When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
It would be great to test our new Titan 1 Truck cam on a dyno that would hold down to 2000 RPM. I believe based on what I have seen, it will perform very well down there. If somebody has access to a dyno that will hold that low, I would make them a special deal on the cam just to get the definitive data.
Is that typical of dynos in general, or just the type you (and many others) are using? I've noticed when watching Richard Holdener's videos and reading print articles that he also doesn't/can't get pulls down in the range many of us "way low rev range" freaks would like to see. Truck cams would ideally be tested down into the just-below-2K RPM range up thru 5500 or so.
Thanks in advance for any insight on this!
Is that typical of dynos in general, or just the type you (and many others) are using? I've noticed when watching Richard Holdener's videos and reading print articles that he also doesn't/can't get pulls down in the range many of us "way low rev range" freaks would like to see. Truck cams would ideally be tested down into the just-below-2K RPM range up thru 5500 or so.
Thanks in advance for any insight on this!
I'm very happy with how four degrees of overlap is absorbed with my current setup and how it drives with a stock converter and 2.73 gears so I think if we just try to forget about the far right side of the graph past 5500 completely and bring the duration down to what we think is the bare minimum it will still impress us 😉 also regarding the dyno I've been using a mustang Dyno and those are pretty expensive The operator is very kind however it's like big electric motors underneath that put resistance on the wheels based on many factors input by the operator I think I'm fortunate that he's been using his for a while and he's interested in torque? I don't know lol
Last edited by stockA4; 07-15-2021 at 09:54 AM.
Reason: Dino thought
Is that typical of dynos in general, or just the type you (and many others) are using? I've noticed when watching Richard Holdener's videos and reading print articles that he also doesn't/can't get pulls down in the range many of us "way low rev range" freaks would like to see. Truck cams would ideally be tested down into the just-below-2K RPM range up thru 5500 or so.
Thanks in advance for any insight on this!
It is! Thank you! Now with that said and read, there are some dynos that are better at the lower rev ranges than others. How low, and how accurate at those low speeds, is anyone's guess.
Hey Dan, That will really depends on the engine size, intake manifold and cylinder head. As you can see by the tests in this thread, the intake choice and head choice can have a substantial impact on ideal cam choice.
As for the oil, we made over 100 pulls on that junkyard 6.0 with many of them exceeding 7500 RPM. In addition, the base tune on EFI and carburetor were made on the dyno, so it did not start out with the cleanest tune. After all of the sessions, the oil still looked great. If we change the oil before the next dyno session, it will be out of guilt and not out of necessity. Great product from a great vendor!
Steven
SBE 6.0 in my 07 C6
MMS Ported FAST 92 & LS2 TB (left over from my C5 LS1 bolt-ons)
Stock Heads (LS2), thinking stock RR w/ bushings 223* with .365 lobe for .620" or .360" for .612" to be safe?
or
If the dollar doesn't collapse & Theta Token and AG break free from ("Tamp-Downs")
MMS Sportsmen with YT 1.8s (Tony probably wouldn't sell or let me use w/out YTs LOL)
223* with .345 for .621"
Let me Know when you need some more AMSOIL for your next round of testing.
LLSRs?
Always happy to contribute some AMSOIL to a worthy Endeavor/Project.
Dan
And he has 706 heads and not 243. That will affect peak also.
How exactly could the smaller chamber and intake valve of the 706 use specifically tailored valve events to make The most useful low end power over the 243 head when used with LS3 lower end? Remember also The 706 exhaust port is not nearly as good as any of the other exhaust ports on the stock heads offered for larger bore sizes.
Originally Posted by NAVYBLUE210View Post
Steven @ Cam Motion
First of all Great Info and Thank You for all the testing/data provided!
That is an awful lot of time and work, well worth waiting for.
Question for you slightly off topic if I may.
Lets say I wanted to run a 223* Intake duration with ~ .620" lift (using PAC .625" BeeHive spring)
Would you recommend your .365" lobe (with a 222* shortest limit) with OE 1.7 Rocker = .620"
or
.345" lobe (214* shortest limit) and a YT RR 1.8 for a .621"?
~6K Peak ~6.5K Limit 97% street car.
On another note how many Dyno-Pulls (injected/carbed) did you get on the
AMSOIL Signature Series 10W-30,
and how did it look afterwards, especially with the potentially rich? carbed runs.
