I went and was reading thru this thread and ran across where Chris mentioned this statement.

I understand the principle, but was this just an example or a true statement that reworked heads, are what is missing for a stock 325ci motor? And if so, why would an efficient set of heads balance out a stock 325ci motor? Are you saying the stock cam is bringing in/letting out more air than the stock heads can supply?

 

Sportside,
I have proved it time and time to be true. Most of the time my stuff is smaller then what everyone else sends. I guess one that sticks in my mind is when All Pro came out with their 265 CC head for the 360 CID sprints, this was about '96 I guess. Heads flowed massive numbers and the motor was not making good power for what was expected. The dyno shop had been using my stuff in some Craftsman Truck and WoO stuff. He called and gave me the specs of what was in it and then what the combo was and the heads, injectors, so on. What I came up with was 20 degrees less duration and .100" less lift. He said grind it. So I had it ground and sent to him. Cam change only 3 days later, never moved off the dyno, 80HP and 65#/ft of torque gain and flattened the curve around 800 rpm. Car won around 12 features that year to the best of my memory. Thats just one example. If anyone want to throw the BS flag, I will give you the guys telephone number.

I just did a marine cam for a 505 CID NA engine. Max rpm is 5500. It is smaller then most of the LS1 cams running here with duration in the 220 range. Will have dyno figures sometime this week, but it should make 600HP at 5K. Motor is 8.5 to 1. The heads on this engine are out of the box stock with numbers close to what a well prepped set of LS1's flow. My point is if a 505 CID engine needs only 220 degrees of duration to make power to 5500, then why does a 347CID engine need more to only go to 6500 rpm? Don't say volumetric effiency, the 505 will be in the 98 to 103% range.

I have rambled enough. J-rod as always good thinking material here.

Chris

 

oh no, lol. i'm to young and stupid to even think about throwing a BS flag on someone like yourself. I was just curious for information.

Thank you

 

With new efficient heads being used, wouldn't optimizing valve events w/ a custom grind cam still be crucial to an ideal setup for the 5.3?

Your second paragraph makes since and i think serves as a valid point dealing with a 325ci motor. With to much duration, I feel you would be building peak power past the lm7's intake manifold limitations.

edit: lm7=5.3=325. notice i throw those 3 around alot.

 

Sport,
No one is stupid, I learn everyday. I wasn't singling you out for the BS flag, that was for anyone who may want to talk to Dennis about that sprint engine.

Your correct peak power and I don't care what anyone says a street car is not a race car. A street car has to have a broad power band. A race car, give me 304 CID, an A-1 Tranny 3 speed, Coan Torque converter, 1800lb altered, 6.00 rear gear, then give me a camshaft that makes power in a curve of 1200 rpm at about a 9200 max rpm.

 

It all depends on what you want to do. Most people that are going with bigger and better flowing heads want POWER and some go to a bigger cam AND the better heads. As Chris is saying you CAN make more or better power with a smaller duration cam if you have the better heads than you would with lesser heads where you MUST run a nastier cam to get the same power. Then you see 400 cfm heads and 280@.050 lobes that are tall and mean and you see extreme engine speeds and extreme power but extremely bad manners for any street car. So for street cars a better head can make the power with much better manners than a crappy head can, ala the reason the LS1 runs so well even in stock form!

 

Do any Aussie companies sell a ITB setup? Is the runner length adjustable? And if they are daily-drivers, what the hell do they do for an airfilter?

I'm kinda wondering why we don't use their products, especially since the exchange rate is so good It seems like there could be a good amount to be gained by timing the standing waves in the intake and exhaust runners with the valve events (which of course are a little different with different cams).

 

Plan B - LOL, no Mad Maxx had all his teeth and wasn't a retard. My point was Australia has alot more open road then we do up here in NY. No need to make more of that statement than that. So sitting in traffic for 6 hours like I did once coming back from English Town NJ back home to Long Island New York, a 70 mile trip, isn't as big of an issue.

