LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

110LSA vs 114LSA comparison

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 18, 2004 | 07:57 PM
  #1  
Shawn 97 Z28 M6's Avatar
Thread Starter
Texas Moderator (1998-2009)
 
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 1,301
From: DFdubya, Tx.
Lightbulb 110LSA vs 114LSA comparison

Well.. To help add some proof to the recent posting of people wanting more lsa / less lsa.. Here's some proof of what a wider LSA does for your HP numbers.

Both graphs are from my car - a decently modded +.040 LT1 w/ homeported heads.

The red graph line is from my previous 230/236 .598/.608 110LSA "EX" grind cam. The blue graph is my current 233/242 .571/.577 114LSA cam. It's also an "EX" grind cam. I was hoping that the increase in duration would help keep my peak RPM's closer to 6500 like they were previously, but w/ the nose dive at 6200, it looks like a rear gear change will be needed in order to run anything close to my ET's / MPH from last year. Especially on nitrous.

I'm yet to get any dyno numbers on nitrous, but am hoping that the numbers are at least more comparable than the N/A numbers. But now I have to get used to the fact that my car is now ~ "sometimes fast - but most of the time, not " .

FWIW, both of these numbers aren't my "personal bests" for each cam.. But merely a correction factor of 1.00 on the dynojet, w/ similar temps and BP and such. When I reset the PCM on the 233/242 tune, my car picked up an additional ~10rwhp/10rwtq across the band, and I also fattened it up a little bit. But I can't find that graph.


CC 230/236 vs CC 233/242..
Old Apr 18, 2004 | 08:14 PM
  #2  
Robert95z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,001
From: Houston TX
how about a 112LSA comparison now? lol jk...Nice numbers and good comparison
Old Apr 18, 2004 | 08:26 PM
  #3  
Shawn 97 Z28 M6's Avatar
Thread Starter
Texas Moderator (1998-2009)
 
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 1,301
From: DFdubya, Tx.
LOL! I do have a CC306 dyno from way back ... But, I'm yet to run the same ET's I ran w/ that.. And now that I've made my car NHRA Legal, along w/ adding a stereo and other goodies - it's about 200lbs heavier. So it's kinda hard for a 3720lb car to run worth a flip.. Especially w/ only 365ish rwhp

Hmm.. Guess I need to see how she runs on nitrous before finding a cliff.. LOL
Old Apr 18, 2004 | 10:12 PM
  #4  
Jon A's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 482
From: Mukilteo, WA
Shawn, judging by the lift numbers of your old cam, I'm guessing they were in fact High Lift Magnum lobes--not XE lobes. If this is so, it could also be a factor that allowed the old cam to rev with a flat power curve from 5900-6500 while the new XE cam could be floating the valves at 6200. What are the advertised durations for each cam?

What springs are you running and what seat pressures are they set up for?

Just a wild theory....
Old Apr 18, 2004 | 10:48 PM
  #5  
Shawn 97 Z28 M6's Avatar
Thread Starter
Texas Moderator (1998-2009)
 
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 1,301
From: DFdubya, Tx.
I know I'm not floating valves - I had to get my valvetrain sorted out w/ the previous cam to even make it rev past 6k. Stock lifters, Comp 987's, tit. retainers and a rev kit wouldn't cut - but it still ran 8.0's short shifting @ 5k rpms , so I went w/ some CM EX618's and some Comp R lifters.. I could then rev it out to 7k.

As far as adv. duration, my old cam is a good "in-between" from what I have now.. Literally.. LOL.. It was a 286/290.. and the current one is a 283/293
Old Apr 18, 2004 | 11:42 PM
  #6  
Jon A's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 482
From: Mukilteo, WA
The new cam has much steeper ramps between .006 and .050. This might cause it to bounce the valves on the seats at a lower RPM than the old cam did with the same springs, valves, retainers, etc.

But I'm just thinking out loud here and I'm certainly a Newbie Retard when it comes to this valvetrain stuff so take that FWIW. Just a thought.
Old Apr 18, 2004 | 11:56 PM
  #7  
Shawn 97 Z28 M6's Avatar
Thread Starter
Texas Moderator (1998-2009)
 
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 1,301
From: DFdubya, Tx.
My valve springs are pretty stiff.. So, I doubt that's happening. If anything they're too stiff for my application, considering the lift isn't as high.. DOH!

160/400.. Enough pressure for a small SR cam.
Old Apr 19, 2004 | 12:11 AM
  #8  
94formulabz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,591
From: PA
There is also a LSA comparison in the May CHP.
383 SBC Smeding crate motor
215/224 106lsa
215/224 114lsa

-The 106 had 20 more lbft from 2500-3200
-4500-5000 rpms they were very similar with the edge going to the 106
-The 114 peaked around 5100, and the 106 around 5200
-After 5400 the 114 dominated because the 106 took a bombdive, but that was significantly past pk hp and a realistic shift point anyways.

Take this only for what it is though, with a much larger cam and excessive overlap the results may have been reversed. The wider LSA could have helped low end torque by not allowing as much reversion, but because of the small durations for a 383 even on a 106lsa excessive overlap and reversion wasn't a problem.

-brent
Old Apr 19, 2004 | 01:22 AM
  #9  
BPS's Avatar
BPS
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 510
From: Victoria, BC, Canada
Nice to see real numbers - I expected to see the 110 cam outperform the 114 - still after the PCM reset they are very close.

I'd expect the new cam to be a bit better on nitrous
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TGGodfrey
New Member Introduction
2
Aug 18, 2015 06:08 PM
F'n1996Z28SS
Cars For Sale
0
Jun 3, 2015 09:39 AM
Russ95Z28
LT1 Based Engine Tech
4
Apr 23, 2015 01:55 PM
SweetZ28
Show and Shine / Paint and Body Care
17
Jan 31, 2003 03:38 PM
onebad96T/A
West South Central
2
Nov 6, 2002 03:29 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 AM.