I hear that the CC306 is some old *** technology... so I decided that I should go with a cam that is made specifically for LT1 heads, until I upgrade the heads with a Lloyd Elliot setup.

Anyway, I was just thinking. How much power can you get out of CC306 then the XE 227/233. I have 1.6rr so my lift at the valve is 560/569.

I'm kind of pissed that I went with this cam if they're many more cams that'll make more power out of stock ported/polished heads. I mean, the street manners of this cam are pretty damn good, as long as the rpms stay above 1350... its perfect.

Anyway, what you guys think?

 

Probably 15rwhp more with the 306.

 

Well i'm pretty pissed... I was hoping for like 350/350 at the wheels after my long tube header install and dyno tune. My numbers aren't totally accurate because of a few things... I think I have about 10 more hp in there.

Pulled off about 550 rpms early when tuned to a 112LSA cam instead of my 114LSA.

**** man... What about the GM847?

 

Buy the headers first.

 

Actually the 227/233 is old *** technology it self. They are old lobe designs that don't work as well as the more modern common lobe designs today.

350+/350+ http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259094

Bret

 

That old *** technology has served me very well. Mods, power, times in sig.

 

Well, that "old *** technology" took my little brother's 95 Formula to 347rwhp and a 12.6 in the 1/4 with nothing more than the cam, longtubes, and 4.10s
Sounds to me like you might want to just scrap the Lt1 as it is old *** technology as opposed to the God Built LS1 new *** technology.

 

Your low dyno numbers arent due to the cam. Obviously the larger the cam, the more power you will make and cc306 > 227/233 in that department. What you give up however is usable power.. that is power in the RPM range that you want it. Big cams make big power with high RPMs. Small cams make less power but its kept within a range that makes the car fun to drive.. snappy throttle response, less cam surge, ext. Hell my cam 224/230 made 340/340 with very little tuning due to a screwy wideband O2 and I only spun it to 5500 rpm.. stock heads with SLP shorty headers. So again, the problem with your car is most definitely NOT the cam.

 

A bigger cam doesn't always give you bigger numbers, even when you extend the RPM range.

Bret

 

CC306 is an amazing cam, i kinda wonder sometimes how my car would run with it with the heads i have on the car now. I made 348/346 rwhp/rwtq with the CC306 on stock heads and not even all the bolt ons.

I think Clint is running mid 11s @ 120+ with the Cc306 and some ported LT1 heads in a A4 car.

CC306 is a well proven cam in my opinion, many people have hit 400+ rwhp with it.

 

Yeah, they're due to a A/F ratio that wasn't ideal, not enough RPM, and a motor that was breathing through stock manifolds.

 

But generally speaking it does, correct?

 

I thought he has headers... at least that is kinda how it sounds. But yeah stock manifolds gotta be holding back just a little.

 

Not always.... theres a point where more duration is just going to kill your mid range TQ and not produce another HP up top. Up until you get to that point you are going to go along the line of dimishing returns, ever 2 degs of duration is not going to make make less and less HP until it's zero or a negative number.

Bret

 

Alright I understand the concept of diminishing returns. So lemme ask you this...

What would be the smallest cam that is necessary to completely fill the cylinders of a 350 at 7000 rpm in an LT1 of course(stock heads)? Wouldnt it be the smallest cam that doesnt start to pull a vacuum in higher RPMs?... anything beyond that will yield diminishing returns.