I have a 440 I have pulled from my 78 NYB. I’d like to upgrade the cam has Eldbrock Aluminum intake on it already. Car will be a daily driver and a road trip car. At some point I will install throttle body injection also. Any advice would be appreciated also wanna maintain the stock trans and no stall.
Looking for options on cam upgrade for the 440
- Thread starter Payton
- Start date
The stock '78 440 is not a very good candidate for just a cam upgrade. This is a low compression smog engine and the combustion dynamics of smog engines do not play well with big cams. These engines had a factory comp rating of 8.2-1 but as a practical matter most of them ran closer to 7.8-7.9. You can gain a boost in performance by advancing the cam timing 2-4 degrees. Getting rid of the the lean burn and the EGR valve will also have helped. Most of the smog engines were also single exhaust with log manifolds so converting to duals will also help with either headers or HP exhaust manifolds. You would probably be better off waiting to do a full rebuild of the engine rather than trying to throw parts at it as it is.
If you are putting this engine into a'77-'78 vehicle, you will need to change gear ratios as the stock gear set was designed for economy not performance. The '77-'78 transmissions for the big block ran a low bypass convertor which improved economy but caused the transmission to run hotter. Any type of performance upgrade will make the transmission overheating problem worse.
Good luck.
Dave
75LandYacht
Yank Tank
Great advice Dave, like Payton mentioned above, I plan on Someday giving my 77 440 a little upgrade. These aren’t Hotrods as you all know, but I do want to give it a little more Ummf.. The lien burn has been gone replaced with an 80 1406. And that’s about it. Runs nice but could be better. What upgrades would you recommend? You did mention above about overheating transmissions. I just had mine going through complete front and back with new converter. So I don’t wanna do anything to the engine to upset the trans.. i’m not opposed to going through the engine top to bottom, I just don’t want to overdo or under do it. so with that in mind, what are you thinking? thx. John
The low bypass convertors have tighter tolerances and pass less oil thru the convertor. As a practical matter, that means less oil circulating and it gets hotter as it does so. I would probably add an after market transmission cooler, it will depend on how much additional horsepower you are after. You would want to plan on frequent transmission fluid changes, every 20k or so max use your nose as a guide. If the fluid starts to smell burnt, time for a change. Your driving habits will also effect fluid life. The factory tall gears also put more strain on the transmission, especially to get the car moving, so you might want to consider 3.23 gears. If you are going to rebuild the engine, bumping the comp ratio up to about 9.5 would lend itself to a hotter cam much better than the factory pistons. Putting a bigger cam in a factory smog engine is mostly going to drop fuel mileage thru the floor without a great boost in power. For a street engine, I personally like the '69-'70 HP, TNT or Magnum cam. Most of the time that will run you at about 10-12mpg in mixed city/open road driving. (That would be with a 9.5 comp engine and 3.23 gears) The '77-'78 engines were usually iron cranks with six pack style rods to there is a lot of low end mass, they usually live longer below 5k rpms and you would want to have dampered valve springs for anything much over 4k rpms.
Dave
75LandYacht
Yank Tank
Great info Dave. Appreciate you sir. Good you mentioned the rear gears as I NEED to rebuild mine.. it’s making noises.. that’ll be this Winters project..
Regards
John
In getting more "omph", easily, there are several dynamics at play. One is the existing car weight, which is closer to 5000lbs than the prior 4300lbs. The normal rear axle ratios, for years, were in the 2.76/2.71 range, which when combined with the P235/75R-15 tires, resulted in the car needing about 59mph for engine speed to get past 2000rpms at cruise. That gearing was typical of that era for many other vehicles, too.
