Was told proven cam with AFR 205 but nobody else is running?
11-10-2014, 11:56 AM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was told proven cam with AFR 205 but nobody else is running? I recently bought an ls1 with 62cc AFR 205 heads and a cam that I am very excited about. I was told by a trusted shop owner the cam was a proven formula but when I search other forums/threads it seems my numbers are significantly different especially on the lift side. If I need to buy another cam I will. Attached are my cam specs from a cam dr. My goals are daily driver, nice lope and at least some useable torque at lower rpm. I know, probably the impossible traits everyone wants. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
11-10-2014, 01:19 PM
#4
TECH Fanatic
11-10-2014, 01:44 PM
#6
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So here are the numbers for those who the file won't open for. Thank you for pointing out the rocker ratio, that makes more sense for the lift if the ratio is 1.7. I remember seeing these heads work well with higher lift.
Rocker ratio 1.6
Lobe separation 110
Valve overlap 18.5
Intake centerline 106
Peak cam lift .355
Peak valve lift .568
Duration 234.9
Exhaust
Centerline 114
Duration 242.5
Peak cam lift .364
Peak valve lift .583
Rocker ratio 1.6
Lobe separation 110
Valve overlap 18.5
Intake centerline 106
Peak cam lift .355
Peak valve lift .568
Duration 234.9
Exhaust
Centerline 114
Duration 242.5
Peak cam lift .364
Peak valve lift .583
Trending Topics
11-10-2014, 10:30 PM
#8
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The car is a 68 Camaro. I will be talking to the builder about pro's, con's and cost with ls1 346 vs 383 and will be making a decision tomorrow and I assume that makes a big difference. Have a fast 90 intake and Nick Williams TB. Currently forging the bottom end with the goal of running a 150 to 175 shot (undecided on system type yet). Transmission is a T56 which will be undergoing ticks performance level 2 with cryogenic treatment. Rear end is a 9inch with 3.90's or 4.11's, I don't think I can go wrong with either of those ratios. I appreciate all of the input from everyone. The first builder I was going to go with made some negative comments about people doing research on forums and asking questions from the info.
11-11-2014, 12:40 AM
#10
TECH Veteran
Those cams spec out by Pat G always seem to hit the sweet spot with those AFR heads. If not Pat G then contact Tony Mamo about specing you a cam.
11-11-2014, 01:25 AM
#12
Are you flycutting???
Better plan on it....or running aftermarket pistons
Will not clear without doing so
110 is too tight an LSA IMO also.....OP....shoot me a PM....I can guide you down the right path and custom grind a cam for you if need be. Im not a fan of this one
-Tony
Better plan on it....or running aftermarket pistons
Will not clear without doing so
110 is too tight an LSA IMO also.....OP....shoot me a PM....I can guide you down the right path and custom grind a cam for you if need be. Im not a fan of this one
-Tony
__________________
www.mamomotorsports.com
Tony@MamoMotorsports.com
Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Build it right the first time....its alot cheaper than building it twice!!
www.mamomotorsports.com
Tony@MamoMotorsports.com
Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Build it right the first time....its alot cheaper than building it twice!!
11-11-2014, 10:38 AM
#14
Ok, in a manual trans car, that cam will be a very poor choice. This cam will have a lot of low rpm/light throttle surge/buck/fishbite, and will make you not want to use the car as a daily driver.
And a cam with a 110 or less LSA is designed for a carb'd application.
Russ Kemp
And a cam with a 110 or less LSA is designed for a carb'd application.
Russ Kemp
11-11-2014, 11:27 AM
#15
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am definitely glad I posted on here, sounds like it would have been a pretty bad choice. My builder said it would be good, but I sent Tony a PM so hopefully I can get something else figured out.
11-12-2014, 03:00 AM
#17
OP.....not sure if I received your PM.....make sure you send it to my new screen name (just "Tony Mamo")
For the record.....LSA does matter but thats a whole can a worms I wont get into here.
-Tony
For the record.....LSA does matter but thats a whole can a worms I wont get into here.
-Tony
11-18-2014, 08:33 AM
#18
LSA is just a derived upon figure that is a sum of valve events. It really doesn't mean anything, but yes there are certain trends you can correlate with changes in LSA. That said I would never use LSA to determine the performance of a camshaft, or how well it will work in a given application. The best cam grinders in the country will echo this thought as well.
