My SSR: '03 RED vin1337, '06(lastoneinblack) vin 24107..Sadly sold '04UV,'05SILVER,'06PACBLU FPR
Don't believe everything you read. The deceptive part, to me, is what cam was it? no specs,no price. And can you find the headers for $659.99 ANY CATS ?
Also, why do a carburated intake. The real horse power gains, under real world builds, in a vehicle, should be shown on a dyno at rear wheels. That is what a MAGGIE gives you. REAR wheel HP. And, not that it is mentioned in the article, but the Torque is the real need for the SSR. So much weight to get moving. Thanx for the link though.
My SSR: 2003 Redline, SuperChip, OBX Headers, High Flow Cats, Dynomax VT, K&N Cold Air, 4:56 gears
Well, I think this is a valid article. I had a ZZ4 crate engine that was rated at 350hp.. I installed an LT4 hot cam (.525 lift with the 1.7 rockers), 1.7 roller rockers and Hooker headers. On the dyno it was 400hp at the rear wheels.
It was a 5 speed super street Richmond which think had more of a loss then the 4 speed. So at about a 15% loss, that's 470hp at the crank, a 120 HP increase with just a cam, rockers and headers.
My SSR: 05 6 sp. with 4.56 gears, ZR1 clutch, Edelbrock intake, Lunati cam, Crane rockers, C6 modified pan
I'm in agreement with ssrtruck, the intake/carb is a ridicules choice for the test. It only hindered the performance of the stock engine and helped the modified engine in the higher rpm ranges. The tested cam is certainly not something you'd consider for the SSR @ 227 and 241 duration on 109 lobe centers. It would certainly need a loose convertor to work at all. If you look at the dyno runs, it was also evident that the stock valve springs influenced the outcome. The stock engine flattened out @ 5200 and probably was in limited valve float from there up. To be fair they should have installed the better springs first before any pulls were made. I went and checked some stock springs I had, and they're terrible! I know we've discussed this build before, but people get drawn in by the big #s. It's high rpm hp at the expense of power below 3200 rpm, where you spend a lot of time on the street.
This package does sacrifice torque below 3,000 rpm compared with the base engine, which means this engine would be better matched with a manual transmission or at least an automatic with a high-stall converter. Another important consideration is that a stock 5.3L bottom end won't live forever at 6,800 rpm, so save yourself the trouble of writing to us with that bit of wisdom. Clearly, to keep this combination together, the cam should probably be 5 to 10 degrees smaller on the intake side with a single-pattern design, which would help the bottom end torque and only cost perhaps 10 to 15 hp. Or you could add some forged pistons and rods and have a nice day.
__________________
SSR Fanatics.....Knowledgeable friends, just a click away.
Looks like about 25 ft lbs, which was evidently enough to be a major concern in their summary. You'd have to take the cam specs from their chart, make the changes they recommend in the summary, and find a cam with those numbers. Let us know what you find available.
__________________
SSR Fanatics.....Knowledgeable friends, just a click away.
My SSR: 2003 Redline, SuperChip, OBX Headers, High Flow Cats, Dynomax VT, K&N Cold Air, 4:56 gears
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Looks like about 25 ft lbs, which was evidently enough to be a major concern in their summary. You'd have to take the cam specs from their chart, make the changes they recommend in the summary, and find a cam with those numbers. Let us know what you find available.
When they state 5 - 10 deg smaller, they talking about duration? So from Intake Duration at 050 inch Lift of 219 to 209?
My SSR: 05 6 sp. with 4.56 gears, ZR1 clutch, Edelbrock intake, Lunati cam, Crane rockers, C6 modified pan
That Comp cam you're looking at is very close to the stock LS2 cam. If it was me I'd go to the 2002 LS6 cam with 204 in. dur. and 218 ex. dur. with .551/.555 lift on 117.5 lobe centers. I know Bgetz, from this forum, put that cam in his 5.3 and was very pleased with the performance. He later changed to a larger cam, and had issues with it that I don't know if he ever got figured out. When you tighten up the lobe centers, down to the 112 range, you usually need some computer tuning help. My most recent cam is on 112 centers and the ECM doesn't like it much, whereas my last cam on 116 centers was handled nicely by the ECM with no tuning. There's no need to search out a single pattern cam as a well thought out dual pattern is just plain better. Every Gen 3 or 4 factory cam is a dual pattern design for a reason, whether it's additional performance, or emissions, or drivability.
