It has -1* of overlap. Around 5* is where it sounds less lopey at idle but its also dependent on tuning as well.

 

I personally have no experience with Kelford Cams, I think they are from New Zealand?

I've noticed that its suggested that the reason a lot of the "truck cams" have lower lift is due to using factory or factor style springs, personally I don't see the point in that, wouldn't you be better off changing the springs to something better and reaping the benefits of higher lift? Or is just common that buyers of these types of cams want to use factory springs?

We don't have "Truck Cams" here but that type of cam seems much more popular in Australia than the USA but I think that's in part because our cars like Monaro's (Pontiac GTO) and Commodores are heavier than the Camaros and Corvettes so low down is important. A lot of the US grind cams seem to focus on a higher power band, which I should have paid more attention to.

 

Ah, yes, that would be quite different to my cams -10* overlap My tuner said he could have set the tune for a bit more stealth if I wanted but that it was set up where the cam worked best. It sits well with me so all good but you do know its cammed. I read stealth as meaning undetectable. It seems to me that is around -14* which is actually the overlap of the most radical factory cam fitted to an LS1 in Australia (the Callaway supplied C4B). That could be adjusted lower with tuning though I would imagine.

 

That is the cam I would suggest, on a 116* LSA with a good tune.
Should be smooth & stealthy while providing excellent performance
with Stock,ported, or Aftermarket Heads, along with room to
grow.

 

I think a 114 would be more than sufficient to cit down on the sound. 116 is pretty wide

 

My mild cam has -8.7 overlap and has a very noticeable lope, which is fine by me, but would not meet the OP's requirements. You probably want less than -10 overlap.

 

Lsa determines overlap though so its pretty important as well as effecting overall cam performance. You can build it backward but in the end youre still looking or calculating lsa.

 

Remember CA Emissions & Stealth.
I would go 114* +3* if I We're to use that cam, for myself, but the OPs initial unfounded fear of these specs would cause me to err on the side of a more conservative/Wider LSA.

 

Fwiw our high lift hotcam has passed emissions in ca. and it has 1*. Tuning can change quite a bit.

 

Lingenfelter gt2-3

 

That is a very stock-sounding idle!

 

My approach must be backwards. I do not really care about LSA. I specify the four valve events I want. LSA just ends up being whatever it is.

That GT2 cam is like a slightly larger ls6 cam. About 118.5

Tuning does make a big difference for better or for worse.

 

Like i said even if you work backwards you still end up at lsa. Without lsa you cant grind a cam whether its calculated at the beginning or the end. Its what determines overlap. Without lsa you wouldn't know. Youd have 2 durations.

 

Serious? I think the exhaust setup compromised what should be a more quiet camshaft. There are others on Youtube and the tailpipe sound is quite docile. I think that GTO has a Borla or similar with the ricey sound.

As in this

 

Just wanted to touch on a few clerical errors here..........
The Bob Marley reference......ALL TRUE
The stock LS6 valves DO NOT have a higher installed height
The 01 used standard weight/length valves for the .525" lift cam
The 02-04 engines got the .551"/.547" lift cam and GM put the hollow stem valves which are .0236" longer to create proper lifter pre-load with the reduced base circle cam
The 01 C5Zs had pup cats off the manifolds (4 total) whereas the 02-04 only had the two larger ones down below.
Also the air box opening (hole) was made about three times larger for the 02-04 year Vettes
So perhaps the tunes were different; however the cam/air box/& the 2 less cats all contributed to the 20 horsepower rating difference

 

By stock sound I meant the cam had no noticeable lope. I was not commenting on the exhaust itself.

 

No disagreement here. It seems like sometimes people start with LSA and then figure duration, then calculate the valve events.

I start with the valve events first, calculate duration, overlap, and LSA off the events. i'm just saying I don't start off with a notion of how the LSA will behave and then bump duration up and down to compensate

That's all I meant by my approach being backwards.

 

Either way you work the math its the same thing.

That's what i also meant by whichever way you approach it, youre still looking for lsa.