Ok, so PlanB is saying his truck has X-ER lobes and Jrod is saying they are not using XE-R lobes but BBC lobes.

No matter, to make a big cam idle nice you have to tune it. Would that mean dump more fuel at idle? Would that be correct? That's how you normally mellow out a choppy cam at idle. It works for carburated and would also work for plenum style intakes. The multiple TB stuff you guys are working with is giving you great results, but you don't see that stuff on an LS1 her in the states. It's quite costly and we have no knowledge of tuning it. And lets not forget that we here in the states are just starting do dabble with speed density tunes on the LS1. You guys have been at it for some time and it helped that GM in Australia already had an SD tune for you to use as a starting point. And why is that, because Asutralia is less populated and an SD tune would work with the less strict emissions you guys have down there.

The big cam used in the bike example doesn't take into account that I've yet to see an A4 GSXR or one that idles at 800 rpm. Not to mention the fact that not all air pumps are the same. Yes they all have a crank that spins and makes the pistons go up and down causing air to enter and exaust to exit the combustion chamber. But the dynamics of how the air enter and exits that motor and an LS1 are completely different. Runner length, individual TBs, 4 valve heads, etc. Hey a turbo and a supercharger are both air pumps, but which one has been proven to be more efficient and make more power? It's the added complexity of the turbo and the fact that it doesn't give instant response like a Roots type blower that has kept it out of Top Fuel. One race team tried turbos way back but didn't have much success. Do you think that with that with the technology we have available today that would still hold true? So like I said, not all air pumps are created equal.

J-Rod, what cam do you have in your car? Is it an Aussie grind or not? I see you answered that question already, it's a G5X3. I'm flabbergasted. I would have figured by now that you would have replaced it with something less radical like a 256/256 106 lsa. lol J/K

The GSCA Buick boys have been using 116 lsa cams in their 11 sec stock appearing cars for years now. Reason being great power and a smoother idle. And those fellas like going fast while sounding as close to stock as possible. So there is a place in this world for the wide LSA cams.

When the FI 5.0 motors came out they made great torque and HP (in 1987 terms mind you lol) and the cams in those engines were on a 116 or so lsa. That little BS cam has gone in the 11s on motor and 9s with a power adder in 32-3300 lb cars.

One important point made in this thread is that bigger isn't always better. I agree with that and maybe that's why I'm a little skeptical of a 256/256 cam. It's the individual TB setups the Aussies are using that's making the vacuum necessary for that cam to idle nicely. Grind a 224 cam on a 110 +0 lsa and lets see what kind of power it makes. Sure, it will chop more than my TR 224 114 +4, but I think you can get 500+ flywheel HP at 6000 rpm with ported heads and a plenum intake quite easily. And it would still be quite streetable when compared to a Trex or G5X3.

 

yep. I like that idea of thinking.
good info guys

 

First of all... That cam is far from a BS grind...

Sported 210*-211* duration (at .050") in a little 302 cubic inch engine!
It has .444" with the stock 1.6 rockers and .474" lift with a $200 set of "bolt on" 1.7 roller rockers!
Super light and a true factory "high performance" reciprocating assembly featuring forged pistons, low tension rings and a short rod.
A well designed tuned intake manifold and a free flowing exhaust system.

A very nice overall power package!

~~~Also... At "that" time...

The quickest stock cammed, unmolested 5.0 engined stang with just a few simple bolt-ons was Bob Cosby's 88 coupe.
Long tube headers
3.73 gears
T5 trans
8.5 X 26 slicks
Speed Density
Best of 12.54 at 109+

I know, I was there....

~~~ Part Deux....

Today, the "stock" cammed NMRA Real Street cars are very impressive and they "are" running high nines, but with with three years of very "serious" development behind them and a slew of ludicrous "Rules Changes" for whatever reason, these cars are not a really good example of cam tech.

