Camshaft Specs
When they are ported it pumps up both flow numbers and doesn't really change the intake to exhaust flow ratio difference.
You would only do a different cam spec if you were focused more on top end as that where the CNC gains are to take advantage of
LS3 ports can make great torque - you're not at a disadvantage because of having rectangle heads, but you're over camming it for what I think you really want based on all your other posts.
Look at Torquer 110 dyno sheets for the ls7 for example. Shorter duration cams are going to have WAY better throttle response and part throttle power as well.
I bet it would run good with good low end.
And that the point.
I never said to use a very wide split on TFS ls3 heads.
The intake to exhaust flow ratio would be more balanced.
You need 1.5 degrees of duration favouring the exhaust for every percentage point of difference from the intake and exhaust flow ratio.
TFS heads would require about an 8-10 degree split.
High end cathedrals, even less.
The advantage of a wide split is power past peak.
Even Brian Tooley says the LS3 head, likes wide 15 degree splits. They make more power and torque from 3500 rpm+ compared to cams with less exhaust duration.
This is for the LS3 head, NOT the TFS LS3 head.
Theoretically speaking would one see significant improvements with a 204/219 cam in its place? That would give it a 15 degree split, which is most advantageous as said above.
Obviously for big gains one would use much more duration and lift on both sides.
BTW the late LS6 cam was very close to the above cam.
LS3 ports can make great torque - you're not at a disadvantage because of having rectangle heads, but you're over camming it for what I think you really want based on all your other posts.
Look at Torquer 110 dyno sheets for the ls7 for example. Shorter duration cams are going to have WAY better throttle response and part throttle power as well.
It should feel strong all over plus having .660 lift will also help torque.
The 110 torquer cam is not that good.
The IVC is way too early and the EVO is far too late.
This is only a low- mid range camshaft in an ls7.
I saw some dyno sheets and the camshaft torque curve falls off a cliff after 4500rpm. No thanks
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Theoretically speaking would one see significant improvements with a 204/219 cam in its place? That would give it a 15 degree split, which is most advantageous as said above.
Obviously for big gains one would use much more duration and lift on both sides.
BTW the late LS6 cam was very close to the above cam.
Will probably make a little more power too.
The LS6 cam would have better performance than the ls3 cam.
You need at least a 223 intake duration to make decent power in an LS3.
Will probably make a little more power too.
The LS6 cam would have better performance than the ls3 cam.
You need at least a 223 intake duration to make decent power in an LS3.
Theoretically speaking would one see significant improvements with a 204/219 cam in its place? That would give it a 15 degree split, which is most advantageous as said above.
Obviously for big gains one would use much more duration and lift on both sides.
BTW the late LS6 cam was very close to the above cam.
There are sacrifices no matter what you do.
Unless you have a big *** motor.
So Jake, do you agree with with what Darth said about those two cam spec I listed as the original question?
From the valve train to the camshaft,
Everything suits.
The 12:3.1 compression requirement for the larger camshaft really made my day as I'm over at 12:8.1
I should not have any sluggishness anywhere in the power band.








