5.3 T56 cam for ~350whp
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5.3 T56 cam for ~350whp
The truck:
1996 S10 Extended Cab, LM7 5.3L, T56, 4.11 rear gears, Shorty headers, 2.5" dual exhaust, Cold Air intake, Caltracs traction bars, Viking double adjustable shocks
Engine Modifications to take place this winter:
NNBS/TBSS intake and injectors (36 lb/hr), 92mm Edelbrock DBC throttle body, cam
Goals:
350WHP, daily driver
So which cam should I go for to meet my goals? I have been looking at TSP low lift cams, 212/218 .550 112 LSA in particular, mostly for simplicity, cost (cam and springs only), and they have dyno videos showing what I can expect. TSP has said in previous emails 220R and 224R would also be good cams. BTR has said Stage 3 Truck cam, 218/224 .553 133+3, would be a good fit as well. With my 4.11 gears and manual trans, I feel that I have a good setup to absorb some low end torque loss, but I also do not want to "over cam" the 5.3. Any suggestions or insight?
Thanks,
Tyler
1996 S10 Extended Cab, LM7 5.3L, T56, 4.11 rear gears, Shorty headers, 2.5" dual exhaust, Cold Air intake, Caltracs traction bars, Viking double adjustable shocks
Engine Modifications to take place this winter:
NNBS/TBSS intake and injectors (36 lb/hr), 92mm Edelbrock DBC throttle body, cam
Goals:
350WHP, daily driver
So which cam should I go for to meet my goals? I have been looking at TSP low lift cams, 212/218 .550 112 LSA in particular, mostly for simplicity, cost (cam and springs only), and they have dyno videos showing what I can expect. TSP has said in previous emails 220R and 224R would also be good cams. BTR has said Stage 3 Truck cam, 218/224 .553 133+3, would be a good fit as well. With my 4.11 gears and manual trans, I feel that I have a good setup to absorb some low end torque loss, but I also do not want to "over cam" the 5.3. Any suggestions or insight?
Thanks,
Tyler
#5
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the best of my knowledge, it came from a 2001 Camaro. From a Hot Rod article:
1998–2002 F-body 2.66:1 1.78:1 1.30:1 1.00:1 0.74:1 0.50:1
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/ever...ur-gm-project/
1998–2002 F-body 2.66:1 1.78:1 1.30:1 1.00:1 0.74:1 0.50:1
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/ever...ur-gm-project/
Trending Topics
#9
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
madmann26, because it is a S10 I figured I could get closer to LS1 Camaro levels, specially with the weight, T56, and 4.11. That is why I was trying to push the limits with a step or two above a low lift truck cam.
But I do agree, a low lift truck cam would make it a torque monster, stay in budget, and be easy on the valve train.
But I do agree, a low lift truck cam would make it a torque monster, stay in budget, and be easy on the valve train.