These racecars are now using the type of power adders that are closer to the higher class Renegade specs than the original intent of the class. So while they run "stock spec" camshafts, the stock "cam" issue, and its importance is almost moot now-a-days...

I know, I "am" there now...

~~~ My point???

Ford, GM or whatever... Proper cam design is key...

Back in 88-89 when I did a few custom cam profiles for these lil five liter Fords, that "did not" fit the typical "big LSA" like the masses expected, the Ford "regulars" were in an uproar. "These cam specs can't work. There's no logic to the design." Well, I proved my point with positive results and I'm still around selling tons of these "wrong" cam designs. As for those "regulars", well they are no longer involved with the sport.. He he he....

For the LS gang, they need to learn the same lessons the five liter guys did many years ago. Stop being so narrow minded and think that only the status quo and internet camshaft design rhetoric is the only way to go. There are better methods, concepts and ideas to help them go faster "and" quicker... They just have to listen to the experts, learn to think logically and not be a lemming and just follow the pack...

I plan to shake up the norm here too...

/off soapbox...

Ed

 

Unless you've driven in Australia which I'm guessing from your comment you haven't then you probably don't relaize that yes, most of Australia is open, but most folks don't live there. In fact the population centers like Sydney have lots of traffic that is just as bad as anywhere I have been during rush hour. They also don't have the interstate system we have, so a lot of driving is on city streets with lots of stop lights. I had the opportunity to drive there for awhile.

Plan B didn't quote his cam specs either. But, I know that a few of the cams I looked at there were specifically not XE-R. Its not that there is not a XE-R lobe in all of Australia, again, I was pointing out folks doing something different. I.E. using a lobe that can run without needing a valvespring change, and make good power.

Sam does MAF as well as MAFless tunes. There are cars running these cams with stock intakes along with 8TB intakes. Both run... One thing is that Sam has an Eddy Current dyno, along with an engine dyno, so he can do loaded tuning unlike most of the shope her ein the states doing unloaded tuning on a 248c

No, its because the folks in Australia felt the MAF meter was a restriction and felt there was some easy HP by getting rid of this. This is well documented.

But, I have posted a video of a 242/242 106 with an A4 idling at 875...

A Turbine followed next by a Wankel, with a piston engine far back. And if you want to talk about the dynamics of forced induction cam design vs N/A or 'Atmo' motors, cam selection is different there too.

You mentioned several thing above, and those are exactly what I am trying to get folks to think about. Think about port volume, Intake to exhaust flow with intake in place. Runner length, etc... Here is what I have been trying to put out in this thread since day one...

Folks are oohing, and Ahhhing over cams with huge lobes, and wide LSA which you seem to be preaching Surfer since the idle quality is better. Bottom line if you need to spread the LSA to get the car to idle, you have too much duration for the job. Like Erik said, if you get reversion on a dyno (a mist of fuel over the carb or in an 8TB setup, you have run into the limits of head flow for instance). If you look at the cams out there, and you look at where these cams in a theoretic model where valvetrain weight, etc... isn't an issue, these cams peak well past where the motor needs them too.

If you have an intake that peaks torque around 4200 and a motor than runs out of breath at 6500 why put a cam in the motor that should peak @ 7500?


I'm not arguing that some of these cams make good power. The reason for this is simple. They are so big that often times they hit the lift figure that the motor needs are part lift and duration. The reast of the time the valve is propped open, but doing very little. The issue then becomes low speed response and drivability for excessive lift and duration for the job required.

Its not the complexity, its the fact that in T/F everything is based on clutch setup. No one has spent the time and R&D to get a turbo to work with a T/F slipper clutch setup. Power curve is far different than a roots supercharger.

I have a stock Z06 cam in my car. My car is stock.

