Best Cam For An LS1 Engine???
10-30-2008, 09:02 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 1,419
its a DD for me, and its easy. too bad you dont live near new orleans, or if let you drive mne, and then youd see what i mean.
10-30-2008, 09:32 PM
#17
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 136
i dont care how much experiance you have with engines, a 224 is not a big cam. i have it, and if that is considered a "big cam" well... any cam is big then, bc it surely isnt its a DD for me, and its easy. too bad you dont live near new orleans, or if let you drive mne, and then youd see what i mean.
its a DD for me, and its easy. too bad you dont live near new orleans, or if let you drive mne, and then youd see what i mean.
10-30-2008, 11:34 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 1,419
I didn't say it was big.I meant if you compared that to the older small block engine's.I don't know much about the LS1's.Doyou think your 224 cam is a bit tamel or just right for the street?? I just care about the street performance but I would like to get around 450 RWHP.Also what gear's do you have?? The worst thing is putting a cam in that is too big for Daily Driving usage.That can be done with almost any motor.
recomend it to anyone that asks what cam to go with.and i have 4.10s.... on a 6spd all i can say is that it is more than streetable. atleast with the 224.. dont be worried about that
Last edited by Klypto; 10-30-2008 at 11:36 PM.
10-31-2008, 09:56 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: US 1 Mile Marker 52 in the Florida Keys
Posts: 8,323
cam specs for the lsx engine are leaps and bounds diffferent from old sbc specs.
for some generalized numbers:
small cam < 220 duration and .575" lift
mild cam 220-230 duration up to almost .600" lift
moderate cam 230-235 or so, with .600-.610" lift
big cam 235-245 duration with upwards of .640" lift
and all those are hydrolic lifters still.
for some generalized numbers:
small cam < 220 duration and .575" lift
mild cam 220-230 duration up to almost .600" lift
moderate cam 230-235 or so, with .600-.610" lift
big cam 235-245 duration with upwards of .640" lift
and all those are hydrolic lifters still.
10-31-2008, 11:27 AM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: MD
Posts: 2,022
You'll be hard pressed to get 450rwhp out of a 224 cam, even with ALL the bolt-ons and top of the line heads with lots of compression.
11-01-2008, 09:59 AM
#21
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 136
I would want the compression right where the stock LS1's are.I don't want to have to put anything more then 93 octane in it.Maybe I should shoot for 415-425 RWHP.
11-01-2008, 10:30 AM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: MD
Posts: 2,022
This is not 1969. We do not drive inefficient iron pigs anymore. I like many other run much higher compression on 93 octane. My engine is at 11.7:1, and runs fine on 92 and 93 octane even with aggressive timing. Attention to detail and careful tuning and you can run 12:1. With all the LS1's attributes, you can run what traditionally would be considered too mcuh compression, too much cam, or too much cylinder head. The engine laughs at it. You can build a 12:1 346 cubic inch, 230cc intake runner, 240 degree duration cam with 1 7/8" header primaries. This engine will make awesome power and do it with 20+ mpg, all while maintaining drivabliity BETTER than ANYTHING that came out of the era you seem so stuck on.
11-01-2008, 10:57 AM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,034
Don't get so mad at the guy for not really understanding these new engines. It's a huge leap to go from the original chevy motors to today's tech. I agree he needs to do a LOT of reading about his new car, but let's not berate him for that.
11-01-2008, 12:31 PM
#24
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 136
Again... This is not 1969. We do not drive inefficient iron pigs anymore. I like many other run much higher compression on 93 octane. My engine is at 11.7:1, and runs fine on 92 and 93 octane even with aggressive timing. Attention to detail and careful tuning and you can run 12:1. With all the LS1's attributes, you can run what traditionally would be considered too mcuh compression, too much cam, or too much cylinder head. The engine laughs at it. You can build a 12:1 346 cubic inch, 230cc intake runner, 240 degree duration cam with 1 7/8" header primaries. This engine will make awesome power and do it with 20+ mpg, all while maintaining drivabliity BETTER than ANYTHING that came out of the era you seem so stuck on.
