moeZ28

iTrader: (7)

Anyone have experience or heard good/bad results from this LT1 cam...specs are 218/224 .570/.565 (1.6 rockers) 113+4 XFI family. Any thoughts on this cam. Could possilbly go in a 91 RS with an LT1 swap. Stock shortblock, ported heads, bolt ons. Looking for a nice combo that isnt extreme, but not too docile either. Wanna do something different than the usual 501, 503, etc.

StealthFormula

iTrader: (35)

My buddy has that cam in his Vette. Didn't dyno as high as we expected but the thing moves out pretty good. Has a very strong mid range, can get away with 6100ish shiftpoints and sounds pretty sleeper. I would go 503 before I would go with this cam however because it exhibits similar drivability but feels a little stronger and sounds better too.

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

Beside being initially disappointing the XFI stuff eats springs, stay away from it or buy endurance racing springs.

BALLSS

running that cam with COMP 918 springs. Smooth idle and passes smog

good low end TQ and pulls through RPM range. I shift at 6200-6400

tspence45

iTrader: (30)

I'd probably go with something a little larger. Maybe a CC305 if you aren't wanting very extreme. 220/230 duration and .544/.544 lift on 1.6's. Or, if you want a sleeper cam, maybe Speed Inc's Cadillac Cam. I've heard very good results from it, and you can't really tell that the car's cammed by listening to it.

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

With a 383 brining the rpm range down from what a 350 will want.

How many sets of springs have been on the motor in how many miles?

moeZ28

iTrader: (7)

918's are rated for just over .600" lift, so they should easily be able to handle a mid .500" lift camshaft. The people who say cams eat springs are either not setting the valvetrain up correctly, or not using a good enough spring.

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

Or Comp's rpm ranges are wrong meaning you need more spring than they recommend. Actually you bring up another good point, the rest of you should ignore any valvetrain advise from someone who thinks lift is the key concern. The XFI lobes are very agressive so they beat springs up even if not near max lift.

Trust me I have not made the car do what it has by being stupid.

fergymoto

iTrader: (129)

I once had a sweet Bret Bauer cam that destroyed a set of 918s in 1,400 miles. Caused a failure and ended up dropping an intake valve doing major serious damage to my cylinder heads. Springs were set in at 140lbs on the seat. When we tore it down and tested them the one on the dropped valve only had 88lbs of pressure.

StealthFormula

iTrader: (35)

^^Yeah I heard of a few of his .600ish lift cams doing that. Before I went with my heads/cam setup I called Lloyd since that was a concern of mine and he said those problems were with those particular cams (.600ish lift ones) and none were had with the others he was offering. I'm running one with less lift (.570's) as well as my buddy in his 383 and combined we have a few thousand miles on them and everything is great.

My buddy has a decent amount of mileage with his xfi 268 cam and 918's and everything has been great for him. Personally though I think the lobe separation is a little wide for my liking but based off my results with the 503 and his with that cam I would probaly opt for something else just IMO. If it were me I would put out a few extra bucks and just go custom.

fergymoto

iTrader: (129)

Mine was one of them no doubt. It was a 224/226 .605/.605 107.5 LSA. My smaller AI cam runs as fast as that cam did in a higher compression 383. The AI cam is in a stock shortblock.

1989GTA

"I once had a sweet Bret Bauer cam that destroyed a set of 918s in 1,400 miles. Caused a failure and ended up dropping an intake valve doing major serious damage to my cylinder heads. Springs were set in at 140lbs on the seat. When we tore it down and tested them the one on the dropped valve only had 88lbs of pressure."

I had the 918's and after awhile started to experience valve float. The 918's had dropped down to #95. I think these were among the first batch that Comp Cams recieved after the switch from PAC. Their current 918 spring may be of better quality.

fergymoto

iTrader: (129)

The newer ones are better but it was the lobe profiles of the cam that wore mine out. What cam were you running?

speed_demon24

iTrader: (6)

Join the club, luckily I caught it before it did any serious damage like dropping a valve.

1989GTA

I was running the XFI268. Made 350rwhp with my L98 and that cam.

moeZ28

iTrader: (7)

Guys, let me first say I am definitely not a supporter of 918's. I was just making the point that too many people run springs that are on the edge of being too weak for their cams. I ran a set of PRC Platinum duals for over 40,000 miles on 3 different cams in my old 98 Z28.
Cam #1 = TSP 231/237 .598/.595 112 +4
Cam #2 = Comp 238/240 .605/.609 112 +4
Cam #3 = TREX 243/249 .613/.619 110 +2 (in sig)

Never once did I have any trouble or doubt these springs would hold. They were rated to a max lift of .670". I believe in goin a little above and beyond and being undoubtedly safe.

BALLSS

Dwayne:

original set of 918's with 7,000 miles on them.

installed height is 1.8"....something many ignore and set 1.7". Valve lash is 1/4 turn.

"If" the 918's start to float I will go with the dual spring PAC.