I do drive as car with a G5X3 package. Thats what the owner got from Lou. As for what grinds may go in the car, now or in the future, stay tuned for further details...

Anyhow, lets try to educate you bit... I'm guessing you must not have read this earlier, so I will repost it for you. Perhaps a picture will help you understand things a bit more. Again, you are getting hung up on one point on the cam (lift @ .050) vs the whole lobe (which is a common mistake). So, lets look at this 256 lobe you keep harping on...

BBC lobe 3358 on a BBC core is 254 degrees (goes to ~256 on a LS1) lift @ .200 is 163. Gross duration is 310. Lift with a 1.7 rocker is .575

Now lets compare that lobe to the 'ultra mild' 232 XE-R. I mean come on its 20 degrees smaller. Its a baby lobe right? You tell me...




The XE-R 232 lobe is 232 @.050 153@.200 and 281 gross with .595 lift w 1.7 rocker

Lets look at the 242/242 106LSA 105 ICL I was talking about

Lets compare a 242 BBC Marine lobe to a 242 XE-R lobe


BTW, the blue line is the BBC lobe.


Not only the GSCA, but there are other classes which have requirements of no "choppy" cams. They also require the cars to run stock type tires. A wide LSA cam (like a 117 or a 120) not only idle smooth (like stock which is a rule, not some sort of abstract preference), they kill the low end power, and the car run good up top. Those cams are purpose built with a class in mind... A local guy is running an LT1 in a 70 Nova in one of those Nostalgia classes...

Yeah, why don't you talk with Ed about those little motors, and some of the cams for those cars. Ask him about some of those cars with one his cams on a 108 that when they saw the specs on it, they said it wouldn't run. When installed it ran fine... There is more than the E303 out there...

 

Its called a TR224/224 111 +0 Its already avaliable... Haven't seen one make 500, but there are a lot of 224 lobes out there not being used which might get the job done also.

This is from GMHTP in an article by David Vizard. David took a stock cam for a GenI SBC, and then swapped it out for a "box" cam. Then he switched if for a custom grind which took the important engine paramters into consideration.

The Stock type cam was a 260/270 (gross duration) with a 112 LSA and 41 degrees of overlap.

The cam was swapped for a Brand X off the shelf cam (278/290 114LSA 56 degrees of overlap ( I think I actually used to have this cam in my 383 I think it is a Crane HMV-278). Anyhow, this cam was a bit soggy under 3000RPM, but over 3500 it woke up and made a 45 HP increase over the stock cam (which isn't bad).

Now, when you actually look at what the motor needs you end up with a cam that is radically different. You end up really needing a cam that is a 272/278 on a 108 LSA with 58 degrees of overlap.

So, what happens?

Not only does this cam make more top end power, more mid range power, but it also made more low end power. In other words, and increase across the board. At low end it was +15HP over stock. The stock cam idles at 18" of vac, and @ 600RPM. Both aftermarket cams made 15-16" of Vac and idled @ 650.

So, you are saying, there is no way a cam with a 108LSA can idle like a cam with a 114. The simple answer is, yes it can. And on top of it it can drive better and make more power...

The simple answer is that a correctly spec'd cam may look a bit odd, but if designed correctly it'll make more power thana "box" cam and do it better than a generic box cam that has a million and one possible uses, none of them particularly ideal...

BTW when you run the numbers on the three cams in a 3200 lb car with a 2200 stall here is how they shake out in some drag race software.

Stock - 13.55 @100.4
Box - 13.01@106.93
Custom - 12.80@108.31

Which one do you want?

Same idle, better power?

 

I think alot of the LS guys all forgot about that Lil' 5.0 ED. I have a bit of experience in the 5.0 scene and i get alot of guys comming up to me asking to put in a cam to get that sound-i always tell them for a daily driver the stock cam is hard to beat. With some boost(8-10lb's) u can get a stock cammed 5.0 into the 10's(125-127) with the proper intake, heads and exhaust. if u want retarding the factory cam by about 4 degrees helps but everyone always wants a big freaking cam. I remember Paul at J&P always telling me that even a small lift cam works wonders when it's paired to a good set of heads that have awesome "low lift flow #'s". Just look at the puplualr 5.0 street heads the runners range from 170-185 and they flow around 200-250 tops. I love the LS but honestly I think were spoiled.

 

