I love Verbs logic

 

The point is, it is a bad design. I don't know how many times we've been over this, but it gives you a narrow power band and makes you jump through all sort of hoops with the valvetrain. It is flat out unnecessary and there are a lot better designs available.

All of these huge cams are amazingly silly for what 99.999% of you all do with your cars. Unless you have the car set up totally like a drag car and are a very good driver (or have a very high stall converter) you WILL BE SLOWER. It looks good on a dyno if you're only looking at peak numbers but performs like *** at the track. Why? Because you can't keep it in the power range, it isn't a race car, and you aren't a race car driver.

 

Verbs,

Use as a daily driver, then I'd go with 114 LSA for the cam listed.

I have the TEA NOS exhaust port on my new 2.5's and it will seriously MOVE exhaust gases. If your new TEA LS6 2.5 heads have the TEA NOS exhaust port, you might want to ask Brian if 248 degrees of exhaust duration is excessive with a 200 shot for a 346. I think the cam being considered is more suited to greater than stock displacement.

 

Aluminum flywheels suck with big cams for driveability, so my thoughts were by switching to a steel flywheel (which would improve driveability) that would help offset any reduction in driveability by going to a bigger cam. Doesn't seem that out of line.

 

Switching flywheels will help, but not to any great degree. You just don't have the displacement or compression ratio to run a camshaft that size. Not to mention, it just isn't needed.

 

I like high (114-117) LSA in most LS1 applications.