did you run it with stock heads or only on a 383 with ported/aftermarket heads?

only reason is is that most people who have done that exact combo don't have to rev it as high as everyone says (peak at 6800 rpm some people say, more like 5800-6000 and holds power) and are generally very happy with some good performance results too.

but to say he would be better off with a cam that has 20* less duration if his goal is high 11s? if my goal was high 11s (which coincidentally that is my current goal) and I had stock heads (which oddly enough I do) I would be going with a bigger cam, more gear, and more stall (which is what im doing) not go with a puny cam intended for daily driving. if I wanted a proven off the shelf cam I would go with a GM847 or a CC306. I went the custom grind route but I honestly think I'll only gain 5, 10 rwhp max over either of those cams.

 

AFR210's only.

That's probably because the stock(ish) heads and intake won't support air flow beyond that.

The cam-only LT1 record for a long time was held by Frank95Z running the 210/224, somewhere in the 11.6 range. Just because it's small doesn't mean it's not effective. Myself and a few other locals ran some 12.2's at full stock weight and stock heads with that cam. It works very well with the stock heads/intake.

 

I was reading some old posts just last night. Frank95z ran down into the 11.40's with the little Crane cam.

 

As seems to always be the case, people are comparing stroked engines to stock displacement and rpm ranges given the same cam. Displacement will tame a cam, what peaks at 6500 in a 383 will have to rev higher in a 350 with the exact same heads.

 

i dont know the extent of the port work...i know they were LT4 tho

 

Yeah, 11.40's. You forget that car was probably so gutted out, weighing only a mere 3000#or less.

 

It was lightened to 3300 lb. Don't forget there was a whole slew of high 11/low 12 second full weight cam-only cars running the little Crane too.

 

All of you pointing out the cam only record... how about the bolt on record of 11.5

That puts all those cams to shame.

You could make a stock cam car run that fast so saying a small cam will do it better than any other cam is kinda retarded.

 

Last I heard, the bolt-on record was 11.8 by Shon. If it's now 11.5, I'd like to know the weight.

Either way, it's a moot point. The fact of the matter is that the quickest cam-only cars are running cams smaller than the 847.

 

i have a question concerning the 11.40s run with the small crane cam. did Frank95z specifically choose this cam to go that quick, or did he already have that cam and worked his times down with proper set-up?

 

Probably the latter.

 

good point, se if he HAD the 847 and worked the ladder what would his times be?!?!

 

Lower, but the 847 is a terrible cam. Just ask all the people that don't run it.

It's propaganda.

It's amazing the people that trash the 847 for having peaky numbers and nothing under the curve, but if you compare graphs the 847 not only makes a higher peak but in all other shelf grinds it also has a higher curve across the board... except for under 2800 rpm... which should not even be considered a problem for a properly set up car. Clearly if you set up your car wrong it will run bad times.

I've asked countless times for proof of it being a bad cam in ANY way and not a single person can come up with the slightest bit of evidence. NOT A BIT. Yet I can find plenty of owners with track times and dynos that show that it's a good cam with stock heads.

 

to each his own IMO. I like the cam personally. And i love that people hate this cam so much, how do you think drag racing was invented?!?! By people saying "thats **** and mine is better!! Oh yea, lets race?!?" And by that drag racing was invented. Everyone can build there car using "shitty" parts and well see who's goes faster. Maby the mods on my car is exactly what the 847 needs to run the best but nobody ever new cause they didn't do my EXACT set-up. You can prove the obvious (my car is black) but cant prove opinions.

 

thats whats funny about these threads...guys will bash somebody for wanting a certain cam/head/stall etc, saying how its all in the set-up and do a search. but when it comes to the gm847 type cams all we hear is the crane 227 holds the record, or the cc503 is the fastest cam ever. for what its worth i am installing a cam with specs very close to the 847. maybe i will go slower now.

 

Way I look at it is I rev a cam 6 degrees smaller to what most of us feel is the safe limit of the stock shortblock.
I don't doubt the 847 will make power, what I doubt is the reliability of the stock shortblock at the rpms necessary to use that power.
Keep i mind you have to rev past peak power by a few hundred rpms to make proper use of the powerband.

Maybe I missed it but the only person who responded to this thread who has used the 847 used in in a 383 with large aftermarket heads and said it was a poor choice for a stock shortblock.
The rest of you bashing those of us who have not run it have no results of your own to show.

Like I said I am baseing my opinion on my experiance with a smaller cam needing all the rpms the stock shortblock should be asked to take. I am not just making something up.

It is actually my opinion that long as you keep peak power within the limitations of the pcm it should be pretty hard to lose too much lowned long as the heads are good and the cam spec'd decently. I have seen guys spec cams badly enough and do the heads badly enough that a 224 duration on the intake cam has no lowend, off the shelf stuff wont exhibit that problem, only happens when stupid people get involved in specing things.

 

I see in the other thread you are going carbed, which will mean a longer runner intake which will likely pull the rpm range down as compared to an LT1 intake. That is no small variable.

 

that is correct. Like you said, the stock pcm sucks, especially my obd1. Im gonna like to see how this cam works with a vic. jr intake. Not to mention a ing. that can rev with it.

 

Ask all the folks that started 847 on a stock(ish) long block and worked their times down why they couldn't beat Frank.

BTW, Frank is now running 11.1x at 119.x mph cam-only at 3300+ lb, and his current cam is still smaller than the 847.

 

it seems that i have brought up a touchy subject with this cam. thanks for everyones input. im going to still run this cam even though there are the nay sayers out there. ill let yall know how it goes come spring time when the snow melts