Cam for L92 Heads: Lessons Learned
I should have even more clearance with the lq4 dished pistons if that is the case.
how do you like that cam and what kind of power did you put down?
Chad
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Lunati 217/225 .323/.318" lobe lift 114+4LSA Ran 12.37 @115
Second Cam....
Comp Thumpr 219/233 .326/.316 109+6LSA http://www.compcams.com/Cam_Specs/Ca...csid=1440&sb=0
Ran 12.20@115
Both ran with the DA @200FT. Aside from tuning the choppy idle, it runs good with the stock converter locked-up down to 1200rpm. Also the MAF graph at WOT throttle using the COMP was very smooth compared to the Lunati which was opposite of what I expected. Also the MAF average numbers were higher from 2800-6400 using the Comp. You would think the Comp cam would run slower but the track doesn't lie. Wonder how it would run installed straight up???
Last edited by 69LT1Bird; Jan 21, 2010 at 08:14 PM.
Lunati 217/225 .323/.318" lobe lift 114+4LSA Ran 12.37 @115
Second Cam....
Comp Thumpr 219/233 .326/.316 109+6LSA http://www.compcams.com/Cam_Specs/Ca...csid=1440&sb=0
Ran 12.20@115
Both ran with the DA @200FT. Aside from tuning the choppy idle, it runs good with the stock converter locked-up down to 1200rpm. Also the MAF graph at WOT throttle using the COMP was very smooth compared to the Lunati which was opposite of what I expected. Also the MAF average numbers were higher from 2800-6400 using the Comp. You would think the Comp cam would run slower but the track doesn't lie. Wonder how it would run installed straight up???
cheers
My point wasn't about horsepower, since they are almost identical, as much as the LSA comparison in relation to the cars et. Everything was next to identical except for cams. Both were tuned to the 12.6-12.7 on my WB, timing left the same, same stock A/S radials, same 60ft, same MPH, DA was within a 100ft of each other. As different as they seem, they ran the same.
I was just surprised that the 109+6LSA cam ran as well as it did, most people look at the Thumpr cam as a second-rate cam for guys that look for 'image" over power. The was a few reason for the cam change. One was for a less aggressive lobe to use with 1.85 rockers that still had the lift I was looking for to work with DoD lifters and give me good lift at the valve. Second was the tighter LSA to shift the power band down. It doesn't take much cam with the L92's to push the power past 6500. Don't feel like running the heavy valves and DoD lifters that hard. Not wanting a small cam and avoiding rpm got me to try the Thumpr, so far its a tuff cam and head-turner.

Wouldn't mind a little different LSA and advance but I like the lobe profiles for what there being used for.
My point wasn't about horsepower, since they are almost identical, as much as the LSA comparison in relation to the cars et. Everything was next to identical except for cams. Both were tuned to the 12.6-12.7 on my WB, timing left the same, same stock A/S radials, same 60ft, same MPH, DA was within a 100ft of each other. As different as they seem, they ran the same.
I was just surprised that the 109+6LSA cam ran as well as it did, most people look at the Thumpr cam as a second-rate cam for guys that look for 'image" over power. The was a few reason for the cam change. One was for a less aggressive lobe to use with 1.85 rockers that still had the lift I was looking for to work with DoD lifters and give me good lift at the valve. Second was the tighter LSA to shift the power band down. It doesn't take much cam with the L92's to push the power past 6500. Don't feel like running the heavy valves and DoD lifters that hard. Not wanting a small cam and avoiding rpm got me to try the Thumpr, so far its a tuff cam and head-turner.

Wouldn't mind a little different LSA and advance but I like the lobe profiles for what there being used for.
One thing I have noticed of late by accident is the wide split cams ie 10 deg with some overlap on board appear to help the dip in tq between 3000 and 4000rpm with these heads on 6L. ie a 232 234 112+0 will have a slight dip in the tq curve a 232 240 even though this has more overlap the longer duration on ex side removes the dip in the curve and picks up a few hp up top, obviously the ex is scavenging better and there is more efficient cyl fill from the increase in overlap effect, so no loss in bottom end performance at all.
Last edited by hymey; Feb 14, 2010 at 01:38 AM.
Thanks for all the good info guys!
ran it at the track and got a best of 11.4, i am upset as i had a standard 6.0 with a smaller cam same convertor and diff gears dual 3" exhaust etc and ran 11.2
Just so everyone knows the cam that was specced for me was a 239 251 @ 114+4 623 623 lsl lobe.
now im thinking its time to go a bigger cam and get into the tens??
ran it at the track and got a best of 11.4, i am upset as i had a standard 6.0 with a smaller cam same convertor and diff gears dual 3" exhaust etc and ran 11.2
Just so everyone knows the cam that was specced for me was a 239 251 @ 114+4 623 623 lsl lobe.
now im thinking its time to go a bigger cam and get into the tens??
are you blowing thru the converter?
Chad
231/234 .643"/.598" 111 LSA
232/234 .595/.598 112 lsa
I have used the first cam in a ls1 and loved it. Just wondering how it would work with the low compression lq4 with ls3 heads.
231/234 .643"/.598" 111 LSA
232/234 .595/.598 112 lsa
I have used the first cam in a ls1 and loved it. Just wondering how it would work with the low compression lq4 with ls3 heads.
comp part # 54-428-11 this one made 551 fwhp in a test....



