J-Rod, JRP, 93Pony.... others who know cams
01-12-2005, 08:31 PM
#21
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3
There's a certain trend of people who don't like Ed, you'll notice. Usually, you can tell by the signature description of their car.
. if i had room i'd throw up FTI in my sig bolded 
im curious to see what the whole lobe profile looked like.
01-12-2005, 08:41 PM
#22
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 3,726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.camshaftinnovations.com/
That's his website. Might provide some insight for those with questions.
That's his website. Might provide some insight for those with questions.
01-13-2005, 07:26 AM
#23
TECH Resident
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Working in the shop 24/7
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by KingCrapBox
http://www.camshaftinnovations.com/
That's his website. Might provide some insight for those with questions.
That's his website. Might provide some insight for those with questions.
Just scoping out the "sig"... This wouldn't happen to be Danno????
Ed
01-13-2005, 03:16 PM
#25
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: HARRISON TWP MI
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jrp
you mean there are people who dont like ed . if i had room i'd throw up FTI in my sig bolded
im curious to see what the whole lobe profile looked like.
. if i had room i'd throw up FTI in my sig bolded im curious to see what the whole lobe profile looked like.
01-15-2005, 08:41 PM
#28
TECH Resident
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Working in the shop 24/7
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by LSUxBlake
It is Jay Allen's of Camshaft Innovation. The headers on the car are Thunder Racing 1 7/8", LS6 intake manifold. The car did have jesel adjustable rockers in the ratios I listed. 3.73's in a M6, stock bottom end.
This is what Jay has stated...
The 218 idled at 22 inches of vacuum. The same as stock and 3 more than the ZO-6 cam. Bigger cam, more vacuum. Hmmm. The engine was a stock shortblock deal. It made a pathetic hp to the tires. I honestly do not remember the number because it does not matter. I do remember the PK tq was at 4000 RPM and PK hp was at 6200 but was only 6hp less at 7200. Does that count? It ran 11.00's at full weight with an automatic (convertor miles too tight), leather interior and t-tops on a drag radial at 123 mph. Is that good? All of his buddies laughed at the dyno number but did not understand the ET. The laughing stopped.
Can you confirm or deny this???
He states convertor yet you say M6???
Just wanting to know the facts...
Ed
01-15-2005, 10:07 PM
#30
Originally Posted by EDC
I'm still looking for info on the before and after deal...
This is what Jay has stated...
The 218 idled at 22 inches of vacuum. The same as stock and 3 more than the ZO-6 cam. Bigger cam, more vacuum. Hmmm. The engine was a stock shortblock deal. It made a pathetic hp to the tires. I honestly do not remember the number because it does not matter. I do remember the PK tq was at 4000 RPM and PK hp was at 6200 but was only 6hp less at 7200. Does that count? It ran 11.00's at full weight with an automatic (convertor miles too tight), leather interior and t-tops on a drag radial at 123 mph. Is that good? All of his buddies laughed at the dyno number but did not understand the ET. The laughing stopped.
Can you confirm or deny this???
He states convertor yet you say M6???
Just wanting to know the facts...
Ed
This is what Jay has stated...
The 218 idled at 22 inches of vacuum. The same as stock and 3 more than the ZO-6 cam. Bigger cam, more vacuum. Hmmm. The engine was a stock shortblock deal. It made a pathetic hp to the tires. I honestly do not remember the number because it does not matter. I do remember the PK tq was at 4000 RPM and PK hp was at 6200 but was only 6hp less at 7200. Does that count? It ran 11.00's at full weight with an automatic (convertor miles too tight), leather interior and t-tops on a drag radial at 123 mph. Is that good? All of his buddies laughed at the dyno number but did not understand the ET. The laughing stopped.
Can you confirm or deny this???
He states convertor yet you say M6???
Just wanting to know the facts...
