound of GM 300 hp camshaft with improved power and response.    Hyd. Hyd. 1000 to 5500 12-670-4 N+300HP 258 265 211 218 .426 .420 112o

HYDRAULIC-Sound and character of the ever popular GM L79 cam with modern power.  Hyd. Hyd. 1800 to 6200 12-671-4 N+L79H 276 283 229 236 .468 .462 112o
 
HYDRAULIC-Exhaust note of GM 30-30 cam with increased performance.  Hyd. Hyd. 2300 to 6500 12-672-4 N+30-30H 286 293 239 246 .483 .477 112o
 
FACTORY MUSCLETM Hydraulic Flat Tappet Camshafts (Today’s OEM Versions Of Yesterday’s Muscle Car Cams)

HYDRAULIC-Factory I.D.# 3896929 for,   Hyd. Hyd. 600 to 4800 12-105-3 929H 319 320 195 202 .390 .410 112°
327 c.i.,1965-68,factory 275/300 hp
350 c.i.,1967-69,factory 295 hp
350 c.i.,1970,factory 300 hp
350 c.i.,1971,factory 270 hp
350 c.i.,1972,factory 200 hp


HYDRAULIC-Factory I.D.# 3863151 for,   Hyd. Hyd. 1800 to 5800 12-106-3 151H 342 342 222 222 .447 .447 114o
327 c.i.,1965-68,Factory 350 hp
327 c.i.,1967-68,Factory 325 hp

NOSTALGIA PLUSTM    Mechanical Flat Tappet Camshaft

SOLID-Outstanding power & modern tight    .012.0122300 to 6900 12-673-4 N+30-30S 284 291 247 254 .504 .498 112°
lash with the exhaust note of the
GM 30-30 cam

FACTORY MUSCLETM Mechanical Flat Tappet Camshaft (Today’s OEM Versions Of Yesterday’s Muscle Car Cams)

SOLID-Factory I.D.# 3849346,for,         .024.0242800 to 6800 12-107-3 346S 346 346 254 254 .485 .485 114°
302 c.i.,1967-69 Z28,factory 290 hp
327 c.i.,1964-65,factory 365/275 hp
350 c.i.,1970-71 LT1,factory 370 hp



I never found a direct cross over for the LT-1 cam.   Crane was the only manufacturer that I found with specs that, on paper, look like original GM specs. 

FWIW, I've had a  crane blue print "140" cam in my '69 Z since I rebuilt the engine in '85.  Still runs great (knock on wood).




Logged
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2007, 06:24:32 PM »

Looks like I might just go with the Crane then...everyone seems to like it.  Thanks.
Logged
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: April 11, 2007, 09:31:27 PM »

I'll get you the cam card for the Comp Cam version.

JM
Logged
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2007, 07:08:21 AM »

Thanks!
Logged
69er
Member
***
Posts: 30


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2007, 02:37:25 PM »

Why would someone pay up to $500.00 for what is being represented as an original
factory 3030 camshaft when they could by a replacement that is better and cost
under $200.00 with the lifters?

69er
Logged
68Zproject
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1615



View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2007, 05:52:38 PM »

That's the lure of Ebay. "Original", "NOS","rare", "Z28, Yenko, Baldwin" etc.  A guy was selling an 021 flywheel and said "super rare part".
Logged

68Z28
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2007, 07:24:01 AM »

I'm still looking for that Comp Cam part# if anyone has it.
Logged
olympic69
Member
***
Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2007, 12:52:41 PM »

I'm still looking for that Comp Cam part# if anyone has it.

12-107-3 or 346S ( same cam),
Note that they also have a modernized version, 12-673-4 or N+ 30-30s , which I am considering, and I think at least one here is running. This is on P 146 of the cat.

Rob

Logged

Rob
Olympic Gold X33

"Its all crazy..."
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2007, 07:37:55 PM »

What the difference in the modernized version?  Thanks!
Logged
olympic69
Member
***
Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2007, 09:17:21 PM »

What the difference in the modernized version?  Thanks!

It is on a 112 deg LSA vs 114 for the Fact Cam. Also has a little more lift, and an asymetrical lift and timing profile- which hopefully would indicate that they took the old Z28 Cam and improved upon its engineering, which is what DeskTop Dyno shows. I think it is Neal B who is running this cam- perhaps he or others can chime in. CC's description states " outstading power & and modern tight lash with the exhaust note of the GM 30-30 cam." I cant imagine that some improvements in valve event timing could not have been made over the years, without compromising ( but rather inhancing) the performance of a naturally cool 302. And, for the record, many have said they (CC) recommend the 282S grind for a quality replacement of the OEM 30-30. 
Logged

Rob
Olympic Gold X33

"Its all crazy..."
68Zproject
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1615



View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2007, 09:34:40 PM »

