GM Engine & Exhaust Performance EFI | GEN I/GEN II/GEN III/GEN IV Engines |Small Block | Big Block |

Radix Cam Experts...Need Recommendations/Advice. Tax Time is just around the corner!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 10:52 AM
  #51  
sfj
TECH Enthusiast
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 592
Likes: 0
From: DFW
Default

yeah it makes sense that since your using a 200 wetshot or similar to FI the motor you will want a bigger exhaust lobe to help pull the exhaust out but isnt the nitrous going to have a similar effect of his blower and would you still not want the bigger exhaust lobe sorry for the questions i just want to understand what would be the difference in the nitrous reverse lobe since you are essentially forcing nitrous in there and the blower forcing air in there???
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 11:28 AM
  #52  
Flyer's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,342
Likes: 0
From: Armpit of East TX
Default

Reverse splits are for turbos. I think it helps them spool faster or something. Maybe Parish can answer that one.

Turbos suck! There .. that should get him in here.
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 11:31 AM
  #53  
moregrip's Avatar
Thread Starter
what a rush!
20 Year Member
Loved
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,629
Likes: 33
From: Wyoming
Default

Originally Posted by Flyer
Turbos suck!
true, true
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 01:39 PM
  #54  
Sport Side's Avatar
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,397
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, FL
Default

Yeah, it's a similar effect. Air that is assisted entering, can use a smaller intake lobe. But a larger exhaust lobe may be used to feed the extra air (from the power adder) out of the motor.
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 06:50 PM
  #55  
moregrip's Avatar
Thread Starter
what a rush!
20 Year Member
Loved
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,629
Likes: 33
From: Wyoming
Default

Heres a new recommendation from Futral:

We can do you a 205\210 .550"\.544"-114 that will keep good low\mid TQ and still pass CA emissions.

thoughts?
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 07:33 PM
  #56  
Sport Side's Avatar
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,397
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, FL
Default

I'd think you might try adding some more lobe.

@ .05 with that 205/210 114 you'll have -20.5 degrees of valve overlap. Not to mention you have more cubes w/ the LQ4.

You have plenty of room to pass emissions.
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 07:54 PM
  #57  
Mr. Sandog's Avatar
TECH Veteran
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,632
Likes: 2
From: Sun Diego
Default

Originally Posted by moregrip
Heres a new recommendation from Futral:

We can do you a 205\210 .550"\.544"-114 that will keep good low\mid TQ and still pass CA emissions.

thoughts?
You probably already know all of my thoughts on cams by now grip-man, but that is essentially my cam, and nearly ideal for a stock TC in a 5.3L. While you certainly won't lose anything with that cam (it will be an improvement over your stock 196/207, .467/.479, 116), you would be leaving a lot on the table.
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 08:03 PM
  #58  
moregrip's Avatar
Thread Starter
what a rush!
20 Year Member
Loved
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,629
Likes: 33
From: Wyoming
Default

Originally Posted by Naked AV
You probably already know all of my thoughts on cams by now grip-man, but that is essentially my cam, and nearly ideal for a stock TC in a 5.3L. While you certainly won't lose anything with that cam (it will be an improvement over your stock 196/207, .467/.479, 116), you would be leaving a lot on the table.
I only sent Allen an email so maybe I didn't fully relay my needs. Seems a little conservative to me as well. Although, as you said, I'd probably gain something and be an improvement

Thing is, I really like the 214/220 214/222 cams that seem to be collectively recommended......but then I really need a daily driveable Cam as well, a no problem ordeal (once tuned of course), sounds like that wouldn't be an issue with my 364 cubes.................does everyone agree the above is a daily driver?
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 08:09 PM
  #59  
Flyer's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,342
Likes: 0
From: Armpit of East TX
Default

The above would be a very well manered daily driver in a 5.3. My 216/220 has me a believer. It has very little lope and only a little cold start problems, but that's just because I've been lazy with the tune since I've had to pop the hood and get wrenches out to tune.

*waiting impatiently for HPT to be shipped*
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 08:15 PM
  #60  
moregrip's Avatar
Thread Starter
what a rush!
20 Year Member
Loved
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,629
Likes: 33
From: Wyoming
Default

Originally Posted by Flyer
The above would be a very well manered daily driver in a 5.3. My 216/220 has me a believer. It has very little lope and only a little cold start problems, but that's just because I've been lazy with the tune since I've had to pop the hood and get wrenches out to tune.

*waiting impatiently for HPT to be shipped*
thats the kind of news I need to hear, thanks bro
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 PM.