i could not agree more....

 

I agree with 1slow01Z71.

 

Just to clear up the confusion, it will be going into an 09 GMC Sierra 5.3L SLE 2wd with 243 heads and a 4L60E. Used as a daily driver, and weekend track truck.

Will be installing 4.10's or maybe even lower with the stall. And, speaking of stalls, why is so much stall needed for this cam? Why would I need to use a 3600 over a 3200? Not being a smart a$$, just trying to understand. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this Stall converter thing.

Oh, and I spoke with Ed Curtis several times today regarding the cam, and am waiting on an email with some final numbers. Will post when I hear back from him.

 

No for that cam you will need a 4000+, the 3600 was used on a little 220 cam. The 5.3s with big cams and ehavy trucks need a lot of converter. Hell a stock cammed truck can pick up half a second in the 1/4 with just a 3000 converter and youre loosing a lot of power down around that rpm range with the bigger cams so you have to bypass it to get to the meat which with that cam is going ot be at 4000+.

 

Ok, that makes sense. Will having a 4000+ stall converter deminish the trucks drivability for daily use?

And, I just wanted to post this up so everyone could see the very linear power band that this cam would create. I know its a desktop dyno program, and that it's only approximate, but I trust it, and it has worked very well for me on previous builds.

Results w/ Stock 243 Heads

RPM's Power Torque

2000- 129 339
2500- 173 362
3000- 227 397
3500- 276 415
4000- 314 412
4500- 345 403
5000- 367 386
5500- 378 360
6000- 368 322

Results w/ AFR 210's (which I will hopefully be using in the not to distant future)

RPM's Power Torque

2000- 126 331
2500- 168 353
3000- 223 391
3500- 278 417
4000- 319 419
4500- 357 417
5000- 386 406
5500- 403 385
6000- 401 351

Given these numbers, does it change any of the opinions that I have seen so far, or are we still thinking 4000+ stall?

 

Those suppose to be crank or rwhp numbers? They seem a little low for crank hp since the little 220 cams with full bolt ons average around the 340/340 mark. Based on what Ive seen on here and my own cammed 5.3 experience Id definitely still say 4000, the 222/224 112 I had really came on at 3600 or so and youre talking a few more degrees duration and if I wouldve kept that setup i wouldve went with a 3600-3800. What software is that?

 

for a 5.3 thats a huge cam... and if u want to get the most out of it u need that big converter. and yes 4000 stall will take drivability away..

 

To answer your question, yes it is crank HP, but thats on a completely stock motor, with nothing but a DOD delete and a cam. I'd say 378/415 on nothing but a cam is pretty damn good.

Define full bolt-on's. I would assume you're talking about Long Tubes, Possibly Y-Pipe without cats, Full exhaust, CAI, Maybe even a intake manifold, and in some cases heads??? (and of course a tune).

And... where is this 340/340 #? is that crank or rear wheel? If that's rear wheel, that means roughly 430/430 at the crank with a 20% drivetrain loss. If you do the math, that means I'm 52HP shy of your "full bolt-on" mark, and only 15 ftlb, with nothing else added. I'm pretty sure that with "full bolt-on's" I could find 52 HP, but imagine where the torque will be... probably a lot higher than 430. If you look at the numbers for the AFR 210 heads thats with nothing but the cam and the heads. So I'm sure you can imagine what that number might look like with a FAST XRT or Edelbrock LSx Manifold, Long Tubes, Y-Pipe (no cats), Dumped exhaust, CAI, MSD Coils, and a 93 Octane Tune.

The only question then, becomes the tranny, and I'm not interested in having a 600HP truck, so I'm not really worried about that. But 500HP, that might be nice.

I know that a couple of you guys think that this cam is too big for a 5.3, and I respect that opinion. But, I'm certainly not afraid of testing the boundaries of this engine, and exploring different ideas. I appreciate the insight, and the recommendations, especially the stall converter stuff. But, if Ed Curtis comes back and says, it can be done, and it'll work well, then why not try it?

 

Oh, and their might only be a few of us chatting on here, but I'd be curious to see what the other 340 some odd people who've looked at this thread think about the cam.

 

Go for it, as long as u stall it right should be good.