torque cam
12-25-2017, 08:19 PM
#21
And that rocker ratio table is from 1.52 to 1.7 which is nearly .2 (2 tenths) of an inch more so not a direct comparison to an ls either.
The gains are ok, but why do that when you can get a cam with better @200+ duration that a heavier and higher ratio rocker would have issues controlling?
The gains are ok, but why do that when you can get a cam with better @200+ duration that a heavier and higher ratio rocker would have issues controlling?
I have run this setup for over four years on my daily driver (2500 4WD Suburban on 32's) and turn over 6k regularly. It has been super reliable.
12-25-2017, 08:34 PM
#22
437hp and 418tq on a nearly stock tune doesnt seem too bad on a 2006 l33. For some reason your numbers just dont jive to even make an apples to apples comparison....but i assume you have more done to your engine vs all stock though.
You also decide to open up a 1 yr old thread for this?
Get a real comparison of 1.7 to 1.8 then get relative weight between them plus a spintron of the 2, then youll have the info you need to present your ideas right.
Otherwise its just one sided data. Adding rockers on a smaller lift cam is fine but going up in lobe lift would only agitate things esp when rpm goes up.
Vinci is also known for overly aggressive lobes, you can pick up power there obviously but adding extra weight again is a bad idea.
Both the cams i posted would give op from 4 yrs ago what he wants and the other 6.0 guy with procharger, he would prob like something more in the 220s range.
You also decide to open up a 1 yr old thread for this?
Get a real comparison of 1.7 to 1.8 then get relative weight between them plus a spintron of the 2, then youll have the info you need to present your ideas right.
Otherwise its just one sided data. Adding rockers on a smaller lift cam is fine but going up in lobe lift would only agitate things esp when rpm goes up.
Vinci is also known for overly aggressive lobes, you can pick up power there obviously but adding extra weight again is a bad idea.
Both the cams i posted would give op from 4 yrs ago what he wants and the other 6.0 guy with procharger, he would prob like something more in the 220s range.
12-25-2017, 08:42 PM
#23
Why do you think GM went from 1:5 ratio in Gen I to 1:7 in later Gens? And btw an LS7 uses 1:8 ratio.
I am not here to argue with anyone, just giving my real life experience with cams for over 40 years. I don't sell cams like you so I don't have a stake in all this. Just trying to help out a guy that was looking for more torque for towing.
12-25-2017, 08:53 PM
#24
You dont want to argue but you want to passive aggressively argue. Got it.
If the head flows more at higher lift then of course it makes sense to go up in rocker ratio, but it also allows for less lobe lift which would decrease the gm under hood noise to pass epa standards.
Even if the chart was for illustrating its not any comparison to an ls nor are the ratios relevant. Bring ls info to an ls thread to make it an a-b comapro. I have not seen much in the way of dyno gains using higher ratio rockers or roller rockers on new higher lift lobes.
The rest would be assumptions so ill stay away from that.
If the head flows more at higher lift then of course it makes sense to go up in rocker ratio, but it also allows for less lobe lift which would decrease the gm under hood noise to pass epa standards.
Even if the chart was for illustrating its not any comparison to an ls nor are the ratios relevant. Bring ls info to an ls thread to make it an a-b comapro. I have not seen much in the way of dyno gains using higher ratio rockers or roller rockers on new higher lift lobes.
The rest would be assumptions so ill stay away from that.
12-25-2017, 09:03 PM
#25
No, I am not being passive agressive at all. I am just pointing out my experience and GM's move to higher rocker ratios. You chose not to answer why they did. Perhaps with your resources you could do a proper comparison and come back with some graphs? It might help sell more cams and rockers. Merry Christmas btw.
12-25-2017, 09:07 PM
#26
The answer is there. Twice actually.
As for the rest, i dont have access to those machines or info. But i do know how and why they are used and their info would create very relevant info for the ls.
As for the rest, i dont have access to those machines or info. But i do know how and why they are used and their info would create very relevant info for the ls.
12-25-2017, 09:23 PM
#28
You got real answers before and ignored them.
I dont have access to an engine dyno or a spin tron etc etc.
We have an in house chassis dyno that stays very busy with customers.
What you propose now costs money and time.
No one would pay for that, and we def dont have the spare time for that, so it will just remain an on paper argument...unless you use google of course.
If i can wrap this rocker comparo into the 4 engine build them maybe it will happen, but no promise there.
Besides you seem to have enough knowledge and should have enough contacts in your 40yrs of cams to get this done no sweat. Prove your theory then post it.
I dont have access to an engine dyno or a spin tron etc etc.
We have an in house chassis dyno that stays very busy with customers.
What you propose now costs money and time.
No one would pay for that, and we def dont have the spare time for that, so it will just remain an on paper argument...unless you use google of course.
If i can wrap this rocker comparo into the 4 engine build them maybe it will happen, but no promise there.
Besides you seem to have enough knowledge and should have enough contacts in your 40yrs of cams to get this done no sweat. Prove your theory then post it.
12-25-2017, 09:48 PM
#30
So a dyno of 2 separate cams that are aimed at proving your...i mean vincis theory is what you bring. Got it. Also its trying to prove his cam is better than an off shelf comp cam. That not hard to do at all. Even staying with a 1.7 rocker.
Bring a real comparison NOT from vinci and gain a little credibility.
Bring a real comparison NOT from vinci and gain a little credibility.