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

Scoggin Dickey truck cam??

Old Feb 11, 2011 | 06:37 PM
  #21  
grey matter 04's Avatar
13 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 1
From: gonzales,LA
Default

Originally Posted by Rhino79
Im not knockin your cam at all Grey, I have always seen improvments in power with lift being the only difference. You are right, more lift, more spring needed. I actually have considered the same cam you have and the one mentioned in this post.
I was just picken at those preaching about lift
no hard feelings here!
Reply
Old Feb 11, 2011 | 07:16 PM
  #22  
RSTinOKC's Avatar
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 383
Likes: 2
From: Oklahoma City
Default

Something I happened on in another thread here is that this cam is in fact a custom Comp grind on XR lobes, and sure enough its in a Comp box with a Comp cam card
Weather is starting to straighten out here...I can't wait to get this puppy in.
Reply
Old Feb 11, 2011 | 08:43 PM
  #23  
NextLevel's Avatar
Thread Starter
Staging Lane
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Default

So what you all are saying is that with the stock heads anything pretty much above .550 lift is useless. What if I were using 799's milled .030 and some port and polish work, nothing extreme just smoothing out the roughness of the 799 casting, then would lift above .550 make a difference and how much would it take away from low end?
Reply
Old Feb 11, 2011 | 10:05 PM
  #24  
Rhino79's Avatar
9 Second Club
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 1
From: Cabot, AR
Default

Every GM LS head I know of flows great up to .600 even stock. Here are some flow #'s.....
http://www.smokemup.com/tech/ls1.php
Reply
Old Feb 12, 2011 | 10:26 AM
  #25  
budhayes3's Avatar
PT's Slowest Truck
iTrader: (19)
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,863
Likes: 2
From: Hackensack, NJ
Default

Originally Posted by TABBED 5.3
i know this is taking the thread a little more off topic, but i thought overlap had more to do with idle characteristics (lope, chop, whatever) than just the LSA. Not trying to stir anything up, just trying to learn more about cams.
Duration and LSA both figure into ovelap, if you take two cams with the same specs but different LSA's, the one with the tighter LSA will have more overlap, and more overlap = more "lope/chop", among other performance characteristics such as bigger peak numbers
Reply
Old Feb 14, 2011 | 09:14 AM
  #26  
milesp07's Avatar
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 194
Likes: 14
From: Austin, TX
Default

I'm interested to see how this thing does...
Reply
Old Feb 14, 2011 | 06:17 PM
  #27  
ForcedTQ's Avatar
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
From: Northern CA
Lightbulb

Originally Posted by Rhino79
Every GM LS head I know of flows great up to .600 even stock. Here are some flow #'s.....
http://www.smokemup.com/tech/ls1.php
What Rhino said above. As long as the flow doesn't DECREASE in the valve lift curve you're golden. You just have to worry about ramp rates and appropriate spring rates to control the valvetrain mass. There would still be a benefit to going with a cam with .600" lift at the valve in a head that only flows 1 or 2 cfm more compared to at .550". You've got to think about how much more "area under the lift curve" there would be relative to a cam that had a max lift of .550". If you've got a head that stalls out (or reduces cfm) past a certain lift point, you'd want to stay below that for sure, as that would cause severe issues with flow continuity in the middle of the intake stroke. Biggest thing here I still think would be ensuring your valvetrain components are all matched to handle each other (spring rates, lifter capabilities, rocker positioning on valve tip or clearance issues, pushrod strength relative to loading, and PTV clearance).
Reply
Old Feb 14, 2011 | 09:28 PM
  #28  
pdxmatt's Avatar
Teching In
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by ForcedTQ
What Rhino said above. As long as the flow doesn't DECREASE in the valve lift curve you're golden. You just have to worry about ramp rates and appropriate spring rates to control the valvetrain mass. There would still be a benefit to going with a cam with .600" lift at the valve in a head that only flows 1 or 2 cfm more compared to at .550". You've got to think about how much more "area under the lift curve" there would be relative to a cam that had a max lift of .550". If you've got a head that stalls out (or reduces cfm) past a certain lift point, you'd want to stay below that for sure, as that would cause severe issues with flow continuity in the middle of the intake stroke. Biggest thing here I still think would be ensuring your valvetrain components are all matched to handle each other (spring rates, lifter capabilities, rocker positioning on valve tip or clearance issues, pushrod strength relative to loading, and PTV clearance).
+1 I never understand why I keep seeing people say that on here about cams with over .550 lift and stock heads. Just because they flow about the same from .550 to .600 doesn't mean you're not gaining anything.

A cam with .600 lift is going to spend a certain duration between .550 and .600 which would be max flow for that head. A cam that peaks at .550 will spend 0 time in that range.

And if the lobes have the same profile, then the higher lift cam is going to get to .550 lift sooner.
Reply
Old Feb 15, 2011 | 08:38 AM
  #29  
00silvylq4's Avatar
Staging Lane
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Lawton, OK
Default

Well lookin at that smokem up link a cam with .581 in a lq4, as in my 01 6.0 would be still be useful.
Reply
Old Feb 28, 2011 | 11:06 AM
  #30  
YenkoST's Avatar
TECH Fanatic
20 Year Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,549
Likes: 4
From: GA
Default

Did we install this cam yet? Looking at it to help promote mid-range torque in my 5.3L.
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:01 PM.