TableLeg

Thanks Russ for the reply,

I presume that is up until a certain point?

Would using the high lift 212/218 or the 220 with 0.5'ish lift be ok?

Is it only when left is exceeding 0.6 that hardened pushrods are recommended?

PREDATOR-Z

Actually even stock the push-rods are a weak link and a power robber. Not only would you benefit greatly from hardened but thicker as well like 11/32s or tapered end 3/8s

TableLeg

This is the only problem with mods like this it is easy to get carried away as I suppose if I am to install a new cam, new springs and new pushrods people will no doubt say I should also fit new LS7 lifters.

Like I mentioned previously I don't want all out power or torque as the chassis wont be able to put that power down. Somewhere between 350 & 400 will be more than enough.

I will most likely be using block hugger type headers and be retaining the LS6 injectors.

Again comparing cost I could get an LS6 cam, PAC 1218's, new pushrods and lifters for probably the same as an aftermarket cam and springs alone.

It's a tough choice but also as I mentioned before I want to enure I can meet emissions tests.

I had contemplated changing the cam at a later date and putting in a set of PAC 1518's now so the heads could be refitted. Get the whole rest of the car built up and then at a later date change the cam but it would be so much easier to do now.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I missed that part. I don't know which cams will pass emissions. Hopefully someone on here will have some experience with that and can advise you.

TableLeg

Thanks anyway for the responses

99Bluz28

iTrader: (35)

For passing emissions go with a cam that has at least -6* overlap to allow for variations from the advertised specs. Myself I'd go with at least -8* OL .

212/218 113lsa has -11* OL
212/218 114lsa has -13* OL
212/218 115lsa has -15* OL

216/220 114lsa has -10* OL
216/220 113lsa has -8* OL

99Bluz28

iTrader: (35)

If you're considering going with the PAC1518s, I'd look at one of PACs newer valve springs they have out, the 1211X.
The 1211X has better spring rates, a lower prices and IMO the quality is just as good as the 1518s. I'd buy them over the 1518s any day!

http://www.ws6project.com/user_stor/...oducts_id=5134

TableLeg

Right I've just been rereading some cam info again and now I think I see why 99Bluz28 commented on his two suggested cams were both -11* overlap.

Am I right in thinking that 0 or negative overlap are conducive to helping cams meet emissions?

It seems to be the general consensus I am getting from other threads. One person even commented that he fitted a 228 cam that meets emissions due to the fact it has 0 overlap.

Any comments on this?

*Edit: you beat me to it!*

TableLeg

Thanks very much for that very useful info

99Bluz28

iTrader: (35)

A 228 passing is rare even with it tuned just to pass smog, and additives added to the fuel. Do you want to be sure it'll pass smog, or worry and hope it'll pass smog?

TableLeg

Well I want to be sure.

Using your suggestion as an example and using this useful calc I just found http://www.wallaceracing.com/overlap-calc.php it shows that the 220/220 on a 114LSA has an overlap of -8*.

It's a very useful tool and if it is to be believed I could run a 220 'sleeper cam'.

What do you think?

99Bluz28

iTrader: (35)

So, you'll be using stock unported heads, an shorty/block hugger headers, is that correct?
If so, then I'd run something like a 218/222 114lsa which will help with the somewhat restrictive exhaust flow, and still have -8* overlap.

Cam Motion, C33-674; 218/222, .544"/.544", 114lsa+4
or a CompCams custom grind; 218/222, .563"/.566", 114lsa+3(111 ICL)
which can be configured here:
http://www.texas-speed.com/p-161-com...-camshaft.aspx

TableLeg

Thanks again,

Great info and help

In answer to your question yes that is right, stock heads and block hugger type headers but I also have an LS6 intake and ported TB.

Ironfreak

Doesn't the LS9 cam require a front mounted cam sensor?

}BlueFire{

iTrader: (8)

Yes ls9 requires a front cover change... you can get it from lingenfelter for like $140 and then cam harness for about $25. I wouldnt want to give up that much torque down low. As per what was posted on the first page about the cam test. I have an l33 also and ran the ls2 cam since it was a free cam to me. In my opinion is the best of the stock cams that keeps most the torque. The l33 already has the ls2 timing set and has the correct sprocket for the cam sensor. I gained a decent amount of power in my opinion as i put down 371hp and 348 torque std corrected. SAE numbers were 10/10 less. I used the stock l33 springs which or ls2 springs. All i did was change cam, front cover and harness. My engine has 136k miles on it and has been performing wonderfully the last few thousand miles since cam swap.

}BlueFire{

iTrader: (8)

An aftermarket cam will obviously gain more all over the curve but for me a stock cam change was enough. I have a post in the dyno section about what bolt on's i have. I will be doing a turbo cam real soon and running that n/a for awhile while i piece together a turbo kit. I just didnt have the money for a complete valvetrain redo for a performance cam at this time. So this was the cheapest route with the best results for me. I'm guessing i am putting down stock ls1 numbers, maybe a little higher but with less torque. I will be running the track on the 14th so we shall see. My previous best with a stock ls1 untuned was a 12.9 so i'm hoping to match that at least if not beat it.

TableLeg

99Bluz28,

Looking at the two cams you have suggested one has more lift than the other.

This poses two questions that I hope you can offer some thoughts on.

1, The higher lift cam, Is this likely to yield more torque/hp than the lower lift cam?

2, Could both of these cam be used with PAC 1218's or would the TSP cam with highest lift 0f 0.566 be safer with PAC 1518 or 1211x's? Would using LS6 springs be too close for the lower lift cam?

Thanks in advance.

TableLeg

Many thanks for the reply and interesting information. Do you happen to know the rating of the L33 springs?

99Bluz28

iTrader: (35)

The lift on both of those cams should be fine with the PAC1218, their different companies and different cam lobes so it would be hard to say if one make more power than the other. If I had a list of the Cam Motion cam lobes with the lobe duration at .006" and .200" lift then I could possibly give you a answer; but I don't. I wouldn't recommend the ls6 valve spring with anything other than the applications GM uses them for. I would lean towards the Cam Motion cam mainly because their tolerances are a lot tighter then the Camp Cam, so the chances are greater you'll actually get a 218/222 114lsa+4 which isn't as likely to happen with the Comp Cam, cams.

TableLeg

Thanks again guys