228/232
06-05-2006, 05:42 AM
#1
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
228/232 How much power do you think this cam will make with full exhaust and a decent set of heads?
278*-228*-.598"
282*-232*-.598"
114* LSA - 111* ICL
I am running an automatic which is why it is on a 114 LSA.
278*-228*-.598"
282*-232*-.598"
114* LSA - 111* ICL
I am running an automatic which is why it is on a 114 LSA.
06-05-2006, 08:55 AM
#4
12 Second Club
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with LS6 intake 405-410 rwhp. If it was an m6 415-420rwhp. It will have very nice power under the curver, but it wont peak as high, itll also have nice torque curve so get it 
06-06-2006, 05:29 AM
#5
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BLACKNREDSS
with LS6 intake 405-410 rwhp. If it was an m6 415-420rwhp. It will have very nice power under the curver, but it wont peak as high, itll also have nice torque curve so get it
That is exactly what I was hoping to hear...power under the curve is where it is at with a nice amount of torque!
06-06-2006, 06:34 AM
#6
TECH Senior Member
Originally Posted by BLACKNREDSS
with LS6 intake 405-410 rwhp. If it was an m6 415-420rwhp. It will have very nice power under the curver, but it wont peak as high, itll also have nice torque curve so get it
Preferable is 112+1 with 49 EVO
But if it was me I would get it on a:
111+1 (110 ICL) for a 48 EVO thus more trq in midrange, still carrying well (4* equidistant IVO/EVC from TDC) after 6300 peak (44 IVC) and a nice 8* overlap (good lope)
With todays HP tuner capabilities, running it on A4 will not be a problem in the hands of a good tuner.
06-06-2006, 06:50 AM
#7
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PREDATOR-Z
The 114+3 (111 ICL) has a 53 EVO which is a short stroke and won't be that good on midrange trq.
Preferable is 112+1 with 49 EVO
But if it was me I would get it on a:
111+1 (110 ICL) for a 48 EVO thus more trq in midrange, still carrying well (4* equidistant IVO/EVC from TDC) after 6300 peak (44 IVC) and a nice 8* overlap (good lope)
With todays HP tuner capabilities, running it on A4 will not be a problem in the hands of a good tuner.
Preferable is 112+1 with 49 EVO
But if it was me I would get it on a:
111+1 (110 ICL) for a 48 EVO thus more trq in midrange, still carrying well (4* equidistant IVO/EVC from TDC) after 6300 peak (44 IVC) and a nice 8* overlap (good lope)
With todays HP tuner capabilities, running it on A4 will not be a problem in the hands of a good tuner.
Sooooo your saying it won't have a good midrange compared to other cams like a 228/228 or 224/224?
Trending Topics
06-06-2006, 01:05 PM
#8
TECH Senior Member
Yeap!! compared to a 224
See, to make power in a certain rpm range you need certain VE's (valve events), now to make more power in the same range with bigger duration cams, you need to increase SCR and DCR (static and Dynamic compressions) witch can be done by smaller head chambers and gaskets, or by going tighter LSA/advance, or both (then you just have a optimised combo
)
See, to make power in a certain rpm range you need certain VE's (valve events), now to make more power in the same range with bigger duration cams, you need to increase SCR and DCR (static and Dynamic compressions) witch can be done by smaller head chambers and gaskets, or by going tighter LSA/advance, or both (then you just have a optimised combo
)
06-06-2006, 02:54 PM
#9
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have 64.5cc Chambers and slightly milled heads (very slight).
Intake:
.1---87.5
.2---157.7
.3---231.2
.4---266.6
.5---289.1
.55--301.8
.6---299.2
.65--298.9
Exhaust:
.1---68.3
.2---107.7
.3---161.1
.4---194.8
.5---216.5
.55--222.3
.6---231.5
.65--231.2
Intake:
.1---87.5
.2---157.7
.3---231.2
.4---266.6
.5---289.1
.55--301.8
.6---299.2
.65--298.9
Exhaust:
.1---68.3
.2---107.7
.3---161.1
.4---194.8
.5---216.5
.55--222.3
.6---231.5
.65--231.2
06-06-2006, 03:51 PM
#10
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 PREDATOR-Z
Yeap!! compared to a 224
See, to make power in a certain rpm range you need certain VE's (valve events), now to make more power in the same range with bigger duration cams, you need to increase SCR and DCR (static and Dynamic compressions) witch can be done by smaller head chambers and gaskets, or by going tighter LSA/advance, or both (then you just have a optimised combo )
See, to make power in a certain rpm range you need certain VE's (valve events), now to make more power in the same range with bigger duration cams, you need to increase SCR and DCR (static and Dynamic compressions) witch can be done by smaller head chambers and gaskets, or by going tighter LSA/advance, or both (then you just have a optimised combo
)Same cam profile on a 111* +2* using the same style PPFL heads had major P/V issues and could not be used. That's a reality that a computer program can't take into consideration when they spit out cam specs.
