Looking for HUGE torque
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
From: Richmond, VA
Gears and a stall are a definite for the future. I'm planning on rebuilding the trans so I was gonna do the stall at the same time. In the mean time though, I wanted to get some experience with a cam swap and have a little more fun with the car until I can get the heads, trans, and gears in.
So would the Hotcam be a good choice with the stock stall?
So would the Hotcam be a good choice with the stock stall?
The ASA cam with 11* of overlap would not be a good choice with the stock stall, the Hot cam would be on the verge of the limits of the stock stall not riding the brakes with it's -1* of overlap. The problem with both of these cams is they only have .525" of lift and would not be taking full advantage of your ported heads, let alone stockers so this would be leaving torque on the table. Compression is what builds torque besides and you want an early intake valve closing point to help with dynamic compression. Milling the heads and running a thinner head gasket will help with static. The LS6 heads offer better PTV than the 5.3 heads, but you have to be milled more to equal compression which hurts airflow slightly. The 5.3 heads also have a smaller intake runner which as was mentioned previously promotes velocity which increases torque. You shouldn't have to worry about PTV with your relatively small cam, so I'd go with them. TSP should be able to tell you that their cam will work with their heads and not have clearance issues.
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
From: Richmond, VA
I'm not getting the hotcam or asa cam for the ported heads. I was just gonna do a cam only swap til I got the funds to do everything at once. I was looking at the TorqueMAX Stage 2 for the ported heads with 3.73s and a 3600 stall. But I've been doing some research on aftermarket cams with stock stalls and nobody seemed to be happy. So I'm just gonna wait and do everything once.
So how does this sound....
PRC 5.3 heads from TSP milled .030, SNS TorqueMAX Stage 2 cam, 3600 stall on a rebuilt 4l60e, and 3.73s?
Or am I missing any other cams that produce huge torque?
So how does this sound....
PRC 5.3 heads from TSP milled .030, SNS TorqueMAX Stage 2 cam, 3600 stall on a rebuilt 4l60e, and 3.73s?
Or am I missing any other cams that produce huge torque?
Did You read the stickeys in this forum? There is a whole lot of info about cans ,,,,,,,there is even a section that is about torque and about everything else You want to know about cams and heads ,,,,,,,etc
I don't know that the stage 2 cam would clear with milling on the 5.3 heads. Why not the stage 1 cam which will make more low end torque than the 2 if that is your goal and why not stick it in from the get go?
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
Five Reasons the Camaro Was the Most Pivotal Player in the Pony Car Wars 2.0
Brett Foote
10 Reasons the LS7 Is GM's Most Extreme Naturally Aspirated V8 Engine Ever
Verdad Gallardo Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
From: Richmond, VA
I was under the impression that the Stage 2 makes more torque than the Stage 1 and the Stage 3 makes more torque than both. I'm actually more interested in the Stage 3 but I can't find any reviews on it.
Peak torque yes, but at a higher rpm. I was under the impression you wanted low end torque.
There was a time I put a ZZ3 cam in my Caprice with stock gears and stall and that was mild enough to drive just fine BUT the car got no faster. I gained a tenth or two, then gears/stall both made for HUGE gains.
I made the "cam first" mistake and have been around too many big cam stock stall cars. It is a mistake that does not need to be made, lots of us telling you it is a mistake, learn from other people's mistakes, it makes it much easier for you to stay happy with the project.
I made the "cam first" mistake and have been around too many big cam stock stall cars. It is a mistake that does not need to be made, lots of us telling you it is a mistake, learn from other people's mistakes, it makes it much easier for you to stay happy with the project.
I think the tendency for these ls motors is to gear and stall because they really don't make that great of low end torque in the stock configuration. But gears and stall doesn't change the amount of torque coming out of the motor. I don't want low gears or a high stall, I want a motor that pulls good from down low.
I think running ported 5.3 or ls6 heads will push the torque curve up higher in the operating range than running an as-cast aftermarket 205cc head. Stock ls6 is 210cc before porting, not sure about the 5.3.
Asa and Hot cams are not really good choices for low end torque.
I think running ported 5.3 or ls6 heads will push the torque curve up higher in the operating range than running an as-cast aftermarket 205cc head. Stock ls6 is 210cc before porting, not sure about the 5.3.
Asa and Hot cams are not really good choices for low end torque.
