Turbo 5.3 cam profile
08-28-2017, 07:07 PM
#1
Turbo 5.3 cam profile Twin turbo 5.3 looking for good response on turbo or low end na torque, i guess thats the best way to put it. Manual car
Cnc 243 heads
Edelbrock pro flow xt
.608/.610
230/235
114 lsa.
What yall think? All input welcome
Cnc 243 heads
Edelbrock pro flow xt
.608/.610
230/235
114 lsa.
What yall think? All input welcome
08-29-2017, 02:21 AM
#2
That is no where even close to enough information to even make a guesstimate. You don't have what turbos, weight, gearing, compression, fuel, I mean I could go on for days. No one here will give you a straight grind they will tell you to call whatever professional they like best. On top of that if you want to see what all goes into a cam selection go to lil Jon motor sports website and look at their questionnaire for a custom cam. It is pure insanity lol
08-29-2017, 11:33 AM
#3
^^what he said. What are your power goals? Turbo size governs overlap and EVO based on anticipated exhaust back-pressure as well.
But my initial gut response is that would be too large of a cam based on you saying "low end NA response" out of a 5.3 with a manual trans.
Out of boost with a manual and a 5.3, you will likely not have much with that cam until the turbo does its job.
But my initial gut response is that would be too large of a cam based on you saying "low end NA response" out of a 5.3 with a manual trans.
Out of boost with a manual and a 5.3, you will likely not have much with that cam until the turbo does its job.
08-29-2017, 12:09 PM
#4
^^what he said. What are your power goals? Turbo size governs overlap and EVO based on anticipated exhaust back-pressure as well.
But my initial gut response is that would be too large of a cam based on you saying "low end NA response" out of a 5.3 with a manual trans.
Out of boost with a manual and a 5.3, you will likely not have much with that cam until the turbo does its job.
But my initial gut response is that would be too large of a cam based on you saying "low end NA response" out of a 5.3 with a manual trans.
Out of boost with a manual and a 5.3, you will likely not have much with that cam until the turbo does its job.
Power as much as 900 crank but using mainly 6-800 wheel. 10.5:1 compression, turbo twin 52 or 57 comp 70 turbine.
08-29-2017, 06:56 PM
#6
Just put it into words using numbers. For example, I want a 2500 to 6500rpm powerband. 4k of usable power, taper at both ends for a strong midrange. The cam that ends at 6k in a 5 to 6L is around 220-225* @ 0.050. The head will flow 400HP "I've seen that happen at atmospheric pressure" so the turbo part comes last, if you wanted 600HP you would need 7psi of boost plus losses (air intake restriction, exhaust backpressure, VE losses on the exhaust manifold due to merge design, etc...) so we say 10-12psi of boost requirement. Well all turbo compressor maps seem to exceed 2.0 pressure ratio, so lets ignore the 7 to 15psi bracket for a minute (save for last).
Look at 30psi on the compressor map. If 15psi was 800 horsepower then 30psi must be 1200 horsepower. A turbo that supports 1200HP would be out of breath on a 400 horsepower engine when that engine was making 400 exact horsepower at 30psi, if the air inlet temp was the exact same at the inlet for both runs.
Back to the 15psi bracket, 14.5psi or 15.0~psi is around +1 sea level. If you drive below sea level we get the same effect of supercharging/turbocharging. So 15psi of boost is 15psi below sea level (if there was no sea and this was possible) or double the atmosphere. A 400HP engine is now making 800 horsepower. If the compressor flow is worth 800 horsepower exactly then it is falling off the compressor map at that point.
