RAMM
Well-Known Member
Absymal--40-50pts less I would imagine. J.Rob
Street 360 W/.528" P.S. Cam
- Thread starter RAMM
- Start date
-
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 8,670
- Reaction score
- 4,678
For those that might be interested I asked Chad for the previous cam specs:
276/284 106 LSA with .454 lobes.. 1.80/1.60 rockers
OEM heads flow [email protected] and [email protected]
276/284 106 LSA with .454 lobes.. 1.80/1.60 rockers
OEM heads flow [email protected] and [email protected]
Oh........................no! Not 106 LSA.....cannot be....that is too tight.......
I read the same forum as Hysteric. The 106 was 'way' wider. Wider than what? That info is not provided.....
Using the word 'way' in the context it was used sounds it was a 'lot' wider versus a 'little' bit.
Jon Kasse won an EMC contest with a cam having a 98 LSA & 92 ICL.
I read the same forum as Hysteric. The 106 was 'way' wider. Wider than what? That info is not provided.....
Using the word 'way' in the context it was used sounds it was a 'lot' wider versus a 'little' bit.
Jon Kasse won an EMC contest with a cam having a 98 LSA & 92 ICL.
James Clews
Well-Known Member
Bewy a 98 LSA may make great horsepower on an engine dyno contest but what would it be like in a street car around town in a manual especially.
I have a custom cam in my 410 by mike @ B3 engineering and it is a 238/242 on a 112 LSA with 610 lift and it will pull away in fourth gear without a hicup under one thousand revs .
No bucking or jumping and a pleasure for an old man like me to drive. it makes 424RWHP and at 1500 revs in second gear, when you put the throttle to the floor it goes insane ! Tach immediately goes to 6500 rpm and is sideways with wheelspin. The dyno sheet shows a slight drop in torque at low revs but on the road does not show up compared to my old can which was on a 110 lsa and has slightly less duration and a lot less lift.
Engine dyno comps do not equate to real world driving!
I have a custom cam in my 410 by mike @ B3 engineering and it is a 238/242 on a 112 LSA with 610 lift and it will pull away in fourth gear without a hicup under one thousand revs .
No bucking or jumping and a pleasure for an old man like me to drive. it makes 424RWHP and at 1500 revs in second gear, when you put the throttle to the floor it goes insane ! Tach immediately goes to 6500 rpm and is sideways with wheelspin. The dyno sheet shows a slight drop in torque at low revs but on the road does not show up compared to my old can which was on a 110 lsa and has slightly less duration and a lot less lift.
Engine dyno comps do not equate to real world driving!
Jim,
Have known you & Keith for decades. I am at Killara.
Jon Kaase is a multiple EMC winner & has designed heads for 460 Fords. He is a 'thinker', a leader, not a follower.
You cannot claim dyno comparisons do not equate, & then quote your own dyno numbers....They are either relevant or they are not.
The reason I mentioned the Kaase engine is because a lot of people think 106 is 'tight'. So what would 98 be if 106 is tight!!!!
Kaase's engine [ 403 cubes, less than yours ] went against all the 'rules'. Had short rods, not long rods, had less exh duration, not more, 246/238 @ 050; & the tight LSA didn't go over a cliff after peak hp like many tight LSA cam opponents claim will happen.
The 403 Ford made 663 hp @ 6000 rpm & dropped a mere 11 hp by 6500 rpm.
It was making nearly 500 ft/lbs of tq [ 478 to be exact ] at 2500 rpm. Not bad for 400 CI & NA. Sounds like it would be a great street engine!!!
I can do the same in 2nd gear with my car: floor the throttle & tach needle hits the stop. So what does that prove? My cam is 106 LSA, yours is 112.......
If you are going to compare the effects of LSA changes, then you need to test cams that are identical.....except for LSA for an apples to apples comparison. They need to be ground by the same cam company, the same lobe series. Anything else is meaningless. That is why I posted numerous examples in this thread of just that: LSA change only. And the result is obvious.
Have known you & Keith for decades. I am at Killara.
Jon Kaase is a multiple EMC winner & has designed heads for 460 Fords. He is a 'thinker', a leader, not a follower.
You cannot claim dyno comparisons do not equate, & then quote your own dyno numbers....They are either relevant or they are not.
The reason I mentioned the Kaase engine is because a lot of people think 106 is 'tight'. So what would 98 be if 106 is tight!!!!
Kaase's engine [ 403 cubes, less than yours ] went against all the 'rules'. Had short rods, not long rods, had less exh duration, not more, 246/238 @ 050; & the tight LSA didn't go over a cliff after peak hp like many tight LSA cam opponents claim will happen.
The 403 Ford made 663 hp @ 6000 rpm & dropped a mere 11 hp by 6500 rpm.
It was making nearly 500 ft/lbs of tq [ 478 to be exact ] at 2500 rpm. Not bad for 400 CI & NA. Sounds like it would be a great street engine!!!
