<VV> PG 140 motor rebuild, more

[Dan & Synde]

Hi,

I used to have the 891 cam in my 4spd Greenbrier.  When I went thru the
engine, I switched to the Clark's 260 grind.  The only other thing I changed
at the time was to electronic ignition.  My observations are all "seat of
the pants" driving experience.  Yes, it does seem to have more low end and
mid-range torque comparing it to the 891.  We take it camping quite a bit so
I know how it performs loaded and unloaded.  We generally carry about
800-1000 Lbs payload when we go camping.  The funny thing is, acceleration
and hill climbing is basically the same regardless of whether we're loaded
or empty.  I think the 3.89 rear gearing helps quite a bit with that too.
We took a gamble on it for the Greenbrier taking Clark's word for it having
better low and mid-range.  It paid off for us.  I too am interested in any
spec's that are available for the 260 cam since we are considering it for
our UltraVan engine as well as the 889 cam.  The UltraVan is a more critical
application so the cam could make or break it and the more information I
have the better.

Dan Kling

1961 Greenbrier Deluxe, 4spd, 3.89  On the Road Again,  yeehaw :)
1963 Spyder, restored   4spd Saginaw
1967 Ultravan #299  Newest of the herd!! Almost killed me already!!


http://photos.yahoo.com/duchesskyra
A few pictures of the Greenbrier, more to come!


<snip>
> Has anyone tried the Clark's grind 260 cam?  Did
> the manufacturer publish dyno testing results (has anyone seen the
results)?
>
> Thanks,
> Sam
>
<snip>
<snip>
>>Have you compared the specs to the 889 and 891 cams?
>>Regards,
>>Bob Helt
<snip>