This is not 1969. We do not drive inefficient iron pigs anymore. I like many other run much higher compression on 93 octane. My engine is at 11.7:1, and runs fine on 92 and 93 octane even with aggressive timing. Attention to detail and careful tuning and you can run 12:1. With all the LS1's attributes, you can run what traditionally would be considered too mcuh compression, too much cam, or too much cylinder head. The engine laughs at it. You can build a 12:1 346 cubic inch, 230cc intake runner, 240 degree duration cam with 1 7/8" header primaries. This engine will make awesome power and do it with 20+ mpg, all while maintaining drivabliity BETTER than ANYTHING that came out of the era you seem so stuck on..I was drawn to the LS1 because of its attribute's.You have the complete opposite opinion.Im stuck on the newer Camaro's.I don't care how nice the 69's were, getting 6 miles to the gallon and having a car that just sits in a garage just plain sucks!!Thats why I got rid of it and yes it was a inefficient iron pig.Not only that but the LS1 is faster,handle's better and thats really all I care about.I didn't know that these Ls1's could run 11.7:1 compression on pump gas.Driveabilty is the key word because sometimes guy's will Mod any car out for the quarter mile while I want a wickedly fast street car.There comes a point in every NA car that the more compression,cam means lower driveabilty.So I guess 11.7:1 is ideal for an LS1 street engine even in the middle of summer??
Last edited by OLD 69; 11-01-2008 at 12:33 PM.
11-01-2008, 08:52 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: MD
Posts: 2,022
Im finished with all the older cars as if you can see that I have recently sold my 69 Camaro 396.I don't know what your all mad at.I was drawn to the LS1 because of its attribute's.You have the complete opposite opinion.Im stuck on the newer Camaro's.I don't care how nice the 69's were, getting 6 miles to the gallon and having a car that just sits in a garage just plain sucks!!Thats why I got rid of it and yes it was a inefficient iron pig.Not only that but the LS1 is faster,handle's better and thats really all I care about.I didn't know that these Ls1's could run 11.7:1 compression on pump gas.Driveabilty is the key word because sometimes guy's will Mod any car out for the quarter mile while I want a wickedly fast street car.There comes a point in every NA car that the more compression,cam means lower driveabilty.So I guess 11.7:1 is ideal for an LS1 street engine even in the middle of summer??
.I was drawn to the LS1 because of its attribute's.You have the complete opposite opinion.Im stuck on the newer Camaro's.I don't care how nice the 69's were, getting 6 miles to the gallon and having a car that just sits in a garage just plain sucks!!Thats why I got rid of it and yes it was a inefficient iron pig.Not only that but the LS1 is faster,handle's better and thats really all I care about.I didn't know that these Ls1's could run 11.7:1 compression on pump gas.Driveabilty is the key word because sometimes guy's will Mod any car out for the quarter mile while I want a wickedly fast street car.There comes a point in every NA car that the more compression,cam means lower driveabilty.So I guess 11.7:1 is ideal for an LS1 street engine even in the middle of summer??I'm really not angry... It's just that the posts are becoming very repetitive. It's the same stuff over and over. Basic stuff that was answered a decade ago, and is readily available with a simple search. That and the constant reminders of the 69 396 Camaro. Most of us here gained our knowledge by reading the available information (as opposed to a weekly post) and then backing it with firsthand experience.
11-03-2008, 01:50 PM
#26
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 136
I've been running that compression on 93 octane for nearly 2 years now on a stock bottom end, with no problems. Even in 100+ summer heat with high humidity.
I'm really not angry... It's just that the posts are becoming very repetitive. It's the same stuff over and over. Basic stuff that was answered a decade ago, and is readily available with a simple search. That and the constant reminders of the 69 396 Camaro. Most of us here gained our knowledge by reading the available information (as opposed to a weekly post) and then backing it with firsthand experience.
I'm really not angry... It's just that the posts are becoming very repetitive. It's the same stuff over and over. Basic stuff that was answered a decade ago, and is readily available with a simple search. That and the constant reminders of the 69 396 Camaro. Most of us here gained our knowledge by reading the available information (as opposed to a weekly post) and then backing it with firsthand experience.
11-03-2008, 03:40 PM
#29
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 136
I was wondering with a healthy moderate to big cam for every 50 horsepower usually ignition timing needs to get turned down around 2 degree's for every 50 Horsepower added, unless this does not apply to the LS1's.If running a 150 shot that would be 6 degree's off of timing.I was wondering would this create a problem with the Idling?? I had a similar problem in 2 prior car's with backing off the timing 6 degree's. I'd probably pick something close to a F13 cam.