"New" 2.8/3.4 Cam Option (Page 1/3)
Modesto APR 23, 11:03 PM
So I've been doing a lot, and I mean a lot, of reading about 2.8/3.1/3.4 cams over the last couple of days trying to settle on a choice for my 3.4 swap. I know cam basics, but not enough to tell what constitutes a major jump for these motors. The two we see referenced most in the Fiero world are the Crane 260 and 272. The 260 seemed like it may not be worth the expense (because depending on who you ask, you should get new springs as well) and the 272 has a bit of a lopey idle, which really isn't my thing, at least on a Fiero.

So, after scouring some f-body forums I found this option:
http://schneidercams.com/270-84H_60deghy
The numbers split the difference between the 260 and 272, while being closer to 272. $175 shipped with lifters doesn't seem like a bad deal at all and the company has a good rep. My question is, is this dialed back enough from the 272 to avoid the lopey idle, etc? I suppose I could just go with a custom grind, but that opens up a whole new can of worms trying to figure out what would be ideal for my setup, not to mention extra cost. What do you experts think?
Notorio APR 23, 11:32 PM
I'll look forward to seeing the experts chime in. Meanwhile, your link doesn't work ('page not found'), at least for me it didn't, but this one does. If member La fiera doesn't see this post send him a PM (he has recently done custom grinds.)

[This message has been edited by Notorio (edited 04-23-2020).]

Raydar APR 24, 06:51 AM
I'm certainly not an expert. And I don't even play one on television.
But it looks like the advertised (gross?) duration on this cam is quite similar to the 272. I'm thinking that it may sound similar to the 272, because of that.
Just a wild guess, though.

The 260 is pretty much what came in the GM HT-3.4 crate motor. I don't know what springs GM used, but I'd be surprised if they went to a bunch of trouble to make changes. (With that said, I remember reading a magazine article that was written back when the Fiero was in production. They made some changes to a relatively fresh 2.8. One of which was the 260 cam. They said that the cam really woke it up.)
The 272 absolutely requires custom springs and/or machine work on the heads for spring clearance when compressed.

My first thought is that this cam might be a "272 lite". Such that it has the duration, but not the lift numbers that required all the head work.
I haven't looked at any numbers, other than what's at the link, so please don't take this as being worth any more than what it cost you. Just my cynical $.02.
GTFiero1 APR 24, 07:20 AM
I have a 272 cam in mine, lopey and aggressive sounding. I believe I actually have a 260 new in box somewhere around.

If you search YouTube for "Cammed Fiero" the first that pops up is "87 Fiero GT Cammed 2.8" is a clip of mine with the 272 cam, no muffler
jjd2296 APR 24, 08:49 AM
I like the sound of the 272 cam. my recent 3.4 build has a 260H cam but im going to swap the rockers for 1.6 rollers with the appropriate springs so that will be equivalent for a 272 cam I am told.
Modesto APR 24, 10:21 AM
Ok that's not a lopey as I was worried it might be. Man that thing sounds angry with the throttle! Your making me wish my car would lose the muffler and gain some long tube headers. I would still like it to pass emissions which it sounds like the 272 can do just fine as long as the rest of the emissions equipment is still intact.

I think the Schnieder cam is 2 degrees less on duration? I don't know how much of a difference that makes.
La fiera APR 24, 11:43 AM

quote
Originally posted by Modesto:

So I've been doing a lot, and I mean a lot, of reading about 2.8/3.1/3.4 cams over the last couple of days trying to settle on a choice for my 3.4 swap. I know cam basics, but not enough to tell what constitutes a major jump for these motors. The two we see referenced most in the Fiero world are the Crane 260 and 272. The 260 seemed like it may not be worth the expense (because depending on who you ask, you should get new springs as well) and the 272 has a bit of a lopey idle, which really isn't my thing, at least on a Fiero.

So, after scouring some f-body forums I found this option:
http://schneidercams.com/270-84H_60deghy
The numbers split the difference between the 260 and 272, while being closer to 272. $175 shipped with lifters doesn't seem like a bad deal at all and the company has a good rep. My question is, is this dialed back enough from the 272 to avoid the lopey idle, etc? I suppose I could just go with a custom grind, but that opens up a whole new can of worms trying to figure out what would be ideal for my setup, not to mention extra cost. What do you experts think?



Schneider's 135H would be my pick. Just by looking at the specs it'll deliver the power faster and abruptly. it'll also have better throttle response and a killer bottom to mid torque.
It's a mild cam but way more aggressive than the 272 and it will also have more lope.
But if you are concerned about emissions this cam will get your car taken away by the EPA officers!
Good lock on your project!
lou_dias APR 24, 12:33 PM
There are multiple different '260' cams. Each from a different manufacturer. One is basically a 272 with less lift. The others are not.

https://www.lunatipower.com...-v6-173-260-260.html

Best thing to do is decide your power band/profile - then match everything to that.

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 04-24-2020).]

Modesto APR 25, 12:24 PM
Well, unfortunately emissions is definitely a concern. It looks like f-body, MG, and Fiero guys haven't had problems passing with the 272, so I will go with that or the Schnieder I posted. Is there a spring that doesn't require as much work as the Comp 280s? Looking at the first review on Summit it looks like the guy had to use spring locators, etc.
Will APR 27, 10:37 AM
A big thing that needs to be stressed is that with the same heads, the bigger engine will lope less with a given cam.

So if a 2.8 with the 272 doesn't lope as much as you thought, then a 3.4 with the same heads and cam will be even smoother.