Longer Exhaust Duration: Is this really necessary?
Most stock camshafts from American production V8, V6 and 4 cylinder engines manufactured today are ground with the longer exhaust lobe duration. Or, another way of looking at this is that they are ground with shorter intake durations! The former embraces the viewpoint that either the Exhaust Ports or Exhaust Pipe system is somewhat restrictive, and is in need of an assist. The latter suggests that the intake system is rather efficient and cam timing can be trimmed back a bit with out much sacrifice in power, in order to maximize throttle response and cruising efficiency.
Take your pick here. There is no absolutely correct viewpoint - because both are probably true! In a stock engine running at conservative RPM levels, for the sake of overall efficiency, fuel economy and a quiet smooth running engine, this staggering of intake and exhaust duration is quite common and appropriate.
However, High Performance is another thing entirely. Change one factor, let's say in this case, the exhaust system (installing headers and larger pipes) and you have just negated in most cases, the need for that longer exhaust lobe. Now couple this change with a different intake system and camshaft and you have really scrambled the equation. But, wait just a moment. Why is it that so many people (racers & cam grinders alike) insist on running a cam with longer exhaust duration regardless of what equipment is employed? The answer is "habit". Most of them have been somewhat successful in doing it their way and will probably never change unless virtually forced by circumstances to do so.
Before we go any further however let's review what it actually is we are trying to do with an engine when we attempt to make more power. Our best result comes when we are cognizant of the fact that an engine is basically an air pump. We pump it in and out (although in a different form) and we have problems when one side or the other is restricted. Balance or the equilibrium or flow should be our objective, unless of course we are not trying to make more horsepower!
Example #1 (Oval track racing) Here, I have often observed that the most experienced drivers are those who are most likely to run a single pattern (equal on intake and exhaust duration) cam. Why? Because such cams always, I repeat always make more torque! These veterans have a more educated foot and greater experience in feathering the throttle in the corners. They can therefore, utilize the benefit of added torque, in the lower to mid RPM range, to their advantage.
Their counterparts, the younger drivers on the circuit, generally are not as experienced and may at times actually get "crossed up" in the corners especially with a lighter car or when they are learning the ropes. In their case, a longer exhaust duration is often the more appropriate choice. It will often help them to drive better, more "flat footed" if you will, without consequence. But please for the sake of accuracy, let us be truthful. The benefit comes from an actual bleeding off of low to mid range torque, which is always what happens when Exh. Duration is lengthened, not from any improvement. The improvement, (if any) would come because of an improvement in scavenging at the extreme upper end of the power curve and would usually be marginal at best. Yet the so-called "extra power" potential of a longer Exh. Duration cam is most often why they are touted - power most people are backing away from at the end of the strait away!
Example #2 (Drag Racing) At the drag strip it's a little different and I feel more honest. Here, racers have long enjoyed longer exhaust and longer durations across the board (If I may add specifically for the purpose of "killing" low-end torque) to keep the tires from too easily breaking lose. This has been successful and sometimes actually results in a slight increase in top end power - something you can actually use in drag racing since it is a full throttle endeavor through the lights. Keep in mind here though, it's quite possible that a longer duration cam overall would have done just as well or better. In other words if you needed that longer exhaust for top end, perhaps the intake could have benefited from such a lengthening as well.
One of my favorite expressions is how "The Drag Racing mentality has infiltrated the ranks of Oval Track". Many have crossed over and made the switch in the past 10-15 years and some have brought their preconceived notions about how to cam an engine with them. A few may actually read these concepts and if they do so will at least come away with a better understanding of what they are doing. On the other hand they also could find that this information might actually help their cars to run just a bit faster!
__________________
SSR Fanatics.....Knowledgeable friends, just a click away.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
