Maybe the new cams will work with these?

Have you guys changed your valve springs in a while?

Summit has these. They should probably fix some typos in the product description about the quantity However I think they look great and I'm going to run them once I have 16 of them and so I finally went with dual springs anyways I'm going to try these made in the UK Mellings lets get it I've also got EBC brakes. They work pretty well if you get them shimmed properly.

I asked that question you seein the products description about the quantity of the valve springs in the box You see in the picture above that question myself because the price looked too good to be true for a set of 4 at 10.99!

I later Summit about the new single plane Camshaft specs because we were already on the phone and I'm sorry to say he didn't have any specifics to disclose yet, So maybe we need to throw some more ideas up on the board here and they will have a better idea of what to do with the cam grinders because I'm certainly still trying to figure it out for myself

I know at this point I want a gentler lobe probably a 52 or a 51 intensity or maybe I should go way less 56 or so with my limited head flow? I know I'm going over.600 lift this time

I was back reading through some threads and Mr. Pat G. Was always saying zero overlap or less for manifolds and I found him saying in an old thread that the tr224 112 LSA for a 5.7 with stock manifolds was good and I read that before I did the last one but I should have gone all the way to 0° overlap.

So my question to that would be as displacement and compression goes up could we get away with any more than 0° 0.050" overlap or no? And if so it could be get away with any positive overlap particularly on the exhaust?

There were some bigger or tighter cams on that list with 4°to 6° overlap at 0.050" that would be good Starting points
Some of the bigger cams Go as high or higher then 49° IVC with no more than three degrees of positive intake overlap and then close the exhaust around 1°at the same place where my 220/224 115- 4 does currently, remember it runs out good right now with a 220° intake Lobe on a 119° intake center line and this time I know I should go a to a minimum of 0° opening on the intake and I'm already closing The intake at 49° right now so I don't want to move it too much I really just think I should mess with the exhaust opening as that's only changed from 43° to 51° between the different cams I've already ran so I should want to go higher than 51° I was going to try the Stock LS7 camshaft to see where It put the power band on my setup and that's a 56° exhaust opening with a 46° intake closing will only- 23° overlap I can't see why I should go lower than either of those intake valve close or exhaust valve opening numbers this time around if the overlap is kept in check right?

on the exhaust I should keep the exhaust closing right where it's at or very close to it So really the question remains where do I put the exhaust valve opening?

 

In theory a bigger engine and higher compression can handle more overlap, but at the same time you still have the same limitation of how much the stock manifolds will flow. Although they flow well for a factory manifold, unlike long tube headers they don't provide much pulse-scavenging effect. If you look at a lot of camshafts that are claimed to work with f-body cathedral port factory manifolds, they tend to be -4* overlap or less. Going much beyond that would likely be diminishing returns. Another thing to consider is -2* overlap tends to be the point where the engine becomes more sensitive to timing and airflow changes regardless of the exhaust type (likely due to an EGR effect at low load/low rpm).

After reviewing and re-reviewing some of your comments on the other cam trials, it seemed the 226/230 112+4 cam you tried didn't work for a couple reasons; both the higher EVO losing torque as well as the overlap being +4* overlap with manifolds. Hence why I backed it up to the 224/230 115+0.

With the compression being 11.8:1 the momentum of the blowdown will hopefully continue to evacuate the cylinder after the .050" EVC=0 closing point. I didn't think it would be effective to go beyond that. Also the 50* EVO would be the highest you'd want for the midrange. Hence the resultant 115 ECL with the 230 duration.

Then on the intake, about 46 to 48 is the range for a peak hp rpm around 6500-6700 that would carry beyond 7k. Since you have the high SCR, the later IVC is better for running pump gas. But to carry it needs more intake duration than what you have now. Delaying the opening gives enough duration to fill the cylinders yet keep the total overlap in check with extra long duration on the exhaust side. In this case starting 3* ATDC (-3 BTDC) and closing 47* ATDC gives a total of 224* duration and -3* overlap. If you were shooting for a low max rpm target and had less SCR, then it would make sense to have some advance ground in and move the EVO before TDC to achieve less overlap that way.