Also keep in mind, the latest "trend" on this site for tighter LSA cams is actually old news. The timing events I used on many street oriented 302 Fords (and LSX cars) resulted in even tighter LSA profiles than seem to be in vogue over here. Ask J-Rod about that if you don't believe me. Like I said, there's more to this cam stuff than what some program says. All parameters must be considered... Like... if the cam even fits!
Ed
06-07-2006, 01:42 AM
#13
TECH Senior Member
Originally Posted by EDC
Pred...
Same cam profile on a 111* +2* using the same style PPFL heads had major P/V issues and could not be used. That's a reality that a computer program can't take into consideration when they spit out cam specs.
Also keep in mind, the latest "trend" on this site for tighter LSA cams is actually old news. The timing events I used on many street oriented 302 Fords (and LSX cars) resulted in even tighter LSA profiles than seem to be in vogue over here. Ask J-Rod about that if you don't believe me. Like I said, there's more to this cam stuff than what some program says. All parameters must be considered... Like... if the cam even fits!
Ed
Same cam profile on a 111* +2* using the same style PPFL heads had major P/V issues and could not be used. That's a reality that a computer program can't take into consideration when they spit out cam specs.
Also keep in mind, the latest "trend" on this site for tighter LSA cams is actually old news. The timing events I used on many street oriented 302 Fords (and LSX cars) resulted in even tighter LSA profiles than seem to be in vogue over here. Ask J-Rod about that if you don't believe me. Like I said, there's more to this cam stuff than what some program says. All parameters must be considered... Like... if the cam even fits!
Ed
I my part of the world, I'm blessed with being outside the box (US) mainstreem and I'm also exposed to Aussie thinking.
Say less than 110 LSA 2 years ago and you are laughed at.
You know better than me, that putting specs on a cam doesn't necessarily means it is going to behave exactly that way in the motor it is going in.
But the basis is there.
That is why I'm not a big fan of advance in cams, straight up is the way to go, then tweak it on a dyno via advance/retard and timing.
Otherwise, Ed there will be no biz for "custom" cams, but that is part of modding and innovation.
Look at cam mainstream itself, it is changing. Less fear of big lifts, tighter LSAs are just "part" of what is there to play with.
The "perfect" cam only exists within the parameters it fits at actual time of grind and application. Deviate from that and the "recipe" will require more "salt" and/or "pepper".
We all have "our" trends, J-Rods, 53pony, yourself have yours. I just wish I had the ability to implement and test mine with the wide range of resources you all have.
But that is what makes you guys "GURUS" and me an amateur, right
And the other difference is obvious, what I learn, I share, and what I share it is for free
I like when you three get into discussions, I miss that.
06-07-2006, 06:50 AM
#14
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 PREDATOR-Z
That I know Ed,
I my part of the world, I'm blessed with being outside the box (US) mainstreem and I'm also exposed to Aussie thinking.
Say less than 110 LSA 2 years ago and you are laughed at.
I my part of the world, I'm blessed with being outside the box (US) mainstreem and I'm also exposed to Aussie thinking.
Say less than 110 LSA 2 years ago and you are laughed at.
Some laughed at it, some laughed at those laughing at it.
You know better than me, that putting specs on a cam doesn't necessarily means it is going to behave exactly that way in the motor it is going in.
But the basis is there.
But the basis is there.
Yup.. 100% on the mark.
That is why I'm not a big fan of advance in cams, straight up is the way to go, then tweak it on a dyno via advance/retard and timing.
I've noticed a few things on street cars when manipulating the ICL a little. I guess it stems from testing on the track vs the dyno.
Otherwise, Ed there will be no biz for "custom" cams, but that is part of modding and innovation.
Look at cam mainstream itself, it is changing. Less fear of big lifts, tighter LSAs are just "part" of what is there to play with.
The big lift lobes are a direct result of needing more lobe area all while trying to avoid big duration numbers. Those "square" lobe grinds that just add more and more duration with no change in lobe lift are valvetrain killers. Can you say NHRA Stocker grinds?
The "perfect" cam only exists within the parameters it fits at actual time of grind and application. Deviate from that and the "recipe" will require more "salt" and/or "pepper".
That's a quote that "signature" worthy...
We all have "our" trends, J-Rods, 53pony, yourself have yours. I just wish I had the ability to implement and test mine with the wide range of resources you all have.
All it takes is money...
But that is what makes you guys "GURUS" and me an amateur, right
And the other difference is obvious, what I learn, I share, and what I share it is for free
I like when you three get into discussions, I miss that.
And the other difference is obvious, what I learn, I share, and what I share it is for free
I like when you three get into discussions, I miss that.
That type of discussion won't happen here anymore... Shaun and I are on the "list" so you'll have to visit hardcore50 or the other site if you want to see that happening again..
I'm outta here before I'm executed...
Ed
06-07-2006, 06:51 AM
#15
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 orangeapeel
Thunder or TSP can probably custom grind one with those specs if they arent the one that makes it already. Might be a Futral cam.
Ed