As for the dyno testing as usual they only use one cam. Cams specks for a dual planes are not typically the same as needed for a single plane.

The issue with the Mopar intakes is that the Torker II in particular is a bowser. It is down on horsepower across the board compared to the Performer RPM. The old LD 340 is arguably one of the best dual plane intakes ever made for any engine, and Chrysler engineers had a big hand in designing it with Edelbrock back in the early 70s. The other single plane intakes like the old street and strip dominators are old school 70s tech that were OK at best when new. The Mopar M1 Intakes have fuel seperation and air flow variation problems. The Performer RPM Air Gap is an improved update on that manifold. I have run the Performer RPM on a couple of small blocks I've built in the past, and they have both pulled strong all the way past 6500 RPM on 372 Cu In engines. I cant see going to a 408 Cu In and bringing the rpm down to 5600 will cause the manifold to choke the motor down. If they do, they are one of the easier parts to swap once the engines are installed in the boat.

Change in intake would most likely change require a cam change also as I stated before.

A while back I had a 315/ 330 HP 454 with peanut port heads installed a set of edelbrock roval port heads. Had to do some valve pocket work to reah their as advertized flow #s. Leaving the short block as is stock cam. Tried 3 different manifolds and 3 different carbs on each manifold. The carbs really didn't make much if any difference. Intakes were a performer RPM, a Air GAP and a torker II.
The boat came with the RPM intake, out of the hole it had lots of bow rise enough to have to stand up to see over the bow well, level down to top speed of 70.
Which intake with the edelbrock heads made the boat jump out of the water with maybe a 1 to 2 degree bow rise over at rest rise and hit the same 70 MPH
and reach it so quickly it blew my 10 year old sons mind as well as mine.

http://www.hughesengines.com/Upload/...R1822ALN14.jpg

Is the general consensus that I will be ok reversion wise with this cam grind? I am ready to order cams and just don't want issues when I get these motors out on the water.

IMHO: If it reverts with that, the exhaust totally suks azz. LOL.

Murf,
That will be just fine . 112 would work as well. You would gain a little more low end torque.

Jeff

I think you would have to have overlap to revert and there is negative overlap at .050. So I say reversion wouldn't be an issue unless there is some volumetric phenomenon �� happening at ultra low lifts.

Thanks for the responses, I'm shipping the cores out tomorrow. I'm thinking the 4" stroke cranks will work with the 114 centerline and be pretty torquey

Revisiting this subject, I was all set and ordered these cams:http://www.hughesengines.com/Upload/...R1822ALN14.jpg
Hughes had a mix up and sent me these cams instead, I called them, and no issues, but after looking at the cam card, do I want to keep these cams instead? The extra exhaust duration should help the restrictive exhaust is what I'm thinking.
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...psqwnxnhy1.jpg

Should I still be OK concerning reversion running this cam?

It is still -6 degrees overlap at .050

You should be just fine.
I run a 221/230 @ 112 In my Mag.
No worries.

Jeff