Another observed issue was that Chrysler tended to set the modulated/non-WOT upshift speeds a bit low, which got the cars into 3rd sooner for less engine noise and such, especially by 1972 or whenever exhaust emissions began to be measured by "grams/mile" rather than "parts per million" of pollutants. End result was, as on our '72 Newport 400 2bbl, when the trans shifter into 3rd at low/town speeds, all acceleration was "on the converter", so to speak. In smaller towns, you didn't notice this as "bad", but in metro areas with faster traffic, you had to used a goood deal more throttle to stay up with traffic, without resorting to WOT. So, on our '66, I started to do a manual downshift into 2 for on-ramp areas with good results, once you learn the speeds and throttle setting to make things work as the later part-throttle downshift TFs had.
I know the reaction to driving slower can be to "use more throttle sooner", but that might always work well. Reason? The more throttle used, the lower the intake manifold vacuum, naturally. But this also affects the amount of vacuum in the vacuum advance can. More vacuum, off-idle, equals more total (centrifugal and vacuum) in the distributor. More advance, better available non-WOT power and economy. End result, a "1/2 throttle punch" can yield better earlier results than WOT in many cases, especially if the upshift speeds are high enough with that throttle setting/speed.
Which gets back to the transmission upshift speed calibrations. The transmission will/should operate cooler when the torque converter is not in "torque multiplication" mode. As tight at Chrysler's OEM torque converters tended to be (compared to Ford or GM converters), pre-lock-up, going back into about 1962 or earlier, they all had to have 100rpm or so of slippage at road speed, just past of the game. They had the first lock-up converter TFs set to get into "3" at 27mph, which usually put engine rpm at 1000rpm or so afterL By 1980, as on my '80 Newport 360 2bbl, the lock-up speed had been raised to 53mph, which worked much better. But remember that these upshift speeds were what they were due to emissions reasons, more than not, in the 1970s and later.
Part two to follow,
CBODY67
Another observed issue was that Chrysler tended to set the modulated/non-WOT upshift speeds a bit low, which got the cars into 3rd sooner for less engine noise and such, especially by 1972 or whenever exhaust emissions began to be measured by "grams/mile" rather than "parts per million" of pollutants. End result was, as on our '72 Newport 400 2bbl, when the trans shifter into 3rd at low/town speeds, all acceleration was "on the converter", so to speak. In smaller towns, you didn't notice this as "bad", but in metro areas with faster traffic, you had to used a goood deal more throttle to stay up with traffic, without resorting to WOT. So, on our '66, I started to do a manual downshift into 2 for on-ramp areas with good results, once you learn the speeds and throttle setting to make things work as the later part-throttle downshift TFs had.
I know the reaction to driving slower can be to "use more throttle sooner", but that might always work well. Reason? The more throttle used, the lower the intake manifold vacuum, naturally. But this also affects the amount of vacuum in the vacuum advance can. More vacuum, off-idle, equals more total (centrifugal and vacuum) in the distributor. More advance, better available non-WOT power and economy. End result, a "1/2 throttle punch" can yield better earlier results than WOT in many cases, especially if the upshift speeds are high enough with that throttle setting/speed.
Which gets back to the transmission upshift speed calibrations. The transmission will/should operate cooler when the torque converter is not in "torque multiplication" mode. As tight at Chrysler's OEM torque converters tended to be (compared to Ford or GM converters), pre-lock-up, going back into about 1962 or earlier, they all had to have 100rpm or so of slippage at road speed, just past of the game. They had the first lock-up converter TFs set to get into "3" at 27mph, which usually put engine rpm at 1000rpm or so afterL By 1980, as on my '80 Newport 360 2bbl, the lock-up speed had been raised to 53mph, which worked much better. But remember that these upshift speeds were what they were due to emissions reasons, more than not, in the 1970s and later.
Part two to follow,
CBODY67
Part two . . .
