I am not at liberty to say who designed or built the cam as someone designed it totally custom to my application and wanted it to be discrete, but here are some of the specs:

- @ .050 = 220 intake duration, 226 exhaust
- 112 LSA
- lobe lift .544 @ 1.6 ratio on both intake and exhaust
- six degrees of advance ground in

This will be coupled with approx 5.5 PSI as seen on gauge, Lloyd Elliot heads at 265/195, Hooker LT's, and 58mm TB on my 9.6:1 355 LT1 with a .039 quench.

Will this thing idle about like a Hotcam? (the cam I have has steeper ramps) Will my ride feel torquey or more like a top end killer? (or somewhere inbetween)

I had an absolute expert design this for me, so scoff at the cam specs if you want even though they look weird for a blower car. All I really want is an opinion of the nature of the cam based on comparisons to your cams. Thanks. (1994 Z28 - M6)

 

i would guess that it would be pretty close to the hotcam/cc305. those specs are almost identical to the cc305 except that it is on a 114lsa and 230ex. lift

 

i dont mean this as a slam but i really dont understand the point of 6 degrees of advance ground in. the "right" cam should make the best power for you installed straight up and if the guy who made it for you wanted that intake closing point he should have played with the lobes and put it there instead of crutching it with advance. also its kind of wierd for such a short exhaust lobe to be present in a blower application. to me it makes more sense to run a longer exhaust duration than was chosen and pherhaps a degree or two wider lsa and install the cam straight up. the boost you're running should negate the effects of the piston coming up much more so than an n/a car meaning closing the intake valve sooner is only going to make more power because of greater cyl filling. once again this is not a bash its more of a request if you can get it why the cam was spec'ed the way it was. never hurts to hear from another direction of thinking.

 

Theirs no real way to say how its going to be until you put it in. Although for comparison, I'm running a custom cam (~220/226) from Joe Overton and I'm running Lloyds heads, and my best so far has been 11.710 at 116.76 ALL MOTOR. I'm also getting 21-22mpg with mixed driving with a 3000 stall and 3.73's. Hope it works out great for ya.

 

I have to agree. Most blower and nitrous cams have a wider split in intake and exhaust duration and a wider LSA (114 or 115 maybe). There may be something about your setup to have made him make your cam like it is though. I bet it will idle kind of like the hotcam, but maybe a little more aggressive sounding.

 

If you want average results then do what everyone else is doing. I wanted more so my cam is spec'd out to net a specific effective compression ratio of 7.84:1 (static is 9.6:1). My boost range (6 PSI with Powerdyne now and 9 PSI with Vortech later on) likes that effective compression ratio because the boost-effective compression ratio will still be right around 10:1 and be pump gas friendly. The guy who designed it for me uses trig formulas in excel to arrive at the ECR figure, he considers everything before designing the cam ....gearing, weight, tranny type, bore and stroke, static CR, flow numbers of heads, etc. His reason for not putting so much exhaust bias is not only math related, but also due to my hooker lt's w/cutout, relatively low boost rating (my Powerdyne's like a glorified cold air induction), and relatively well flowing heads on the exhaust side (195). He claims the "typical" blower stuff like the 114 LSA and excessively big exhaust duration bias would feel lazy at the low end my my ride.....and I don't like to compromise bottom end much, I like torque. Also, if you run a narrower LSA like I do ...you need to also run less exhaust bias to match up to it. You can get more torque one of two ways, wide LSA and large exhaust bias (but not too much)....or .....narrow LSA and less exhaust bias. Either approach works well but he says my specs are actually more conservative and will make more torque than a typical blower grind. From "the man" himself:

"The lower exhaust bias is based on (3) things. 1) Exhaust port efficiency - and yours are good particularly with the long tubes bolted to them. 2) Intended boost level - and 9 # is still reasonably conservative, and 3) Separation angle - As you spread the angle wider, it moves the exhaust valve's max opening point farther away from the piston's peak velocity therefore you have to increasingly rely on blowdown to clear the cylinder, and blowdown is increased by opening the valve sooner and longer. IMO, the wider you go, the more the motor likes the bias, and vice versa. Both are ok, just two different approaches, and I like conservative cam timing on a street car because conservative will always make more torque, and torque is what you drive and enjoy."

 

Hey, sounds like a great cam to me. I'm not a fan of big duration.

It should idle real close to the CC305, since the overlap is the same and the there is only 4 degrees difference between the exhaust duration of the CC305 and your cam.

The big factor though, is what ramps the lobes have. They could be much more mild or agressive than the CC305.

You know that you are going to have great top end from the SC, so it's nice not to have a ton of duration, which would just shift the torque curve up, where you don't need it since you have a SC. Sounds like a great balance. Good low end since the cam duration is low, and awesome top end from the SC.

Hope it works great for ya.

Dan

 

Hey, sounds good to me. Like someone else said, its always good to hear a new opinion on it and you said you had an expert design your cam, so I figured it had something to do with your specific setup. Good luck with it and let us know how she runs.

 

I would think the designer of the cam would be the one most qualified to describe its behavior wrt other cams.. did you ask him?