Whats the deal with the GM LS7 Stg 3 Cam - 233/276, .595, 107 lsa
#22
Originally Posted by LSInnovations
Katech or anyone: have any thoughts about this huge duration split or about the 107 lsa vs standard 112-114 you see most of the time.
#23
Originally Posted by jimmypop13
40.5* overlap at .050! That's gotta sound wicked
Last edited by SideStep; 07-15-2007 at 11:04 AM.
#26
Wow!!
I'm really interested in this cam.It pretty well has the same lift as my 234/242 on 1.8 rockers 629/630 LS1 grind.I'm curious as to what would happen if you would change the LSA up a little like say 110 or 112?I think I'll give someone a call to see what they think since nobody really knows anything on here?! Traver
Last edited by ramairws6; 07-15-2007 at 09:48 AM.
#27
I have been hanging back on this but the results are in:
We built two pretty much identical LS7s with identical ported L92 heads and L76s. One had stock rotating assembly and a slightly modified GA cam which was 239-251/594/106. The other was LS7 with Callies RA and virtually the same CR and ~228-236/610/112 cam. Both were in MN6 C5s and run on the same dyno.
The one with the small cam made 529/530 the one with the GA cam made 526/519
I tuned both and the GA cam idles fine but does not like to run in 6th gear <2000 rpm and is often cranky <1800 rpm in any gear.. The small cammmed is happy evrywhere makes more low end torque, runs smooth and gets 24 MPG on the highway while the GA struggles to get 18 mpg. I overlaid the dynos and GA carries about 5 more HP after 6500, but well after peak.
Bottom line is the GA cam is coming out, cause it is just not worth it.
Is this similiar to the engine and cam above ? You be the judge-
We built two pretty much identical LS7s with identical ported L92 heads and L76s. One had stock rotating assembly and a slightly modified GA cam which was 239-251/594/106. The other was LS7 with Callies RA and virtually the same CR and ~228-236/610/112 cam. Both were in MN6 C5s and run on the same dyno.
The one with the small cam made 529/530 the one with the GA cam made 526/519
I tuned both and the GA cam idles fine but does not like to run in 6th gear <2000 rpm and is often cranky <1800 rpm in any gear.. The small cammmed is happy evrywhere makes more low end torque, runs smooth and gets 24 MPG on the highway while the GA struggles to get 18 mpg. I overlaid the dynos and GA carries about 5 more HP after 6500, but well after peak.
Bottom line is the GA cam is coming out, cause it is just not worth it.
Is this similiar to the engine and cam above ? You be the judge-
Last edited by See5; 07-15-2007 at 07:38 PM.
#28
Thanks for the reply!The problem with your comparison versus what I need to know is that you are running the 1.7 rockers and L92 heads where as I'm running 1.8 rockers and LS7 heads ported on the exhaust side.Now if there is that big of a difference we have yet to find out.I do see alot of L92 flowing close to mine in CFM so maybe it's a wash?!I wish somebody here did the same test using the same cams as you but with the LS7 heads.Thanks for your info though.....seems to shed more light on things!Maybe someday soon someone will come up with a great cam design for these heads that are the be all end all.We shall see I guess? Traver
#29
I have been researching this also. I am building a 427, Ls7 head, LS7 intake motor. I'm pretty close to going with a 240/250 .600 112 cam. Probably custom. I think from what I've seen, there is still alot of trial and error going on. Just depends on what your looking for in a set-up. Time will tell. I'm hoping this will work for me.
#30
Originally Posted by LSInnovations
I just still cant figure out 1)why there is such a HUGE split and 2)what benefit it has.
2) It makes more power and torque.
Isn't that why we "cam" an engine? Perhaps figuring out what the engine likes is our real problem.
#33
I tried to get a part number posted over here awhile ago with no answer.Not sure if it was top secret or what?I talked to someone at SDPC and they informed me that a handfull of these cams have been sold with no real feadback on them.Now if this means there not working real well or they are working awesome and nobody wants the secret out is yet to be seen.I think it would be a good cam for the juice but would be a mutt on low end grunt?!Just a thought.I am pretty interested in this cam so if anyone out there has run one and has some numbers,would be cool to here about it.Traver
#34
Originally Posted by jimmypop13
40.5* overlap at .050! That's gotta sound wicked
#35
Originally Posted by See5
I have been hanging back on this but the results are in:
We built two pretty much identical LS7s with identical ported L92 heads and L76s. One had stock rotating assembly and a slightly modified GA cam which was 239-251/594/106. The other was LS7 with Callies RA and virtually the same CR and ~228-236/610/112 cam. Both were in MN6 C5s and run on the same dyno.
The one with the small cam made 529/530 the one with the GA cam made 526/519
I tuned both and the GA cam idles fine but does not like to run in 6th gear <2000 rpm and is often cranky <1800 rpm in any gear.. The small cammmed is happy evrywhere makes more low end torque, runs smooth and gets 24 MPG on the highway while the GA struggles to get 18 mpg. I overlaid the dynos and GA carries about 5 more HP after 6500, but well after peak.
Bottom line is the GA cam is coming out, cause it is just not worth it.
Is this similiar to the engine and cam above ? You be the judge-
We built two pretty much identical LS7s with identical ported L92 heads and L76s. One had stock rotating assembly and a slightly modified GA cam which was 239-251/594/106. The other was LS7 with Callies RA and virtually the same CR and ~228-236/610/112 cam. Both were in MN6 C5s and run on the same dyno.
The one with the small cam made 529/530 the one with the GA cam made 526/519
I tuned both and the GA cam idles fine but does not like to run in 6th gear <2000 rpm and is often cranky <1800 rpm in any gear.. The small cammmed is happy evrywhere makes more low end torque, runs smooth and gets 24 MPG on the highway while the GA struggles to get 18 mpg. I overlaid the dynos and GA carries about 5 more HP after 6500, but well after peak.
Bottom line is the GA cam is coming out, cause it is just not worth it.
Is this similiar to the engine and cam above ? You be the judge-
#36
by the sounds of this cam, it would not do too good with any power adder with all that overlap and exh. dur. and peaks (sharply) around 7500rpm. this cam reminds me alot of trad. pontiac engines builders and how they use alot more lift and duration on the exhuast side to give it more effectiveness and in turn helping the intake side as well. though this is a little extreme, i may try something with my next cam grind just for gits and shiggles. and it does seem there is a little secrecy around this cam, and perhaps someone feels a cat is loose from a bag?