I've seen many cases just in this forum where some of the vendors seem to be just after that sale. This can easily be seen by some of the cam selections out there and cam offers and recommendations. The truck crowd is worse at understanding this stuff than the f-body guys could even imagine.

To a majority of them, Comps 212/218 is the best thing since sliced bread. And this doesn't matter on what there mods or even future mods will be. Heresay is all it is I'd guess. Or maybe it is great...

My point is, since there is companys out there who are actually making cams with the correct valve events and using lsa as a by product instead of a way to smooth out there terrible street cam, where are the guys making the heads at?

Alot of the vendors here scare me away. The high flow numbers make me curious to know if its all just BS. Not that their numbers are bs, but more what do those numbers actually mean on the car. I saw where someone offered heads to a guy for his 325ci. I dont even think the vender knew the 5.3 has a smaller bore than the 346. Also, the valve sizes recommend seemed way out of proportion.

Its hard to start a thread and try and find the right heads b/c so many guys have gone to the vendors and automatically you'll recieve 30 posts stating how X brand is best and they made X amount of HP. I know a majority of you guys get what I mean. Are these heads just good on the dyno but dogs at the track and on the street? Maybe, but who are the repetible guys you can trust? If they are the vendors, thats terrific.

 

J-Rod, I've read that article in GMHIGHTECH and seen the results. Alot of the stuff you read in magazines is skewed from the get-go so as to prove the point they're trying to make in the article. It all depended on "which" box cam they put in from the start.

Looking at the first cam example you posted it appears that the 232 cam will idle better than the 256 cam.

Yes you posted a video, now post one of the same engine with an LS6 intake on it and lets compare idles.

The GSCA guys were concerned about stock like idles before those racing classes ever existed. But as far as the "chop" goes, will a cam on a 108 or smaller lsa chop more or less than a cam on a 114? Chop to me is part of idle quality. I guess the factory (GM and Ford) realized that they needed a wider LSA to get a smooth idle from the cams they were installing in their performance vehicles. Just cause a cam can idle at 650 rpm doesn't mean it will have a "smooth" idle.

Didn't the Monaro GT or GTS (something or other) come mafless from the factory in Australia?

I wasn't talking about forced induction cam selection, I was talking about the difference in efficiency between two similar air pumps.

Oh boy, I'm getting tired of all this typing. lol

I'm not fond of choppy cams and I've been thinking about putting an LS6 cam in my car. So I'll repeat my request from a while back in this or the other cam thread. Someone grind me a cam that idles "exactlly" like the stock cam or an LS6 cam but gives me a good HP and TQ increase like the TR 224 does. If someone can work that magic, I'll buy it.


Ed - back in those days, did you own a 1985 or 86 5.0 powered SVO?

 

I agree some magazine stuff is skewed. Vizard has done quite a bit of cam design, so I think he has some clue in what he is talking about. The point of that article wasn't to pimp a certain product it was to make folks think about what is important in cam design. In that case smaller lobes and a tighter LSA over a wider LSa and bigger lobes.

That depends on a lot of factors like engine size and valve evetns. Saying one lobe is better than the other without taking other factors into consideration is not the way to do it.

I'm back from Austrlia right now, but hope to be doing some MAFles tuning in the not so distant future. I will be happy to post before and after videos. I was about to go back to Austrlaia for 4 months, but it didn't work out. So if Pete and my buds down there wannt to oblige you with a video, I'm sure they can speak up. Otehrwise if you want to pay for my trip down there, I will be happy to fly down there and shoot somevideo for you.

Maybe so, but the stock type classes folks are running specifically prohibit "lumpy" cams so you are forced to spread LSA to smooth idle.

