PoorMan

What one of the various lift 224 cams do you guys think would match my heads the best. I am good to .600 lift btw and my flow numbers are:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/...77272276EJwkpN

http://community.webshots.com/photo/...77272403eACymd

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the cams as listed by cmotorsports.

NCC-224HL HIGH ENERGY
Comp Cams 224HL Camshaft 224/230 duration @ .050", .525"/.560" lift with 1.5 rockers, .560"/598" lift with 1.6 rockers.

NCC-224XH XTREME
Comp Cams 224XH Camshaft 224/230 duration @ .050", .567"/.584" lift with 1.5 rockers, .605"/.622" lift with 1.6 rockers.

NCC-224XL XTREME
Comp Cams 224XL Camshaft 224/230 duration @ .050", .503"/.510" lift with 1.5 rockers, .536"/.544" lift with 1.6 rockers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was looking at the I/E ratio of the lift. The HL cam has more spread which I think is suppose to be better after looking at my flow numbers. What do you guys think?

I like the HL w/ 1.5rr's or the XH w/ 1.5rr's. Do you think one will make more power than the other? I am assuming that the High Energy cams have different lobes than the Xtremes but I do not know how that effect things. Any suggestions?

Jeff D.

D James

Ya I've got this cam just running NA and have no complaints, drives really well. I get just a bit of cam surge anywhere below 1500-1600 rpm, its not noticable until you try driving 5-10 mph then you can really feel it. the idle is great with just a slight lope, plenty of vacuum, it pulls real strong. I am running on stock programing also, so with a tune it would really work well. Some say its to big for the street, but it is very tame compared to some of the real big cams. I have noticed a little less power below 2500 rpm, but It makes up for it when you rev it out.

PoorMan

Any late night gurus up?

unTAmedLS1

IM up sorry I dont remember my lift numbers but for some reason I dont think it was nay of those. With 1.6 rrs I think it was like .545/.550 but anyway I already did exactly what you did only I ported my heads myself but I have same headers pro mag 1.6 rrs 224/230 on 112 lsa no tune and I still picked up about 100hp. I went from a 104 mph to a 114mph and on a drag radial with the 4.10 gears im putting in it should be almost a 2second drop in et but anyway i love the cam and I love the pull from 2200 up to 6400. Im stick so I get a little cam surge anywhere under 1800 but Ill deal with that anyday for this performance and highway driving I still get 340 or more to a tank so that aint too bad.

RichJ

I'd go with .567 on the intake (1.5 rocker w/3100 series lobe) and .544 on the exhaust (1.6 rocker w/3300 series lobe). You don't need a ton of exhaust lift unless you are going with nitrous or a blower. Remember that the exhaust flows out under pressure.

PoorMan

Huh; never heard of making the intake lift larger than the exhaust. Every LT1 cam I have seen is just the opposite, so I am thinking that has been proven to work best. Yes, the exhaust is forced out at atmospheric pressure or there abouts, but the intake is under vaccum, which I would think is alot stronger force. Maybe a good idea to help pass emissions testing since all the exhaust will not exit and get burned twice. I am assuming that the 3100's are the High Energy lobes and the 3300's are the Xtreme lobes btw. Thanks for the reply. You got me thinking again.

RichJ

Take a look at this thread that I started not too long ago:

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...hreadid=139032

Also, both 3100 and 3300 are xtreme lobes:

http://www.compcams.com/catalog/230.html

PoorMan

Thanks, now I am really confused.

Anyone have an idea how much more hp/torque difference their would be in the two below cams, if any with my other mods? I mean an extra 5hp may not be worth the extra drivetrain wear. Any comments? and how would I check to see if I have clearance for the larger lift? My heads are milled 0.010 btw.

Comp Cams 224XH Camshaft 224/230 duration @ .050", .567"/.584" lift with 1.5 rockers

(Common 224)
Comp Cams 224XL Camshaft 224/230 duration @ .050", .536"/.544" lift with 1.6 rockers.


Jeff D.

pu12en12g

Bump..

I just got the 224 XL . . .wondering the same thing

RichJ

To check valve clearance, just clay a piston. As far as how much more hp/tq, that's going to depend on how well the rest of the combo flows (especially the heads) and the displacement of the motor. It's really hard to speculate without a lot more information, and even then it's hard to say. The increased lift will also not necessarily help if your valvetrain can't stay out of float in the higher RPM range that the cam may like with the bigger lift.

BradZ28

Here's my .02

The difference between the 2 isn't enough to make MUCH of a difference in power. You may see a 5-6RWHP difference with the larger of the 2 but the higher lift will contribute to premature valvetrain wear. Also the 1.6RR will become a factor with a little less friction absorbing power thus making it almost a wash. I went with the N224XL package and have been happy with that decision so far but I would talk to CMotorsports about your specific setup.

Brad

WS6T3RROR

in general if your heads flow up there and your vavletrain can take it the extra lift will do nothing but make more power all things being equal. 3100 lobes will require comp r lifters just for piece of mind. use 1.6 rockers for the extra lift. its your friend as long as your car can handle it. but in your case i'd use a 1.6 1.5 combo 1.5 being on the exhaust. so you dont pass over 600 lift on that side. my general philosophy for exhuast is that its all duration, while the intake lift makes more of a diff. keep in mind that 3100 lobes have more duration at .200 and higher lifts than the 3300 lobes and there in comes the added power and area under the (flow) curve.

and just to clarify the exhuast travels with a sh*t ton more force than the intake will in an n/a application it expands when it burns and the valve/ports are smaller so the velocity is way higher for the exhuast.