Sometimes you can compensate, to a certain extent, for a lower compression ratio with camshaft choice. Main thing would be Assymetrical Lobe Comfiguration. Comp Cams broke with that in the later 1970s on their High Energy (HE) line of cams. "More area under the lift curve" is the result. When I put a 268HE cam in a 440 short block I have to check out the cam's specs, the valves did open quicker, close easier, but the main thing was that the valve stayed at max lift for a full 10 degrees of crank rotation. When I put one of the original Purple Shaft 284/284 cams in it, max lift was only for ONE degree of crank rotation, as I would suspect OEM and other cams were. I believe that Lunati has some ALC cams now, too. End result, the ALC cam should put more air/fuel into the existing space to be compressed and ignited, with less timing duration needed (for the given lift spes), in the process. Complimenting that with a better intake (than OEM) and reduced exhaust restrictions, can then result in a better-flowing/operating "air pump" of an engine. Better throttle response and such should result, too, in theory. And, if you don't "enjoy the situation" too much, better cruise-control-use cruise fuel economy. Using something like 9.5CR should make things even better.
Otherwise, an advance curve something like the 1966 383 2bbl, but possible with the max advance at more like 3800rpm rather than 4200rpm, might work pretty good, too. With the spec's 12.5 degree BTDC base timing, that puts it right at 38degrees BTDC total (centrifugal). With a vacuum advance similar to what that distributor specs, too. I use that as a reference point, though, for what things could be. On the '66 Newport 383 2bbl, I did increase that to 15 degrees BTDC with no problems, but then that car never did like regular fuel, so we always ran premium grade fuel in it.
So, finetuning and driving orientations can finesse things a bit for a "happier car". For general principles, you might also get the car on an analyzer to check the fuel curve at "road load" and wot. Try to adjust the idle mixture to about 13.5 or so, with the 2500rpm no-load mixture hading toward 14.2 with E10 fuels. Those levels might be "lean" to some, but I;m adjusting them down from the prior "stoich" level of 14.7 from back when the cars were new (and gas had LEAD in it for octane enhancement). From there, you can play with the metering rods (in the Carter-style carbs) to ensure good "power" when needed. The basic mixture checks can be done with "a meter", but the road load tests would need a chassis dyno, which many speed shops now seem to have.
Part three to follow,
CBODY67
Sometimes you can compensate, to a certain extent, for a lower compression ratio with camshaft choice. Main thing would be Assymetrical Lobe Comfiguration. Comp Cams broke with that in the later 1970s on their High Energy (HE) line of cams. "More area under the lift curve" is the result. When I put a 268HE cam in a 440 short block I have to check out the cam's specs, the valves did open quicker, close easier, but the main thing was that the valve stayed at max lift for a full 10 degrees of crank rotation. When I put one of the original Purple Shaft 284/284 cams in it, max lift was only for ONE degree of crank rotation, as I would suspect OEM and other cams were. I believe that Lunati has some ALC cams now, too. End result, the ALC cam should put more air/fuel into the existing space to be compressed and ignited, with less timing duration needed (for the given lift spes), in the process. Complimenting that with a better intake (than OEM) and reduced exhaust restrictions, can then result in a better-flowing/operating "air pump" of an engine. Better throttle response and such should result, too, in theory. And, if you don't "enjoy the situation" too much, better cruise-control-use cruise fuel economy. Using something like 9.5CR should make things even better.
Otherwise, an advance curve something like the 1966 383 2bbl, but possible with the max advance at more like 3800rpm rather than 4200rpm, might work pretty good, too. With the spec's 12.5 degree BTDC base timing, that puts it right at 38degrees BTDC total (centrifugal). With a vacuum advance similar to what that distributor specs, too. I use that as a reference point, though, for what things could be. On the '66 Newport 383 2bbl, I did increase that to 15 degrees BTDC with no problems, but then that car never did like regular fuel, so we always ran premium grade fuel in it.
