Hey Denny, the low end range has always been an issue since the cam swap. I ironed out most of the bugs at the top end, but since this is a 100% street driven daily driver, I'm opting to go to a smaller cam to get the power back in the usuable spectrum of daily driving. I have 3.23 gears currently, I was planning to go to 3.42 when this stock rear gives out. If I did that now, that would require yet more rpm to go the same speed, would pick it up some to help get it to the rpms this cam likes, but something I don't necessarily want for a daily driver.
The vacuum issue at idle has been there since day one, Scott had mentioned before I drove it that it would start inching forward after sitting at a light for very long, something he did not seemed too concerned about something being wrong so I didn't think otherwise since I knew that duration would pull the vacuum down quit a bit. With the loose convertor is pulls about 15in now and holds, the 10in was with the tight stock convertor.

In an attempt to find anything else, I readjusted the rocker lash as one side has been noisey and while doing so found one of the comp pro mag locking nut cracked in half..thought it may be a smoking gun but it was not, but it did quiten it down on that side.


So this cam was on a smaller base circle.....so do the LPE and Crane Cams require a stock length pushrod??
When it comes to figuring out valve train geometery I'm a novice and was hoping this would not be the case as I really want to do this swap on my own instead of taking it back to the shop.

 

Back when I had the crane cam and ported heads that flowed 240cfm I went 12.4@115 just bogging it out of the hole to save the rear end. This was with valve float past 5800, a mail order tune with an a/f of 11.5-12.0 on the dyno, stock tb, stock intake manifold, stock pulley, and before the true duals. I miss that cam, it ran hard as hell, but it was also fun as hell to drive around town with all the lowend that it had even from idle, + it drove like stock too, no cam surge or anything.

 

I was under the impression you had 2.73's and going to a 3.42 from a 3.23 would accomplish nothing. Biggest dissapointment I initially had was going from 3.42's to 3.73's and got virtually nothing for the ?? $800.00 or so I spent having them installed. (Don't remember the exact amount but it was way too much)

Just for poops and grins I ran your combo through the Professional version of Performance Trends software as the 10" of vacuum threw up a real red flag and it said with you combo you should be in 16" range. I kinda take the software for what it is but I certainly did expect you to be in the range the software says.

You can buy adjustible push rods and watch the travel across the top of the valve to get the right length or even buy geometry checkers. Changing cams is a real pain but if you have the time........go for it. Got to be up front and say I hate doing them.

 

That LPE cam looks like a very nice cam, especially with the high lift if you have ported heads. I imagine 918 beehive springs would work great for that cam.

Anywhere that it can be purchased at a lower price than Lingenfelters site? It's a pricey little cam.

Dan

 

Don't know what to say about the vacuum, the only place it could be going is if there was a good sized leak in the runner but there's no evidence of that, no suction on the breather with the PVC line capped, I put a plastic bag over it to verify, not sure how else to tell. Rest of the valve train sounds good, scan numbers look good, MAP was around 70Kpa before the looser convertor, now is around 65kpa, I did occassionally get aHigh MAP code before the convertor swap too, nothing that Scott did not see.
I guess if problems still persist after the smaller cam, then I'll know for sure.


I think I understand about the pushrod length, so you want the place where the rocker tip contacts the valve stem top to basically be centered in its movement across the stem top while the rocker is at the top and bottom of travel??
Would stock length pushrods work with eiterh the Crane or LPE cams..are they the same base circle dia as the stocker??

 

More than likely stock length would get ya real close and in fact you may even have stock length pushrods now but how much the head was machined makes a difference along with the different base circle cam. The only way to know for sure is just try one of your current push rods and see what the travel pattern is. You just may be OK where your at but if not, just buy an adjustible pushrod and play with the length to get the best travel pattern. Just remember it makes an arc and you want to see the whole movement back and forth.

 

Thanks for the info Denny. I also found this post, describing it in detail, post#5 of this link
http://ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327734
Need adjust push rod checker and a solid lifter it appears...I can do this, piece of cake

I'll probably go with the same LPE cam I have in the truck, with the point above about the lift being a little more than the Crane and with the ported heaed/intake can take advantage of that little more lift.
If the car ran 12's and drive near stock I and my wife would be very happy...leave the Buford for the real haulin *** car ..otherwise my wife is going to make me buy her another car... probably be late summer before I takle this though.

Where do I find LPE cams for sale and what is the part# for the 211/219 cam? Scott ordered it before for my truck so I have no paper work on it.

 

Wow.......holly dog poop. That’s a days worth of digestion to read all that and understand it. More than likely know it, but that's pretty intensive at first sight.

Don't remember who made the 211/219 cam for LPE but as you probably know, it's not LPE. Just do a search and I'm sure something will come up but it still remains my favorite cam for someone just wanting a mild setup and 100% stock drivability n gas mileage.

 

Denny, did you make the 364/366 #'s with ported heads on an LT1? That's what I'm assuming. Which year LT1?