Thank You
Dan
Steven
SBE 6.0 in my 07 C6
MMS Ported FAST 92 & LS2 TB (left over from my C5 LS1 bolt-ons)
Stock Heads (LS2), thinking stock RR w/ bushings 223* with .365 lobe for .620" or .360" for .612" to be safe?
or
If the dollar doesn't collapse & Theta Token and AG break free from ("Tamp-Downs")
MMS Sportsmen with YT 1.8s (Tony probably wouldn't sell or let me use w/out YTs LOL)
223* with .345 for .621"
Let me Know when you need some more AMSOIL for your next round of testing.
LLSRs?
Always happy to contribute some AMSOIL to a worthy Endeavor/Project.
Dan
Hey Dan,
A higher rocker arm ratio will give more high lift duration at the valve than a lower rocker arm ratio. So, higher rocker arm ratios have the potential to make more power. However, in this case you are talking about going to a heavier rocker arm also. So, it will likely need more valve spring pressure to control. So, there is some drawback on a street car.
How exactly could the smaller chamber and intake valve of the 706 use specifically tailored valve events to make The most useful low end power over the 243 head when used with LS3 lower end? Remember also The 706 exhaust port is not nearly as good as any of the other exhaust ports on the stock heads offered for larger bore sizes.
First, the smaller chamber will create a higher static compression ratio which will make more power throughout the curve. 2nd, the smaller higher velocity port has the ability to make more power at very low RPM in this case. The higher flowing exhaust port will typically make more power, but I would expect this to show up most in the upper RPM ranges. The question becomes: at what RPM do the power curves of these two heads cross? If you are talking about below 3000 RPM, I think the 706 head is the winner.
Curious if anyone has done some testing to see if power and torque can be improved along with fuel mileage via a cam swap? I doubt there's a lot of mileage improvement possibility with something like this but maybe. I know typically these types of builds aren't done for mileage but if I could improve power and torque in a usable range for a big SUV like a Tahoe while also improving stock fuel mileage would be pretty cool.
Curious if anyone has done some testing to see if power and torque can be improved along with fuel mileage via a cam swap? I doubt there's a lot of mileage improvement possibility with something like this but maybe. I know typically these types of builds aren't done for mileage but if I could improve power and torque in a usable range for a big SUV like a Tahoe while also improving stock fuel mileage would be pretty cool.
It appears that there is no answer from all the cam gurus.
Curious if anyone has done some testing to see if power and torque can be improved along with fuel mileage via a cam swap? I doubt there's a lot of mileage improvement possibility with something like this but maybe. I know typically these types of builds aren't done for mileage but if I could improve power and torque in a usable range for a big SUV like a Tahoe while also improving stock fuel mileage would be pretty cool.
Seems to me that any combo that allowed more air in would need more fuel to compensate so mileage would go down some.
Seems to me that any combo that allowed more air in would need more fuel to compensate so mileage would go down some.
Some claim increased mpg with some cams, because going up inclines or passing (moderate loads) no longer requires the transmission to kickdown. And at constant-speed cruise (light loads), a little additional overlap can reduce pumping losses. But this would apply to very mild camshafts with stock torque convertors.
Curious if anyone has done some testing to see if power and torque can be improved along with fuel mileage via a cam swap? I doubt there's a lot of mileage improvement possibility with something like this but maybe. I know typically these types of builds aren't done for mileage but if I could improve power and torque in a usable range for a big SUV like a Tahoe while also improving stock fuel mileage would be pretty cool.
typical basic stuff got me a extra mpg on my 2500hd 6.0. I used full se headers and dual x pipe exhaust. A udp, ported intake/tb, efans , made my own large diameter intake tube and some tuning. That increased mpg by about 1....maybe nearly 2 in some circumstances and way more usable power. It's basically picked up 1sec and 6 mph in the qtr too. And that going from the stock tires to a 285/70 17 to boot.
I have seen tests on the "202" cam that looked promising at low rpm. But you still need the other stuff in place for the cam to make any real difference......and always good tuning.
What I actually did was make the intake valve events earlier. The intake centerlines went from 110 to 111 degrees to 106 to 108. The earlier intake valve close (IVO) makes more cylinder pressure at a lower engine RPM and increases low speed torque. The lobe center angle (LSA) is just the mathematical result of the earlier intake valve events. However, as you make earlier intake valve events, it generally brings more overlap. Which, as you know, can decrease idle quality and reduce engine idle vacuum. So, there are limits as to how far you can go, especially in an application like a truck cam.
As for changing the existing mild truck cams like the Stage 1 and Stage 2 high lift, not at this time. These cams on wider lobe separation angles provide smoother idle characteristics and better idle vacuum and smoothness. And, with cathedral port heads and factory style intake, they perform very nicely. These cams are exactly what some customers are looking for.
