Opinions on FAT 440HP cam?

DDS · 08-29-2001, 07:30 PM

Picked up some parts today which included a FAT 440HP cam, matching lifters, springs etc.. Any opinions on or experience with the cam? It is .440 lift .260 duration. I plan to run this in a rebuilt 2.0 with 96mm pistions and ported 44mm and 38mm valve heads.
TIA

Dave

Jake Raby · 08-29-2001, 10:36 PM

Web Cam, or leave the engine in pieces.....

DDS · 08-30-2001, 05:30 AM

Thanks for the reply Jake. Why?
Anyone out there using one?

Doug M · 08-30-2001, 06:51 AM

I have been using a CB performance cam in my 1.8L for about 4 years mostly on the track with no valve train problems. It has a 410 lift and 278 dur. and it still makes good low end power and wants to rev to 6000 It beats all the stock 2.0L in our region. I wouldnt hesitate using a Fat cam. Does Jake sell Web cams?

Dave at Pelican Parts · Dave at Pelican Parts's Garage

Jake has had bad experiences with almost everyone other than Web-Cam, as he has related on the Shoptalk BBS.

FAT is generally known as a quality manufacturer. I have a FAT cam (stock) in my 2.0, and am happy with it so far. It only has about 10K miles on it, and I have not torn it down to check the cam wear, so I can't tell you how this particular cam is actually holding up. But it seems fine so far.

The HP440 is supposed to be a grind that is slightly more aggressive than stock and makes a bit more power, but is still mild enough to work with the FI. It was recommended to me a number of years ago by several people with 914 experience.

One of them said that it might be necessary to do some tweaking to make sure that it could pass CA's smog test. (And this was in the days when all 914s got tested.)

--DD

------------------
Pelican Parts 914 Tech Support

A few pics of my car: http://www.pelicanparts.com/gallery/Dave_Darling

DDS · 08-30-2001, 08:09 AM

Minor correction, that cam is .400 lift, not .440. FWIW, that FAT cam is actually made by weber, their p/n 520h.
I've spoken with Jake and he doesn't sell parts generally, though he and FAT do both build engines.

Jake Raby · 08-30-2001, 06:13 PM

Nope, we don't sell parts...I give praise to WEB CAM for making my life easier, as we have not had a single cam problem, for 3 years, and over 300 camshafts. I switched to them because we were having problems with EVERY other cam manufacturer, from Engle to Scat, and CB, and even Berg...In 1998 I lost 12 engines to cam failures(one of them was mine), since changing to WEB I have not had one comeback, even on engines with over 300 pounds of spring tension seeing 4-6 K for 120 mile enduro races. I have a class championship class 1 offroad race buggy on it's 3rd season with a WEBCAM, and has never been torn down, or even inspected internally.

I'm biased in the cam world, as I use more in one month, than some guys will use in a lifetime. Tearing engines back down is not my idea of fun, especially when there is a disappointed customer on the other end.

Being a professional and dealing with bad parts are a bad combination, I would not even think about using another brand. I only drive aircooled vehicles, no SUVS, pick up trucks, or "other" vehicles for me....I drive what I build and sell, everyday....

Do not get me wrong, I'm friends with the guys at FAT, and they are the ONLY other shop that I send customers to when we turn jobs down. I even buy some of MY parts from them, but not cams.

------------------
Jake Raby
Raby's Aircooled Technology
www.aircooledtechnology.com

[This message has been edited by Jake Raby (edited 08-30-2001).]

jabez · 08-31-2001, 06:44 AM

Well said Jake! By the way, you never did comment whether 48MM intake and 38MM exhaust valves were going to be dependable in my 1.8 heads.

GS

DDS · 08-31-2001, 11:12 AM

That's a much clearer, thanks.
Dave

Jake Raby · 08-31-2001, 08:20 PM

48 x 38 in 1800 heads will work...What is the bore? We only go to 48 intakes with 103 bores...

The best combo for a revver 44 x 38, as the intake valve is lighter, and "swinging weight" can cause head failures..

On pure street engines, we stick with 42 x 36 valves, in most cases..Just port the heck out of the heads..Thats where the power really is...Valve sizes a more of a determining factor of where the power will be made(RPM)

jabez · 09-01-2001, 06:02 AM

Thanks Jake....I may be a little over-valved (if that is a word). I have a 96 MM bore. I did port the heck out of the heads also, as you can imagine after putting in the larger valves.

GS

Jake Raby · 09-01-2001, 08:21 PM

Run some good CR with it, or it will be hard to tune, with little vacuum signal, and less response...

jabez · 09-02-2001, 03:05 AM

Jake,

I was told in the Navy that the only dumb question is the one you don't ask...I assume the CR you mentioned is compression ratio. If so, I planned to be between 8:1 and 8.5:1. I'm sorry I didn't know more about the 2270 before I bought my 2.0 crank.

GS