Ed
01-16-2005, 01:11 PM
#31
FormerVendor
Originally Posted by LSUxBlake
I was going through my files and found the specs on the first camshaft that was in my car (from previous owner) and wanted to know what you guys could make of it and why it would be used. I'll give the cam designer's name out by PM if you want, all I can say is that he's big in the Ford scene and he's a jerk. The car was intended to run naturally aspirated and be a fast street car that was very driveable. These are the specs I have on it, I'll include the head flow #'s as well:
Intake Duration: 214.1
Intake Centerline: 119.8
Intake Lobe Lift: .33524
Intake Valve lift (1.9 rocker): .63695
Exhaust Duration: 234.3
Exhaust Centerline 115.8
Exhaust Lobe Lift: .33094
Exhaust Valve lift (1.85 rocker) .6125
Lobe Seperation: 117.9
Cylinder Heads are LS6 castings, (2.055/1.55):
Lift Intake Exhaust (flowed w/o pipe)
.100 ---- 74 ------------ 59
.200 ---- 153------------ 111
.300 ---- 204 ----------- 142
.400 ---- 252 ----------- 184
.500 ---- 304 ----------- 207
.550 ---- 318 ----------- 214
.600 ---- 322 ----------- 219
.620 ---- 327 ----------- 227
The car made 401/370 on a dynojet with hp peaking around 6150rpm and tq peaking around 5100 rpm.
Just wanted to know what people who know cams think about the setup, as the cam designer called me an idiot for changing cams to the FMS F11. Thanks for your input in advance.
Intake Duration: 214.1
Intake Centerline: 119.8
Intake Lobe Lift: .33524
Intake Valve lift (1.9 rocker): .63695
Exhaust Duration: 234.3
Exhaust Centerline 115.8
Exhaust Lobe Lift: .33094
Exhaust Valve lift (1.85 rocker) .6125
Lobe Seperation: 117.9
Cylinder Heads are LS6 castings, (2.055/1.55):
Lift Intake Exhaust (flowed w/o pipe)
.100 ---- 74 ------------ 59
.200 ---- 153------------ 111
.300 ---- 204 ----------- 142
.400 ---- 252 ----------- 184
.500 ---- 304 ----------- 207
.550 ---- 318 ----------- 214
.600 ---- 322 ----------- 219
.620 ---- 327 ----------- 227
The car made 401/370 on a dynojet with hp peaking around 6150rpm and tq peaking around 5100 rpm.
Just wanted to know what people who know cams think about the setup, as the cam designer called me an idiot for changing cams to the FMS F11. Thanks for your input in advance.
We have cams that pick up 70+ RWHP with dead stock long blocks and they are not magic. You need to have more intake to increase VE and take cylinder presure higher. Than you have more power and you go faster. Not really rocket science but you need to have the basic stuff right to pick a cam that will do what you want and not something that does NOT meet your goals or expectations in power or drivability.
Because of the good heads and tiny stock cams the LSx stuff really responds to bigger cams and will pick up a lot of power easily but the manners are the other part of this equation.
01-16-2005, 01:37 PM
#32
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EDC
I'm still looking for info on the before and after deal...
This is what Jay has stated...
The 218 idled at 22 inches of vacuum. The same as stock and 3 more than the ZO-6 cam. Bigger cam, more vacuum. Hmmm. The engine was a stock shortblock deal. It made a pathetic hp to the tires. I honestly do not remember the number because it does not matter. I do remember the PK tq was at 4000 RPM and PK hp was at 6200 but was only 6hp less at 7200. Does that count? It ran 11.00's at full weight with an automatic (convertor miles too tight), leather interior and t-tops on a drag radial at 123 mph. Is that good? All of his buddies laughed at the dyno number but did not understand the ET. The laughing stopped.
Can you confirm or deny this???
He states convertor yet you say M6???
Just wanting to know the facts...
Ed
This is what Jay has stated...
The 218 idled at 22 inches of vacuum. The same as stock and 3 more than the ZO-6 cam. Bigger cam, more vacuum. Hmmm. The engine was a stock shortblock deal. It made a pathetic hp to the tires. I honestly do not remember the number because it does not matter. I do remember the PK tq was at 4000 RPM and PK hp was at 6200 but was only 6hp less at 7200. Does that count? It ran 11.00's at full weight with an automatic (convertor miles too tight), leather interior and t-tops on a drag radial at 123 mph. Is that good? All of his buddies laughed at the dyno number but did not understand the ET. The laughing stopped.
Can you confirm or deny this???
He states convertor yet you say M6???
Just wanting to know the facts...
Ed
