2006 Silverado 2wd Crew Cab with the 5.3.
All stock except for camshaft and tune. Well,it’s got a 3” single cat back.
4L60E, 3.73 axle ratio, and P255/70-17 tires about 31” tall. I did add the gears.

The version I have is the low lift, like .501. I did install new GM blue springs.

I get 18-19 HWY MPG. I get 16 MPG short trips. MPG basically same as before.

Had a tune before the camshaft. Had it retuned after the camshaft. Definitely more power mid/high torque/HP. Doesn’t down shift on hills anymore. Much more happy at cruise.
I don’t feel like I gained anything down low.
No dyno but, just guessing, I’d say 20 torque and 40 HP. Idles smooth. Exhaust note has a different/deeper tone but, overall smooth. Just not dead smooth like the stock LM7. Have idle set to 625.

I like it. May have went a tad smaller if doing it again as 90% of my time is below 3500 RPM.

 

Do you have the 4.8 or 5.3?

Cammotion 4.8 stage 1
198/202 114+2 .527/.527
IVO @ .050. -13
IVC 31
EVO 37
EVC -15
Overlap -28

Cammotion 4.8 stage 2
202/206 114+4 .527 .527
IVO -9
IVC 31
EVO 41
EVC -15
Overlap -24

Summit torque
200/205 113+4 .550 .550
IVO -9
IVC 29
EVO 39.5
EVC -14.5
Overlap -23.5

First time I have looked at that Summit cam. I don’t know how they get .550 lift from a 200@.050 duration camshaft. Makes you wonder if it will be quiet and reliable.
Anyway, I like the higher lift and short duration for a low rpm truck deal. Probably best to keep CR stock 9.5 with that early IVC.

I bet it would have more torque/throttle response off idle and low than the stock cam while giving a boost mid/top as well.

I like the Cammotion 4.8 stage 2 also:

 

I have the 5.3 in a 04 Tahoe in which I have put a cat-back Walker exhaust and Airaid intake tube (stock filter w/ AEM lifetime dry element).
I too like all 3 cams above, but leaning towards the top and bottom ones. All I would do head-wise is a bowl blend and good multiangle valve job. Plus thinner head gaskets to tighten quench. MAYBE mill the heads a bit. I think with better quench it can still handle a bit more squeeze.
Thanks man!

 

... or for no better reason than to torture you with more options... you could split the difference between the Cam Motion versions by running the 5.3L Stage 1 High lift:
Cammotion 5.3 stage 1
200/204 114+3 .527 .527
IVO -11
IVC 31
EVO 39
EVC -15
Overlap -26

No reason you can't put that in a 4.8L just because they call it a 5.3L stage 1. Or you could call it a 4.8 Stage 1.5 if it makes you happy.

Get the Summit. More lift... earlier IVC...you know you want to.

 

The cam you listed is actually the 4.8 stage 2. The 5.3 stage 1 is 200/204, .501 or .527 twice, 114+3.
But thanks anyway. I like the C.M. line of truck cams, but I think you're right. The Summit cam looks pretty good!
BTW, I have the 5.3, not 4.8, but liked the 4.8 cams.

 

Tried to save time cutting/pasting. The titled specs were wrong, but the valve events were correct. Edited for posterity.

 

No sweat. Thanks for your info! This thread has been interesting. Maybe (or not...) Brian or Joe from Summit can chime in and confirm some of what got said about which cam spec affects a tune the most.

 

There are a lot of good insights here. To be clear, none of the Pro LS cams have gone through the CARB certification process (yet). Clean power is possible and all of us like clean air. In the same way Bugatti can sell a car that makes 1500 horsepower, we can increase power and do so cleanly. SEMA has a certified lab that companies can work with to get packages tested and certified. It’s not inexpensive though. It’s unfortunate the pure sales volume over time it takes to recoup costs, let alone turn a profit.

On the lobe stability topic. A cam with more lift actually makes it easier to design a stable lobe. We used .550" on a lot of truck cams because it’s similar to the original proven LS6 cam and springs. Many examples have reached over 200k miles and still run like Jack the bear!

 

I've read on your site in the Comp FSL cam page that it has CARB E.O. #D-279-11. That might explain Comp's nose-bleed pricing on those cams.
My main point in this thread is to question how a tune is not needed with these cams, which apparently are aimed at the LS3/L99 engines.
West Coast Engines builds a 5.3 crate engine with the FSL 3-bolt cam and claims CARB compliance, which I find doubtful since the cam is being used in a 5.3, not a 6.2 as it was intended for. They also claim no tune needed even though this cam (210/218, .570/.541, 118) replaces the LM7 cam (191/190, .456/.467,114).
Elsewhere in this thread it was posted that a wide LSA somewhat alleviates the need for re-tuning, I'm assuming due to stable flow characteristics.