So, finetuning and driving orientations can finesse things a bit for a "happier car". For general principles, you might also get the car on an analyzer to check the fuel curve at "road load" and wot. Try to adjust the idle mixture to about 13.5 or so, with the 2500rpm no-load mixture hading toward 14.2 with E10 fuels. Those levels might be "lean" to some, but I;m adjusting them down from the prior "stoich" level of 14.7 from back when the cars were new (and gas had LEAD in it for octane enhancement). From there, you can play with the metering rods (in the Carter-style carbs) to ensure good "power" when needed. The basic mixture checks can be done with "a meter", but the road load tests would need a chassis dyno, which many speed shops now seem to have.
Part three to follow,
CBODY67
Part three . . . which might be a bit more controversial than the others, but has worked for my on several Chrysler vehicles with zero long-term durability problems. The KEY is "discretion" and not going too far, by observation.
Earlier, I mentioned that my observation has been that Chrysler tended to set their 1-2 and 2-3 modulated shift points a bit too low, for several evolving reasons. If you look in the FSM, for a given tire size/rear axle ratio/car, there is an acceptable range of max upshift speeds. Productrion tolerances, possibly?
When I took the '66 Newport "to college" with me in '72, the TF pwrt-throttle upshift had been out for a while. Chrysler was very late to the PTU game as every GM and Ford automatic was generally using a vacuum modulator to tailor PTUs for their automatics. Those vehicles didn't need WOT to get a downshift, so more performance with less throttle.
I had already perfected my manual 3-2 downshifts for freewas on-ramp activities, which worked pretty good. Especially with older family members in the car, who might say "Slow down" if I'd used WOT in these situations.
When I got to Lubbock, TX, I noticed that when the light turned green, it might have been a drag race rather than not. Even with more throttle, the good-running Chrysler was a traffic "blocker" or sorts. I tried manual shifiting with more throttle, for diagnostics, which helped.
When I came home one weekend, I went by the local Chrysler dealer to consult with the old-line Chrysler service manager for any thoughts he might have. The '66 was completely stock in all respects with factory tuning. His recommendation was to put a bit more pre-load into the kickdown linkage. The factory setting was 2 turns, so I cautiously added another turn, which raised the shift points a few mph. Then I added another turn, total of 4, and the shift points were exactly where they needed to be for me to easily stay up with the fast-moving "drag race" traffic. Leaving it "D" was miuch better than those maniual upshifts!
When I was talking to him, I'd already seen the "Don't mess with the kickdown linkage" dialogues in the car magazines. Certainly, it did need to be "correct", but there were always "ranges" in the various modulated-throttle pressure charts. So, I mentioned what I'd seen and all of the warnings of doom. He replied that that small change was not enough to matter, in those respects.
Similarly, when I'd asked him about "band adjustment", he replied that he'd tried running them loose, running them tight, but as long as there was no slippage, no need to worry about them. They also did the local state highway patrol vehicles in their shop, too, but the general clientel was just "normal people", which might affect some of his long-time observatrions. But, what he told me made sense. If there is no problem, don't worry about it.
When we got the new '72 Newport 400 2bbl, the 2-3 upshift was far too early, but "in spec". Which meant any high-gear acceleration, which didn't trigger the part-throttle system, was "on the converter". Accel/torque multiplication at lower speeds is always better if it is "via 2nd gear" rather than on the converter. Less potential heat, even if it is of shorter duration. Plus, that 2nd gear gave better accceleration, too!
So at the first oil change visit, we tweaked that kickdown adjustment a bit, too, such that things just worked better. Not too much, just enough.
When I got my 1970 DH43N, with about 85K miles on it, same thing. Even with the 3.23 gears, manual upshifts seemed to make things work better, just as with the other cars. So, as I was driving into metro DFW, I cautiously/carefully tweeked that kickdown lot sliding adjustment over time.
ONE orientation emerged . . . get the 2-3 min throttle upshift to occar such that when the upshift was done, engine rpm would be right at 1000rpm. Probably about 300rpm more than the factory setting. The distributor's mechanical advance was starting to happen at that rpm level. There would be vacuum advance happening, too. Which meant the engine was getting ready "to happen" with part-throttle power.
