Generation III Internal Engine 1997-2006 LS1 | LS6
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

What times to expect with this CAM

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 12, 2006 | 11:09 PM
  #21  
DEVIATE's Avatar
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
From: OKLAHOMA
Default

Originally Posted by orangeapeel
Sounds like a 408+ to me.
In that general area. Give or take a few.
Reply
Old Apr 12, 2006 | 11:37 PM
  #22  
SVT THIS's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Addict
20 Year Member
iTrader: (27)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,237
Likes: 1
From: Owasso, Ok
Default

I will most likely end up going with the cam you reccommended. Now, I am just debating on whether or not to upgrade the valves on my heads from 2.02 and 1.57 to 2.055 and 1.6. This will bring the flow @.600 to 302 as opposed to 296.
However, the guy selling me the heads told me this might kill my low end torque completely. Any thoughts on this?
Reply
Old Apr 12, 2006 | 11:40 PM
  #23  
orangeapeel's Avatar
ЯєŧąяĐ Єl¡m¡иąŧøя ™
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,083
Likes: 4
From: Justin, TX
Default

it can be a positive thing and it can be a negative effect. I would leave the stock sized valves on your application. It will save you an few more dollars on the heads having to be "valve lapped".
Reply
Old Apr 12, 2006 | 11:59 PM
  #24  
98NBMZ's Avatar
On The Tree
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by DEVIATE
Just for the record that was a 224 581 112. It was also with a da of 3200ft. Car went 11.18 @121. 1.53 sixty foot. Thanks John. I just cant see any reason in using a to big cam that is going to do nothin more than chew up valv springs and have ill streetability. Dont get me wrong the cams make more peak power but I feel in the curve you are not gaining enought to make it worth while. On my new motor which I will just say is going to be bigger than a 347 by a decent margin is still not going to be sportin a huge cam. I am looking in the 240 range and aroung 600 lift. Once again I feel I dont need a huge cam to make good power in all the area the engin will be operatin. Hope this help you out man. Let me know what you ultimately decide. Later.
I coulda swore you told me 228....oh well

Once again...here is some great info from very knowledgeable guy
Reply
Old Apr 13, 2006 | 07:07 AM
  #25  
DEVIATE's Avatar
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
From: OKLAHOMA
Default

Originally Posted by SVT THIS
I will most likely end up going with the cam you reccommended. Now, I am just debating on whether or not to upgrade the valves on my heads from 2.02 and 1.57 to 2.055 and 1.6. This will bring the flow @.600 to 302 as opposed to 296.
However, the guy selling me the heads told me this might kill my low end torque completely. Any thoughts on this?
I personally would leave the stock valves in it. Considering the neg amount of gain that you will gain for the amount of money your going to spend
Reply
Old Apr 13, 2006 | 09:52 AM
  #26  
SVT THIS's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Addict
20 Year Member
iTrader: (27)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,237
Likes: 1
From: Owasso, Ok
Default

He'll install the upgraded valves for free.

I was originally paying Patriot $xxx to clean the heads and fix anything that might be wrong with it, mill the deck surface to make it true, and install Patriot dual springs.

He told me if I wanted the larger valves he could put them in for the same amount.
Would you still leave the stock ones in it or should I go this route?
Also, with the larger valves will there be enough PV clearance for the 228 .595 112lsa cam on an Xer lobe?
Thanks!

Last edited by SVT THIS; Apr 13, 2006 at 10:57 AM.
Reply
Old Apr 13, 2006 | 09:56 PM
  #27  
DEVIATE's Avatar
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
From: OKLAHOMA
Default

Wont know for sure until it gets here. I personally would leave the other valves in itl If you were a lot bigger engine I would say fine. But since you dont I wouldnt mess with it.
Reply




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 AM.