lol we can't help it, we hang out too much

 

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

210/224 crane cam. i know the lift is around .556 with 1.6 RR's

i ran a 12.7 with that cam with full bolt ons 3200 stall, no tune and d/r's in the houston summer heat.
I bet with a tune, slicks and skinnies and in the nice cool weather. i could get a 12.5 maybe lower!

 

Don't count out the two LPE weenie cams...211/219 .533/.560 and the 219/219 .560/.560 on 112s...the little 211/219 cam ran my 383 in my 95 into the high 11s for almost 10 years while passing emissions in MD...But I think custom is the way to go...

Hey Dustin...dunno what happened to Joe...sorry...

--Alan

 

What elevation? At my local track the cam doesnt break 12.5s with ported head cars. Just like the CC305 (which in my full weight 93 with home ported heads ran 12.3s at 112 mph) .I had the cc503 in the same car and it didnt feel any different at all. Car was wrecked so I slapped it in my 97s motor and it couldnt break 12.5s with AFR 190 heads and a 1.80 short time.

 

What trap speed WS Sick?

 

Hmm some varying numbers, but all of them look significatnly better than the average Hot Cam set up. Seems like the average HC guys are a very high 12/ low 13 second cam. While almost every single CC503 person out there is in solid 12s at at least 109MPH. Thats what I like to see.

 

They both trapped 110 to 112.

Both cams are running mid to low 12s in F-bodies of various weight at various elevation. Read my first post, I said it doesnt perform head and shoulders above the CC305.

 

Thanks for all the info everyone.

So now ive narrowed it down to either:

CC503

CCA-07-466-8
Basic Operating RPM Range: 1,800-5,800 RPM
Duration at 050 inch Lift: 218 int./224 exh.
Advertised Duration: 268 int./276 exh
Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio: 0.570 int./0.565 exh. lift
Lobe Separation (degrees): 113
Notes: Requires exhaust upgrade and aftermarket computer chip.

Or an LE1 ?

All of these seem to out perform the Hot Cam, and be just as streetable, making some awesome numbers on stock heads. I dont want to be too caught up though on peak numbers. There seems like there will only be a 10 HP difference at most in peak between all of these, so I'm trying to see if one would edge out the others on the area under the curve. Im thinking right now that the LE1 may be the way to go. That CCA-07-466-8 seems like it would be really high lift and wouldnt really bring anything to the table that the other two wouldn't on a stock headed car.

Thanks for all the help though guys.

 

South Florida, actual elevation is of course about 0', but the DA on one of the 12.0x nights was about -300 DA

 

So here where I am I "guestimate" you'd be running just below some 12.5s, but cam only, still impressive.

But I feel that you wouldnt drop much at all if it had a 305 in there.

 

eeny..meeny..mieny...moe

 

don't let the lift scare you...I am going to be running .613 intake lift on a set of milled heads. PTV clearance is not going to be a problem w/.570.

The XFI cam are designed for computer controlled vehicles.
My cam grinder actually reccomended the 468 for my car if I wanted an off the shelf.

 

Valve lift is never the cause of P to V problems. It's the valve events around overlap (IVO and EVC) that cause that to get tighter.

Bret

 

I really wasnt concerned with that, Thank you anyways though.

I just looked at it more as on stock heads, there is probly no more power to be had out of going with a cam with that lift versus one with significantly less, such as a 503.

I just thought it would be easier on the springs/lifters and everything and if there is no extra power to be had out of it ???

Plus the lower lift one would help to keep some of the bottom end grunt for driving around town? I mean, I could be 100% wrong, I dont build engines everyday, and I am just seeing the tip of the iceburg with all these cam numbers and so on. Just didnt think there would be any real gains with that kind of lift over something a little less high.

Although I do think 918's will handle that lift.