Camshaft LSA explained and tested
Direct quote: "Interestingly, at the very top of our test, well past peak-power rpm, the wide cam actually caught up and surpassed the other two grinds by a marginal amount".
I feel much more informed now on lsa and feel a few other fellas on here should check it out to get a better understanding on the issue... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<strong>Just got my copy of the new Car Craft mag. It has a four page article on lobe seperation angle. Pretty good info. Looks like Lunati and Crane both say the higher the seperation the more the bottom end loses torque, and the powerband is shifted up.
Direct quote: "Interestingly, at the very top of our test, well past peak-power rpm, the wide cam actually caught up and surpassed the other two grinds by a marginal amount".
I feel much more informed now on lsa and feel a few other fellas on here should check it out to get a better understanding on the issue... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">sooo...between a 112 and a 114....the 114 is a higher seperation?
Trending Topics
Guess GM must have it backwards too. They insist on using extremely wide LSA's for the LS1, & yet they run out of HP at 5500 RPMs. Maybe their computers have bugs.
I selected a 114 LSA for the smooth idle, lower emissions, and usable torque. What a surprise to learn that I also benefit from better high RPM performance too! Maybe I should have gone with a 120 LSA!
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Unfortunately, the article did not include a detailed graph or chart for the 3 different LSAs. I too am interested in seeing the detailed numbers, including those below 2500 RPM. My experience with lumpy, tight-LSA cams is that can be real pigs at low RPMs, then the power comes on fairly abruptly. This is great for racing, lousy on the freeway.
After reading & digesting all the various comments, theories, and info I think we'd all agree that the tighter LSA narrows the power band somewhat, and raises peak power. Whether the power band gets moved higher or lower is a bit subjective, as there is conflicting evidence. It also depends on how you define the "range". The article analyzes two different power ranges --- 2500-4000 RPM & 2500-6300 RPM. In both cases, average TQ & HP were higher with the tighter LSA. As I said, I'd like to see the average TQ in the 1700-3000 RPM range.
LSA is only one of many variables that cam designers use, and it's simplistic to try to narrow down its effect into a simple "rule". But it's certainly fun to try! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
As the article points out, the LSA will have a different effect on an engine with high flowing heads, compared to a stock-headed engine. Also, these tests were done on a Vortec SBC, not an LS1.
1. Tighter the LSA, the peakier the torque curve. Good mid-range punch. Lose some of the off-idle pull. Upper rpm pull drops off more noticeably past power range.
2. Wider the LSA, the broader the torque curve. Adds more off-idle pull. Good for automatic tranny. Feels like the motor can pull & pull (the drop off is less noticeable).
3. Cam DURATION dictates where the powerband will be. If you want a higher rpm powerband, you choose a cam with more duration, & vice-versa.
4. The cam lobe profile & timing events (intake/exhaust open/close) dictate the cam characteristics. The duration & LSA are just indicators of those timing events. For SBCs, you cannot generalize duration or lobe separation between different cams let alone different cam manufacturers for comparison purposes. Maybe you can for LS1 cams as there are not that many profiles to choose from, I don’t know. But the practice of comparing cams just by duration or LSA can be very misleading.
5. Valve overlap should be a key factor as it takes into consideration the cam timing events. Add that into your evaluation of particular cam grinds and you’ll see a more clearer picture.
and torque here and there. What is noticeable is that with 112 LSA cams you will get a rougher idle.
"why is it that 110 to 112 lobe centers are pretty tight for LS1 use and medium to wide for SBC use? "
I've wondered why that is too. That seems to apply to all roller-cam grinds for SBC & LS1s. I do believe that the optimum LSA gets tighter as displacement increases.
Why does GM use a super wide LSA for a low RPM engine? Simple, for clean emmisions, outstanding idle quality, and great low rpm drivability. Keep in mind that the intake duration has FAR more impact on the shift point than does the LSA. That's why the stock engines have low shift points despite a super wide LSA...they have a super low duration to go with it.
First, which LSA produces the highest peak HP? Here are the #'s:
106 LSA 433.7 @ 5900 RPM
110 LSA 434.0 @ 5500 RPM
112 LSA 428.5 @ 5500 RPM
So which is better for high RPMs --- wide LSA or narrow LSA? Looks to me like the tighter LSA produces more peak HP at a higher RPM.
Next, which LSA produces the highest peak TQ? Here are the #'s:
106 LSA 454.9 @ 4500 RPM
110 LSA 448.8 @ 4400 RPM
114 LSA 440.0 @ 4400 RPM
So which is better for high RPMs --- wide LSA or narrow LSA? Looks to me like the tighter LSA produce more peak torque at a slightly higher RPM.
You decide......
No argument here! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
Base engined SBC during the 70s used a short duration and lift,108 LSA cam. Smooth idle. Made good off-idle torque. But, when you rev'd past 4000 rpm, the engine would start wheezing, couldn't breath, power would just drop off. Obviously, that was one of the first things that got replaced whenever doing a performance build.
The factory performance cams from the 70s used wide LSAs with a good amount of duration and relatively low lift. That produced a relatively smooth idling cam with mild lobe profiles that wouldn't stress the valvetrain too much. They would pull pretty good to redline. Aftermarket cams typically made more power with more aggressive lobe profiles, at the risk of stressing the valvetrain.