At any point between compressing the air and the engine making power, there is a chain of command of energy. The flow of energy, if we can imagine it, begins where fuel burns, applies pressure and temperature to it's surroundings, should be harnessed in the form of moving the vehicle (at WOT). We could measure the energy in Joules/second instead of horsepower to get some idea of what is coming out of our system. As Joules/second goes up (800 horsepower is starting to get up there) the flow and control of precise energy transfer becomes more and more important. Sloppy ignition timing in an 2.0 producing 120horsepower is not likely to melt the exhaust manifold or start a fire. Sloppy injector timing in an 2.0 producing 200 max horsepower won't misplace 100 horsepower and cost 7 miles per gallon. The tiny insignificant factors that are often over-lookable on mild builds become amplified when the flow of fuel and burning of fuel escalates dramatically. Suddenly you need an oil cooler with a fan and a larger radiator, bigger intercooler, strategic airpath planning and component insulation that becomes the heart of the build and it's most effective features.
Insulation seems to go against cooling. If we use a radiator, we are taking energy out of the system. Why then would we insulate the engine? That will hold the temp in!
The answer is: We want to control the direction of energy (repeating from above in a new perspective). We do not want the heat to go up, into the hood, for example. We put insulation between the engine and the hood to prevent this. We put insulation between the engine and our plug wires also for the same reason, and between us and the engine. We are controlling where the temp rise goes. I am allowing it to get outside the engine into the oil cooler. I am allowing it to get into the radiator and run off from there- because I've got my radiator parked in a perfect spot to radiate that temp away from the engine and engine bay somehow (the best we can do). I've put these radiative components in places where the heat they give off is far enough from my engine.
Look at 30psi on the compressor map. If 15psi was 800 horsepower then 30psi must be 1200 horsepower. A turbo that supports 1200HP would be out of breath on a 400 horsepower engine when that engine was making 400 exact horsepower at 30psi, if the air inlet temp was the exact same at the inlet for both runs.
Back to the 15psi bracket, 14.5psi or 15.0~psi is around +1 sea level. If you drive below sea level we get the same effect of supercharging/turbocharging. So 15psi of boost is 15psi below sea level (if there was no sea and this was possible) or double the atmosphere. A 400HP engine is now making 800 horsepower. If the compressor flow is worth 800 horsepower exactly then it is falling off the compressor map at that point.
At any point between compressing the air and the engine making power, there is a chain of command of energy. The flow of energy, if we can imagine it, begins where fuel burns, applies pressure and temperature to it's surroundings, should be harnessed in the form of moving the vehicle (at WOT). We could measure the energy in Joules/second instead of horsepower to get some idea of what is coming out of our system. As Joules/second goes up (800 horsepower is starting to get up there) the flow and control of precise energy transfer becomes more and more important. Sloppy ignition timing in an 2.0 producing 120horsepower is not likely to melt the exhaust manifold or start a fire. Sloppy injector timing in an 2.0 producing 200 max horsepower won't misplace 100 horsepower and cost 7 miles per gallon. The tiny insignificant factors that are often over-lookable on mild builds become amplified when the flow of fuel and burning of fuel escalates dramatically. Suddenly you need an oil cooler with a fan and a larger radiator, bigger intercooler, strategic airpath planning and component insulation that becomes the heart of the build and it's most effective features.
Insulation seems to go against cooling. If we use a radiator, we are taking energy out of the system. Why then would we insulate the engine? That will hold the temp in!
The answer is: We want to control the direction of energy (repeating from above in a new perspective). We do not want the heat to go up, into the hood, for example. We put insulation between the engine and the hood to prevent this. We put insulation between the engine and our plug wires also for the same reason, and between us and the engine. We are controlling where the temp rise goes. I am allowing it to get outside the engine into the oil cooler. I am allowing it to get into the radiator and run off from there- because I've got my radiator parked in a perfect spot to radiate that temp away from the engine and engine bay somehow (the best we can do). I've put these radiative components in places where the heat they give off is far enough from my engine.
