Street 360 W/.528" P.S. Cam
When you finish that thread read this one:
Head to head cam LSA comparison
Some notable replies:
1. Someone needs to alert all the NASCAR teams. They need to tighten up their LSA, so they can make real power.
What a useless test.
The 2 plane manifold is holding the power back on the one test, and either the hydraulic rollers or the exhaust is holding the power back on the other test.
So all the test shows is that when your top-end power is restricted by the parts your running, you might as well put a tighter LSA cam in to pick the torque up.
Glad to see we're ll up to speed with the 1970's.
2. The test was perfect for selling Comp cams to people that believe every thing they read. That's all it was good for.
If you're going to test the engine with a 2-plane manifold that'll restrict the peak power to 6,200, run a hydraulic roller that's designed for 6,200.
With that manifold, you should run a cam around 238/[email protected]" for a 6,200 power peak.
If they ran that test with that cam, it would make more overall power on a wider LSA. It would also be a lot more driveable then the cam they ran, and wouldn't need as much stall.
When you run an oversized cam, it'll normally like the tighter LSA.
Except for selling cams, the test was useless.
3. I'm just saying the test is a joke when they make statements like this:
" We've got a very clear demonstration of the advantages-namely a more usable powerband-of running a narrow LSA."
That's a rediculous blanket statement to make from this test.
There are many cases where that is flat-out false.
On this engine, with these parts, with these cam profiles, with this compression, and with this fuel, it liked a tighter LSA.
That's the only conclusion that can be drawn from this test(advertisement).
When you finish that thread read this one:
Head to head cam LSA comparison
Some notable replies:
1. Someone needs to alert all the NASCAR teams. They need to tighten up their LSA, so they can make real power.
What a useless test.
The 2 plane manifold is holding the power back on the one test, and either the hydraulic rollers or the exhaust is holding the power back on the other test.
So all the test shows is that when your top-end power is restricted by the parts your running, you might as well put a tighter LSA cam in to pick the torque up.
Glad to see we're ll up to speed with the 1970's.
2. The test was perfect for selling Comp cams to people that believe every thing they read. That's all it was good for.
If you're going to test the engine with a 2-plane manifold that'll restrict the peak power to 6,200, run a hydraulic roller that's designed for 6,200.
With that manifold, you should run a cam around 238/[email protected]" for a 6,200 power peak.
If they ran that test with that cam, it would make more overall power on a wider LSA. It would also be a lot more driveable then the cam they ran, and wouldn't need as much stall.
When you run an oversized cam, it'll normally like the tighter LSA.
Except for selling cams, the test was useless.
3. I'm just saying the test is a joke when they make statements like this:
" We've got a very clear demonstration of the advantages-namely a more usable powerband-of running a narrow LSA."
That's a rediculous blanket statement to make from this test.
There are many cases where that is flat-out false.
On this engine, with these parts, with these cam profiles, with this compression, and with this fuel, it liked a tighter LSA.
That's the only conclusion that can be drawn from this test(advertisement).