 

Did a little more digging. There are actually two different CARB exemptions for this cam family. And the second one does include 5.3L applications (even some 4.8L).

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default...o/d-279-13.pdf
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default...o/d-279-12.pdf

 

Yeah, I did a bit more Sherlocking myself and found that out. Thank you!
The one with the -13 suffix pretty much includes ALL LS engines.
This tells me that a wide LSA is the M.O. here, so I'm thinking a cam with even more conservative duration and an overlap of at least -22 or higher numerically should fill the bill. Helloooo Truckinator....

 

G and community,

We're not trying to be harsh but Emissions Compliance is something we take VERY seriously. The CARB EO# D-279-12 and EO# D-279-13 are written to ONLY provide compliance for the vehicles, engines, and Comp FSL camshafts listed within the documents. They are also written to ONLY provide compliance for the listed applications with the FACTORY tune.



We hope this helps folks understand where we're coming from and why we take Emissions/CARB compliance so seriously.

 

I was just surprised that those cams were exempted for nearly ALL LS engines in the D-279-13 document. I can see the LS3 family of 6.2 engines, but everything from 4.8 on up is now included.
I'd LOVE to hear about real world examples of these cams in a 5.3/4.8.
Edit- I'm wondering if the need for a tune for a mild cam has been exaggerated, that the MAF and O2 sensors actually cover the bases involved?

 

Using farmland to grown corn to make ethanol to add to gasoline increases carbon emissions to the atmosphere.

Oops!

I dislike E10 aka ethanol blended gas ⛽️ for a lot of reasons, adding one more worse for the environment than ethanol free gas.

 

Anyone remember MTBE polluting the environment? Ethanol isn't much better. Airplanes dump raw fuel in the skies. The government detonated nukes in the desert. Cams are the least of this country's problems.

 

I read a study that the EPA produced at the 10 year anniversary of the introduction of ethanol based fuel. The EPA at that time admitted that there was ZERO improvement in the air quality of America. The study was conducted in multiple major cities in America. 10 years was the benchmark to embrace the results of better air…oooops. I’ve mentioned this on Tech previously.
So at that time, why didn’t the multi billion dollar ethanol industry get 86’d? The answer is because it’s a multi billion dollar (maybe trillion?) industry. Too much invested to pull the plug. No way that anyone is going to stand up and admit that it was all a hoax and that their “science” could be wrong. Not in America. We don’t admit that we are wrong in America any more. Politics jumps in. Votes. Gotta have the votes. Not going to turn this political, so I ask that we leave that alone please.
Don’t want to hijack G’s thread here, but none of this ethanol talk matters really. We are going EV, like it or not. Why? Because it’s better, says Uncle Sam. The “science” shows us that it’s a better way to commute while reducing greenhouse gases. After all, it’s our cars that’s ruining the environment, right? Well, that and those cows farting. It can’t be industry…just can’t be, right?
Those factories don’t produce emmisions. No way.
With the change to EV comes trillions of dollars to be made. Doesn’t matter if the cars are actually producing the “estimated” emmisions or not. Their current “science” tells them that EV is the way to go. Much the same way that ethanol was the way to go. They haven’t ever been wrong, so we are good, right? Right?
Very interesting video posted above. Appreciate the post. Education is everything.

 

Hey man, NEVER sweat "hijacking" any thread of mine.
Your input is always appreciated, and now especially your above post, which says volumes about the ethanol situation. One MAJOR effing SCAM!
And I think the EV situation is political too, but enough about that.

 

If you can even find the research any more... You should see what the Diesel Emissions equipment is doing to the environment. Same with just the Lithium alone used in the EV batteries.
I also like how they chose to go after the enthusiast for modifying and engine calibration. Even if it was just to remove a speed limiter or to fix how the transmission shifts. All that, even though it only accounts for like 3/10's of 1 percent of all the vehicles registered...

 

Doesn’t matter if we are actually making the vehicle more efficient therefore producing less damaging emissions…
Not surprised about Cali doing this. Ive read that you can no longer own gas powered lawn equipment. No telling what’s next…

 

If it wasn't for E, we wouldn't have 1000rwhp boosted street cars everywhere...