I'm looking for something for my engine which doesn't have a cam in it yet.  All stock 302 parts.  Anyone (maybe Jerry) have an opinion over all these cams described above?  Does any one stand out or is it just personal preference.  And what would be the difference performance-wise in these last three? (346s, 346s modern, and 282s)
Logged

68Z28
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2007, 09:47:12 PM »

You've talked me into the modernized version of the 30-30 cam...I see Summit will have some in May...I think I will order one.  Thanks!
Logged
olympic69
Member
***
Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2007, 11:08:34 PM »

If you do a search over at Camaros.net, and here, this has been much discussed! What I will offer is my observations from having studied this a little over the years...if you do run the factort Z cam, follow the lash instructions developed by members here and published as a Tech report. Get your distributor set up by Jerry MacNeish to run with your 302- I have done this and also sent him my 4053 Carb for overhaul. Do a search here and at Camaros.net for "302", and look for building and tune up hints- there are a good many. Finally, the 282S Comp Cam would lower the peak HP RPM, and perhaps change the character of the 302 by making it less "irritable", which is something I am not necessarily wanting to do! It has been '84 since my car was running, so all I can do is recall others experiences.

The threads and associated discussions with pdq67 are priceless- he IS the small motor advocate- you can search his Sig for topics.

Good luck-   

I'm looking for something for my engine which doesn't have a cam in it yet.  All stock 302 parts.  Anyone (maybe Jerry) have an opinion over all these cams described above?  Does any one stand out or is it just personal preference.  And what would be the difference performance-wise in these last three? (346s, 346s modern, and 282s)
« Last Edit: April 22, 2007, 11:59:54 PM by olympic69 » Logged

Rob
Olympic Gold X33

"Its all crazy..."
Flowjoe
Member
***
Posts: 340


View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2007, 02:10:08 AM »

I'm still looking for that Comp Cam part# if anyone has it.

It's in my post on the 10th of April on this thread...specs and part numbers right from Comps website...you can compare and contrast to your hearts content.

For what it's worth...The old cam profiles may have faults by modern standards but f we wanted modern we'd be buying new cars and not rebuilding old cars.  The old cams, warts and all help give the cars their character -  Who wants an odd ball (and unique and storied) engine like the old 302 if it behaves like a modern 5.0?
Logged
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2007, 09:33:32 AM »

You guys have me going back and fourth...maybe you are correct, I might should stick with the original type...it won't be a daily driver anyway. 
Logged
olympic69
Member
***
Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2007, 01:41:13 PM »

I'm still looking for that Comp Cam part# if anyone has it.

It's in my post on the 10th of April on this thread...specs and part numbers right from Comps website...you can compare and contrast to your hearts content.

For what it's worth...The old cam profiles may have faults by modern standards but f we wanted modern we'd be buying new cars and not rebuilding old cars.  The old cams, warts and all help give the cars their character -  Who wants an odd ball (and unique and storied) engine like the old 302 if it behaves like a modern 5.0?

I figured Gambitt missed it, so I just reposted the Info which I had incidentally just been looking at on the CC website. I guess everyone has a line they dont want to cross- but I figure on using stainless valves, bronze guides,studs and guidplates, non-leaded non- high octane fuel, Etc., my heads are ported 186's and I am useing headers- so as they say you cant go home, so to me looking at tweaking the Cam profile a bit is in order- but to each his own, I certainly respect that. The bottom line IMO, if you use the factory cam in the 302 ( or any worthwhile cam for that matter), have the guts to drive it like it was meant to be driven- nothing worse than a 302 being granny shifted at 5500 RPM...

Cheers-
Logged

Rob
Olympic Gold X33

"Its all crazy..."
1968RSZ28
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4661



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2007, 06:07:01 PM »

Anybody have a part number for that 30/30 Comp Cam?

Gambitt -

Jerry says the Comp 030-030 camshaft part number is 12-107-3.

Paul
Logged
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2007, 06:55:53 PM »

Thanks!
Logged
olympic69
Member
***
Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2007, 12:06:34 PM »

Thanks!

What did you end up doing???
Logged

Rob
Olympic Gold X33

"Its all crazy..."
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2007, 10:58:59 PM »

I called summit and ordered the Comp cam.  I went with the original type.  They don't actually keep it in stock, but they can still get it.  I still don't have my engine together yet...I lack the rockers and pushrods...and I think that is it.  Might get it running this winter and set it in the car next spring.
Logged
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2007, 08:43:52 AM »

The Manley #43140 rockers are perfect for your engine if you don't have the "O" rockers.  They are almost as strong and look identical except for an "M" on the rocker where the "O" would be.  The slot is longer too.  It's a good part.  Only failure that I had was taking them over 8200 rpm, and for the most part they work well just about all of the time.  I break about one a season which is a good average.  A show car will never hurt them.

Jerry
Logged
Gambitt
Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2007, 07:37:37 PM »

I think I will go with a stainless steel roller rocker...just for the fact they are a little easier to adjust.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.1 seconds with 17 queries.