Mike TexaSS

iTrader: (2)

Ok since there is a lot of knowledge on this site. I want to ask some cam questons.

Ok i have a 409 cid LT4 Stroker. With LT4(duh) heads with full porting and 2.02 1.60 valves. Right now i have the LT4 hot cam its like .525 .525 w/ 1.6 rockers. Lt4 intake port matched too. This cam idles nice but i dont think im useing the max potental of my heads. So do yall have any recomondations for cams?? Ive herd CC306, CC305 but want more options.

So fellas lets see some knowledge.

Cmon when i get the gas on it i want my Impala SS to look like this off the line! <img src="graemlins/camaro.gif" border="0" alt="[Chevrolet]" />

Mike TexaSS

iTrader: (2)

Great keep um comming!

2000 Camaro SS

Hey Mike until you get a responce here is some reading for you. It has helped many people to understand cams.
Hope it helps.
Cam discussion

Visceral

iTrader: (1)

I was always a huge fan of the 306, especially on stroked cars. I would definitely get a 306 made with the intake lobe the Extreme Energy 230 lobe rather than the usual 306 "High Lift" 230 intake lobe. On a 112, that car will make some amazing HP and torque.

just a suggestion...

\chris

Carlitos

[quote]Originally posted by Mike TexaSS:
<strong>Ok since there is a lot of knowledge on this site. I want to ask some cam questons.

Ok i have a 409 cid LT4 Stroker. With LT4(duh) heads with full porting and 2.02 1.60 valves. Right now i have the LT4 hot cam its like .525 .525 w/ 1.6 rockers. Lt4 intake port matched too. This cam idles nice but i dont think im useing the max potental of my heads. So do yall have any recomondations for cams?? Ive herd CC306, CC305 but want more options.

So fellas lets see some knowledge.

Cmon when i get the gas on it i want my Impala SS to look like this off the line! <img src="graemlins/camaro.gif" border="0" alt="[Chevrolet]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

First of all, I think you could do better with larger heads. 2.055-2.08 intake, 1.6 exhaust has been used successfully on big CI motors. Not really sure what the specs are on the cams you've mentioned, but I would probably go with something in the 234-244 duration range (depending on what you are looking for in power vs. streetablility).

Mike TexaSS

iTrader: (2)

My heads are full race porting with 2.02 1.60 valves how much would i gain by going to a 2.055

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

LT1 is a true 4.000 bore I think you would benefit by going to some bigger valves.

Carlitos

[quote]Originally posted by Mike TexaSS:
<strong>My heads are full race porting with 2.02 1.60 valves how much would i gain by going to a 2.055</strong><hr></blockquote>

On MTIs site, the difference is about 20+ rwhp between their S1 and S2 heads (2.02/1.56 vs. 2.055/1.6). This is on a 346 ci motor. For their strokers they use the S3 heads: 2.08/1.6. Just based on this, I would bet that with the S3 heads and a bigger cam you could easily free up another 30+ rwhp.


'Los

Mike TexaSS

iTrader: (2)

Ok so if i do the heads to like 2.08 1.60 then it will still have the same peak hp at 6200 rpm? I was under the impression that bigger valves just lost low end torque and gained upper rpm hp like 7000 rpms and i dont want to spin my 409 that high!

CHRISPY

I think the CC306 with those aggressive lobes would be AWESOME in that car <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">
Do you have a ported intake as well? What are your head flow numbers? What sort of air intake setup are you running? Are you running long tubes with dual 3 inch exhaust?
Sounds like a great package!
Chris

Mike TexaSS

iTrader: (2)

I have FLP long tubes into FLP high flow cats (yup legal) and dynomax 2.5 inch catback exhaust heres a link to the fastest recorded motor impala ss in the land im #6 not bad huh its also got a complete list of mods!

Fastest SS's N/A im #6 whoo hooo

Carlitos

[quote]Originally posted by Mike TexaSS:
<strong>Ok so if i do the heads to like 2.08 1.60 then it will still have the same peak hp at 6200 rpm? I was under the impression that bigger valves just lost low end torque and gained upper rpm hp like 7000 rpms and i dont want to spin my 409 that high!</strong><hr></blockquote>

It sounds like you may be confusing the effects of larger duration cams with larger ports. Larger port heads will lose low end torque if they are ported improperly. This can be prevented by going with some proven heads, and with your 409 ci motor, I can see nothing but gains for you.
<img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0"> If anything, your hp gains would be greater than your tq gains, but I seriously doubt that you would lose tq.

'Los <img src="graemlins/camaro.gif" border="0" alt="[Chevrolet]" />

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Carlitos ]</p>

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

Agostino Built "Budget" LT1-383 link to ARE, ED Wright FASTCHIP Tuning, 96 impala .030 over block, Lunati 4032 alloy Pistons, (#1311G2S3), 11.0:1 Compression, Clevite H-Series Bearings, Childs & Albert Plasma Molly rings, Stock Impala rods with 100K miles, ARP rod bolts, Cloyes Double Roller Timing Chain, Junkyard Cast 400 crank with 2 piece rear main, (ARE checked and prepped the crank and installed GMPP adapter for the stock oil pan), Solid Roller Lifters, Chrome-Molly pushrods, ARP Main studs, (2 per cap), rotating assembly internally balanced,
Heads: 96 impala steel heads, (Nick Agostino stage 2 ported with 2.060/1.590 valves)
Cam: Solid Roller Cam (250/259/110 .630/.637 lift with 1.6 Rockers), Valve Springs at 200# seat 600# open pressure


I think that bigger valves make sense for your motor.

Mike TexaSS

iTrader: (2)

Hmmm so its not going to rev higher?? With bigger valves.

ChrisB

Oh man, an LT1 topic I was missing out on.

[quote]LT1 is a true 4.000 bore I think you would benefit by going to some bigger valves. <hr></blockquote>

Just because the LT1 is a 4.000 bore doesn't mean it works like the LS1 - the ls1 has a 15 degree valve angle, LT1 23 degrees.

that said, going to a 2.055 intake valve would help out for sure, but you are going to have to have a new seat installed to fit the valve, which means labor, new valves, new seats, valvejob, etc. Do you happen to have flow numbers for your current heads?

[quote]I would definitely get a 306 made with the intake lobe the Extreme Energy 230 lobe rather than the usual 306 "High Lift" 230 intake lobe. On a 112, that car will make some amazing HP and torque.<hr></blockquote>

The extreme energy lobes do not have a good reputation on LT1 vehicles, except in blower applications. They tend to have all sorts of valvetrain harmonics and loose tons of power aorund 6200-6300 or so. I wouldn't use an extreme energy lobe.

The 306 is a good cam, no question, and will make good power - there are just better choices out there now.


[quote]On MTIs site, the difference is about 20+ rwhp between their S1 and S2 heads (2.02/1.56 vs. 2.055/1.6). This is on a 346 ci motor<hr></blockquote>

That power difference is quite a bit more than just an increase in valve size.

Re: rpm. A larger camshaft will make it rev higher for sure. I wouldn't go any larger than a 2.055 valve on a 4.03" bore. You can probably fit a 2.08" in there but there is really no point.

What are your thoughts on a solid roller vs. hydraulic roller setup?


Chris

Mike TexaSS

iTrader: (2)

Ive thought about solid rollor but its too much of a pain to get them readjusted every 5000 miles.

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

You are in good hands with Chris B and LT1 knowledge, the dude knows his **** <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0">

Mike, you make that Impy faster and you will be shocking alot more people around town LOL!

Tony