08-29-2017, 07:46 PM
#7
Just put it into words using numbers. For example, I want a 2500 to 6500rpm powerband. 4k of usable power, taper at both ends for a strong midrange. The cam that ends at 6k in a 5 to 6L is around 220-225* @ 0.050. The head will flow 400HP "I've seen that happen at atmospheric pressure" so the turbo part comes last, if you wanted 600HP you would need 7psi of boost plus losses (air intake restriction, exhaust backpressure, VE losses on the exhaust manifold due to merge design, etc...) so we say 10-12psi of boost requirement. Well all turbo compressor maps seem to exceed 2.0 pressure ratio, so lets ignore the 7 to 15psi bracket for a minute (save for last).
Look at 30psi on the compressor map. If 15psi was 800 horsepower then 30psi must be 1200 horsepower. A turbo that supports 1200HP would be out of breath on a 400 horsepower engine when that engine was making 400 exact horsepower at 30psi, if the air inlet temp was the exact same at the inlet for both runs.
Back to the 15psi bracket, 14.5psi or 15.0~psi is around +1 sea level. If you drive below sea level we get the same effect of supercharging/turbocharging. So 15psi of boost is 15psi below sea level (if there was no sea and this was possible) or double the atmosphere. A 400HP engine is now making 800 horsepower. If the compressor flow is worth 800 horsepower exactly then it is falling off the compressor map at that point.
At any point between compressing the air and the engine making power, there is a chain of command of energy. The flow of energy, if we can imagine it, begins where fuel burns, applies pressure and temperature to it's surroundings, should be harnessed in the form of moving the vehicle (at WOT). We could measure the energy in Joules/second instead of horsepower to get some idea of what is coming out of our system. As Joules/second goes up (800 horsepower is starting to get up there) the flow and control of precise energy transfer becomes more and more important. Sloppy ignition timing in an 2.0 producing 120horsepower is not likely to melt the exhaust manifold or start a fire. Sloppy injector timing in an 2.0 producing 200 max horsepower won't misplace 100 horsepower and cost 7 miles per gallon. The tiny insignificant factors that are often over-lookable on mild builds become amplified when the flow of fuel and burning of fuel escalates dramatically. Suddenly you need an oil cooler with a fan and a larger radiator, bigger intercooler, strategic airpath planning and component insulation that becomes the heart of the build and it's most effective features.
Insulation seems to go against cooling. If we use a radiator, we are taking energy out of the system. Why then would we insulate the engine? That will hold the temp in!
The answer is: We want to control the direction of energy (repeating from above in a new perspective). We do not want the heat to go up, into the hood, for example. We put insulation between the engine and the hood to prevent this. We put insulation between the engine and our plug wires also for the same reason, and between us and the engine. We are controlling where the temp rise goes. I am allowing it to get outside the engine into the oil cooler. I am allowing it to get into the radiator and run off from there- because I've got my radiator parked in a perfect spot to radiate that temp away from the engine and engine bay somehow (the best we can do). I've put these radiative components in places where the heat they give off is far enough from my engine.
Look at 30psi on the compressor map. If 15psi was 800 horsepower then 30psi must be 1200 horsepower. A turbo that supports 1200HP would be out of breath on a 400 horsepower engine when that engine was making 400 exact horsepower at 30psi, if the air inlet temp was the exact same at the inlet for both runs.
Back to the 15psi bracket, 14.5psi or 15.0~psi is around +1 sea level. If you drive below sea level we get the same effect of supercharging/turbocharging. So 15psi of boost is 15psi below sea level (if there was no sea and this was possible) or double the atmosphere. A 400HP engine is now making 800 horsepower. If the compressor flow is worth 800 horsepower exactly then it is falling off the compressor map at that point.