Here they are with cathedral heads.
As you know, all of these tests were done with a 6 liter short block. So, this test against the LM7 cam is not perfect, but does provide useful insight.
This right here is what helped me decide I'm going with this cam.
Not only does my 6.0 have iron heads, I also have the baby LM7 cam. So thanks Cam Motion! Very useful insight.
Just for fun, one cam you could build with a 104 LSA would be a 208/208 104+0. This would have essentially the same IVC and EVO events as the stock cam in my LM7, but 0 overlap at .050” instead of about -38 degrees. Since the lobes are 208 degrees duration rather than the stock LM7 191-ish, you’d be able to gain some valve lift.
In an otherwise stock LM7, I suspect this might be a nice towing cam. Not sure if the 0 overlap would lead to any noticeable idle. Not sure if this cam would have *any* more top end than the stock cam, even with the added overlap, since IVC and EVO are near stock.
Actual towing cams offered seem to utilize later IVC and earlier EVO and wind up with a bit more duration and wider LSA (110-ish seems common). I suspect that this is because people who buy “towing cams” want to see more power even at 6000 rpm, despite the fact that this has nothing to do with real world towing.
I’d be curious to hear input from CamMotion re: tradeoffs between the cam I suggested here and the towing cams commonly sold.
Have a friend who's doing an LM7 swap, stock except LS6 intake and long tube headers. Vehicle weighs ~3000lbs and plans are a stock Vette convertor. He's keeping stock cam for now until he finishes the build and works the bugs out. It'll be a cruiser and he likes idle chop, but (according to him) won't be pushing it past 6k. So when he gets to the cam swap stage, I'm thinking a custom baby-version of the GM Showroom Stock cam (.570/.570 lift) using Cam Motions XA210/.335 intake and exhaust lobes. Idea would be a 210/210 105+0 (if they can go that tight without requiring a one-off cam core) for use with LS6/2/3 springs.
IVC/EVO: 30
IVO/EVO: 0
OL: 0
Don't necessarily think it'd be a good choice for towing in a heavy truck with that much OL, but fine for cruising in a lightweight vehicle with plenty of chop. Estimating it'd punch hard @ WOT right off the convertor up to his intended redline.
Summit 8719R1- 209/217, .550/.550, 112+2 sound about right?
It's on the very short list of shelf-cams (that and the Callies 108-009) if we don't go custom. However the Callies, along with BTRs new Truck Norris, inspired the idea of a very tight LSA for a short-duration/high (relative) overlap. The difference is achieving a centered overlap via later EVO which I think will work with his high flowing exhaust setup planned (LTs, full duals, no cats). The goal being to pack the most WOT-torque area under the curve, in a low and overall narrow rpm band to match his specific desired characteristics and setup. We'll see.
Now lets look at a very similar 2 cam comparison between intake manifolds, but with the larger rectangle port heads. Notice how the larger, higher flow rectangle port heads affect the comparison.
The camshafts used in this comparison are the RaceDay SBE LS3 Cam vs the Top Dog Rectangle port Cam Top Dog Rectangle Port Cam: 232/249 on 111.5+4.5 .650"/.640" RaceDay SBE LS3 Cam: 236/249 112.5+3.5 .650"/.640"
These two cams have the exact same valve events except for one. The RaceDay SBE LS3 Cam has a 4 degree later IVC than the Top Dog Rectangle Port Cam Top Dog Rectangle Cam 9 degree IVO, 43 degree IVC, 60.5 degree EVO, 8.5 degree EVC RaceDay SBE LS3 Cam: 9 degree IVO, 47 degree IVC, 60.5 degree EVO, 8.5 degree EVC
This chart is the LY6 with 823 heads and long runner, plastic LS3 intake.
This chart is the LY6 shortblock with 823 heads and the Holley 300-291 split single plane intake.
Notice how the larger, higher flow head does not benefit as much from the increased duration and later intake valve close (IVC). And even more so the single plane intake does not appreciate the larger duration and/or later intake valve close (IVC).
This is a great illustration of how larger, higher flow heads do not need as much intake duration as a smaller, lessor flow head to tune them the a certain RPM in the same engine. Yet another example of why we create cams for rectangle port vs cathedral port and short runner intake manifolds vs long runner intake manifolds.
On a side note. Look at this badass 600+ hp at 7500 RPM race engine we got out of a junkyard. LOL
How would the Top Dog cam work in a 402 stroker with rec port heads with an LS3 intake and say 11.1 + compression?
07-15-2021, 09:23 AM
Great product from a great vendor!
