LSUxBlake

iTrader: (3)

I was going through my files and found the specs on the first camshaft that was in my car (from previous owner) and wanted to know what you guys could make of it and why it would be used. I'll give the cam designer's name out by PM if you want, all I can say is that he's big in the Ford scene and he's a jerk. The car was intended to run naturally aspirated and be a fast street car that was very driveable. These are the specs I have on it, I'll include the head flow #'s as well:

Intake Duration: 214.1
Intake Centerline: 119.8
Intake Lobe Lift: .33524
Intake Valve lift (1.9 rocker): .63695

Exhaust Duration: 234.3
Exhaust Centerline 115.8
Exhaust Lobe Lift: .33094
Exhaust Valve lift (1.85 rocker) .6125

Lobe Seperation: 117.9

Cylinder Heads are LS6 castings, (2.055/1.55):
Lift Intake Exhaust (flowed w/o pipe)
.100 ---- 74 ------------ 59
.200 ---- 153------------ 111
.300 ---- 204 ----------- 142
.400 ---- 252 ----------- 184
.500 ---- 304 ----------- 207
.550 ---- 318 ----------- 214
.600 ---- 322 ----------- 219
.620 ---- 327 ----------- 227

The car made 401/370 on a dynojet with hp peaking around 6150rpm and tq peaking around 5100 rpm.

Just wanted to know what people who know cams think about the setup, as the cam designer called me an idiot for changing cams to the FMS F11. Thanks for your input in advance.

DAPSUPRSLO

iTrader: (14)

Lets here a little bit more about your setup. What kind of headers exhaust do you have? What kind of intake manifold (LS6, ls1, lsx), what kind of compression, what kind of rpm, and what kind of valve train? Also, what kind of gears and transmission.

Cstraub

iTrader: (1)

I can tell by the spec's it is Mr. Allen's.

Chris

goober35

iTrader: (1)

When you got the car did it have both 1.85 and 1.9 rockers on it. I would have shot that guy that put those on there. That **** would be hard to keep track of if you ever pulled them off. Also the intake duration looks realy realy small guess that was the plan so it would sound close to stock.

Unaffliated Racing

iTrader: (15)

nope...i'm gonna go with EDC. I could tell that before I even seen the specs.

Visceral

iTrader: (1)

LOL... Im with ya. Of course I don't mind the guy... but I understand that others do.

You are only describing one person

LSUxBlake

iTrader: (3)

It is Jay Allen's of Camshaft Innovation. The headers on the car are Thunder Racing 1 7/8", LS6 intake manifold. The car did have jesel adjustable rockers in the ratios I listed. 3.73's in a M6, stock bottom end.

Ed Curtis

Funny... NOT...

If you think "that" one was mine, then you really don't pay attention to much...

I was going to agree with Chris on the Jay Allen deal, especially with the huge exhaust bias and super wide LSA but as always, I'm working and the cat was out of the bag already...

Ed

DAPSUPRSLO

iTrader: (14)

Obviously you aren't running the F11 with those rocker arm ratios. I bet the F11 picked up quite a bit of power over the previous cam. I personally don't like wide lsa cams for the simple reason that they do not develop overlap and overlap equals n/a power, given the combonation is capable of getting the air in and out efficiently before and after the cylinder heads. You will loose a little drivability but gain a lot of power.

Ben R

Jay's never really been a jerk to me. He's actually been very reasonable.

Ben R

Huge exhaust bias, big LSA, and huge lift with a huge rocker.......yeah, that's a Jay design.

777

iTrader: (21)

if you are making more power now...then who's the idiot

Ed Curtis

Good question...

What "was" the difference????

Ed

Cstraub

iTrader: (1)

I have always gotten along with Jay. Ed is very easy to get along with as long as you don't want to hear any Bull sales pitch and you respect someone that doesn't "sugar coat" stuff.

Chris

Chris

J-Rod

Ed and Chris mix lobes, but not going that direction.

As for my opinion of going with 20 degree more on the exhaust side, well I wouldn't do it in a N/A application. I'll just politely say I disagree with that setup.

Ed might vary in other parts of the lobe, but with your application I don't think it looks like anything remotely I've seen Ed do in a similar application, ever....

I agree folks need to pay attention more to what he says...

Sport Side

iTrader: (6)

There's a certain trend of people who don't like Ed, you'll notice. Usually, you can tell by the signature description of their car.

AINT SKEERED

iTrader: (2)

WHat are the #'s after the f11?

DavidNJ

Rockers are stamped and pretty easy to keep straight. Intakes like more lift than exhausts. However the .05 split is kinda usefess.

If it was a bigger split, say 1.9 intakes and 1.7 exhausts, it would make a lot more sense. Then the exhaust split in timing would really only be 9 degrees, if that.

And the rockers' different lengths would be visable miles, well at least several feet, away.

David

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

I wouldn't have put anything like that in a LT-1, much less a LS-1. I guess he thought the exaust was severly restricted? Even then it seems as if the cam would fail due to it's own ill grind. It looks to be one of those things that either had alot of thought put into it, or absolutly none. I wouldn't even use it for a whoppin stick.

Sport Side

iTrader: (6)

What is the logic behind Jay's approach to cam design?

Large split
Wide lsa
-2 timing
large rocker

Not ridiculing.....I've heard theories that go different ways, but what are the theories that support this approach to cam design?