See, thats a subjective thing. Some folks look at idle quality as simply being able to idle at a given RPM. I.E. the car will idle without dying or surging or hunting @ XXX RPM. I don't consider a cam with some chop to not have good idle quality at all... In fact I like it...


The factory is saddled with all sorts of limitations for NVH (Noise Vibration and Harshness), govt. regulations on noise and pollution, etc... So, the cams they design are often for the lowest common denominator. Many folks won't accept a car that can't be lugged down to 600 RPM in gear, etc... In the cas eof the owner who mods their car, they have more leeway than GM does, so the options are greater.


Correct, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have good idle quality either.

Some do...

A Supercharger or a turbo doesn't change the inherent efficency or un-efficency of an engine. I have a Buick GN. Without a turbo and intercooler, the 3.8 is still a big POS. With a turbo, the innefficency of the heads is offset by air being forced into the cylinder rather than being drawn in via vaccum. The motor still isn't any more efficent. You've just moved the weak point around...

Oh boy, I'm getting tired of all this typing. lol
Again thats a personal preference, and something to discuss with you cam designer. I'm not saying its wrong, but to go bashing some of these cams because you want a stock idle isn't necessarily cool either. Many folks like the sound of a choppy idle, and thats exactly what they want. I'm not saying stock idle isn't good, I'm just saying a choppy idle isn't necessarily bad.


There are always tradeoffs. What kind of heads are you planning to run? What mods do you have? What does the car dyno now? What sort of gain are you looking for?

Again, your idea of whats perfect in a cam may be far differne than many others. Many folks won't care if a car has some chop so long as it will idle, and not buck or surge from low speed reversion. Your particular needs may be met with ultrawide LSA, but it also may be fdar less than optimal. Take look at the LS6 cam for instance. It come son strong up top, but a little more lobe and a narrow LSA will fatten up the midrange a bunch. You and I can do that. GM can't.


Ed - back in those days, did you own a 1985 or 86 5.0 powered SVO?[/QUOTE]

 

For the Aussie guys looking for good street manners and good fuel economy, they'd most likely recommend their 232 cam to you. Since gas is $4/gal, fuel economy is something they do look at.

232/232 108/108 I drove one in an auto over there. It wasn't tuned yet, but it drove fine other than short shifting. With tuning its supposed to get even better.

242/242 is used in a lot of the more "weekend warrior" cars, but I saw plenty in daily drivers, again, its all a matter of preference.

[quote]
Craig put a 242 in his GTS and he said it was the best thing that he ever did!

The 242 is spastic I went for a ride with ROB's VX Clubby with heads and a 242 and he had it fish taling in 3rd and revving to 7,000 RPM it was a hoot. Rob's car made 404 RWHP at Sam's dyno day last year.

The 242 will destroy your fuel economy big time expect around 25 l/100 km around town. The 242 has a lope like a mo fo and sounds as angry as hell.

Personally if it was a daily driver I wouldn't recommend it but for a weekend warrior why not.
------------------
go the 232,as it is great has power right thru the range and will easily get you 300kw at the wheels ur welcome to come for ride in mine,it drives like a stocker
------------------
SergenGTS had I think a 232 cam and cleaned up C4B heads and has done 11.2 at the quarter with a stock bottom end. Work was done by Grant and Dick
------------------
Ye the 242 is just an animal, and in the GTS was awesome...

232 or 242 either or will give ya the power and the GTS heads will be great for no extra $$$, deciding factor may come down to fuel consumption.
------------------
I'd agree that the 242 isn't a recommended daily driver, but for a weekend car it rocks! I'm running a Grand Am cam 239/251 on a 106lsa. I like it. Average fuel consumption is steadily reducing - have it down to 19l/100km, driven quite hard. So far car has made 390rwhp, is an A4, with the converter unlocked. Havent redynoed after changing to D/F 1-3/4 headers and twin 3" system, but engine revs noticably harder to the 7100rpm redline.

If fuel economy is a concern, stick with the smaller cam.
------------------


See, its not always about who has the lumpiest cam. The folks over there have similar requests like drivability, fuel economy, etc...


Ok, just for the record, once more

