7X cam

Unknown

Anyone know if this is the part or casting # for a 7X cam ? 309742 Thanks, BUD

Ol racer

FYI



The#309742 is the 7x Flat Top cam. However, the #311040 was a newer design 7x cam for 'all out' racing.



Both camshafts will give far better Performance than the stock Hudson cam.



Incidently as told by an old timer, the #309742 cam was factory installed in many '54's causing Hudson to have a Dealer recall to install a 'less agressive' cam because of Customer compliant of noise and rough idle..

464Saloon

Incidently as told by an old timer, the #309742 cam was factory installed in many '54's causing Hudson to have a Dealer recall to install a 'less agressive' cam because of Customer compliant of noise and rough idle..

Heck I got Randy Mass 402 Super street cam in mine which is quite a bit bigger than a 7x and it idles so smooth I was actually disappointed. Runs great though. I guess people were really picky back then.

53jetman

Ol racer wrote:

FYI



Incidently as told by an old timer, the #309742 cam was factory installed in many '54's causing Hudson to have a Dealer recall to install a 'less agressive' cam because of Customer compliant of noise and rough idle..

The camshaft recall was because of an assumed wear factor on the gear of the cam that drove the oil pump-distributor. We at that time also replaced the oil pump-distributor drive gear, and the factory furnished a replacement cam of the '53 design - this brought out complaints from customers because the cars did not perform as well as they had with the original cam. If the customer complained enough, we then replaced the cam a 2nd time with a new design the factory supplied, imnproving the performance of the car. As the recall continued, the factory furninshed the later design cam and eliminated complaints about the lesser performance.



Jerry

53jetman

SuperDave

The question is ..How does one tell what cam it is by the casting numbers? or can it?

Ol racer

The "whole story" on the cam recall was interesting. I remembered part of the story but over time the actual reason was lost. Thanks;





Regarding Identifying a cam you need to go by the Casting Number on the shaft. However, sometimes when a cam is reground it is not marked, but usually you tell if a cam was reground by the different base circle of the lobes..

Unknown

some good info turning up here. So then did the later design cam perform as well or better than the original 7X . Anyone know the # of it ?

Ol racer

The newer design 7x cam was #311040. From what I read it was never in a production car and strictly for 'all out' racing so I would assume it was better performing.



I never used a 311040 because they were more rare. Not positive but I believe there are a couple companies that can match the specs and grind even better profiles today.

53jetman

37 Terraplane#2 wrote:

some good info turning up here. So then did the later design cam perform as well or better than the original 7X . Anyone know the # of it ?

I can't remember the part number of the final replacement cam - I'm not sure there was a number on the carton. It did restore the original performance somewhat, at least sufficently enough to eliminate complaints. In the earlier post, something was said about the engine as installed at the factory was too noisy. I personally never felt that it was, and I don't recall of anyone ever complaining about excessive noise. The main reason for the recall was a percieved feeling of excessive wear on the drive gear for the oil pump and distributor drive.



Jerry

53jetman

[Deleted User]

Part number for the replacement cam in 54 was part #306344A



I am pulling this from the service bulletin that describes the changeout.

464Saloon

37 Terraplane#2 wrote:

some good info turning up here. So then did the later design cam perform as well or better than the original 7X . Anyone know the # of it ?

Check this site out.

http://72.34.44.211/~russmaas/products1.htm

dougson

So who out there is using this (#309742) cam? Any reports of problems? Happy or unhappy ?

53jetman

I'm guessing that most of the #309742 cams found their way back to the factory, as the dealers had to return them to receive payment for the recall shop work. I do know, however, we had a couple of dihard customers that refused to allow us to change the cam on the recall. They decided they would come in periodicly and have the oil pump-distributor drive gear replaced as necessary. Both of those cars had run well over 100K miles without any problems thru 1958. Our chief mechanic suggested that they change the timing chain at around 65K which was done as suggested. Both of these guys were considered the top street racers in the county, and as far as I know were never taken by the 1955 V8's of Chevy, Ford or Plymouth.



Jerry

53jetman

Unknown

I have just taken a engine apart that was bad stuck and rusty cylinders. It is a 55 or 56. The casting # on the block is 5225000 and just under the Dist. is L95.. Ken U. told me the block was poured 12th month 9 th day of 55. It had solid lifters and the 309742 cam in it. I belive the lifters and cam had been changed but had never had the rings replaced. Came out of a 54 Hornet. Had a Hash hydromatic with the bell sawed off. Who knows what happens to these old cars over the years. Is there any way to look at the cam and tell if it has been reground?

Unknown

Forgot to tell the # in top of block which should be the motor # is 5320905. Doesnt seem like a motor # to me.

[Deleted User]

Billy K.TN. wrote:

Forgot to tell the # in top of block which should be the motor # is 5320905. Doesnt seem like a motor # to me.

When Hudson and Nash formed AMC all engine casting started with a 5, all part numbers also started with a 5. These are soft blocks and parts.

dougson

53jetman wrote:

I'm guessing that most of the #309742 cams found their way back to the factory, as the dealers had to return them to receive payment for the recall shop work. I do know, however, we had a couple of dihard customers that refused to allow us to change the cam on the recall. They decided they would come in periodicly and have the oil pump-distributor drive gear replaced as necessary. Both of those cars had run well over 100K miles without any problems thru 1958. Our chief mechanic suggested that they change the timing chain at around 65K which was done as suggested. Both of these guys were considered the top street racers in the county, and as far as I know were never taken by the 1955 V8's of Chevy, Ford or Plymouth.



