Use the 799 heads. Delete vvt definitely. Dont use some little cam though especially with low lift.
Youre wasting the best part of a larger bore, stock head flow and compression ratio gain.
Add the lift and make better power.
Something like our high lift hot cam would be an excellent choice. Or slightly smaller like the tsp stage 3 high lift.

Any of the lower lift cams simply wont compare.

 

I disagree only because the application
the intention of this project is for a daily driver, with darn close to stock characteristics, with the primary aim in towing torque.
retaining the VVT gives me benefits, both down low and up top, similar to two different cam specs, thats the whole idea behind the theory of VVT.
and low lift should be relatively easy on the rest of the valvetrain.
i have a toy in the garage allready, a RCSB with a 6.0 and the 823 heads and ls3 intake,with a cam of 225/236 625 lift on 113lsa, and for good measure a 150 shot of drugs...
This I would agree needs more cam...
I've over cammed stuff a few times allready, i purposely went with a "baby" cam on this one.

 

Retainering vvt does not give any benefits on a 6.0 or 6.2. You can tell by looking at the multitude of gm dyno graphs available from the l76 truck to l76 car and l92 truck to ls3 car.

The low end tq is nearly identical and the onlt reason it would be more is due to intake manifold design. The cars have slightly higher cr but that is negated by intake manifold design alone. Absolutely nothing to do with vvt.
Deleting it is the best option. This comes from a guy thats tried both ways on numerous vehicles including his own.

Dont be fooled by on paper ideas. Real world application says different.

And low lift vs say .600 lift will have 0 effect on the valvetrain health. Again real world vs on paper.
Add the lift and delete the vvt. Thats the best way to do it.

 

Dude? really?

 

While I have mixed opinions about VVT and consider it a love/hate thing, the blanket statement that VVT doesn't have its place is false. Having worked for both Chrysler and GM, I can tell you it certainly is useful. GM's shoddy hardware implementation aside (blame the EPA), VVT is awesome. Not only can you pick up additional power with it due to cam retard at higher RPM, it also helps lower emissions...which is why GM introduced it in the first place. Look at any stock calibration's target phase angle tables and you'll see exactly that.

With how the software is designed, you're limited to getting better high-RPM performance out of a smaller camshaft. You cannot run a huge camshaft and use VVT to get better low end. It would be possible to advance the cam mechanically and then calibrate to target a continuous retard, but that would have other quirky implications.

If what you put on paper doesn't match the real world results, you're not engineering...you're shooting from the hip

 

Having worked on, modified, and sold parts for both hemi and ls/lt i can tell you it has no place.
Thats not false. Thats fact.
Ive given reasons why above. There are many more.
Lock out any lt or hemi cam and gain. Thats what ive seen. No compromises and no tuning issues either.

 

Well GM is just really dumb then

 

They used it to help with emissions. So not dumb, but then again why is there so much room "left" in a tune from gm?

With your frame of mind, why even mod?

Everything im saying is easily proven by the sources ive said also. GM disproves themselves.

 

Having 'room left' is entirely subjective. You might be displeased with a certain power level when someone else is completely satisfied. I can tell you from years of experience as a powertrain engineer, having spent months on an engine dyno trying to find literally one or two extra horsepower to meet vehicle acceleration requirements, there is no room left. There is no baked in overhead because the manufacturer was stingy. Either you meet requirements or you don't. Almost all of the time, engine output comes in low compared to the requirement...sometimes, as was the case with the hellcat engine, it makes more than expected and exceeds requirements. Seeing as vehicle manufacturers like to make money as well as vehicles, they ask engineering to meet requirements with as few resources as possible. So they're not throwing money at a program just to give it 80% performance. They give everything they can.

 

Wow, that escalated quickly.....
my decision was based primarily with trying to stay close to an oem type characteristics, hence keeping the VVT, but only deleting the AFM. which the l96 didn't have anyways...
as for being satisfied with the power level and whatnot... yes... however it is never enough.
i believe i have obtained my goals of a moderate boost in lower end torque right in the rpm range, road speed range, right where i wanted it for towing which was my intended purpose.
you may have noticed in my pics from the install that i have a few cams in my inventory to choose from...
one of them being an xr269hr comp unit, this is a 3 bolt with a little more aggressive specs on it, thoughts on that one for a choice?
it dosn't hurt my feelings to do another cam swap later in the summer, i can hammer out that job in an evening, 4-5hours max, with a beer break or two...