In 1985, I looked up and our dealership had traded for a recemtly-new D150. Red and white, nice looking high-trim-level vehicle, Silverado equivalent. Had the 318 4bbl, with rated power in the ball park with 305 4bbl Silverados of the time. So I asked the used car manager for the keys. As I drove it, it felt doggy, in comparison to the 305 4bbls. Reason? The early upshift speeds. I did some manual upshift testing and the power was there at WOT, but not at part-throttle as it lugged in 3rd many times.
When I got my '80 Newport 360 and had gotten the hard-deposit issue in the idle feed tube problem fixed, it was plagued by the same early upshift syndrome. By this time, Chrysler had moved the kickdown linkage adjustment location to "under the firewall", as if they were seeking to discourage any adjustments. But I did find a very easy solution and one that could be easily reversed. A thinner black wire tie,, placed at the lower rear of the slot in the kickdown rod, so it contacted the carb's linkage stud. Probably about the same width of those two additional threads of the '66s kickdown rod adjustment? Worked like a charm!
To be sure, ANY changes to upshift speeds probably should be addressed with the governor set-up inside the transmission. If higher upshift speeds are desired, a different assembly/weights/springs combination can be used. B&M marketed some kits like that, back in the '70s. But, to me, changing those things was more in the realm of a trans shop rather than a hobby person, at THAT time, to me, although many who knew what they were doing could do it.
In my case, I knew I could do manual upshifts at WOT with no problem, it was the lower-speed part-throttle upshifts, daily driving, that I was seeking to help a bit. Then, after talking the local Chrysler dealership service manager, with him saying he'd done that pre-load deal on his own '67 Newport, I had the approval to move cautiously in this area, getting just enough rather than too much, determined by how the engine acted and the car felt.
End result in all cases, a happier car that was more fun to drive. More acceleration with less throttle, which means "better operating efficiency" to me.
As always, these are MY experiences. Proceed at your own risk! IF it might work for you, put things back like they were immediately! Consider any changes to be "a test", from which you can determine to extend it or terminate it, in the short term rather than the long term.
IF you might not agree with what I've mentioned (my own experiences), I respect that.
Thanks for your time,
CBODY67
Earlier, I mentioned that my observation has been that Chrysler tended to set their 1-2 and 2-3 modulated shift points a bit too low, for several evolving reasons. If you look in the FSM, for a given tire size/rear axle ratio/car, there is an acceptable range of max upshift speeds. Productrion tolerances, possibly?
When I took the '66 Newport "to college" with me in '72, the TF pwrt-throttle upshift had been out for a while. Chrysler was very late to the PTU game as every GM and Ford automatic was generally using a vacuum modulator to tailor PTUs for their automatics. Those vehicles didn't need WOT to get a downshift, so more performance with less throttle.
I had already perfected my manual 3-2 downshifts for freewas on-ramp activities, which worked pretty good. Especially with older family members in the car, who might say "Slow down" if I'd used WOT in these situations.
When I got to Lubbock, TX, I noticed that when the light turned green, it might have been a drag race rather than not. Even with more throttle, the good-running Chrysler was a traffic "blocker" or sorts. I tried manual shifiting with more throttle, for diagnostics, which helped.
When I came home one weekend, I went by the local Chrysler dealer to consult with the old-line Chrysler service manager for any thoughts he might have. The '66 was completely stock in all respects with factory tuning. His recommendation was to put a bit more pre-load into the kickdown linkage. The factory setting was 2 turns, so I cautiously added another turn, which raised the shift points a few mph. Then I added another turn, total of 4, and the shift points were exactly where they needed to be for me to easily stay up with the fast-moving "drag race" traffic. Leaving it "D" was miuch better than those maniual upshifts!
