NOBR8KSS

iTrader: (12)

After months of researching I have come up with this cam for my 1999 Z-28 (M6):

Comp Cams custom grind with XE lobes:

at .050" lift- 224/220 .540/.532 114 LSA - ground straight up (no advance)

My cam choice is based on:

1. Reliability. I wanted low lift for valve spring and lifter life, but enough lift to make good power with stock heads, MAC headers, and LS6 intake manifold. I also want the valvetrain to be relatively quiet.

2. Decent low end power, but more importantly a good range of power through the rpm band. I want this to pull strong to about 6400 rpms...no more.

3. 3.73 or 3.90 rear-end gears. I don't need so much low end torque because of these.

4. I want decent idle quality and good engine vacuum.

5. Daily driver cam - needs to have decent driving characteristics and decent gas mileage.

Any opinions or advise?

wm_sorg

I am in the same situation you are. From what I have read you have the option of going with 112 LSA because you have an M6.

So far most have reccomended this spec fro thunder racing.

220/220 .553/.553 114 LSA

Toxic Texan

That is a good cam for what you want to do.

Nickn20

I like it, but with macs, and a quite catback, I would go with more duration the exhaust.... just a TR 224, on a 114, I would love to see a dyno of this cam compared to a single pattern....

LOnSLO

iTrader: (15)

Looks like great spec, although you need to advance it 2 to 4 degrees to bring the power band down to a usable level. Unless you plan to spin over 7000. TR cams come with a 4 degree advance. You will get great gas mileage with that one. I actually get better mpg with my TR224 over the stock cam. You will also have plenty of vacuum.

<small>[ October 25, 2002, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: LOnSLO ]</small>

99 Black Bird T/A

iTrader: (4)

I've been considering something very similar but with more lift and faster lobes.

Comp 224/220 dur 568/564 lift, XE-R lobes on a 114 LSA, with 4 degrees of advance.

Not sure if ICA of 108 like Comp suggested or a ICA of 110 like TR uses would be better.

I was thinking of it for the same reasons listed above but figured with the dual springs on the TEA heads I could be aggresive with lift and ramps speed.

Tin Indian

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 99 Black Bird T/A:
<strong> Comp 224/220 dur 568/564 lift, XE-R lobes on a 114 LSA, with 4 degrees of advance.

Not sure if ICA of 108 like Comp suggested or a ICA of 110 like TR uses would be better.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You say you want a 114 LSA cam with 4 degrees of advance. Well, you will need a cam with a 110 IC in order to get the 4 degree "ground-in" advance. Then just install it dot to dot. There is your 4 degrees.

A 108 IC on a 114 LSA cam would get you 6 degrees advanced if installed dot to dot.

Ron,

BTW, my off the shelf TR-220 cam was advertised as 114 LSA with a 110 IC. The Cam Doctor spec was actually 113.5 LSA and 110 IC. That actually gives 3.5 degrees advanced. Fine with me.
______________________________________________

<small>[ October 25, 2002, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Kimchee and Rice ]</small>

NOBR8KSS

iTrader: (12)

I was under the impression that advancing the cam would raise rather than lower it.
I don't want to spin the engine past 6400 rpms...just for longevity reasons.
I suppose I should look into advancing the cam 4 degrees...or a 110* IC with the 114 LSA?
My research has shown that stock heads don't need that much duration on the exhaust side...but can benefit from more intake duration. 220 seems to be as much as is necessary for the exhaust. Also, since I want a quiet valvetrain, it made sense to go with the smallest numbers possible to still make good power. I am hoping this will be somewhat of a sleeper cam.
BTW, my exhaust will be:
MAC headers, Carsound cats, and 2.5" dual exhaust with x-pipe and chambered mufflers dumping before the axle.

99 Black Bird T/A

iTrader: (4)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kimchee and Rice:
You say you want a 114 LSA cam with 4 degrees of advance. Well, you will need a cam with a 110 IC in order to get the 4 degree "ground-in" advance. Then just install it dot to dot. There is your 4 degrees.

A 108 IC on a 114 LSA cam would get you 6 degrees advanced if installed dot to dot.

Ron,</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks Ron, we also talked about 112's that might have confused the issue.

99 Black Bird T/A

iTrader: (4)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by NOBR8KSS:
<strong>MAC headers, Carsound cats, and 2.5" dual exhaust with x-pipe and chambered mufflers dumping before the axle.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why the cats? I didn't think SC did inspections anymore to check stuff like that?

NOBR8KSS

iTrader: (12)

I'm not understanding the advantages/disadvantages of cam advancing or retarding.
Reference post:
https://ls1tech.com/ubb/ultimatebb.p...=008187#000003

I am reading that a 224 cam would be the "proper" size cam for the LS1 and should be ground straight up for best (dyno) performance, but I also read that for the 224 cam to peak at 6100 rpms (LS1 range) it needs 4 degrees of advance?
This seems like a contridiction to me...can anyone explain?
I could care less about max dyno numbers..I want a cam that pulls hard from 2000 rpm to 6200 rpm, but still has enough torque to launch hard on a 3.73 rear end. Whether I make 5 more dyno hp than the other guys isn't important to me.

NOBR8KSS

iTrader: (12)

SC doesn't, but I may be moving to NC in the near future. Cats will only be going on if I move.

About the cam advance...if I want to shift at the stock shift points (M6) or around 6100-6200 rpms...how much advance would be necessary to bring the cam into this range without sacrificing power?
I am confused about this. I'll try some searching...

<small>[ October 26, 2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: NOBR8KSS ]</small>