Jerry

53jetman

Interesting. So was the "noise" factor, an often mentioned complaint, due to pump/distributor gear issues such as poor casting? I'm curious as to why this cam would destroy gears and chains and others did not. The soild lifters were noisy also I'm sure. Would a modern roller type of chain solve the timing chain problems?

Unknown

53jetman wrote:

The camshaft recall was because of an assumed wear factor on the gear of the cam that drove the oil pump-distributor. We at that time also replaced the oil pump-distributor drive gear, and the factory furnished a replacement cam of the '53 design - this brought out complaints from customers because the cars did not perform as well as they had with the original cam. If the customer complained enough, we then replaced the cam a 2nd time with a new design the factory supplied, imnproving the performance of the car. As the recall continued, the factory furninshed the later design cam and eliminated complaints about the lesser performance.



Jerry

53jetman

I have been told that the oil pump gear of that time was steel and that the combination of steel on steel ( cam and oil pump gears) along with solid lifters created a preception of more noisy engine. Truth or fiction? Also at this time the 54 engines recieved a bit of valve chamber shaping ... as a result of what was learned from NASCAR track racing. Hudson lumped agressive cam, valve chamber relief, solid lifters into the Hornet engines of 54. Note they also realized the timing chain wear and noise was higher as a service bulletin installed a chain oiler trough into the engines. All interesting bits of history.



Cheers;)

[Deleted User]

Really interesting thread. To add to the legend or myth associated with camshafts:



I was told the 309742 cam was the "chain stretcher" camshaft that destroyed timing chains. The ramps of the lobes were too steep and placed a great deal of pressure on the timing chain to turn it. Noisy, because of its rough treatment of tappets too.



Oddly enough, I have a rather worn 742 camshaft. Its worn excessively where the ramp transitions into the "flat" of the lobe. It looks as if it actually pitched the tappet off the lobe and skipped the middle of the flat. I can see where this wasn't a happy camshaft. This had to be the "chain stretcher" camshaft, but I'd be reluctant to say that this lobe profile exists on all "742" camshafts, it was told to me to be a '54 specific problem. The "742" cam existed before '54 and was the 7x cam prior to the 311040.



I've also been told, I can't remember by whom now, that there was a replacement "742" camshaft in '54 with a revised lobe pattern that was very, very good. Those replacement cams have an "A" stamped in them at the end of the casting #. I have one of those too, but suffered some pitting on the lobes that prevented me from using it. The only person I've talked to who had run a revised "742" shaft was Ralph Alden, who loved it.



Our '49 is running a 308 with the "344A" shaft, and it has a lope in its idle below 700 rpm. I didn't write down any of its degree measurements and have forgotten them. I'm not unhappy with it at all.



Mark

53jetman

dougson wrote:

Interesting. So was the "noise" factor, an often mentioned complaint, due to pump/distributor gear issues such as poor casting? I'm curious as to why this cam would destroy gears and chains and others did not. The soild lifters were noisy also I'm sure. Would a modern roller type of chain solve the timing chain problems?

As I stated above, I personally did not feel the engines were noisy, and not one of our customers complained about noise. The reason for the recal was a perceived worry by the facgtory that we had a possible "wear" problem with the Oil Pump and distributor drive gear. There was no problem with the timing chain wear - a Hudson timing chain would easily last for 75K to 80K miles in normal driving.



The two customers that forbid us to change the cam during the recall proved in my mind that there really was no great problem at all. By the way, if the valves are adjusted properly, the solid lifters were not a noise problem either. I'm not sure where some of you guys are getting this stuff! ! ! I was there at the time fellows, and I'm sure Walt M. was there too, and he will back up what I've stated here.



Jerry

53jetman

dougson

53jetman wrote:

As I stated above, I personally did not feel the engines were noisy, and not one of our customers complained about noise. The reason for the recal was a perceived worry by the facgtory that we had a possible "wear" problem with the Oil Pump and distributor drive gear. There was no problem with the timing chain wear - a Hudson timing chain would easily last for 75K to 80K miles in normal driving......



Jerry

53jetman

Saw your post , but still slightly . Maybe Wildwasp wants to chime in here because he states that a separate oiler for the chain needed to be installed with this cam. And the literature is full of negative remarks about this cam. Don't mean to start a war here, but if as you say the cam worked fine when installed correctly, and I guess you should know, then maybe I'll try it. Back to one of my earlier questions: would a modern roller chain work better with this cam.

Ol racer

FYI

I can attest that when racing the Hornet Motor back in the '60's the timing chains would stretch after 6 - 700 hard Laps. To help alleviate the problem we would always use Morse and/or B/W brand, the best available at the time.



However today, the only way to go with 'any' Performance Hudson Cam is to install the Double Roller Chain Set-Up that Randy Maas created and sells @ www.21stcenturyhudson.net..

[Deleted User]

I will have to dig out my factory bulletins I have the one for replacement cam #306344A which stated that the factory was replacing the 309742 cam for excessive timing chain wear. It did not talk about the distributor gear wear.



Jack Cliffords catalogue said change the timing chain every 50K or if racing every 500 miles.

Unknown

The seller of the cam on ebay says it's in grat shape and had a brass gear on the dist. apperantly this is what took the wear problem away. # 170273591087

Unknown

The dist. does not have a gear. The gear is on the oil pump. The early stepdowns had a steel gear on the pump which caused wear on the cam. The pump gear was later brass.

Unknown

OK< don't blame him, reckon it was I who made a mistake remembering what he said. Old saying I heard someplace---IF you never made a mistake get off your butt and do something !! Bud