Big cam durability
I realize that in high performance nothing lasts forever and the faster you go the more it breaks but I'm wondering is there a certain point in cam lift relative to duration where it just gets very unreliable.
I've had reputable builders tell me to stay away from bigger than .600 lift and 240ish duration if I want the motor to be trouble free longer than 10,000 miles. They reason that the ramps will be so steep and spring rates so high that the valvetrain just won't last.
I'm in the research stage of putting together a budget max effort street strip 346. I don't care about idle quality, "driveability", bucking, or anything like that. I don't mind loose converters and bad gas mileage. My goal is to go as quick/fast as possible with a mid weight f-body with a stock shortblock (upgraded bolts, rods, pistons) and ported factory heads.
My only criteria for streetable is 93 pump gas, not tossing rockers and breaking springs, and shooting for 50,000mi or better with many strip passes and very good maintenance.
stock is .500
race motors can last, but the parts required to do so will cost considerably more. so your "budget", "max effort" engine that is "reliable" is quite the oxymoron.
you have the same goals as every man modding his car. he wants to go fast all the time for minimal investment. it won't happen, it has been proven time and time again.
Trending Topics
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
My question is: Is there a generally accepted range of cam size to stay under for a motor reasonably expected to make it 50,000 mi or so without pulling a valvecover? I mean LS6's have what like .550 lift and low duration and pretty much runforever. I'm not looking for a magic number not to exceed, just an accepted ballpark.
Based on that, I am deciding how much headache I am willing to live with to reach my goals.
In other words I'm deciding between 224dur/.570 lift that runs say 11.65 and can drive to africa and back vs 245dur/.640lift that goes 10.9 but always is on the ragged edge of self imposed destruction. I'm just wondering is there a blurry line in the sand between the two and if so where is that line?
Do none of you ever think this way? Maybe I need a vacation.
rules:
must run on 93 octane, race weight of car will be right about 3400-3500lbs, converter and gearing to be determined by cam and heads, car will see maybe 5000-6000 street miles per year, maybe 75-100 strip passes per year, I don't give a **** about having enough torque to pull down trees or enjoy off Idle acceleration.
rules:
must run on 93 octane, race weight of car will be right about 3400-3500lbs, converter and gearing to be determined by cam and heads, car will see maybe 5000-6000 street miles per year, maybe 75-100 strip passes per year, I don't give a **** about having enough torque to pull down trees or enjoy off Idle acceleration.
At least you are willing to forego driveability but still...the only way I can see being close to "fast, reliable and cheap" is to lose lots of weight.

Anything short of a huge budget requires compromise, I know.
Cheap is a given.
I'm trying to balance speed and reliabilty.
i'd go with a small(er) cam and vic jr intake for starters. determine what shiftpoint you want and go from there, as the shiftpoint will most likely determine longevity of the engine. custom grind all the way, then you can determine lobes, lift, duration, lsa, advance, etc etc. the single plane will let you see the true colors of a cam. meaning you won't need as much cam to equal or surpass the performance of a larger cam on the crossover style intake. just my thoughts.

VFN pin on hood is coming next. I'm a budget, backyard, redneck speedfreak from wayback. I'll do the cheap lightweight stuff fer sher.


