seat pressure on an Isky 77-b cam

[4tford]

Hi All, what is the seat pressure on a 77-b cam. Thanks Bill

[Pete]

60 is plenty.

[40cpe]

seem as if I remember Ol' Ron saying that a 77B is a waste of money because it is so near a stock cam. I also THINK I remember that rumble seat used a 77B in his '34 roadster engine and everyone commented on how strong his engine was. Of course, I think it was about 286 ci.

What are the strengths of 77B?

[4tford]

Thanks Pete, I have ridden in Rumbleseat's roadster and yes it really did get up and go. This engine I am building is a 276.

[JWL]

I have a 77B in my car and sure wish it was in the car of a stranger. I installed LZ springs at 50 lbs. The only positive comment I can make is that it doesn't grind up the lobes or the lifters like the 400 jr.

In fairness to Isky, I will mention that my cam is a fake and that might explain why the timing is all over the chart. Some of the closing points are 15 degrees different than others.

[Ol' Ron]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

I don't run any more than 50 lbs on the street cams like the L-100, Max #1, 1007B. and a few others I can't remember. The 77b is a decent cam and produces allot of low end torque. However so does the stock EAB cam and you don't have to spend 240 dollars for it. I put over 2000 miles in Pauls roadster and it was one of the finest running engines I ever road in. Colorado has a few hill in it and I think we went up all of them with out a problem. Yes it was a 286 ci.

[4tford]

The cam I have is a new ISKY that I got for $150 at an estate sale.

[Russ/40]

I ran the 77B in my '40 for several months, and I was disappointed. It's essentially a stock cam. Perhaps with more cubes, it would have been better, but I had it in a '40 block at std 239". It didn't run any better than the 53 Merc cam I had in my '49. It idled very well and ran OK, but I wouldn't pay for one again.

[shoe box Jack]

I have a 77-B in the 49 with 260 cu. The cam works real good with good idle lots of torque and decent on gas. Jack.

[Russ/40]

Originally Posted by Russ/40

I ran the 77B in my '40 for several months, and I was disappointed. It's essentially a stock cam. Perhaps with more cubes, it would have been better, but I had it in a '40 block at std 239". It didn't run any better than the 53 Merc cam I had in my '49. It idled very well and ran OK, but I wouldn't pay for one again.

Oh, and as to spring pressure, no more than a stock cam.

[Kube]

Originally Posted by Russ/40

I ran the 77B in my '40 for several months, and I was disappointed. It's essentially a stock cam. Perhaps with more cubes, it would have been better, but I had it in a '40 block at std 239". It didn't run any better than the 53 Merc cam I had in my '49. It idled very well and ran OK, but I wouldn't pay for one again.

Um, a standard bore '40 Ford block is 221 cubes...

[Russ/40]

Originally Posted by Kube

Um, a standard bore '40 Ford block is 221 cubes...

Not when you pull the sleeves and bore for 239 std pistons.

Your right, it would have been 221. When was the last time you saw a '40 block at std? Too expensive to do all sleeves.

[Kube]

Originally Posted by Russ/40

Not when you pull the sleeves and bore for 239 std pistons.

Your right, it would have been 221. When was the last time you saw a '40 block at std? Too expensive to do all sleeves.

Your post said a standard '40 block. If you pulled the sleeves, it is no longer a standard '40 block.
Just sayin'...

[Russ/40]

Whatever, my point was it's not oversize from 239.

[Kube]

Originally Posted by Russ/40

Whatever, my point was it's not oversize from 239.

I figured guys should know (accurately) as there seems to be some difference in performance of this cam based on cubic inches. there is obviously a big difference in 221 vs. 239. Sorry I got your undies in a bundle...

[Mike B]

Originally Posted by Kube

Your post said a standard '40 block. If you pulled the sleeves, it is no longer a standard '40 block.
Just sayin'...

Well, if ya picking nits...

He didn't say "standard '40 block"

He did say "'40 block at Standard 239", which I took as 239, not 239 +.030.

So, see, we all interpret things differently, and I'm sure Russ knows what he has and what he meant

[Kube]

Originally Posted by Mike B

Well, if ya picking nits...

He didn't say "standard '40 block"

He did say "'40 block at Standard 239", which I took as 239, not 239 +.030.

So, see, we all interpret things differently, and I'm sure Russ knows what he has and what he meant

I see how that could be read that way. However, I thought it important that the original poster understood this particular engine was no longer stock / 'standard". It does seem to make a difference in performance with this camshaft.
And, anytime you enlarge a bore, the block is no longer "standard". I don't care if that's .030" or .187". Enlarging the bore, regardless of method, and the block is "over bored".

[harley]

I have a 40 block, standard bore, 239 cu, with sleeves, mercury.

[Kube]

Originally Posted by harley

I have a 40 block, standard bore, 239 cu, with sleeves, mercury.

Mercury blocks were 239, Ford, 221.

[Kube]

Originally Posted by Russ/40

Not when you pull the sleeves and bore for 239 std pistons.

Your right, it would have been 221. When was the last time you saw a '40 block at std? Too expensive to do all sleeves.

Russ, Five right off the top of my head. Probably more if I gave it more thought. Two were NOS, the other three, when rebuilt, were sleeved.
I have many sets of NOS sleeves and the means and knowledge to replace them. That makes sleeving a much better alternative (financially) than boring.
Prior to retirement, I would bore as I had access to the requisite machines.