At any point between compressing the air and the engine making power, there is a chain of command of energy. The flow of energy, if we can imagine it, begins where fuel burns, applies pressure and temperature to it's surroundings, should be harnessed in the form of moving the vehicle (at WOT). We could measure the energy in Joules/second instead of horsepower to get some idea of what is coming out of our system. As Joules/second goes up (800 horsepower is starting to get up there) the flow and control of precise energy transfer becomes more and more important. Sloppy ignition timing in an 2.0 producing 120horsepower is not likely to melt the exhaust manifold or start a fire. Sloppy injector timing in an 2.0 producing 200 max horsepower won't misplace 100 horsepower and cost 7 miles per gallon. The tiny insignificant factors that are often over-lookable on mild builds become amplified when the flow of fuel and burning of fuel escalates dramatically. Suddenly you need an oil cooler with a fan and a larger radiator, bigger intercooler, strategic airpath planning and component insulation that becomes the heart of the build and it's most effective features.
Insulation seems to go against cooling. If we use a radiator, we are taking energy out of the system. Why then would we insulate the engine? That will hold the temp in!
The answer is: We want to control the direction of energy (repeating from above in a new perspective). We do not want the heat to go up, into the hood, for example. We put insulation between the engine and the hood to prevent this. We put insulation between the engine and our plug wires also for the same reason, and between us and the engine. We are controlling where the temp rise goes. I am allowing it to get outside the engine into the oil cooler. I am allowing it to get into the radiator and run off from there- because I've got my radiator parked in a perfect spot to radiate that temp away from the engine and engine bay somehow (the best we can do). I've put these radiative components in places where the heat they give off is far enough from my engine.
Trending Topics
08-31-2017, 01:36 PM
#8
If you would be choosing a cam that supports power in that range (2500-6500) it will match up in terms of duration vs displacement, with whatever LSA (the ground in separation between lobes since its a single cam engine) is deemed necessary
The lift depends on the engine/applicaiton in a similar manner, with one adjustment. For engines with pushrods, hyd. valve trains, using OEM lifters, it is typically ideal to use a stock or near stock valve spring (for longevity). I Hear PAC1218 valve springs are fairly close (but slightly stiffer). So we would look to see how well the heads work at near-stock lift valves (they do flow very well in the LS platform) and if they are "usable" we would want to use that low value, i.e. the minimum lift
So for example, 3200lbs street car, 5.3L, OEM manifolds + turbo, 2500-6500rpm range, 93 octane:
A: 215-225 Degrees of duration @ 0.050" is probable
B: 112 to 114 LSA is probable
C: lowest lift (near stock) as possible, with the gentlest (slowest) valve ramp money can buy (I Hear the LS6 camshaft is a fair replacement but also told they are old now)
We avoid high lift because of the longevity and setup issues (street cars shouldn't need constant maintenance), we avoid heavy overlap (tight LSA) sometimes for economy and drivability, and sometimes to prevent "blow back" or exhaust regurgitation. We avoid using too much duration (even though it sounds cool) because if you actually want 90% VE (good torque) at 2500 or 3000rpm a 230*+ duration will fight you on that.
The lift depends on the engine/applicaiton in a similar manner, with one adjustment. For engines with pushrods, hyd. valve trains, using OEM lifters, it is typically ideal to use a stock or near stock valve spring (for longevity). I Hear PAC1218 valve springs are fairly close (but slightly stiffer). So we would look to see how well the heads work at near-stock lift valves (they do flow very well in the LS platform) and if they are "usable" we would want to use that low value, i.e. the minimum lift
So for example, 3200lbs street car, 5.3L, OEM manifolds + turbo, 2500-6500rpm range, 93 octane:
A: 215-225 Degrees of duration @ 0.050" is probable
B: 112 to 114 LSA is probable
C: lowest lift (near stock) as possible, with the gentlest (slowest) valve ramp money can buy (I Hear the LS6 camshaft is a fair replacement but also told they are old now)
We avoid high lift because of the longevity and setup issues (street cars shouldn't need constant maintenance), we avoid heavy overlap (tight LSA) sometimes for economy and drivability, and sometimes to prevent "blow back" or exhaust regurgitation. We avoid using too much duration (even though it sounds cool) because if you actually want 90% VE (good torque) at 2500 or 3000rpm a 230*+ duration will fight you on that.
