Kreinmc

I am looking for a cam that will make nice all around power and still make about 350rwhp under 6k. I would like to shift the car at 6300 and make full use of the power band. Can I call up comp cams and have them build me a cam with any spec? I am thinking a perfect cam for stocks heads and my goal would be somthing like

226/240 .565/.580 on a 111LSA

Let me know what you guys think about a cam like this.

T/A lt1

Well I used one of Joe O's older cams 226-234@50 110 l/s and it peaked at about 6400rpms and ran like a raped ape. Never dynoed but my Hotcam made 325rwhp and this cam ran 3tenths faster on the same stock heads so it had to be 350rwhp or so. The CC306 makes 350rwhp on stock heads also but like to turn 6500 or so. Mine must make in the neightborhood of 450rwhp to run 11.20's@120mph with 3.42's and 3,500lb raceweight. Later

FASTFATBOY

Call Crower, they did a custom cam for me and it ran VERY well, although I had ported heads the 3700lb 6 speed car ran 90 mph in the 1/8 mile

224/228@.050, 550 lift I think on a 112 LSA, pulled hard down low.


David

rskrause

If you want a real custom cam, there are people here (Bret Bauer, for one) who can help you. The big cam companies have very knowledgable people, but I doubt they will be answering your phone call! You will probably get generic advice, which may be all you need. But don't think it will be something special.

Rich

Jon A

Your goals sound close to what mine were, I declaired myself unqualified to pick the grind so I had Bret make me up a cam...350 RWHP (SAE) by 5700 RPM....and it holds it until 6400.

Kreinmc

I like your power band. Can you pm me any specs? What is the LSA? It sounds from your post that he put a lot of lift in to your cam. I'd be interested in talking to Bret about a cam, but it seems like he will not build one unless I buy the valvetrain setup he recommends. I will be running 10308 springs and do not want to sell these and buy another spring. I am about to swap out my 612's for these.

brain

How about a 236/242 575/595 lift. It makes good power all around and has over 340 rwhp from 5000 to 6400 with a peak of nearly 360 at 5800. Looks like it meets all of your requirements, and no beehive springs, or pricey custom cam needed. Not too shabby for a $399 off the shelf cam package. I felt more than qualified to pick a cam for my car. Good luck in whatever you choose.

OldSStroker

To get the kind of torque and hp curves Jon A wanted and got, the whole valvetrain system had to work together. Unfortunately if you just duplicated the cam without the springs, rocker arms, retainers, pushrods and lifters matched to the cam, there is not much chance you would see the same power increases in the 5000+ range.

A custom cam could be designed for your engine which would use the 10308 springs, and all the rest of the parts that YOU chose, but I think you would be disappointed with the results. The cam would cost the same but you'd not get much out of it.

BTW, Jon A picked up about 50 peak hp, but at 6400, where he shifts on a road course, he was up about 90 rwhp.

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

brain

I guess I'm lost as to the advantage of a custom cam on an otherwise stock motor. With ported heads, I could definitely see it, but stock heads? My 847 makes the same power as Jon's up to 4500 where the 847 pulls ahead and stays there until 6200 and is only 6hp less at 6400. I also like the earlier peak of the 847 - 5800 vs. 6200. I'm also on stock lifters, comp pro mag 1.6s, stock pushrods, and EX612 springs. Nothing fancy, but a proven combination. Do not the 10308 springs support the same lift? Is that the springs that Atljar ran? He made basically the same power as me, but he peaked a bit higher in rpms. Why would he be disappointed with the cam using those springs? I picked up almost 60 peak, and granted, when my car was LT and CAI, I never unnecessarily pushed it to 6400 (why? it peaked at 4900 and held it to 5200, and was down 15hp at 5800). But, looking at the graphs direction, I would estimate between 80 - 90 hp gain with the cam.

OldSStroker

Evidently your combination works very well for your requirements.

Perhaps different valve springs or any different parts might not give the same results. There is more to valve springs than rate and lift capacity. Mass and harmonics are important.

