I'm looking at the crane cams offered by SDPC they are very inexpensive and the packages are much cheaper than other companies, but not to sure on the power level. I called crane and they couldn't tell me what kind of power the cams would run even giving them the specs. The crane cams are easy on the ramp rates so the springs will last a very long time, the one I'm looking at doesn't need changing until 50-60k miles. But what kind of power am I giving up with these easy ramp rates? The cam is simular in numbers to the the TR 224, the Crane cam specs are 220/224 551/551 114LSA I'm sure the the TR224 puts out more power but how much more and is it peak or throughout the rpm band? Anybody run this kind of cam and what power levels have you achieved with bolt-ons? Just so you guys know I would love to go with the TR224, but I won't have a place to install new valvesprings every 15-25k miles, and to pay someone 150 bucks plus springs isn't worth the few extra horses I might see

 

You don't really need a "place" to install new valvesprings. It's something you could pretty easily do in a parking lot. All you hae to do is pull the valvecovers and go at it. (good spring tool a must, along with extra locks)
The power you lose with lazy ramp rates is the under the curve throughout the rpm range. Something more aggressive *removed comparison cam* would make more torque, and maybe slightly higher peak power. Biggest difference should be low-mid range though. *This is assuming a difference in ramp rates*

 

Yeah I know I don't have to pay somebody but once I get into school again I will be there everyday and I will be studying on the weekends, as the classes will be killer hard and I will have way to many credit hours and even have to go during the summer, so that pretty much kills any weekend valvspring removal

 

If that's the way you want to do it, it's your decision. Just realize that if you have the correct tool(s) you could do it in 2-3 hours, and wouldn't have to do it for at least 20,000 miles. So you're looking at a few hours work every year to two.....

 

Just a question or two: who told you that these are lazy ramp rates? If you put them on a cam doctor and check them out, you will find that they are quite aggressive. My predecessor at Crane might have had a conservative philosophy, but that changed 3 1/2 years ago when I got here. We are quite aggressive in all design areas. One of the issues that most people on this site don't seem to understand is the design relationship between a lobe and the harmonics of the spring that the lobe was designed for. Our lobes were designed to be compatible with the harmonics of our spring. That enables a long spring life even with very aggressive lobes. There is no one perfect design for any spring. "Spring harmonics vs lobe lift table design" is a very complicated issue and it becomes more complex as the architecture (size limitations) of the spring is reduced. I submit that most of the spring issues that people have with the LSx engine family is not due to "bad" springs, but due to the incompatibility of a given lobe with a given spring. You have to use springs as a tool to an end result. No one has all the answers; we keep working and testing to get as much info as possible, but there is no one out there with all of the answers. I take exception to your comment about Crane lobes not being as aggressive as the competition. We've checked out the competition and know what they are making. Do you seriously believe that we are not making and testing super aggressive lobes? If we expect to stay in business we have to be leaders, not followers. We are testing extremely quick lift rates (faster than any lobes on the market) with various rockers as well. This includes our "quick-lift" rocker bodies and you know what? There is some real bad poop on this site. People are saying that you can't run high ratio rockers with aggressive cams on this site. They obviously haven't tried it. We have, with ratios up to 1.9 to one. Some customers of ours are running 2:1 and we are looking at that in the next two weeks. In short, we are pushing the envelop as far as we can.

Now to address power numbers. We are not going to make specific claims on power numbers on these cams. We have seen power numbers differ as much as 50Hp on vehicles just due to the state of tune! We have people on this site blaming our rockers because they don't have the correct combination or tuning to make the power they want. They have to blame someone or something rather than admit that the combo isn't right. That's just the world and life. We accept that and there is nothing we can do with it. In all honesty, all cam designers are stuck with the same laws of physics given to us by the Almighty. At Crane, we recognize the inherent limitations of the pushrod engine and what can be done by cam lobe design alone. We feel that the most important issue is what the valve is doing. That is fundamental to our reliance on the "Quick-Lift" rocker geometry that we have developed and are improving. To maximize the action of the valve it is the total combination of the lobe and rocker arm that will give you the most power. And you can take that to the bank!!! If you can tune properly, these lobes will run with any lobes in the industry. If you use our "Quick-Lift" rockers they will run even better. It's your money and your choice. I just know we are dedicated to being second to none in the LSx market.

Mark Campbell
VP, Research and Development
Crane Cams, Inc.

 

WOW. 1.9 and 2:1 ratio rockers with extremly aggressive ramp rates?

