Scott Thompson

I have a 2006 Saab 9-7x 5.3l afm lifter collapsed and wanting to replace stock cam with this low stage 2 truck cam 212/218 .550/.550 113 LSA also would like to add 1.8 yella terra rockers will there be enough PTV clearance. will also be adding ls7 lifters and dual valve springs, will also be looking for headers that fit. Vehicle is completely stock. Really new to this sorry if this question is answered somewhere else and if anyone can point me in the right direction that would be great. I would just like to get my car back on the road with more power than before since its going to be tore down to get rid of AFM.

Thanks

Scott Thompson

Well going to pull the trigger on new parts next week hope someone one can give me an answer soon on what they think of cam choice

kinglt-1

iTrader: (26)

Should work fine...that is a common cam for a daily driven 5.3. I however see no point in adding 1.8 rockers to the .550 lift version when you can get the high lift .600 version and it will work fine with stock rockers. Both setups would require the same spring regardless so I see no point in spending the extra on YT rockers.

Fwiw I run SLP 1.85 rockers, but they were on the car when I bought it, so I purchased a cam that works with them. If I was starting from scratch I would of just used the Stock 1.7 with upgraded trunions.

stockA4

agreed, no reason to spend extra money for the 1.8 rockers for added lift. in fact in your application the .550 lift cam should be more than sufficient.

Mercier

iTrader: (15)

I agree with this. While there is some marginal value in reaching higher lifts faster, the heads don't flow any more at .600 than at .550. Stock heads, even the 243s/799s seem to start to run out of flow past .500. sticking with .550" lift would let you use a LS6 spring which is super affordable($60/set) and durable. Unless you guys think that cam needs more spring pressure? Ultimate spring for this would be PSI 1511 but they are 3x cost.

G Atsma

Old thread, but a question- If TSP Stage I 799 or 243 heads are used, would it be beneficial to use a .600 lift cam? These heads show a decent increase (21cfm intake, 18cfm exhaust) from .500 to .600 lift with 2.00 intake and 1.55 exhaust valves.

Mercier

iTrader: (15)

Yes; when flow improves, the lift is theoretically worth it. On those heads they may even increase over .600. I haven't seen those flow sheets but most ported heads I've seen indicate gains past .600.

G Atsma

Thank you Mercier, this was something I was curious about, as all you hear about 5.3 heads was that they don't flow more past .500 and that any cam with more lift than that should not even be considered. Of course, I think availability of the 799 and 243 heads changed that too. Best thing to happen to the 5.3.

Darth_V8r

iTrader: (4)

Another benefit of higher lift is you gain duration at .200-.400 lift. This has benefit beyond what you gain from peak lift

G Atsma

Right! I remember either you or somebody on here saying something to that effect.
What would you say the gain would be with a .600 lift 212/218 114LSA cam over .550 lift in a 5.3L with good heads(243/799), mildly ported? Just a wild-*** guess, as I know there are more variables....

Darth_V8r

iTrader: (4)

Probably around 5-10 depending on other factors. 10+ if the cam is the only bottleneck, 5 or so if it isn't the bottleneck.

tech@WS6store

iTrader: (2)

Most people dont get that part.

Mercier

iTrader: (15)

Was discussed earlier in the thread last year. Everyone here got it I think; we just covered it already. Marginal gain but still a gain. The cost is in heftier springs and (potentially)spring life.

tech@WS6store

iTrader: (2)

It takes no more hefty spring nor makes a more aggressive lobe though. The Pac1219x or 1518 are not a hefty spring. Most people now days anyway run a dual 650 or 660 spring anyway so it would mean the same spring.
We have a test going very soon on soft lift old lobe design vs higher lift new lobe design. We will let everyone know the results when we get them. Not saying go .660 lift on a stock head, but to shy away of a better cam just because of lift seems a bit of an old school thought.
Every old school guy judges a cam by lift as to how "big" it is when that has never been the truth. You can build in alot of duration and stay low lift and have a very aggressive lobe.

Mercier

iTrader: (15)

If you read the whole thread, you'll see I was talking about some $60 LS6/2/3 springs. Nothing you're saying is wrong but you're projecting some "old school" thought on others(me) that isn't deserved. I get it, and every project I have is running .660 duals at the moment. My comments were mainly benefit vs. $$. Saving a couple hundred bucks on valve springs matters to some folks. Not to others.

tech@WS6store

iTrader: (2)

My apologies. The formatting on ls1techmobile sometimes doesnt show all the new posts.

Id honestly never use an ls6 spring for any camshaft. Esp the blue ones. That may be an unpopular opinion, but the 1218 or psi equivalent are way better for not much more money and they are still a single spring with adequate pressure for most lobes under .600.
They are cheap, thats about it. Otherwise using a low lift cam to use the ls6 springs just so you can have a cam seems like a waste of money. All youll do later on is look at all the youtube videos etc of evrrything else and wish ans want. Not YOU specifically just a gerneral statement.

Stampede4ever

What brand are the 1218 springs?

Thanks.

G Atsma

PAC makes them.

Darth_V8r

iTrader: (4)

For single coil I like the psi 1511

tech@WS6store

iTrader: (2)

Exactly. Pac makes the 1218 spring.

http://www.ws6project.com/user_stor/catalog/lsx-beehive-pac-racing-valve-springs