cc306 in a daily driver?
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 31
I agree with the fact that there's better cams to be had for a NA Head/Cam motor than the CC306. The CC306, IMHO, is a late performer. It has crappy torque down low when compared to a more appropriate cam. However, it does shine on the topend. I tried to incorporate new technology into the CC306 by giving it an Xtreme lobe on the intake. However, that didn't work. With my CC306 derivative the cam didn't really come on until 5100rpms. My dyno showed this very well. But, maybe it was just my particular setup. Yes, I degreed the cam in. Yes, the Air/Fuel was on the money. I'm not bad mouthing the CC306. I'm just giving my results with a cam very similar.
Tim
Tim
Registered User
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,889
From: Peachtree City, GA
Originally posted by TRAXION
I agree with the fact that there's better cams to be had for a NA Head/Cam motor than the CC306. The CC306, IMHO, is a late performer. It has crappy torque down low when compared to a more appropriate cam. However, it does shine on the topend. I tried to incorporate new technology into the CC306 by giving it an Xtreme lobe on the intake. However, that didn't work. With my CC306 derivative the cam didn't really come on until 5100rpms. My dyno showed this very well. But, maybe it was just my particular setup. Yes, I degreed the cam in. Yes, the Air/Fuel was on the money. I'm not bad mouthing the CC306. I'm just giving my results with a cam very similar.
Tim
I agree with the fact that there's better cams to be had for a NA Head/Cam motor than the CC306. The CC306, IMHO, is a late performer. It has crappy torque down low when compared to a more appropriate cam. However, it does shine on the topend. I tried to incorporate new technology into the CC306 by giving it an Xtreme lobe on the intake. However, that didn't work. With my CC306 derivative the cam didn't really come on until 5100rpms. My dyno showed this very well. But, maybe it was just my particular setup. Yes, I degreed the cam in. Yes, the Air/Fuel was on the money. I'm not bad mouthing the CC306. I'm just giving my results with a cam very similar.
Tim
http://bellsouthpwp.net/x/x/xxsaint69x/Dyno.JPG
stock heads, stock intake, stock TB, stock waterpump.
Marcin
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,213
From: Milwaukee, WI
thanks for all the replies. My plan is to rebuild the motor this spring and just put in the 306 while the motors out. I also will do lt's and a clutch but I won't have the cash for the ported heads untill mid/late summer.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 735
From: Windy City
Im planing on selling my hot cam and going with the 306. Idealy what would be the correct stall converter I should go with? It will street driven , and see the track maybe 1 time a month at the most.
Any Ideas or Opinions?
Any Ideas or Opinions?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 852
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Originally posted by xxsaint69x
here is my dyno CC306
http://bellsouthpwp.net/x/x/xxsaint69x/Dyno.JPG
stock heads, stock intake, stock TB, stock waterpump.
Marcin
here is my dyno CC306
http://bellsouthpwp.net/x/x/xxsaint69x/Dyno.JPG
stock heads, stock intake, stock TB, stock waterpump.
Marcin
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 471
From: Evansville,IN,USA
Originally posted by TRAXION
I agree with the fact that there's better cams to be had for a NA Head/Cam motor than the CC306. The CC306, IMHO, is a late performer. It has crappy torque down low when compared to a more appropriate cam. However, it does shine on the topend. I tried to incorporate new technology into the CC306 by giving it an Xtreme lobe on the intake. However, that didn't work. With my CC306 derivative the cam didn't really come on until 5100rpms. My dyno showed this very well. But, maybe it was just my particular setup. Yes, I degreed the cam in. Yes, the Air/Fuel was on the money. I'm not bad mouthing the CC306. I'm just giving my results with a cam very similar.
Tim
I agree with the fact that there's better cams to be had for a NA Head/Cam motor than the CC306. The CC306, IMHO, is a late performer. It has crappy torque down low when compared to a more appropriate cam. However, it does shine on the topend. I tried to incorporate new technology into the CC306 by giving it an Xtreme lobe on the intake. However, that didn't work. With my CC306 derivative the cam didn't really come on until 5100rpms. My dyno showed this very well. But, maybe it was just my particular setup. Yes, I degreed the cam in. Yes, the Air/Fuel was on the money. I'm not bad mouthing the CC306. I'm just giving my results with a cam very similar.
Tim
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 471
From: Evansville,IN,USA
Originally posted by TRAXION
I agree with the fact that there's better cams to be had for a NA Head/Cam motor than the CC306. The CC306, IMHO, is a late performer. It has crappy torque down low when compared to a more appropriate cam. However, it does shine on the topend. I tried to incorporate new technology into the CC306 by giving it an Xtreme lobe on the intake. However, that didn't work. With my CC306 derivative the cam didn't really come on until 5100rpms. My dyno showed this very well. But, maybe it was just my particular setup. Yes, I degreed the cam in. Yes, the Air/Fuel was on the money. I'm not bad mouthing the CC306. I'm just giving my results with a cam very similar.
Tim
I agree with the fact that there's better cams to be had for a NA Head/Cam motor than the CC306. The CC306, IMHO, is a late performer. It has crappy torque down low when compared to a more appropriate cam. However, it does shine on the topend. I tried to incorporate new technology into the CC306 by giving it an Xtreme lobe on the intake. However, that didn't work. With my CC306 derivative the cam didn't really come on until 5100rpms. My dyno showed this very well. But, maybe it was just my particular setup. Yes, I degreed the cam in. Yes, the Air/Fuel was on the money. I'm not bad mouthing the CC306. I'm just giving my results with a cam very similar.
Tim
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post