 

You mentioned stock MAF, what’s the ID? I’ve heard 78mm or 80mm? Thinking you could swap for an 85mm, it’d still look stock but help the top end once you tuned. Really anything you do on the intake and exhaust to help flow at this point will make a significant difference.

 

It's 80mm maf and the 78mm stock throttle body.

You're right about the later 01-02 Camaro exhaust manifolds, They do flow exceptionally well however their ability to scavenge is incredibly limited compared to an individual runner header This reminds me I need to keep the overlap in check because it is far less useful to the engine especially below 4000 RPM without the header. I realize now there's nothing to be done For me below 4K power than maximizing the DCR for the app.

11.8scr with the 204/222 112+1 was
-9
33
44
-2
It was violence right off idle but didn't carry far enough So I tried giving it the DCR everyone on here thinks it needs which is 8.5. so to keep the rest of the valve events basically the same 220/224 115-4 for
-9
49
43
1
All I did was put the IVC where is supposed to be to make the 8.5 DCR people happy, I knew this was going to soften the mid-range because I was going from a 65° IVC to a 76° IVC advertised 33° to 49° @0.050" so Basically keeping everything else equal For my little experiment.

If we go back to the 204 222 cam spec again and "fix it" so I'm starting with much closer to the same cranking compression Just backed off a few degrees enough to make it happy in the summer and from there we just add exhaust duration in the right direction so it will carry just as far as it needs to with our potential for flow above 4k with the exhaust the way it is

​​​​
I think we all want to put some duration in it but it's just not going to work without the breathing mods it is already sucking through a straw when You think about it That way you don't want to dilute the charge at all right and breathing mods I'm not willing to do at this time, especially when the nut behind the steering wheel is still loose.

Something between the 204 / 222 112 LSA we tried and the lingenfelter 207 /220 118.5 LSA is a proven performer I like it. I just never thought I would run one and we can do better than the LS7 207/232 121 LSA I probably really realistically need somewhere between -7 ° and - 15° @0.050" I mean you weren't there but the intake noise at 5,500 RPM with the 204 cam was very inspiring It sounded like a black hole was opening in the air box. The engine was snorting so hard it was awesome

From that exact situation we could simply add exhaust duration to that cam (204/222) and it would just carry further trading bottom for top pretty fairly Right as I've been reading that's how it mostly is supposed to work I mean the spec would look really stupid making this split even wider like the LS7 but maybe that would work For this better

​​​​​​
​​​​​

 

Longer duration will still help giving time for cylinder filling and evacuating.

Even ignoring the DCR, as I said previously you'll need at least 46* IVC @ .050 to pull up to 7k. And to keep the power from falling completely off, at least 223-224* of duration on that side. If we assume those parameters, that puts us at -3* BTDC opening, automatically making the ICL 114.5.

To get the most exhaust gas out, we need as much duration as we can fit, but still keep the engine happy. On the exhaust the your setup really likes the 46-50 EVO to keep some mid-range power. To stay conservative, we could set the close to -1* instead of zero. Keep the EVO=50 and EVC=-1 puts it at 229* on a 115.5 ECL. The resulting overlap is -4*, which as I said earlier, is about the most that camshafts said to work with factory exhaust manifolds and intake manifolds for that matter. This ends up being a 223/229 115.5+0.5. Match that will the highest lift lobes that can sustain 7200+rpm with good springs, and this should give you a very broad and strong powerband from 3000-7000rpm. Or, if you want slightly less overlap a 222/229 115.5+0 gets you -5.5*. You could also try a 222/228 115+1 to get extra low end, but power will start to fall off a little earlier after 6500rpm.

All the other camshafts you mentioned with super low intake duration and wide lSA may carry out a little past 6500, but they won't have nearly the same power potential. And the narrow ones might pull hard down low, but they'll run out of breath early.

 

I stay out of camshaft discussions purposely, but I’ll add here that an engine with a restrictive exhaust, such as classes that require stock manifolds, will respond better by opening the exhaust valve a little earlier.

 

Are long tubes 100% out of the question? Would open up some possibilities obviously.