I can do the same in 2nd gear with my car: floor the throttle & tach needle hits the stop. So what does that prove? My cam is 106 LSA, yours is 112.......
If you are going to compare the effects of LSA changes, then you need to test cams that are identical.....except for LSA for an apples to apples comparison. They need to be ground by the same cam company, the same lobe series. Anything else is meaningless. That is why I posted numerous examples in this thread of just that: LSA change only. And the result is obvious.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 8,670
- Reaction score
- 4,678
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 8,670
- Reaction score
- 4,678
If your gonna make ridiculous comparisons then I'll call you out. Not the first time and won't be the last I'm sure.
Here is another interesting tight LSA cam story. Written by Mopar Man Steve Dulcich, PHR Dec 2011. Many years after the Kaase engine I mentioned earlier in the thread.
This engine was entered in the EMC contest. 426 ci, LS engine with a single plane intake, 4 bbl t/body & port fuel injection. The cam was a single pattern hyd roller cam, 237 @ 050; 104 LSA.
[1] About extra exh duration, the engine builder said this: "If I would have added 4-5* or more of exh duration it would have hurt the low end"
[2] Builder: "The tight LSA seems to make a lot more midrange tq, which was the focus on this engine. If I default to a tight LSA cam, that will always pick up midrange tq."
[3] Engine made 643 hp @ 6200 & 503 tq @ 2500 with a cam duration of 237 @ 050.
[4] Summary at the end:
I believe Steve D wrote it, but 100% sure.
" The engine was built with one gaol in mind & that was to maxinise it's power output between 2500 & 6500 rpm. That means the tq comes in like a sucker punch right off the bottom end -where you least expect it- & keeps coming at you as the needle on the tach swings to the sky. Right off the bottom at just 2500 rpm, this combination assaults the senses, with over 500 ft/lbs on tap. From that start, the tq tq piles up in abundance, pouring on the twist until a peak of 600 ft/lbs is reached at 4800 rpm. That is over 1.4 lbs ft per cube of shove, & it is on pump gas."
This engine was entered in the EMC contest. 426 ci, LS engine with a single plane intake, 4 bbl t/body & port fuel injection. The cam was a single pattern hyd roller cam, 237 @ 050; 104 LSA.
[1] About extra exh duration, the engine builder said this: "If I would have added 4-5* or more of exh duration it would have hurt the low end"
[2] Builder: "The tight LSA seems to make a lot more midrange tq, which was the focus on this engine. If I default to a tight LSA cam, that will always pick up midrange tq."
[3] Engine made 643 hp @ 6200 & 503 tq @ 2500 with a cam duration of 237 @ 050.
[4] Summary at the end:
I believe Steve D wrote it, but 100% sure.
" The engine was built with one gaol in mind & that was to maxinise it's power output between 2500 & 6500 rpm. That means the tq comes in like a sucker punch right off the bottom end -where you least expect it- & keeps coming at you as the needle on the tach swings to the sky. Right off the bottom at just 2500 rpm, this combination assaults the senses, with over 500 ft/lbs on tap. From that start, the tq tq piles up in abundance, pouring on the twist until a peak of 600 ft/lbs is reached at 4800 rpm. That is over 1.4 lbs ft per cube of shove, & it is on pump gas."
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 8,670
- Reaction score
- 4,678
Maybe Mike needs to grind himself a narrower LSA camshaft for his boat motor as he's surely missing out on all that midrange.....If only Mike had read all of Vizard's books and Dulcich's magazine articles.
CamKing’s 355 boat motor cam
My 355" SBC boat engine
It's 10:1 with ported 492 heads, Performer RPM, and Holley 600.
RPM---TQ--BHP
3200--436--266
3400--443--287
3600--445--305
3800--444--321
4000--443--337
4200--440--352
4400--440--368
4600--441--386
4800--441--403
5000--432--411
5200--422--418
5400--412--423
5600--400--426
The cam is 216/220, on a 112 LSA, and 108 ICL
CamKing’s 355 boat motor cam
My 355" SBC boat engine
It's 10:1 with ported 492 heads, Performer RPM, and Holley 600.
RPM---TQ--BHP
3200--436--266
3400--443--287
3600--445--305
3800--444--321
4000--443--337
4200--440--352
4400--440--368
4600--441--386
4800--441--403
5000--432--411
5200--422--418
5400--412--423
5600--400--426
The cam is 216/220, on a 112 LSA, and 108 ICL
James Clews
Well-Known Member
Bewy I will correct you. I have known you for close to forty years or more !
I do not deny that a tighter lobe seperation makes more power! What I am saying is it makes for a terrible lumpy driver of a car especially a manual. As you have always seen I like manuals and back in the seventies when I used to race you with my 340 six pack it had a 292 410 mopar performace cam in it. It idled really nice @ 650rpm and was really sweet on the road with six pack etc and ran mid to low thirteens back in those days and reved to over 7500 rpm.