A torque converter (Not a 'stall', damn it. Pet peeve of mine.) will get the motor into it's usable torque range quicker, and will provide a multiplication effect on it's way there. The end result is more 'felt' or 'driving' torque. You don't want a cheap one, either; you get what you pay for especially with torque converters.
Swapping to a higher numerical rear gear ratio provides greater mechanical leverage, so once again, you will have more torque at the rear wheels even with the same torque at the motor.
There isn't a cam worth running that'll work with the stock converter, and even the stock setup benefits from a converter.
Swapping to a higher numerical rear gear ratio provides greater mechanical leverage, so once again, you will have more torque at the rear wheels even with the same torque at the motor.
There isn't a cam worth running that'll work with the stock converter, and even the stock setup benefits from a converter.
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,620
Likes: 17
From: BFE
Why is it that people ask a question and when given a good honest answer they still want to do it backwards. Stall first, then think cam for stall range.
Cams with positive overlap will pull on the brakes in stock stall and that reduces braking capabilities and is a potential hazard. We have mentioned a zillion time, caming without stall is just plain disappointing.
Cams with positive overlap will pull on the brakes in stock stall and that reduces braking capabilities and is a potential hazard. We have mentioned a zillion time, caming without stall is just plain disappointing.
A torque converter (Not a 'stall', damn it. Pet peeve of mine.) will get the motor into it's usable torque range quicker, and will provide a multiplication effect on it's way there. The end result is more 'felt' or 'driving' torque. You don't want a cheap one, either; you get what you pay for especially with torque converters.
Swapping to a higher numerical rear gear ratio provides greater mechanical leverage, so once again, you will have more torque at the rear wheels even with the same torque at the motor.
There isn't a cam worth running that'll work with the stock converter, and even the stock setup benefits from a converter.
Swapping to a higher numerical rear gear ratio provides greater mechanical leverage, so once again, you will have more torque at the rear wheels even with the same torque at the motor.
There isn't a cam worth running that'll work with the stock converter, and even the stock setup benefits from a converter.
I can't speak for the OP, but when I asked around about getting more low end torque out of a 6.0, all i got was answers for lower gears and higher stall. That wasn't the question i asked. I know those will help the feel of the car but each has its own set of drawbacks, i.e. higher heat, more wear, reduced fuel economy, etc.
I have decided to go with a t56 on my build so I'm not limited by the stock converter anymore, but my goal remains the same, to get the engine to produce the most low end torque I can.
Why is it that people ask a question and when given a good honest answer they still want to do it backwards. Stall first, then think cam for stall range.
Cams with positive overlap will pull on the brakes in stock stall and that reduces braking capabilities and is a potential hazard. We have mentioned a zillion time, caming without stall is just plain disappointing.
Cams with positive overlap will pull on the brakes in stock stall and that reduces braking capabilities and is a potential hazard. We have mentioned a zillion time, caming without stall is just plain disappointing.
Launching!
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
From: SC
This is going to sound stupid but I think the deal with the low end on the LS engine is that the cylinder heads are just too damn good. Even a stock LS head has 205cc ports, my 400 SBC has 195cc ports. At low speed the smaller port size gives you a port velocity advantage over a larger port size to cram more air in and make it more efficient at a lower RPM, BUT it winds up hindering power range and hp capability. This is throwing out many other factors about cylinder head port math but its just one thing I've always thought. If I were to change nothing on my engine but the heads and go to something like a 227cc AFR I know I'd gain a chunk of hp but my low end would suffer (some) so it's no different. Like everyone said though you can make up for that with CI.
You can see that in the head test Hot Rod did a while back. On a 408 LS, the stock heads whooped every single head with larger ports in torque below about 3300 RPM but then they got stood on their ear.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e.../photo_06.html
You can see that in the head test Hot Rod did a while back. On a 408 LS, the stock heads whooped every single head with larger ports in torque below about 3300 RPM but then they got stood on their ear.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e.../photo_06.html
Last edited by SSellers; Jul 19, 2013 at 02:44 PM.
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
From: Richmond, VA
Ok I'm not gonna bother to do the cam first. I think I'm gonna go with the built transmission, gears, and an aftermarket TORQUE(lol) converter. Then I'll get the heads and cam. But my question still stands, are the PRC 5.3 heads and TorqueMAX Stage 2 cam the most optimal combo for low end torque. Or is there a better combo for what I want? Or should I get a custom grind to match the heads I get?