 

The camshaft challenge was from 4000 to to 7, 000 RPM. I think that data is useful for all of us, especially that Target of RPM range because The gains from the header aren't as significant above 4K because the added scavenging isn't as necessary especially since I'm more worried about the RPM range then the numbers themselves

I think 68formula has probably got the spec for the mid-range average I don't know I'm confident I would would be faster than I am now based on my experiments But if I don't listen to him it's just going to be for a far earlier opening exhaust than I've tried 224 112 ICL -228 114icl I'll consider I don't think there's really anything else to try with the stock intake I think a 43° IVC would be okay if I'm going to open exhaust earlier I'm probably going to trim the timing in a few spots with the 43° as it is because I can't keep the wheels glued down there anyway or anywhere else for that matter so Let's just try to shoot f0r 4000-7200 where I think this engine can really only utilize exaggerated events based on what I've tried already and how it felt and see if I can get out of the corners any quicker than can currently

If I did headers, I'd cam for the headers. I've got plenty of gently used cams on the shelf I can sell to buy another cam and want to cam this setup the best I can For what it is This time around, headers certainly aren't out of the question, but at least not for another season or two especially if we do this as right as I think we can do

 

You need more overlap than the manifolds will tolerate in order to carry as high as 7k with only 43* IVC. In fact the Hawk's Cheatr Cam 215/230 117+1 (43.5* IVC, -11 OL) peaks @ 6000 and carries to about 6400-6500rpm. And that was in a smaller 5.7L.

How far did your 212/218 115+0 (41*IVC) low-overlap cam carry?

 

The 212/218 115+0 was excellent, it felt great to 6200 but it was done by then though it would coast on ok to 67-6800 if needed, not like that 204222 112+1 that would "hit a wall" at 6k

 

My cam is somewhat close to Joe Carol's pick, and I'm about 100hp lower, but only a little 364" Vs the 408" they used. Makes me want to stroke it.(the motor )
Looking for more power, but ain't we all ?,

Sorry, watched maybe 1/2 the video, and was lost FAST...way over my head tech.

It was pretty interesting to see how the cams stacked up though.

 

Exactly, so something like 222/229 115.5+0 should pull all the way without giving up too much below (do the valve event math) after tuning.

 

I've been looking at stuff like the lingenfelter gt12 spec That's still good Big power 4K up Sure, there are trade-offs, But reading back there were guys going tens with unopened 5.7L on ported stock manifolds with single pattern cams in the low 230s lsa @ 110-114 I don't think it's ideal, but I think a restricted setup could still tolerate a little bit of overlap For high RPM power probably no more than 6° in my case? I'm trying to figure that out... and All the intake duration and still get most of the power Remember the TR230? Something to think about before I have something ground up...

 

Not sure what your goals are now, since you said this previously:
212/218 115+0 really good
226/230 112+4 only better than above after 5k noticably worse lower end even Though both cams share the same IVC close event at 0.006" and 0.050"

It sounded like you wanted better power up top than your current 115 -4 but similar mid range?

The GT12 227/235 115+0 closes 2.5* ATDC and has 1* overlap, and will perform better up top like the 226/230 did, but no where near the midrange of what you have today. If you're looking at Lingenfelter Cams I think a better choice would be the GT14 223/235 115+0. Same exhaust events as the GT12, but later opening and closing of the intake (-1* overlap). They also have nearly the same lift, and same intensity (50). Still think a custom 223/229 115.5+0 would be best (slightly less overlap and later EVO), but at least consider the GT14 over the GT12.

Are you trying to go 10s in 1/4 mile on ported open manifolds, or trying to have a really broad powerband that allows you to run hard around an autocross without need to up and downshift constantly? Also keep in mind, they're probably not running 2.73s either. I'm betting they have even higher stall converters as well. So different goals, different setups. What's best for one application is not necessarily best for the other.

If you're not interested in trying a Cammotion custom grind, Comp has LSL lobes in 223/229. Although LXL lobes may be more appropriate (52 intensity and slightly less lift) for sustained high rpm use. In which case you'd have to do a 222 or 224 intake and 228 or 230 exhaust. Since you're open to more overlap you could try a 224/230 115+0. Keeps the exhaust @ 0* ATDC and -3* total overlap.

 

I can't believe that this thread keeps going and keeps getting responses. It's very difficult to read the OP's writing with the lack of punctuality and run-on sentences and I really get the impression that he is going to do what he wants to do anyway. And his statements are kind of contradictory and its probably impossible to achieve what he wants to achieve with a cam.