One of the best running, if not THE best running applications I have cammed with AFR 205 heads is ground on a 110lsa.
It is a 347 c.i." engine with 11.0:1 compression and the aforementioned AFR 205's. Has a Fast intake and normal 1x7/8" headers. The car has been 10.20's@130mph+ at 3150lbs. race weight and 9.70@137 on a 100 shot. If you would assume that these heads don't like a 110 lsa before you heard me say this, you may of completely wrote something off that isn't 100% correct.
Cam specs in that application are 239/246 .624/.595 110+2. Tony I believe I sent you the dyno graphs after that car came off the rollers and how impressed you were with the power it made. It certainly backed up the 500rwhp/440rwtq it put down through a 60e on the rollers at the racetrack.
I feel that the OP's cam has too early of an intake valve close event for the minimum cross section and airflow the AFR 205's have. They're a small port cross sectional area wise that also flows very well. Those two things allow the intake port to carry a lot of velocity. Forward intake flow continues well into the compression stroke due to the amount of velocity and inertia they're able to obtain on the intake stroke. I'm almost certain Tony will agree with this as well.
Because of this you can take advantage of a later intake valve close event and pack more air mass into the cylinder much like a final last gulp of air a free diver takes before making his dive. I have always found Tony's 205 head to favor a later intake valve close event because of this.
I have also found his heads prefer a later exhaust opening event due to their exhaust flow, exhaust valve size and port size. Coincidentally, to achieve a later exhaust opening event, a tighter LSA or less exhaust duration would be utilized and/or a combo of both.
So really it doesn't matter IMO how you get there(final cam specs that is) based on duration or LSA, but as long as you have a 45-48 IVC@.050" and a 50-55 EVO@.050. The 3 degree variation in the IVC and the 5 degree variation in the EVO would be narrowed down based upon your combination of parts and usage of the vehicle. Then the IVO and EVC events can be chosen based upon your desired driving manners, power output and power curve.
I am by no means saying Tony or anyone else is wrong. It all comes down to what you want from the performance of the vehicle and how the vehicle will be used. Again I'm certain Tony will agree that there are plenty more than one way to skin the proverbial cat....sorry kitty....lol.
One of the best running, if not THE best running applications I have cammed with AFR 205 heads is ground on a 110lsa.
It is a 347 c.i." engine with 11.0:1 compression and the aforementioned AFR 205's. Has a Fast intake and normal 1x7/8" headers. The car has been 10.20's@130mph+ at 3150lbs. race weight and 9.70@137 on a 100 shot. If you would assume that these heads don't like a 110 lsa before you heard me say this, you may of completely wrote something off that isn't 100% correct.
Cam specs in that application are 239/246 .624/.595 110+2. Tony I believe I sent you the dyno graphs after that car came off the rollers and how impressed you were with the power it made. It certainly backed up the 500rwhp/440rwtq it put down through a 60e on the rollers at the racetrack.
I feel that the OP's cam has too early of an intake valve close event for the minimum cross section and airflow the AFR 205's have. They're a small port cross sectional area wise that also flows very well. Those two things allow the intake port to carry a lot of velocity. Forward intake flow continues well into the compression stroke due to the amount of velocity and inertia they're able to obtain on the intake stroke. I'm almost certain Tony will agree with this as well.
Because of this you can take advantage of a later intake valve close event and pack more air mass into the cylinder much like a final last gulp of air a free diver takes before making his dive. I have always found Tony's 205 head to favor a later intake valve close event because of this.
I have also found his heads prefer a later exhaust opening event due to their exhaust flow, exhaust valve size and port size. Coincidentally, to achieve a later exhaust opening event, a tighter LSA or less exhaust duration would be utilized and/or a combo of both.
So really it doesn't matter IMO how you get there(final cam specs that is) based on duration or LSA, but as long as you have a 45-48 IVC@.050" and a 50-55 EVO@.050. The 3 degree variation in the IVC and the 5 degree variation in the EVO would be narrowed down based upon your combination of parts and usage of the vehicle. Then the IVO and EVC events can be chosen based upon your desired driving manners, power output and power curve.
I am by no means saying Tony or anyone else is wrong. It all comes down to what you want from the performance of the vehicle and how the vehicle will be used. Again I'm certain Tony will agree that there are plenty more than one way to skin the proverbial cat....sorry kitty....lol.
