who is running a big hydrolic cam?
04-02-2004, 02:31 PM
#43
TECH Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stealth
Changing to 242/248, 595/625, 114/110.
whys the 99 Camaro have such low hp but really high torque? Is it a mild stroker set up?
"99 Camaro LS1:
412rwhp/488rwtq, Stage 2, 4.11, T-56"
04-02-2004, 04:01 PM
#45
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gator's 99TA
so stealth, you arent giving up on your stroker ys trim car then? i know it was forsale for a long time.
04-07-2004, 07:18 PM
#47
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, skipping the engineering issues for a moment, the current cam is designed for less boost than the new cam. As boost increases, cam duration decreases, and in my case, exhaust lift increases due to the NOS. Hell, the 8-second turbo Mustangs run ~220 duration. In another post I stated that these relationships are parabolic in nature.
04-07-2004, 07:59 PM
#50
Originally Posted by gator's 99TA
that is amazing that an 8 second mustang (assuming we are talking blower/turbo) run intake duration of 220 degrees! i bet the exhaust duration is very large.
Jay Allen (mustang tuner) told me this years ago and i couldnt believe it.
Jay Allen (mustang tuner) told me this years ago and i couldnt believe it.
Lots of renegade cars into the 8's with very small camshafts. It's all about knowing wtf you're doing.
04-08-2004, 07:58 AM
#51
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MUSTANGEATER
Lots of renegade cars into the 8's with very small camshafts. It's all about knowing wtf you're doing.
04-08-2004, 12:37 PM
#52
Originally Posted by stealth
I agree, and that why I keep saying that cams should be designed by professionals, not by popular consensus on a web site.
04-08-2004, 12:38 PM
#53
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stealth
I agree, and that why I keep saying that cams should be designed by professionals, not by popular consensus on a web site.
Ding..Ding...Ding...give that man a prize...
04-08-2004, 01:01 PM
#54
well my 388 all bore is getting a:
Comp grind 244/252, 0.597"/0.597", 110LSA hydrolic roller cam.
I don't have numbers yet (still putting it together) but I'm sure I could have done larger (if I wanted/needed to). This is my daily driver (M6) so I wanted to stay <0.600" lift for valve spring life.
Comp grind 244/252, 0.597"/0.597", 110LSA hydrolic roller cam.
I don't have numbers yet (still putting it together) but I'm sure I could have done larger (if I wanted/needed to). This is my daily driver (M6) so I wanted to stay <0.600" lift for valve spring life.
04-08-2004, 01:14 PM
#56
Originally Posted by DenzSS
That's more exhaust duration than my solid. 
I wanted to make sure I could get all the exhaust out of the cylinders, though now that the heads are back (made some improvements) and flowing 240CFM (exhaust) it looks like it wasn't really needed
04-08-2004, 01:32 PM
#57
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no hatin' here. It doesn't matter to me what you run. 
Personally, I have difficulty using that much duration in a hydraulic setup. Unless the ramp is pathetic(which I don't presume it to be), it is not going to last particularly long. You're into the solid roller range.
04-08-2004, 01:37 PM
#58
Originally Posted by DenzSS
There's no hatin' here. It doesn't matter to me what you run. Personally, I have difficulty using that much duration in a hydraulic setup. Unless the ramp is pathetic(which I don't presume it to be), it is not going to last particularly long. You're into the solid roller range.
