Cam Help!
 

narrowed it down to these cams. want a cam with great lowend and midrange. which will be better for torque and lowend? Anyone using any of these cams or some with similar specs?

What is better to have for torque (what should I look for in the cam specs?) Should I trade a degree of lsa for more lift? Any idea which one would be better for mpg?

(DO NOT RECCOMEND A BIGGER CAM PLEASE)

CCA-07-464 -- 202@ .550/ 212@ .546 (1.5RR)-- 113 LSA -- 1000-5000

CCA-07-465 -- 210@ .560/ 218@ .550 (1.5RR)-- 113 LSA -- 1200-5200

ACC-74211 -- 211@ .499/ 219@ .525 (1.5RR)-- 112 LSA -- 1000-5800

CRN-1449571 -- 210@ .531/ 218@ .531 (1.5RR)-- 112 LSA -- 1000-5800

LPE 213@ .493/ 219@ .502 (1.6 RR)-- 112 LSA

..stock heads

Re: Cam Help!
 

They are all pretty similar. Do whatever feels good for you. my .02

Re: Cam Help!
 

CCA-07-465 (full specs)
Intake Duration at 050 inch Lift: 210
Exhaust Duration at 050 inch Lift: 218
Duration at 050 inch Lift: 210 int./218 exh.
Advertised Intake Duration: 260
Advertised Exhaust Duration: 270
Advertised Duration: 260 int./270 exh.
Intake Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio: 0.560 in.
Exhaust Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio: 0.550 in.
Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio: 0.560 int./0.550 exh. lift
Lobe Separation (degrees): 113

What is the significance of the Advertised Intake and Exhaust Duration? How can I use these numbers above to pick a cam? Will high lift be beneficial in a stock head lt1? I want my power down low so I figure lower duration which also helps save gas from what I have heard.

Re: Cam Help!
 

I know they are very similar. However, some have a 112 lsa and the other has 113 lsa also the lift #'s are different. Need to know which is better to have - lower lsa or more lift (for torque)

Re: Cam Help!
 

The total duration will give you more of an idea what kind of dynamic compression the car will have which will lend how lazy it will be down low (along with the LCA). The .050 duration along with the advertized gives you an idea of how intense the cam is. (how quickly the valves open and close)

Re: Cam Help!
 

so which one is better a higher or lower total duration? (for lowend torque)?

Re: Cam Help!
 

A lower total duration with say a 111 LCA will have nice low end torque.

Ideally you for a street car among those cams you want one that lifts the valve as high and quick as possible. If it were me I would go with that LPE cam. (among those) and add 1.6 rockers to it.

Re: Cam Help!
 

Recommend the Crane 210/224...but if you are looking for a stump puller that is streetable (considered a "baby cam" anything in the 210-218 int and 224-228 exh. will do you good on 112 deg. JMHO.

These cams are a good choice and easy to tune.

Re: Cam Help!
 

You're thinking along the right lines. No, high valve lift will not benefit a stock head LT1, as the ports stall well before the peak lift on at least 3 of those cams. With the higher lift cams come the need for stouter valve springs, which then means you could need stouter pushrods, lifters, you get the picture. If you had a really nice set of ported heads, the higher lift cams would make a significant difference in power without any loss in driveability.

Also, you can't really use advertised duration to compare cams, unless they are of the same manufacturer, because different manufacturers measure advertised duration at different lift points - most use .004 lobe lift or .006 valve lift though.

If you want to make a really educated decision go here:
www.compcams.com
.....and read the "Valve Timing Tutorial" thoroughly.

That, and you can do a search of this forum; there's A LOT of threads on cams.

Re: Cam Help!
 

A couple things;

For performance, the more lift the better.period. The tradeoff is durability of the valvetrain/valvesprings if you get too extreme, but i don't think any of these are close to that. It is true that your stock heads may not take full advantage of the higher lift, but that does not mean it isn't beneficial OR is somehow bad.

Some of the cams you referenced are Gen III LSx cams, that would be a problem....

Don't get too caught up in it, your on the right track for what you want and at this point your really splitting hairs. I know looking back that i did the same thing. There is no magic cam amoung these which will significantly outperform the others. There is probably as much HP to be gained in good installation and properly setting up your rockers as there is difference between these cams.

Good luck,
Brent

Re: Cam Help!
 

Just go with the Crane 104227 (210/224 on 112 deg.

You can go a little more like between 210-218 and (224/ 228 on the exh.side.)

the 210/224 is 510/552 on the lift with 1.6RRs.

Recommend 99893 springs or something in that ball park which will fit stock seats and provide adequate pressures.

Cam provides plenty of low-end TQ (actually designed for RVs or heavier cars.

I run that cam in my 97SS with 410 rear. Good idle (almost stock like) but plenty of punch off the line--more of a light to light cam, easy to tune and emissions friendly.JMHO:cool:

Re: Cam Help!
 

If your heads can handle it I would opt for the CCA-07-465 without question. I would use the Comp beehive springs along with stiff pushrods and rockers. Lift is your friend for power. :)

Re: Cam Help!
 

both of these cams have the lift rated with 1.6 RR
The comp XFI grinds assume 1.6 rr and beehive springs

I would suggest the 465

Re: Cam Help!
 

are you sure? the website says lift with stock rocker arms. Anyone know what the lift would be with 1.6rr on the CCA-07-465??

Re: Cam Help!
 

Well, my heads are stock. I might go with bigger valves but anything more than that probably not. Will this still be a good cam even if my heads don't flow that well? I may potentially port my heads in the far future, though.

I am also pretty set on the 465. According to Comp's website it has superb lowend and midrange power which is exactly what I need. I always thought that having more lift was always good no matter what. I don't want to have crazy lift if it won't help at all and just eat more fuel. Does having high lift translate to having worse mpg?? I thought that was more the downside of longer duration?

Anybody used/using/have experience with the 465? Any help is greatly appreciated.