International Lancia Forums

Hello, is there a way to distinguish the correct camshafts for 818.303 engine other than "degreeing" ithem? I didn't find any marks, codes etc on them, and apart from being worn, I'm not sure they are the correct ones. So I'm going to search for a pair in scrapyards. Did the various types have different valve lifts? (they can be measured quickly) Does anybody know the values for the particular camshafts? Thank you!

I happen to have measured my stock of camshafts over the weekend to store the 818.100 and 818.342 camshafts in different boxes. The "lift" (difference between base circle and top of cam) is just over 6 mm on the 342's. just under 6 on the 100's. That is if I remember correctly.

Be careful making assumptions on cams from just measuring lift.

We went through this on Aurelia camshafts, and cams with a design lift of 5 mm were about .5mm all over the map. Its amazing what some wear and some manuf. tolerance, and later-in-life measuring can do to provide a broader range of values. If the difference is just a few tenths of a mm, I'd look to some other way - perhaps the timing on the cams - as a surer way to tell them apart.

Maybe someone has a design drawing for these cams - perhaps they have different base circles?

I agree with you Geoff. Safest is too measure the angles.

Base circles vary.

Thank you both!

My main problem is that I cannot find valve lift data, i only have the camshaft timing data. I measured the current camshafts and they seem close to the 818.100 ones (wrong...). But I don't know the history of the car, and also there is some wear on the cams.
I will measure th lift tomorrow, and I'll let you know. By the way, I would be thankful if anyone had official lift figures.

There is nothing wrong with 818.100. Just compare the power-torque curve in the Q&A database and you will learn that a 818.100 will have a better performance in the low rpms. Only above 4500 rpm the 342 are better. It just depends where and how you will use the car.

Walter

Walter van Gruythuysen wrote:
>
> There is nothing wrong with 818.100. Just compare the
> power-torque curve in the Q&A database and you will learn
> that a 818.100 will have a better performance in the low
> rpms. Only above 4500 rpm the 342 are better. It just depends
> where and how you will use the car.
>
> Walter

I must be misreading those power and torque curves. Because to me it looks as though the 818.342 has higher power and torque than the 818.100 at all rpms--not just above 4500.

Hi Ed,

I have to agree with Walter. Years ago, I owned a Ser 2 1.3S Coupe and certainly noticed that the performance when highway cruising, was best around the 4,500 rpm mark. Later, I owned 2c Berlina to which I fitted a Ser1 1.3S engine and again, it was best around 4,500 rpm. Then later, I swapped the head on the 2C for a head fitted with the 818.100 cams and it was a much nicer car to drive, with more torque at lower revs, where most of my driving in the Berlina, took place.

I am afraid you are mixing engine and camshaft numbers. The engine 818.100 is the base of all our engines but has only 1091 cc. When Lancia increased the cc to 1298 it became the 818.302 engine with the same cams as the 818.100. So a 818.302 engine has 818.100 camshafts. This engine was installed in the 1.3

The 818.342 engine with 818.342 cams is 1st series HF tuning. They did much more then only change of camshafts. When they downgraded this engine for the 1.3S the engine nr became 818.303. The difference with the 302 engine was de cams and slightly domed pistons.

Therefor you should compare the curves for 818.302 and 818.303.

Walter

I measured the cam lift and it is 5,5 mm. Should I assume that it had the wrong camshafts fitted?
Anyway, they are going to be changed as they are worn. I have a "Grecia" berlina engine for spares. I suppose they only changed the bore size compared to the normal berlina engine, so I have a set of Berlina camshafts in my hands now, right? According to what i have read, not only is OK to fit them in the 818.303 engine, but they will give better low- and middle-range performance (seems logical as they have milder timing). Am I correct? Any other suggestions welcome!