 

Keep in mind that lobe lift has to be reduced with the higher ratios to get a specific valve lift; but what we are concerned about is the valve lift rate not the lifter lift rate. You must keep in mind that we are talking valve lift rate here!!! We have been exploring and testing this whole issue of how to get the quickest/maximum lift and the results so far show that an aggressive rocker body lift profile combined with a aggressive lobe profile works great on LSx engines. This is because the valve train is so lightweight. Spring pressures and inertia loads are much smaller that what was used on traditional engines such as SBC and BBC. This allows everything to be more aggressive and still maintain reliability!!

 

I have a crane cam in my car. I can give you some track numbers by mid week.

 

Thanks for the info Mark. I was looking into the quick lift rockers myself. Now I was planning on a 224/224 camshaft (or around that) with the forementioned "agressive lobes" - so Could I use 1.8 rockers with these? Also, do you have any pre&post dyno sheets with the rockers? I've seen one person's, but I would like to see more. TIA
-alex

 

Lazy ramp rates?! Compare a new Crane cam's .050" duration numbers to its advertised duration numbers and get back to us.

BTW, if you don't know this, comparing a cam's .050 vs. advertised duration is an easy way to determine its ramp rate. The greater the difference, the more aggressive the rate.

Correction: Sorry, I should have said "less the difference, the more aggressive the rate" in my statement above. Thanks to nuzee for pointing that out to me.

 

I was basing that on the fact that the original poster said

And when I look at the durations at .05 and the lifts (though I realize that info alone doens't really tell much) what I see is durations similer to popular 224 cams but with lower lift.......

I didn't realize that it had harsh lobes. I guess it does. I also wouldn't know where to begin to look for any more info on the cam's specs than what was posted. It's not like I have a cam card for it.

Oh yeah, one last thing: I never actually said it had lazy ramp rates. I was merely informing him of what happens when you have two similer cams but one has more aggressive ramp rates.

 

You made the inference and, more to the point, if you didn't know all that, didn't know where to look for info on the cam's specs, and didn't have a cam card, why in hell would you make comments about it?

Personally, I try to avoid commenting about things I don't know anything about.

 

You have a small point there. HOWEVER all I did was believe the information in the original post to be correct. It sounded like he knew what he was talking about and had done the research. Hell, he even called the company. He had two cams listed that supposedly had different ramp rates and he wanted to know what kind of power differences the different ramp rates would have.

As it turns out, he was wrong on the ramp rates for the crane cam.

 

I concur.

P.S.- Don't take anything for granted around here!

 

Xtrooper
Before you go criticizing what someone else posts, proof read what you write. The "smaller" the difference between the 0.50 & advertised duration, the more aggressive/intense. Better yet, don't bother to proof read so you won't bother to criticize.

 

Yes, you're right. I should have typed "lesser" instead of "greater." However, having a "brain fart" is one thing, making an inaccurate statement about a product that you don't really know anything about is something else altogether. If you can't see the difference, "proofreading" (one word, btw) will be of no help to you.

 

Good. Now that I got your attention, the following remark (criticism) is uncool and uncalled for.

 

In your opinion which is worth what we paid for it. Nothing. Further, "uncool" or otherwise, it's true.

While we're lecturing others......

I might suggest the next time you recommend to someone that they "proof read" (sic) their work, that you first do the same. Correctly spelling the recommended action seems like a minimum standard when chastising.

 

Getting back on topic, the bottom line is that the new Crane "Quick-Lift" cams don't have "lazy lobes" (whether anyone actually suggested such an idea or not) and that they are, in fact, "aggressive." The fact is, they are more aggressive than their numbers indicate because Crane's advertised numbers are based on .006" rather than .004" causing them to look a bit less aggressive than they actually are.

 

Xtrooper
If you can't see why your remark is hurtful and unnecessary, then I'm done.

********************************************

From my perspective, over many years Crane enjoyed a very respectable position in marketing products that worked while being reliable. They designed street and street/strip products with both performance and RELIABILITY as main goals. I remember other cam manufacturers coming out with extremely aggressive cam lobes for the flat tappet market that may have boosted performance at the cost of reliability. Guys were wiping out cam lobes shortly after installing their cams. Of course, most thought that the damage was due to improper break-in, high spring pressures, low zinc oil, soft metal cores, etc. During this time, I never heard of the guys running Crane cams having the same problem. In fact some of the guys swapped in Crane cams as a replacement and had great results.

In my eyes, Crane earned my respect by knowing when to draw the line for products meant for street/strip vehicles. Race cams are for race cars. Race cams in street cars are a roll-of-the-dice.