Engle HEV 3945AS Camshaft

273 said
Bottom line I don't think he's terribly wrong and like the general concept but I yet see anyone prove or disprove him, we all generally agree tighter lsa = more under the torque curve to a point so his formula gonna get you going in the right direction, but how detrimental is it to be a few degrees off his recommendation, he says 30-50+ lbs-ft, I don't know about that. People run some pretty wide lsa on LS engines making great tq numbers. Like to see someone try to prove/disprove it.

DV states you are better with a cam a degree or two tight on LSA than a degree or two wide. He showed on graphs the torque and power curves. The tighter than recommended dropped a little bit. The 112° LSA cam was way down.
Then there is the Richard Holdner test that showed the same basic results.
Now look into GM Performance and their cams. You can get two cams intended for racing, primarily circle track that are ground on 108°lobe centers. The street intended performance cams are all 114° to 120° lobe centers. That speaks a bunch there. With the flow capacity of the various LS based heads, it follows DV's correction factor of a bit wider LSA for quick off the seat and hi flow. The street engines need to pass emissions testing and also idle smoothly for the general public. A slight idle lope is music to our ears, while many of the general buying public look for "Cadillac smooth".The wide LSA factory cams lower and flatten the torque curve by quite a bit. These engines do not hit as hard off a street light and need to get up to 2500 to 3000 RPM to get "on the ports" in a term borrowed from the 2 smoke crowd. What this is stating is that the combination of large hi flow ports and the cam timing, the engine is a bit lazy at lower RPM but come on strong as the revs come up. These engines still have a bunch of torque down low, but not like the old engines that pulled from 600 RPM.