View Poll Results: Which 5.3 turbo cam would you choose?
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll
Which of these Turbo 5.3 cams would you choose and why?
10-24-2016, 12:42 PM
#1
Which of these Turbo 5.3 cams would you choose and why? So im currently building a Gen 4 iron 5.3 that i plan to turbo in the near future, this will be a daily driver that i want great drive-ability
the car is a 99 SS M6 3.42 will most likely have stock ls1 heads, ls6 intake, .660 springs, 60# injectors
My goal is to make 550-600rwhp at less then 15psi
havent decided on turbo, pretty open to suggestions...
The two cams ive come across that i really like and have been recommended to me by vendors are as follows
216/220 114+4 .578"/.570
215/219 114+3 .613"/.590"
They're pretty identical duration wise but the lift is what has me torn between the 2, which would you choose and why?
thanks
the car is a 99 SS M6 3.42 will most likely have stock ls1 heads, ls6 intake, .660 springs, 60# injectors
My goal is to make 550-600rwhp at less then 15psi
havent decided on turbo, pretty open to suggestions...
The two cams ive come across that i really like and have been recommended to me by vendors are as follows
216/220 114+4 .578"/.570
215/219 114+3 .613"/.590"
They're pretty identical duration wise but the lift is what has me torn between the 2, which would you choose and why?
thanks
10-24-2016, 01:01 PM
#2
I'm currently running the 215/219 cam you have listed in an iron 5.3 in front of an M6 and driveability is great. With even a small 7875 turbo I don't think your goal of 550-600 is a hard goal at all to reach. I would want a little more injector to be safe though.
10-24-2016, 01:13 PM
#6
TECH Fanatic
The first cam is just the small Trick Flow, not turbo specific. Second looks to be a Tick cam. The valve events/overlap are very close between the two. I wouldn't expect one to have a huge advantage over the other. The of the two will likely be easier on the valve train with the lower lift. The increased lift of the larger cam won't really gain you much flow, assuming you are using a factory head.
10-24-2016, 01:17 PM
#7
The first cam is just the small Trick Flow, not turbo specific. Second looks to be a Tick cam. The valve events/overlap are very close between the two. I wouldn't expect one to have a huge advantage over the other. The of the two will likely be easier on the valve train with the lower lift. The increased lift of the larger cam won't really gain you much flow, assuming you are using a factory head.
but yes thats what i wanted to know, if the higher lift one would benefit me or not using stock heads
thank you
Trending Topics
10-24-2016, 01:27 PM
#8
The first cam is just the small Trick Flow, not turbo specific. Second looks to be a Tick cam. The valve events/overlap are very close between the two. I wouldn't expect one to have a huge advantage over the other. The of the two will likely be easier on the valve train with the lower lift. The increased lift of the larger cam won't really gain you much flow, assuming you are using a factory head.
Chamber 71.06cc----0.100---0.200--0.300--0.400--0.500--0.550--0.600
Intake 210cc-----------66-----142-----196---228----236---238-----240
Exhaust 75cc----------59-----104-----137---155----167---173-----177
Better then the old 862's I used to run which was still enough to run mid 9's. Head flow doesn't seem to be a big restriction at this level but a few more hp wont hurt!
Stock Head Flow Numbers
Chamber 61.15 cc----0.100--0.200--0.300-- 0.400--0.500---0.550---0.600
Intake 200 cc----------63 ---128----179-----210----218----221-----226
Exhaust 70 cc----------54 -- 93 ----121----145-----163----168----174
10-24-2016, 01:28 PM
#9
TECH Fanatic
Alright, just saying TF has a cam with the exact same Durations/LSA/ICL. Most factory LS heads don't really gain any flow going from 0.550" to 0.600" valve lift.
10-24-2016, 05:33 PM
#10
Maybe on an NA motor, but I disagree on a boosted setup. Increasing valve lift is similar to increasing duration without actually changing the amount of time that the valve is physically open, not to mention increased valve lift will get the valve off the seat quicker and help with off boost situations. Between those 2 cams, 215/219 would be my preference. The 215/219 with less advance ground in will also move the powerband up a bit which is useful as you better rev this thing to 6500!
10-24-2016, 10:37 PM
#12
10-24-2016, 11:15 PM
#13
Maybe on an NA motor, but I disagree on a boosted setup. Increasing valve lift is similar to increasing duration without actually changing the amount of time that the valve is physically open, not to mention increased valve lift will get the valve off the seat quicker and help with off boost situations. Between those 2 cams, 215/219 would be my preference. The 215/219 with less advance ground in will also move the powerband up a bit which is useful as you better rev this thing to 6500!
10-25-2016, 01:24 PM
#16
my buddy just ran 9.44 @140 mph with a 2005 5.3 truck engine with a isky triple 12 cam @20.3 psi boost on e85 with 15 degrees timing @ 3600 lbs race weight. with an on3 78/75 single turbo.
complete truck engine and assys.
engine pulls good to 6600 rpm shift point.
complete truck engine and assys.
engine pulls good to 6600 rpm shift point.
10-25-2016, 01:35 PM
#17
Why limit yourself to those cams and such a wide LSA? Then try to crutch the lazy wide LSA by advancing the cam 3-4*. Running baby boost you don't need a 114 LSA IMO.
Tightening up the LSA will bring on power more quickly and give you a "snappier" setup. I'd look at something like JFR's "Tripple 12" (212/212 @ 112 with .565) I ran this cam my turbo 5.3 and a 4.8. It had great idle quality (no notable lope at 850ish rpm) and healthy vacuum. Even a 112 LSA is wider than is optimal on a factory headed 5.3.
Tightening up the LSA will bring on power more quickly and give you a "snappier" setup. I'd look at something like JFR's "Tripple 12" (212/212 @ 112 with .565) I ran this cam my turbo 5.3 and a 4.8. It had great idle quality (no notable lope at 850ish rpm) and healthy vacuum. Even a 112 LSA is wider than is optimal on a factory headed 5.3.
Last edited by Forcefed86; 10-25-2016 at 01:57 PM.
10-25-2016, 06:04 PM
#18
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Daytona Beach
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Forcefed, something tighter will defiantly help. The turbine is the restriction essentially so as long you don't run a ton overlap causing reversion it will only help your setup. My cam has 7* of overlap and the it spools a .96/1.32 S480 like its a gt35
10-25-2016, 06:13 PM
#19
Great drivability, stuff a LS6 cam into it.
Valve springs will last forever and it'll drive like stock until you mat the gas.
I love my 230/230 .609/.609 115+2 but below 2,000 rpm it ain't happy.
My next cam will be smaller, LJMS Stage 2 or maybe even a stage 1.
People don't usually need the cam they want, just sayin.
Valve springs will last forever and it'll drive like stock until you mat the gas.
I love my 230/230 .609/.609 115+2 but below 2,000 rpm it ain't happy.
My next cam will be smaller, LJMS Stage 2 or maybe even a stage 1.
People don't usually need the cam they want, just sayin.
10-25-2016, 06:37 PM
#20
Great drivability, stuff a LS6 cam into it.
Valve springs will last forever and it'll drive like stock until you mat the gas.
I love my 230/230 .609/.609 115+2 but below 2,000 rpm it ain't happy.
My next cam will be smaller, LJMS Stage 2 or maybe even a stage 1.
People don't usually need the cam they want, just sayin.
Valve springs will last forever and it'll drive like stock until you mat the gas.
I love my 230/230 .609/.609 115+2 but below 2,000 rpm it ain't happy.
My next cam will be smaller, LJMS Stage 2 or maybe even a stage 1.
People don't usually need the cam they want, just sayin.