Well said ... this thread and the stickies should be required reading to become a member on LS1tech ...

 

I couldn't agree more. It has certainly been on my required reading list for the past couple of days. Now I need a little help from you guys to see if I have understood any of it.

My car is a 2005 GTO, LS2, A4. Stock heads, intake, and exhaust. I prefer to keep the stock appearance. As you can see in my sig, I do spray the car with a dry 100 shot. I was about to spring for the CheaTR cam when I found this thread. I couldn't resist playing with the VE calculator so I came up with the following cam. Would appreciate comments about what I might expect from it. Is it worth pursuing or should I just go back to my CheaTR plans?

The cam is a 214/218, 0.060/0.605, LSA 113 +1, XFI Lobes

0.006 0.006 0.050 0.200
Intake Duration - ID 264 214 139
Exhaust Duration - ED 268 218 143
Lobe Center Angle - 113 113 113
Intake Centerline - ICL 112 112 112


Intake Valve opens - IVO 20 -5 -42.5 BTDC (- indicates ATDC)
Intake Valve closes - IVC 64 39 1.5 ABDC
Exhaust Valve Opens - EVO 68 43 5.5 BBDC
Exhaust Valve Closes - EVC 20 -5 -42.5 ATDC (- indicates BTDC)
Exhaust Centerline - ECL 114 114 114
Overlap 40 -10 -85 degrees
Calculated DCR...8.75

TIA for any comments.

 

TA455 do you have the XFI cam in your car now? I'm running the XFI 218 degree version in my L98. The drivability is virtually like stock. However it really roasts the tires.

 

That's a tough call. I'd say stick with the CheaTR for what you're wanting. The lower intake duration will still make plenty of torque, despite the wider LSA. The exhaust split will help your stock appearance agenda, and help out more when you are spraying. The tighter LSA with manifolds and N2O would probably be ok, but would be better suited to headers IMO.

 

1989GTA: I still have the stock cam now. The XFI lobed cam only exists in my head (and my hard drive) at the moment.

hammertime: You might be absolutely right. My problem is trying to compare a known quantity (CheaTR) with what could/might be. I started playing with the VE calculator last night; and got caught up in the "what if" game. The thing I kind of liked about the specs of the second cam is that it has about the same overlap as the CheaTR with a higher DCR. I am also thinking that the earlier IVC will give a longer powerstroke.

 

afgadfg

 

Patrick -

Thanx for all the work you have done both in experimentation and in teaching us how to make TORQUE, and the importance of knowing and controlling your DCR.

 

This thread has been resurected from the dead . I missed reading this one,but I am glad someone brought it back to the top again. Pat G, I am really impressed with the numbers on this new (old) cam. I was just wondering what made you go to the current cam you are running now, and how do the two compare? Also, how would the g5x3 fit into the mix with the same setup you have?

 

Pat G?

 

From the dead. I just read this whole thread over a period of the last few days. Few comments:

Haha, that one was epic. I'm going to have to find that one.

Patrick G do you have anyone that's running that cam or something similar? I'm building my 93 into an all out H/C car. That sounds like something that I'd be looking for, but with a few variations. I was wondering if you ever got any results out of it?

 

I went with the bigger 238/242 cam because it was necessary to exceed 500 rwhp with stock displacement. Hard to do that with a 223/227 cam. A 234/242 112LSA G5X3 might have sqeaked out 500 rwhp as it's very close to my last 238/242 112LSA cam but the earlier intake valve close would have hurt its ability to carry as well above 6500 rpm.

 

Have not seen anybody run that. For an all-out heads cam application, you'd most likely be running much higher compression than stock. If this were the case, you may not need as narrow of an LSA. The later exhaust valve opening and later close might of a 108LSA cam may not benefit higher rpm power with elevated static compression. It would work better with stock static compression.

 

^ Milled 5.3 heads (will be flycutting) / light port work, 2.00, 1.55 light weight LS6 valves, yella terras, TH200, 5200 stall, 4.11 gears, and 325/50/15s. That's the rough basis. I have some of the parts, but not everything. I was going to shoot you a camshaft sheet when it came time. I wanted to get the heads flowed and every component decided upon before I sent it to you though. I'm not talking all out race, but something around 25* of overlap much like a TREXish cam. What would you roughly design in accordance with those parts?

I was just wondering if your ideas on cam design have changed in the past couple years since this thread was created. With the advent of new cam lobes and spring technology are you still a large proponent of the LSK lobes or has anything new come out that has peaked your interest?

 

I'm still a fan of LSK lobes if I'm setting up the springs and rockers, but I've seen many people not sweat the details and not get their full potential. The newer Comp XFI and LSL lobes are a lot easier to set up and make very close to LSK power without as much work. In fact, you can even run beehives (like a PAC 1518) with the Comp XFI lobes. Another new trend is keeping the intake duration smallish and stretching the exhaust duration (bigger split) to enhance top-end breathing above 6500 rpm. You see this trend with the new Comp Thumper cams. Totally depends on your mods and goals. High rpm power or power under the curve? Pick your poison.

 

I'm running the 224/228 LSK-lobed cam on 112+2 with ETP215s and all usual bolt-ons. The heads are off at the moment, but it was making just shy of 400rwhp on a DD Dyno over here and plenty of torque. It is a great cam.

One cam that has been very good over here Patrick, is the 218/224 XFI-lobed grind, very torquey, well-mannered and makes decent top-end for a daily driver. Manners are impeccable too.

Cheers,

Macca

 

What is the LSA for 6 spd?

 

It has been used on 112+2 and 110+2 to good effect.

Cheers

 

OP: That 224/228-110 cam, what displacement did you install that in? 408? larger?

 

so what kind of things would change for a shorter stroke? like a 4.8l crank in a 6.0 block. i was thinking of doing this for my turbo tahoe.

 

It was a 347 LS1.
If it's a turbo, you probably don't want to run this much overlap first of all. Secondly, a shorter stroke coupled with a longer rod will make the piston dwell longer at TDC making it appear to have more overlap than it does. In this case, you run slightly less overlap (or a wider LSA).