93Z28Sam

iTrader: (1)

Any one here running a 383 with the GM 847 cam? Would like to know if they like this combination. Also if they ran into any problems with the rods hitting the cam. Thanks

RamAir95TA

iTrader: (2)

Rod clearance shouldn't be an issue. What most people will wonder is why you're choosing the 847 when a custom grind will net you more bang for the buck.

7.0 camaro

ive learned with a 383 anything over 550 lift rod clearance is an issue. or lobe lift of .390

been there and done that.



the one on the top is a comp cam. then i went to a lunati with a 4/7 swap and a small base.

that was the second comp cam i had. the first one the lobes started to flake off it. then i bought the same one to replace it. and it ran for a year then snapped.

96lt1m6

iTrader: (31)

What rods are in there?
stock style pretty much dictate the use of small base cams.

H-beams seem to clear with ease w/ or w/o small base cams

z28rob18

iTrader: (7)

so over .550 lift is a problem? i have h beam rods and the cam will be up in the .600 lift thatll be an issue? how do i fix that?

ss.slp.ls1

iTrader: (36)

Small base circle cam. Measure for your applications required pushrod length.
I too would recommend getting a custom cam for your set up.

slick1851

I would agree with that, you want to setup a 383 the right way

7.0 camaro

yeah i had eagle i beam rods. im sure h beams will hit with .400 cam lobe lift

myltwon

iTrader: (1)

my eagle i beams had zero clearance issues with my cam standard base circle

7.0 camaro

how much duration did you have. i think that cam was 260-270 at .050

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

Yes it is duration more than lift that needs to be of concern. The 847 is 234/242 with .575/.590 lift with 1.6RR's on a 112lsa.

7.0 camaro

ah. mine had .588 lift with a 1.5 rocker. i used 1.6's so it would have been like .627?

myltwon

iTrader: (1)

230/242