Dan

 

Man, that was a long time ago when I first bought my 97 SS and you’re testing my memory. MTI LT1 heads (really done by GTP), shorty headers, 58mm TB, ported intake and about every worthless bolt on you could find. Need to look up the exact numbers but that sounds about right. Loved the 211/219 cam as it drove like stock and was a real sleeper but it also saw a lot of dyno time to get there fooling with different stuff. Believe it or not, that was a lot of power back then as no one really knew what they were doing.

With my LT4 I was able to make 363 rwhp with stock cam and GTP ported LT4 heads which flowed 282/201 @ .600 and long tube headers with a very good dual 3” exhaust. Except for the ported heads, K+N filter and 58mm TB, the engine was basically 100% stock. With the heads being so much better now I’d almost bet someone could make over 375 rwhp if it was done right with a stock LT4 cam. Again, it takes a lot of fooling around to get all the I’s doted and T’s crossed to get everything perfect but I’d have to ask the question why? Considering you can make so much more even with a mild cam.

I jumped immediately to a 396 stroker motor and solid roller picking up 90 hp so hence the reason for not messing with the block.

 

Thanks for taking the time to write that up Denny. I've been on this board just long enough to remember when 400 rwhp with heads/cam was almost unheard of, like you said. It wasn't until LE and AI started tweaking the heck out of these heads, and designing the cams to work well with them. Personally though, I'm not after the 400 rwhp. I'm after high TQ from 2000 rpm to 5500 rpm. I'm keeping my redline @ 6200 and don't want to have to spin to the moon to make good #'s. This is my daily driver, except for winter months. Right now, I'm still pretty set on the GM 845 that I mentioned above.

Any thoughts on the LPE 211 versus the GM845? Basically the LPE is a little less duration with more lift, and vice-versa.

Those are stout numbers for both engines you mentioned with such small cams (LEP 211) and the stock LT4 cam (which I believe is rather close to a LT1 cam correct?)

Dan

 

Frankly I'm not familiar with the GM 845 but the Impala guys seem to like:

Crane 227
GMPP. ZZ4
GMPP. 845

If you believe or follow John Lingenfelter, his book caters more to your train of thought. He felt shorter duration and higher lift made for a better street cam. A lot of things have changed since he wrote his book and there may be better choices but all I can say is I was quite happy with the cam at the time.

Still a closet fan of the CC305 if you want a milder cam with a bit of a kick. Seen 390 rwhp with good heads but that cam appears to be out of current favor.

Now saying that, all I've done for the last 9 years has been stroker motors so my thumb is just not on that current pulse.

Hey......good luck and I spend every 4th of July in Ludington just up the road. Great in summer and one of the best kept secrets I know, but Texas beats it all to hell in the winter.

 

That's horse ****. The only reason why 400rwhp was "unheard of" back then is because no one was doing heads/cam. No one didn't want to spend the money and didn't know enough to get into these engines to do the swap and didn't want to pay the labor to have it done. Everyone was going for N20 or blowers since they are bolt-on go fast components. Gallant Technical Performance heads and a 306 cam were right around the 400rwhp mark and those who would invest in this combo were hitting around 117 to 118mph through the traps. Another problem was the fact that NO ONE tuned these cars back then and those who did were learning as they went. I don't believe any software was available to just change PCM parameters at the push of a button. I think HalTech was used back then as a piggyback to the PCM. This was all being done in the mid and late '90's. C'mon Denny... you don't remember? I know you were hanging around numb nuts at Dynotech at the time so I'm not sure if you were paying attention to other combos or what?

 

Late 90's I can see, but mid 90's, I don't think so. Bought my Z the fall of 93, the next summer I started looking for go fast parts. Besides some simple basics, there wasn't squat to be found. Just my opinion of coarse.

 

Your opinion I'm lying? Don't be ridiculous. You are absolutely right there was not a whole lot of anything for the LT1 in 1993, but remember the CC306 profile has been around A LOT longer than the LT1 engine. I never stated anything about 1993. By the time 1995 rolled around Craig Gallant (who prior to porting LT1 heads specialized in Ford heads) had achieved a very popular following. Car forums were just starting to form. Mailing lists were where what it was all about and TX had the fastest 4th gen. f-bodys in the nation. Gallant worked for MTI around that time, couldn't put up with their **** and he broke out on his own. Chris Marsh from Dallas, TX was the first to buy GTP heads around 1994. He was Craig's guinea pig. With some weight reduction with a manual tranny he was able to get into the 11.3 range at 120+mph which I saw w/ my own eyes. A handful of f-bodys soon followed suit reaching mid to high 11's with GTP heads and the 306 cam. For a "radical" setup that was the way to go back then. It was by far the best proven performer for the money at the time. Mark Wilgus, from Dallas as well, with his very poorly built, poorly tuned MTI 383, GTP heads, 306 cam, stock gears on Pep Boys "H" rated Futura tires did a 12.0 @ 120 dynoing 410rwhp and 390rwtq which I witnessed both ET and dyno time. I can go on and on... Shawn Salazar (moderator of the TX forum) hit high 11's w/ ghetto $500 ported heads and something similar to the 306 cam at least 6 years ago.
This board, although now the best source for f-body info now, wasn't the "tell all" of what was going on over 12 years ago.
There's a significant difference between your opinion and fact.