1BADLS1tuner

iTrader: (5)

I am in the process of SLOWLY building the ls1/t56 for my FC rx7... when i have time

Anyway i was wondering what your thoughts are on this cam for the FC, ported heads are in my future...

227/231 .614 .617 110

.050
OPEN CLOSE
INT: 3 BTDC 43 ABDC
EXH: 45 BBCD 5 ATDC

@110 ICL


I also have the same cam on a 112 lsa...

Wich one would you use and why?

I dont think there is any advance ground into them, thinking i should get an adjustable timing chain to advance it 2-3*....

itsslow98

iTrader: (18)

I would do the 112 to carry the power out a little later in the RPM range. With heads and a decent intake manifold I think it would be well suited in the light rx7.

1BADLS1tuner

iTrader: (5)

true since its such a light car it wont need the power to come on to fast and will be more usefull later in the rpm...

PREDATOR-Z

I would go for the 110 LSA, if you degree it and install it at 110 ICL it will have a very nice power-band. It will also have a nice 9* overlap which is a sweet zone for the cubes at hand.
If you are comfortable degreeing cams, you might want to advance 2* for 108 ICL but that would depend on your preference in power range and shift points.

v8pwr

iTrader: (19)

That is a nice sized cam for an ls1 that will make very strong power throughout the rpm range. This cam won't make a big dyno # but will have better low to mid range power while only falling a little short on the top end. I would use this cam in a bone stock ls1 longblock to make good power. Use the 110 LSA.

Russ K

iTrader: (1)

I would use the 112 LSA cam as it has 5* overlap and will have way better low rpm/light throttle drive ability (less surge). Install it at 112 ICL as with a light car, you want to shift the power band upstairs. Also will have a wider power band.

Russ Kemp

PREDATOR-Z

45.5 IVC is late for this type of cam.
LS motors are not 8000 rpm motors. They do not need to be. For stock cubes you want an earlier IVC.

1BADLS1tuner

iTrader: (5)

not wanting to turn the motor more than 6800-6900rpm...

the rx7 will weigh 2800# with full tank and me inside, the gears are 4.10s...

I obviously want to use all the powerband i can, i dont want it to make power to 7500 and only use half the powerband lol...

If i could get the powerband to peak around 6800 that would be aswesome

Russ K

iTrader: (1)

8000 RPM? LOL, the intake manifold will determine the peak RPM, and this is a very mild cam. My G5X3 114+4 cam had a 47 IVC in my 2001 ZO6. With the stock 3.42 gears, there was more than enough bottom end power.

The OP's car is only 2800 lbs and with 4.10 gears he doesn't need a 110 lsa cam. Maybe if he had a carb style intake manifold.

Russ Kemp

PREDATOR-Z

Your G5X3 was a high rpm cam, your assumption that a 227 on 110 lsa will die too early is ironic.
The 110 will have stronger cylinder pressures and WILL make more power to the OP desired rpm range.

badassracing

iTrader: (13)

LOL Really...going from 110 to 112 ICL is going to make it an 8000 rpm motor?

therabidweasel

iTrader: (5)

https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1601398-my-450whp-mamofied-1le-ss.html

I have the same cam on a 114 with a fast 102 and peak at 6300ish. You can look at my dyno thread if interested. Put down 450sae through a 9" and a4. Numbers were corroberated to within 1hp on a mustang as well. Enjoy, go 112.

1BADLS1tuner

iTrader: (5)

Very Nice Man!

PREDATOR-Z

If this is what you understood from what I wrote better you crawl back in your hole. You do not understand cam dynamics so you are just saying idiocies.

mkvamso

iTrader: (2)

A lower ivc will make power peak earlier

You can look at two exact same cams with a different lsa and ivc

TR224/224 112+4
TR224/224 114+4
The 114+4 will make more Peak HP, but the band is higher in rpm.
The 112+4 will make more power under the curve but fall off faster

slt200mph

iTrader: (42)

Predator-Z is right the 110 LSA cam is the correct choice for the OP's application.

badassracing

iTrader: (13)

Well maybe since your so smart you can explain it to me. In your first post you said you would go with a 110 lICL which would give a 43.5 IVC. Russ K said he would go with a 112ICL and this would give a 45.5 IVC. Is this not correct? Then you say 45.5 is to late for stock cubes and that they are not 8000rpm engines? I mean I'm just reading this right out of what you said.

I agree that a 112 ICL is not right for this cam but for you to make a comment about 8000rpms because of a 45.5 IVC...LMFAO

If it were me I'd install the cam with the 110LSA on a 108ICL or the 112lsa on a 110ICL. Either cam would be good it just depends what the end user wants.

mkvamso

iTrader: (2)

If he said 10000 rpm would you get the context of what he is saying.
It has to be spun higher to make power. Thats all

badassracing

iTrader: (13)

My point is that the 8000rpm comment was VERY EXAGGERATED! Going from a 43.5 to a 45.5 IVC is only going to change the peak by a couple hundred rpms so theres no need to bash a guys comment about it. A 45.5 IVC is very common in stock cube LS1s. Yes it has a higher peak rpm but nowhere near 8000.

What Russ K was getting at is that you could give up a little low end power in a 2800 lb car. I totally agree with that part but dont think it would work right with the cams mentioned

DACTARI

iTrader: (1)

Yes, and that was exactly the point. It's a rhetorical technique called hyperbole, where you exaggerate to make a point. Look it up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole