INTERNAL ENGINE MODIFICATIONS Valvetrain |Heads | Strokers | Design | Assembly

Strong cam for stock 5.3??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 27, 2007 | 11:02 AM
  #11  
onebadrubi's Avatar
TECH Fanatic
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,932
Likes: 0
From: arkansas
Default

those numbers ARNT CLOSE to accurate. lol sorry
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2007 | 12:21 PM
  #12  
RandomHero's Avatar
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,787
Likes: 1
From: Austin,TX Name:Mark
Default

Originally Posted by onebadrubi
those numbers ARNT CLOSE to accurate. lol sorry
Wow that would be like 100 ft/lbs gain with a very mild cam.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2007 | 12:27 PM
  #13  
1SlowHoe's Avatar
Destroyer of Transmissions
iTrader: (28)
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,962
Likes: 1
From: Orlando, FL
Default

My Aeroforce gauge has a HP reading on it. It says I make 40hp in the driveway
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2007 | 04:19 PM
  #14  
onebadrubi's Avatar
TECH Fanatic
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,932
Likes: 0
From: arkansas
Default

Originally Posted by 1SlowHoe
My Aeroforce gauge has a HP reading on it. It says I make 40hp in the driveway

Damn I bet it would be like 100 if you put it on some stockers. lol
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2007 | 10:58 PM
  #15  
Moddoo's Avatar
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 880
Likes: 1
From: Forest Lake, MN
Default

WOW
This is about helping someone with a cam choice, not shittalkin about my scan.
I'm trying to show that my motor with a small cam makes decent torque at low rpm and that it would work well for his needs.
Everyone knows the #s are not accurate in the scans, just like I said in my post.

FWIW, CONSERVITAVELY cam=20, LTs=20, tune=20 +330 stock =390
Even if the scan is 20+ high, it shows some nice useable torque with over 300 at 1200 rpm.

You guys know a thing or 2 about cams.
How about adding some helpful info.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2007 | 11:09 PM
  #16  
1SlowHoe's Avatar
Destroyer of Transmissions
iTrader: (28)
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,962
Likes: 1
From: Orlando, FL
Default

Originally Posted by Moddoo
WOW
This is about helping someone with a cam choice, not shittalkin about my scan.
Lol. I wasn't **** talking about your scan, I understood what you were saying. You were just trying to show the difference in TQ. It's no different than a dyno that reads high. You get a base number and then you get an after mods number. As long as you use the same tool to measure the power you can see the gains. Even if the total numbers are wrong the gain should be close to correct.

Richard knows his stuff. If he says that 210* is the point where you need a stall then I wont argue that. I had the 210/218 and a 6L, 2600 stall, +Radix. Power under the curve was not really an issue for me
I surely wouldn't go over a 220/220 without a bigger converter but I think a 210/218 would work well. Hell, the Vinci ULTRA TORQUE cam is a 210/218.
Reply
Old Jan 27, 2007 | 11:18 PM
  #17  
RandomHero's Avatar
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,787
Likes: 1
From: Austin,TX Name:Mark
Default

Originally Posted by Moddoo
WOW
This is about helping someone with a cam choice, not shittalkin about my scan.
I'm trying to show that my motor with a small cam makes decent torque at low rpm and that it would work well for his needs.
Everyone knows the #s are not accurate in the scans, just like I said in my post.

FWIW, CONSERVITAVELY cam=20, LTs=20, tune=20 +330 stock =390
Even if the scan is 20+ high, it shows some nice useable torque with over 300 at 1200 rpm.

You guys know a thing or 2 about cams.
How about adding some helpful info.
but how do you figure stock torque is 330? It's nowhere close to that even with your HO 5.3L

With that said, I would go with the 210/218 .551 lift cam. I know of several lifted guys who run that cam without a stall and they love it.
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2007 | 12:05 AM
  #18  
Richard@WCCH's Avatar
FormerVendor
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,853
Likes: 0
From: Reseda, CA
Default

I've lived with a 5.3l with a cam just a tad bit larger than 210º. Even had 4.10's and the truck felt soggy when launching. Once the tach swung past 2300 rpms the engine pulled hard to 6000. It was also weak when cruising on the freeway with the converter locked. At 65mph the tach hovered at 1800rpms. Applying throttle didn't accelerate the truck much. A 6.0l engine can swallow a 6º larger cam before suffering loss of idle/low end torque. Once we added the Yank 2600 it helped the launch big time, but cruising with the converter locked at freeway speeds was still soggy especially when towing.
As mentioned in his original post, he doesn't rev the truck past 4000 often. Definitely keep duration under 210º and definitely add the LT's. You'll love the way it drives.

Good luck,

Richard
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2007 | 12:52 AM
  #19  
Mr. Sandog's Avatar
TECH Veteran
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,632
Likes: 2
From: Sun Diego
Default

I'd get the Lingenfelter GT-2 205/212 .540/.540 116.5 CL and call it a day.
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2007 | 08:11 AM
  #20  
SSSBLKOUT's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Apprentice
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by TBSS
I'd get the Lingenfelter GT-2 205/212 .540/.540 116.5 CL and call it a day.
where is the power band on that cam? guessing idle to 5000?
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 AM.