When I was talking to him, I'd already seen the "Don't mess with the kickdown linkage" dialogues in the car magazines. Certainly, it did need to be "correct", but there were always "ranges" in the various modulated-throttle pressure charts. So, I mentioned what I'd seen and all of the warnings of doom. He replied that that small change was not enough to matter, in those respects.
Similarly, when I'd asked him about "band adjustment", he replied that he'd tried running them loose, running them tight, but as long as there was no slippage, no need to worry about them. They also did the local state highway patrol vehicles in their shop, too, but the general clientel was just "normal people", which might affect some of his long-time observatrions. But, what he told me made sense. If there is no problem, don't worry about it.
When we got the new '72 Newport 400 2bbl, the 2-3 upshift was far too early, but "in spec". Which meant any high-gear acceleration, which didn't trigger the part-throttle system, was "on the converter". Accel/torque multiplication at lower speeds is always better if it is "via 2nd gear" rather than on the converter. Less potential heat, even if it is of shorter duration. Plus, that 2nd gear gave better accceleration, too!
So at the first oil change visit, we tweaked that kickdown adjustment a bit, too, such that things just worked better. Not too much, just enough.
When I got my 1970 DH43N, with about 85K miles on it, same thing. Even with the 3.23 gears, manual upshifts seemed to make things work better, just as with the other cars. So, as I was driving into metro DFW, I cautiously/carefully tweeked that kickdown lot sliding adjustment over time.
ONE orientation emerged . . . get the 2-3 min throttle upshift to occar such that when the upshift was done, engine rpm would be right at 1000rpm. Probably about 300rpm more than the factory setting. The distributor's mechanical advance was starting to happen at that rpm level. There would be vacuum advance happening, too. Which meant the engine was getting ready "to happen" with part-throttle power.
In 1985, I looked up and our dealership had traded for a recemtly-new D150. Red and white, nice looking high-trim-level vehicle, Silverado equivalent. Had the 318 4bbl, with rated power in the ball park with 305 4bbl Silverados of the time. So I asked the used car manager for the keys. As I drove it, it felt doggy, in comparison to the 305 4bbls. Reason? The early upshift speeds. I did some manual upshift testing and the power was there at WOT, but not at part-throttle as it lugged in 3rd many times.
When I got my '80 Newport 360 and had gotten the hard-deposit issue in the idle feed tube problem fixed, it was plagued by the same early upshift syndrome. By this time, Chrysler had moved the kickdown linkage adjustment location to "under the firewall", as if they were seeking to discourage any adjustments. But I did find a very easy solution and one that could be easily reversed. A thinner black wire tie,, placed at the lower rear of the slot in the kickdown rod, so it contacted the carb's linkage stud. Probably about the same width of those two additional threads of the '66s kickdown rod adjustment? Worked like a charm!
To be sure, ANY changes to upshift speeds probably should be addressed with the governor set-up inside the transmission. If higher upshift speeds are desired, a different assembly/weights/springs combination can be used. B&M marketed some kits like that, back in the '70s. But, to me, changing those things was more in the realm of a trans shop rather than a hobby person, at THAT time, to me, although many who knew what they were doing could do it.
In my case, I knew I could do manual upshifts at WOT with no problem, it was the lower-speed part-throttle upshifts, daily driving, that I was seeking to help a bit. Then, after talking the local Chrysler dealership service manager, with him saying he'd done that pre-load deal on his own '67 Newport, I had the approval to move cautiously in this area, getting just enough rather than too much, determined by how the engine acted and the car felt.
End result in all cases, a happier car that was more fun to drive. More acceleration with less throttle, which means "better operating efficiency" to me.
As always, these are MY experiences. Proceed at your own risk! IF it might work for you, put things back like they were immediately! Consider any changes to be "a test", from which you can determine to extend it or terminate it, in the short term rather than the long term.
IF you might not agree with what I've mentioned (my own experiences), I respect that.
Thanks for your time,
CBODY67
Similar threads
