Yes.....these are baby cams. We don't need to get
into a baby cam disucssion, cuz I admit it up front.
Numbers are reported with 1.6:1 rockers.

GM 845
214/224 .521"/.543 112 @ 0.050

Crane 104227
210/224 .511"/.553' 112 @ 0.050

I already have the 227. I have continuiously looked
for all the information I can find on baby cams that will
easily pass smog and can run well on a stock program.
So far the data says that the 845 might be a better
cam than the 227.

Things you need to know is that the engine is stock,
the heads are stock, and everything else is the std
bolt-on stuff except for 1.6 Comp Pro Magnum rockers.
The other parts I have on hand for the cam swap are
Isky 235-D springs, titanium retainers, locks, seals,
etc., Comp-R lifters, and GMPP extreme duty timing set.

This is a California car and I want to pass smog w/o
hassles, and I do not want a lopey idle. It can be barely
noticable at most to a trained ear.

I like the idea of the extra intake duration and lift of the
845, plus I like the slightly lower exhaust lift because it
gives a bit more safety margin on the springs. Other than
that I have no idea what the actual difference installed
will be. Also, I have heard that some 845s do not have
the pilot hole drilled to .5" and have a short dowel pin.

What do you think??????

 

I believe those springs are good to .550 lift. I would be a little hesitant running cams with those lift numbers with those springs. Short dowel pin is a bit of a problem if you're running a 95 style opti. I did it for a while and when I pulled the opti off you could see where the pin was trying to jump out of the opti. I really think you want about .500 to .625 for a 95 style opti. If you running the non-vented pre 95 opti shouldn't be a problem. Just measure the thing when you get it so you know for sure.

Good luck.

 

I may be wrong, but I don't think a 112 LSA cam is going to give the idle you say you want.

 

I'm curious about the 845 too for the same reasons. But I don't see many guys here running such mild cams like the 845, LPE 211/219 or CC304. They seem like they would be well suited to stock heads and shorties.

 

What exactly makes for a lumpy idle?

 

The coil bind is at 1.15". Isky shows them good
for .550", which at a 1.78" installed height leaves
a .080" safety margin. I have always heard that
a .050" safety margin is fine so it looks like there
is a little extra there.

 

I have never heard a car with either of these cams. It
would be nice if that was possible. Do you think the
the 227 has a noticable idle? I'm an old Pontiac guy and
the only comparison I can come up with is the sound of
the 068 factory cam. It had a noticable idle while the
engine was cold and then sounded stock once it was
warmed up. Unlike the 041 which had a totally lopey idle.

 

LSA is not the only factor, but if you were to compare two cams with only the LSA being different, the lower LSA cam would have more lope.

disclaimer: I am not a cam design expert.

 

I have seen at least one guy running that Crane cam here.

 

Bud M, your sig shows a Dynomax cat-back. Is the
muffler an ultraflow and if so are you happy with
the sound.

 

No, it's a Super Turbo. I bought it because it was inexpensive and
I liked the 2 pipes on one side. Sounds good too IMO. My muffler guy liked the fit too.

 

I'm running the 227 in my 94Z. It has a noticable lope, enough so that people look over at stop lights. Or is that the striaght pipe?

 

Any chance of you recording a sound clip of that idle and
sending it my way? Thanks for the info, this will definately
change my 845 plans. If the 227 has a noticable lope then
the 845 is just going have more. Also, what valve springs
are you using?

 

As far as the lope, it's bumpy, to MILDLY choppy (if that makes sense) it's enough to have to adjust the idle up about 150 RPM to keep the voltmeter out fo the red at stop lights. Vaccum suffered a little (brakes were kinda spongy)I'm using Crane gold race rockers and dual race springs. Hope that helped. Although I am thinking of a bigger cam. I love the low end grunt and the plateau like torque curve, but I'd rather have more top end power. Why are you choosing a small cut cam and not the more popular 234, 236, etc. cams?

 

Thanks for the additional feedback. Based on your
description I should stick with the 227.

I want to go small to run either the stock or HPP+
programs, avoid smog hassles, and keep it as
close to stock sounding as possible.