I am not advocating everyone run a certain cam or a certain LSA, or even a certain lobe. Lets just be perfectly clear on this. Does everyone understand?

Again, all this stuff is being posted for one reason and one reason only.


I want folks to think a bit more about their cam. What do you want, and what do you need. IMHO the best consumer is an informed consumer. The more you educate yourself on this the better decisons you can make. Again, I'm going to preach it again.

Valve events, valve events, valve events...
Only as much lift as your valve can support and your motor needs...
LSA as a byproduct, and not the determining factor...

 

Have you ever looked at a GT2-3? Idles like stock, if not better, and puts down great numbers. (For a cam its size)
Definetely better than a Z06 cam.

 

J-Rod, actually the Buick 3.8 is one of the most efficient engines ever built in it's day. It was clean burning and gave off low emmisions, ie: efficient. No air pump either, unlike the L98 or 5.0. May not have made killer HP in N/A trim, but then it wasn't designed to back then. Still going strong in today's cars, cant say that about the 5.0 or SBC I and II. Must be an oldie but a goodie.

A power adder does alter the inherent efficiecy of an engine, to say otherwise is incorrect. The weak spot isn't being moved, it's getting reduced. Seeing as you own a TR then I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that guys have gone high 10s in 3600 lb TRs with bolt-ons. Don't see much of a weak spot there, well except for that little block having to deal with all that power. lol

So some Monaros come SD from the factory down under. So the tuners there had a baseline tune to start from. When I first heard that they were doing mafless tunes I was like "WOW", these guys got more on the ball then the American tuners. Then I went to some of their websites and discovered that "some" Monaros come that way from the factory and that the tuners down there were uploading via Edit this mafless tune into cars and scraping the maf. Ohh, so that's the secret. No longer as impressed, especially when I did some currency exchange calculations.

I understand the point you're trying to get across, lsa as a byproduct. But in my case, if I want to keep all the idle characteristics of the stock cam what am I to do? I don't want a lumpy cam. The trick is the lsa. It might be a crutch, but it works for the LS6 cam and the LPE GT2-3 and some other cams out there.

 

That’s not a cam!!!! BTW, Love your work Erik!

Remember though, J-Rod was just giving an example; when he makes references to towards some of the larger cam profiles he had found in Australia. Typically, Australians follow most of the sweet little camshafts which are available in the US!

As an example, one of the most favorite old mans cam over here is; 212/212 on 112 lsa , This cam produces great bottom end torque for the average businessman driving around in fat limos like this with a stock like idle.

http://www.holden.com.au//images/upl...caprice_01.jpg



How many times do we read; “Oh, you better get that cam on a 114 because my buddy tried a 112 once and it was a real mess for the guy who tried to tune it.”

J-Rod and many others in here are doing a great job in curving the common misconceptions that surround general camshaft knowledge.


Yep.... Australian Dollars BTW!

http://www.harrop.com.au/root_folder..._manifold.html



SilverSurfer, why do you say that? Do you know the comparison between the two standards?

Australia’s EPA emission requirements are in line with; EURO2 EURO3 EURO4 etc.
ADR 79/00 Emission Control for Light Vehicles
This new ADR implements the "Euro 2" exhaust and evaporative emissions standards for light vehicles in order to reduce air pollution. It will apply to all passenger and goods carrying vehicles with a gross vehicle mass less than or equal to 3.5 tonnes. For vehicles operating on diesel fuel, the rule will apply to new models from 1 January 2002 and all models from 2003. For vehicles operating on petrol, liquefied petroleum gas or natural gas, the rule will apply to new models from 2003 and all vehicles from 2004.

That’s not entirely true. Some of the better tuners around would never refer to a factory SD tune for a base line… They tune from the original PCM tables that came with the car, measuring and adjusting in the VE’s and other areas that most people shy away from. In other words, nothing is uploaded prior to the tune.


So you would design a cam and then move the LSA out for idle compensation?