I built my 410 about forty years later and liked the 292/ 410 cam so much that I got Keith to get me another one. Well I hated it as it would not clean up untill about 2500rpm.
What was the differencste? The old one had a 114 LSA and the new one had a 106 or 108 LSA. I tried a few different Hughes cams in it over the next few years and finally had a custom grind by Mike at B3 engineering design me a roller cam 238/242 @ fifty thou with 1.6 rockers to 610 lift on a 114 LSA because I wanted a nice driver with decent fuel economy and it gets the same 20mpg as my stock 318 Charger with my 410 manual with 3.91 gears.It may get more power with a tighter LSA but especially as we are not young kids anymore, a nice drivable car in traffic is way more important to me than a lumpy snarly pig that is hard to dive in traffic. Fair enough for you auto guys with a high stall converter it would not be that bad but I would not put up with a high stall converter and the horrific fuel economy as you will have noticed our fuel is over $2.50 a litre or $11 @ gallon at the moment!
I do not deny that a tighter lobe seperation makes more power! What I am saying is it makes for a terrible lumpy driver of a car especially a manual. As you have always seen I like manuals and back in the seventies when I used to race you with my 340 six pack it had a 292 410 mopar performace cam in it. It idled really nice @ 650rpm and was really sweet on the road with six pack etc and ran mid to low thirteens back in those days and reved to over 7500 rpm.
I built my 410 about forty years later and liked the 292/ 410 cam so much that I got Keith to get me another one. Well I hated it as it would not clean up untill about 2500rpm.
What was the differencste? The old one had a 114 LSA and the new one had a 106 or 108 LSA. I tried a few different Hughes cams in it over the next few years and finally had a custom grind by Mike at B3 engineering design me a roller cam 238/242 @ fifty thou with 1.6 rockers to 610 lift on a 114 LSA because I wanted a nice driver with decent fuel economy and it gets the same 20mpg as my stock 318 Charger with my 410 manual with 3.91 gears.It may get more power with a tighter LSA but especially as we are not young kids anymore, a nice drivable car in traffic is way more important to me than a lumpy snarly pig that is hard to dive in traffic. Fair enough for you auto guys with a high stall converter it would not be that bad but I would not put up with a high stall converter and the horrific fuel economy as you will have noticed our fuel is over $2.50 a litre or $11 @ gallon at the moment!
I’m sorry I missed this. Thanks. A couple guys turned it into their own post instead of starting their own post.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 8,670
- Reaction score
- 4,678
I'm sure he's done enough dyno and real world testing to already know.
RAMM
Well-Known Member
I'm used to it-lol. J.Rob
Jim.
#114102 is a SBC cam in Crane's 2010 catalog. 500-4000 rpm range. Brute low end tq. No, it is not on 112-114 LSA, it is on 104. Another one on 104 with a few degrees more duration, 800-4600 rpm.
This catalog has 15 cams in the SBC section that are on 107 LSA or lower. That is just the hyd flat tappet section.
I also have a 1984 Crane catalog. Although it has less total cams listed for the SBC, it has only ONE that is 107 or lower.
Something changed for Crane. I would say D. Vizard's late 1980s testing of 19,200 cam tests for Harvey Crane proved to be very convincing for Harvey...
He also took DVs advice: if you want a smoother idle, reduce duration, do not widen the LSA.
Hence the #114102 cam, 184/194 @ 050.
#114102 is a SBC cam in Crane's 2010 catalog. 500-4000 rpm range. Brute low end tq. No, it is not on 112-114 LSA, it is on 104. Another one on 104 with a few degrees more duration, 800-4600 rpm.
This catalog has 15 cams in the SBC section that are on 107 LSA or lower. That is just the hyd flat tappet section.
I also have a 1984 Crane catalog. Although it has less total cams listed for the SBC, it has only ONE that is 107 or lower.
Something changed for Crane. I would say D. Vizard's late 1980s testing of 19,200 cam tests for Harvey Crane proved to be very convincing for Harvey...
He also took DVs advice: if you want a smoother idle, reduce duration, do not widen the LSA.
Hence the #114102 cam, 184/194 @ 050.
And it continues on……
Some guys just don’t get it. They know everything except how to start their own post. We love posts and we love pictures. Lots of pictures.
Well, reading all this has made me realize how ignorant I am about cams. But just for s----s and grins, let me go way back to 1956. The 56 Plymouth Fury 303 had 26 more cubes than the Belvedere 277 Power Pack motor, and more compression ratio (9.25 vs. 8 to one). Despite road test and historical reports about the Fury's "hotter" cam, its duration and lift was virtually the same as the one in the 277 (both two and four barrel 277s had the same cam). Difference was the Fury had a tighter lobe separation. That's the only thing that made it "hotter."
-
