just curious? any advantages to one over the other? what other parts would someone need to install these besides the gaskets (ie: lifters, pushrods, etc.?)

 

basically compare the operating RPM range.. you'll probably get more lower end oomph from the first one, just depends on your driving style

 

^^^ agreed, its looks like its when you want the power to come on......

 

i bet bob or john will clue in ...

but im with them ^^^

 

well i guess the 1st one would be better for my driving style.....i hardly ever get above 3,000 rpm's unless i am responding to a fire...

 

There is a big difference between the two. The first one has specs that many used to call "RV" cam specs. A step above stock and mostly intended for towing and low-speed torque production. The second cam can be considered a mild (or even middle for a little engine like the 4.0) performance cam with streetable duration numbers at .050. On the little 4.0 it would be decently lopey and would not have as much idle vacuum as stock or the 256 camshaft. It would cause you to lose some low-end but your midrange and top end would improve tremendously. If your heads and intake are staying stock and you like to tow and do a lot of daily driving and off-roading I would say go with the first cam. It is more of a 'truck" cam and will move a 4x4 pretty well. Just don't expect a huge increase in top-end power. If you are porting and maybe bumping compression a little and have some decent gears, then I would get the 2nd one. You would love the power increase.

Oh BTW, the first one should still give you a little bump at idle.

Hope this helps!

 

More info:

My Dad had a 3.8 V-6 swapped in an '86 Ranger (unusual I know...) that had Holley Pro-Jection (throttle body), heads I ported, flat-top pistons, and a cam from Racer Walsh with .050 duration specs and lobe separation like the second cam you mentioned. Total duration was 282 (the one you mentioned above is 270), but the .050 number is actually more important. It was lopey, not as torquey down low as stock, but from about 2,500rpm up it would scream. Wasted a many 4.3 S-10. It was a lightweight low-option (originally a 2.0 engined truck) 2wd Ranger though.

 

well i was curious.....if i were to install one by what you all said, it would be the 1st one because i would want low end power and torque...

 

Go for it. I just think it is great that Comp has some cams for the 4.0 OHV. Now for the SOHC!!!!

 

i was going to say the first seemed like a torque cam but i didnt wanna be wrong and get hollard at..id go with # 1 id wanna have that extra torque over HP anyday

 

 

Yea, as said, the 1st one is a cam for low end torque(RV cam). Probably preferred over the middle of the line(RPM) cam. The 2nd one isn't to bad though, not over lapping duration(full Race) but you would lose some bottom end for some mid & top end.

Rick