Different folks have different requirements for their engine/vehicle combinations. What worked well for one may not be optimum for another.

brain

Maybe I came off wrong, because I have a valid question. No need for the rhetoric. Evidently, my combination would have worked very well for Jon's requirements as well. It appears that different valvesprings gave very similar results to his. Again, I can understand the custom cam aspect - you can ask anyone I know - I always recommend a custom cam on a custom application. I simply do not see stock heads and intake with longtubes to be a very custom application. I am curious though, could my combination perhaps make MORE power with a lighter valvetrain, or did his setup have more to do with faster ramp rates and high lift? I would like to see a direct comparison of the clyindrical springs and steel retainer to a beehive/Ti setup; though one in which the standard springs aren't obviously not up to the task.

OldSStroker

Here are quotes from Jon A:

"The biggest part of doing it right was choosing the right cam. I researched for months and had my mind made up about 100 times…only to change it again every time. Close to the end I was ==>THIS<== close to just ordering the damn GM 847 and calling it a day. But I knew even the 847 wasn’t “right” for my target RPM range and it could be beat, but I didn’t know how to do it."

"My basic goal was to get the most possible area under the HP curve from 4500-6400 RPM as that is what will make my car the fastest at the track (given my arbitrarily chosen 6400 RPM shiftpoint as a compromise in hopes of keeping the stock bottom end alive as long as possible and yet still being fast as possible). It looks to me like I got it. I also wanted the car to be drivable on the street since it is still my daily driver. It is. And of course, the cam will “grow with me” quite nicely when I do get the heads done (hopefully next season)."

I like Aristotle's take on rhetoric rather than the usual renaissance definition.

Jon A

Sorry, I'd rather not. Bret put a lot of work into it for me...and as was said, you wouldn't be getting the most out of it with those springs, etc. BTW, the small dip in my old dyno sheet at 5600 has been fixed (too much timing) making the HP curve even smoother. I also picked up some low end since then...I'll have to admit I'm not the greatest tuner.
Time to get out the calculator for you...it was actually over 58.
And you certainly did very well, no doubt. Of course that cam was my second choice.... It's certainly a good one.

At the time I did mine, Altjar's was the best stock-head dyno with that cam I had to compare. He made a higher peak (with some mods I didn't have), but mine was higher before and after. Of particular importance to me was the 4000-5000 range where mine was substancially better...and it still held a bit better up top.

Now your results are a bit better peak, but way better in the midrange. You made a lot more torque than he did. Quite a bit different results--I think I would have been happier with yours than his. Have you been able to get a graph posted up? It would be really interesting to compare. Your engine seems to do better at lower RPM...even befor the cam--peaking at 4900? With the stock cam mine peaked at 5250. Wierd. Anyway, it would be fun to compare/contrast.

So power-wise I do think I would have been pretty happy with your results, but I don't know if my engine would have made as much midrange on that cam as yours did for some reason. It's a lot better than other 847 results I've seen. And of course the dyno sheet is only part of the story...would your springs have held up to the 850 racetrack miles I put on the car last summer? Maybe, but I don't think I'd bet my engine on it.
That's a good point. Bret also took into account I'd be upgrading the heads soon. I really think when I bolt on the LE3's sitting on my floor my cam will make more power in the RPM range that I want than an 847 would have. It'll be fun to see those results....
I'm guessing you could gain a little up top with better springs, etc. That would leave you with impressive results indeed. The 847 is certainly a good cam--I almost bought one. Given your results, it certainly would have been a good choice for me. But I believe the BRE is the better match for what I wanted. That not everybody wants the same things is part of it.

Kreinmc

Why do you feel that I would be disappointed matching up a cam with these valvesprings. I used them with my 306 and I am sure I was easily at 350rwhp. However, I do not want to pick a cam like this because of how high the power band is and the ****ty torque that it made. What kind of specs do you recommend when creating a cam that will peak earlier, make 350rwhp and still have a lot of torque? I chose my specs because they where a tad smaller than the 306 and supposedly the 111lsa would bring the powerband down a little bit. Is that correct? I know you do not want to give me exact specs on this cam, but does it have more or less duration and lift. Is the LSA lower than 112?

Kreinmc

I can't believe you are using those springs with that cam. I have the same springs and I am pretty sure I am getting valve float with only .521 lift. Especially since these springs are single coil and only good to .600 lift. These 10308 springs seem much beefier. I ran them with my 306 and never had a problem.