scott_89

Need some help just bought a 1997 trans am lt1 but I'm not sure what kind of cam I should get

quik95lt1

iTrader: (7)

not enough info

93M6Formula

Need more info than that.

All current mods (if any), goals for the car, power expectation, do you want to run stock heads, Auto or Manual? I could go on forever.

Dont even think about a cam unless you already have full exhaust, headers, CAI, and possibly gears or a stall (if auto)

scott_89

It's completely stock only upgrades it has are hooker headers, k&n intake, and exhaust what kind I'm not sure I'm gonna change it to Borla or slp ? Stick shift. I still wanna run stock heads for now. 2 weeks from now I'm gonna buy 4.10 gears

93M6Formula

Well at least you have a good start then. Call advanced inductions or Lloyd Elliot and have them spec a cam package for you. Or use your run of the mill CC503 on stock heads.

pancho toco loco

iTrader: (8)

Off the shelf proven performers are , Comp 503, GM lt4 hot cam, GM 846, Crane 229,

KW Baraka

iTrader: (7)

And get some 1.6 (steel) roller rockers and new valve springs with a lift capability of about .600".

And.....get your PCM recalibrated for the cam and the 4.10 gears.

KW

TManZ28

iTrader: (1)

I have a CC503 cam and Lloyd Elliot heads/intake. I love it and I also have a video of it on YouTube if you want to hear how it sounds. I have Pacesetter LT headers, OR-Y pipe and an SLP LM1 catback. Look up 1996 Trans Am WS6 CC503 cam LE Heads at hot idle on YouTube and mine should pop up.

scott_89

Thanks for the info everybody, I'm gonna start looking.. @tmanz28 I'm gonna check it out

bufmatmuslepants

iTrader: (3)

You don't NEED steel rockers, crane gold aluminums are good too, but yes stay away from cheap aluminums like proform.

quik95lt1

iTrader: (7)

AI 226/234 end of story

KW Baraka

iTrader: (7)

Compared to steel rockers (CC Pro-Magnums and CC Ultra Pro-Magnums), all aluminum rockers flex too much.

The Crane Golds are just about as good as they come (relatively inexpensive), but I wouldn't use them even if I had a stock cam and not reving above 5K RPMs.

But hell.....that's just me .

KW

quik95lt1

iTrader: (7)

a good aluminum rocker is just fine....I ran crane golds for 5 years at 7000 rpm on a decent sized cam with no issues and they're now on a friends motor and been there for 4 more years at the same rpm......ive used them on big blocks with SR cams and small blocks....nothing wrong with a GOOD aluminum rocker

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

Yep. Just you. Hopefully this isn't the Bert Bower mentality. Nothing wrong with a reputable aluminum rocker. I've been using Crane Race Golds (not really inexpensive at all) on springs that see around 470lbs at full lift for the last 5 or so years. Not one issue. Just checked them and bearings, trunnion and pr cups all look/feel pristine.

KW Baraka

iTrader: (7)

I ran them too.

Never again......especially since a new set of Ultra Pro-Magnums cost about $75 less than the Golds.

I mean, if the Crane Golds were steel, that'd be one thing.....but why ANYONE would want to pay roughly $75 more, for any aluminum rocker, versus a high quality steel rocker from a reputable company is beyond me .......

But again.....that's just me, I suppose .

KW

fex77k

iTrader: (2)

Really close to what I have for a stock head, mine was 231/234 .564"/.545" 110 LSA.


As far as rockers go, you get what you pay for. I ran steel on the street.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

What I am addressing is your comment regarding an aluminum rocker flexing. I'm curious as to how you came up with this conclusion. The Ultra Pros are new to the market and seem to be a great rocker. I'm considering those if my current ones ever fail. Pretty sure one of the key reasons why aluminum are chosen over steel, at least in the past, is due to weight and brand loyalty.

KW Baraka

iTrader: (7)

Ahhhh......but you didn't state that.

Anyway......several tests have shown that even good quality aluminum rockers flex more than steel rockers. And cheap aluminum......even more-so.

BTW.....even good steel rockers will flex; what you want is to keep that flex to a minimum. You do that with steel rockers.

And, of couse, the more your rocker arms flex, the less power your engine has the potential to make.

Correct. It used to be that the steel rockers were much heavier than the aluminums. But now (and for several years, actually), the steels can be made to be almost as light as the aluminum. And they will often be made to be lighter over the valve than the aluminum rockers.

They tend to accomplish this by having less mass.

Take a look at a CC Pro-Magnum rocker and a Crane Gold of the same application (LT1). The Golds are fairly massive by comparison......may still be lighter, but they NEED to be more massive in order to get close to the same strength as the Pro-Mags. THEN take a look at the Ultra Pro-Mags. These have even less mass than the Pro-Mags due to the 'web-like' design. And everything I've been told is that they are stronger than the Pro-mags due to the use of higher quality steel.

And......both the Pro-Mags and Ultra Pro-Mags are lighter over the valve than the Golds. Being lighter over the valve (the only place where rocker arm weight matters) translates to a quicker/easier revving valvetrain which (as you know) equals a more responsive engine.

KW

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

Not specifically. Figured my testiment would've been understood, as well as the Bert reference since he too has stated it's just plain sinful to use an aluminum rocker especially with heavy seat pressures. Do you have any links to articles regarding rocker flex?
Yep, read that too somewhere. Pretty sure the difference between the two are not going to be all that detrimental to most common LT1 setups unless one has OCD and won't feel complete unless every step is taken to eek out every ounce of power possible. Hypermodding perhaps?

fex77k

iTrader: (2)

Weight over the valve is harder to control than on the lifter side, definately true.