08-31-2017, 02:18 PM
#9
Although kingtalOn makes some reasonable points, he always intends to over complicate the topic and add extraneous information that the OP does not need to read. I am a mechanical engineer and design diesel engines and fuel systems for a living and see no need to say all that ****. You need an answer, not an attempt at an engineering lesson with rambling in between. Just ignore him.
08-31-2017, 03:45 PM
#10
Although kingtalOn makes some reasonable points, he always intends to over complicate the topic and add extraneous information that the OP does not need to read. I am a mechanical engineer and design diesel engines and fuel systems for a living and see no need to say all that ****. You need an answer, not an attempt at an engineering lesson with rambling in between. Just ignore him.
Instead, it is better to avoid learning how to fish and just have somebody tell you what parts to use and how to set everything up without understanding what you are doing... this is better?
Furthermore, I do not know his question. I did not see his question. He does need an answer- but even YOU don't see a question, and YOU did not post an answer (not even an attempt at one) because of this. What was the question? There was no question all he said was "im not sure in spots" so I gave him a way to tell if he is sure or not.
If you cant read it or make sense of it, that doesnt make it lies or incorrect.
08-31-2017, 04:32 PM
#11
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (96)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Turnin' Wrenches Infractions: 005
Posts: 24,240
Likes: 0
Received 79 Likes
on
70 Posts
He was asking, based on limited information he provided, what was our opinion of the cam specs he put up.
If you cant read it or make sense of the question, that doesnt make it not there.
Fixed your dumbass quote to apply to you.
If you cant read it or make sense of the question, that doesnt make it not there.
Fixed your dumbass quote to apply to you.
08-31-2017, 04:38 PM
#12
right, the info is too limited. So instead of answering an impossible question I pointed out how he can be sure to choose the right parts anyways. Ill repeat I guess: 5.3L focusing on response is going to be 215-225* of duration, lowest lift possible, use a weak spring, probably 112-114 LSA. There are lots of cams with those specs.
Just make sure the turbo is the right size. It should flow around 70 to 80lbs/min I would guess. If it supports anymore than that it will not match the cam choice very well on the 5.3 I would think.
Just make sure the turbo is the right size. It should flow around 70 to 80lbs/min I would guess. If it supports anymore than that it will not match the cam choice very well on the 5.3 I would think.
08-31-2017, 06:04 PM
#13
LJMS Stage 1 Cam.
I'm putting together a 9.5:1 5.3 w/ CNC ported 317's, T-Netics T7875 backed by a T56 trans and 3.73 gear.
LJMS recommended either his Stage 1 or 2 so based on everything I've read so I'd air on the side of smaller for better out of boost drivability with the Stage 1.
The goal being as close to 700 whp as I can get without meth or maybe with a little.
Don't over complicate it, guys make stupid power all day long on combinations that aren't ideal.
Turbos are the ***** of the performance world and they ain't picky lol.
I'm putting together a 9.5:1 5.3 w/ CNC ported 317's, T-Netics T7875 backed by a T56 trans and 3.73 gear.
LJMS recommended either his Stage 1 or 2 so based on everything I've read so I'd air on the side of smaller for better out of boost drivability with the Stage 1.
The goal being as close to 700 whp as I can get without meth or maybe with a little.
Don't over complicate it, guys make stupid power all day long on combinations that aren't ideal.
Turbos are the ***** of the performance world and they ain't picky lol.
08-31-2017, 07:28 PM
#15
optimizing a cam on a turbo car for out of boost torque is hilarious. dafuq?
I'd just have someone smart than me or you grind a custom one. That is what I did and love my LME custom cam.
I'd just have someone smart than me or you grind a custom one. That is what I did and love my LME custom cam.
08-31-2017, 09:20 PM
#16
in for specs on the custom cam. Can I guess- 232/238 @ .050" and like .555 (or for some reason .620) lift 112LSA
Last edited by kingtal0n; 08-31-2017 at 09:45 PM.