What Cam for a GT-67 6.0
#1
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between Auburn, AL and Columbus, GA
My brother is putting the sts system w/the gt67 on in a couple of weeks. The cam he has in there now is a 218/222 with the lift in the 560s an 113 +3. His other mods are asm longtubes(which we might take off), 918s, TT3000, shiftkit and vette servo. We are wanting something suited for the turbo and I think he would also like it to be bigger than the one he has now. I have heard many different opinions on reverse split cams and all of that stuff but if anyone has any cam opinions or suggestions on size/reverse split or not etc. I think the lsa will be on 115 or so.
#2
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
From: Redondo Beach,CA
i think that cam would work fine for the turbo. remember that you don't have to run a massive cam with a turbo and you already have a good amount of lift. even if you ran a turbo specific cam, i don;t think the gains would out weigh the cost of changing it. JMO
#3
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between Auburn, AL and Columbus, GA
what about the lsa...would it be ok for boost...also, w/your cam and and boost #s how high do you spin to. My brother only spins his to 5900 and we wanted to turn it a little higher before the sts came into the picture.
Trending Topics
#8
i've got 228/224 .575/.576 115+4. Right now just for driving around its alright, no major issues. Under the couple runs at 11-13psi it seemed fine. Im still having STS issues so sorry I cant give you a better idea.
makani
makani
#9
A reverse split is supposed to be better for a turbo than a forward split. The advance on that cam's lsa concerns me. The rule of thumb for lsa and turbos is:
take the average of the durations and divide by 2 -- that gives you the lsa for 0* overlap.
So in this case, the ave dur = 220, so 110 lsa is a 0* overlap for the cam. Since you are at 113 (and ignoring the advance for now), that would me you were roughly -6* overlap. I'm not sure about the advance, but I think it just takes you back to 0*.
Makani's cam is going to work very well in the 6.0L with a GT67.
take the average of the durations and divide by 2 -- that gives you the lsa for 0* overlap.
So in this case, the ave dur = 220, so 110 lsa is a 0* overlap for the cam. Since you are at 113 (and ignoring the advance for now), that would me you were roughly -6* overlap. I'm not sure about the advance, but I think it just takes you back to 0*.
Makani's cam is going to work very well in the 6.0L with a GT67.
#10
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between Auburn, AL and Columbus, GA
Originally Posted by TurboBerserker
A reverse split is supposed to be better for a turbo than a forward split. The advance on that cam's lsa concerns me. The rule of thumb for lsa and turbos is:
take the average of the durations and divide by 2 -- that gives you the lsa for 0* overlap.
So in this case, the ave dur = 220, so 110 lsa is a 0* overlap for the cam. Since you are at 113 (and ignoring the advance for now), that would me you were roughly -6* overlap. I'm not sure about the advance, but I think it just takes you back to 0*.
Makani's cam is going to work very well in the 6.0L with a GT67.
take the average of the durations and divide by 2 -- that gives you the lsa for 0* overlap.
So in this case, the ave dur = 220, so 110 lsa is a 0* overlap for the cam. Since you are at 113 (and ignoring the advance for now), that would me you were roughly -6* overlap. I'm not sure about the advance, but I think it just takes you back to 0*.
Makani's cam is going to work very well in the 6.0L with a GT67.