I like your cam suggestion and i also never understood the analysis of the two cam spec comments you quoted:

"212/218 115+0 really good
226/230 112+4 only better than above after 5k"

That 226 cam is a pretty common spec for a good all around cam and i never understood how it was only good over 5k. Having said that, theres no possible way the 223/229 115.5+ would be better than the 226 cam basically anywhere.

He has mentioned wanting a tight lsa. Maybe one of @Summitracing new single plane cams that come out in a few months will fit the bill.

Otherwise I like the 8715 ghost cam, or cammotion little chopper if he's set on tight lsa.

 

Agree on all points with your first paragraph. I'm pretty much tapped out myself with trying to follow and provide input. This will likely be my last contribution.

As for the reasons why a 223/229 115.5+0 (or my other recommendations) being better than the 226/230 112+4, it's an application-specific issue (his engine/vehicle setup and use). It may not necessarily make more (or much more) peak power above 5k, but it could at least make the same peak, carry out further up to 7k, and perform better under 5k. I've explained the why in a few previous posts, so I'll just summarize and for the "why," one can go back to those posts for the details:

• Too much overlap for running F-body exhaust manifolds (headers - completely different story, even mid-lengths would be an improvement)
• Too early EVO hurting the mid-rangeToo early an IVC to carry the power up in the top end (no "5th cycle effect" to help carry it further, due to poor exhaust scavenging)
• Too early IVC + high SCR causing extremely-high DCR for fuel used, resulting in low MBT timing; to a point where less power is realized at certain loads/engine speeds (what loads/speeds depends on multitude of factors)

As a general rule, when used with long tube headers and free-flowing, tight LSAs work well because the overlap + scavenging pulls more intake charge. This allows them to pull higher rpm than would be possible with no-overlap and the same IVC. It also improves lower range torque (@ WOT) because the resulting EVO is later (keep in mind, this will have the opposite effect at light load). Then like it did for the IVC, overlap compensates for the later EVO which would otherwise normally limit the top end. Although when they do begin to fall off in power at high rpm, they drop pretty fast. In fact, for the reasons above, they are very popular on circle track, where rules may limit lift or lift + duration rules, they run open headers, and they want midrange to come hard off the corners.

It can be possible in some situations where power is actually improved by a combination of slightly less duration and/or wider LSA. Earlier I posted a link to the Summit Big Guns with an example (post 24): https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...l#post20588352. Not the first time I've seen going too far on the duration and overlap has actually cost some rear wheel power, even though instinctively it doesn't seem plausible. These cases are the exception, not the norm as most setups do have improvements that compliment each other. Actually, take a look at the challenge test results. There were 2 cams that had way more intake duration, more exhaust duration, later IVC and more overlap, than the winning camshaft (NK). The NK beat them in all categories including highest peak power. The header primaries were a touch on the small side for the engine size and peak rpm, so might have been closer, even flopped in one case, had they been bigger.

It's a system; so comes down the combination of parts, how they influence each other, and what tradeoffs are best for the situation. That's why engine dyno numbers don't always tell the whole story. All the parameters are tightly controlled, the exhaust systems are usually not simulating what would be in a street vehicle (if street use is intended) and it doesn't have a converter, gears, or extra mass like a vehicle. Hence my sig

 

Remember the TR CheatR cam from back in the day?
215/230 .629/ .592 117 LSA

 

Good LS9 cam.....

 

Eric weingartner (I might have spelled it wrong) actually put out a new video where Brian tooley sent him better trickflow heads and he installed them with better headers and intake. NK still did well, and Brian tooleys larger cam did much better than before, but I think it was the larger cam that was previously in 2nd place that now finished on top. I think it's duration was high 240s on the intake and 260s on the exhaust on a 109ish. NK I think got 2nd. Not all cams were retested, just a handful. But it goes to what you are saying about the overall package determining the specs.

I do like your rationale for the 223/229 on a 115.5. You were trying to let him pull to 7k while having power everywhere and keeping overlap low for the stock manifolds. And you were basing it all on valve events. It's a good analysis.

 

You done good.....