Cam suggestions for 383 build
#102
Registered
The cam that spectras only gave the link for is the stock 6.2 cam. With about 3/4 tank of fuel and just me onboard the engines will pull 5300 r.p.m.s which I believe is just under the limiter.
Cam: .452/.465 lift, 214/220 @.050 duration (Same as CRANE 2032) Rpm range 2000-5500. This appears to be close to the maximum lift on Vortex heads unless you replace springs, retainers, and cut down the valve guides.
Cam: .452/.465 lift, 214/220 @.050 duration (Same as CRANE 2032) Rpm range 2000-5500. This appears to be close to the maximum lift on Vortex heads unless you replace springs, retainers, and cut down the valve guides.
#103
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I called Bob Madera and talked with him one last time and he was good enough to offer to let me make several payments if I did end up having him grind a cam. He was up front with me on what to expect for power with out investing in a better exhaust which I don't have funds for at this time. I ended up choosing a Lunati cam. I found this next bit of info on another forum comparing the Lunati I went with to a comp cams grind.
[QUOTEThe one I remember dynoing was the VooDoo 60120, the 262/270 cam vs the Xtreme Energy 264HR. The VooDoo was 211/219 at .050, the 264HR was 212/218. The VooDoo lift was a little higher, and LSA was 112 vs 110.
From 5000 to 5600 the VooDoo averaged 10 BHP higher that the 264HR.
From 3200 to 4200 the VooDoo averaged 8 ftlbs torque higher that the 264HR.
But the best news was at 2500, where the VooDoo had 30 ftlbs torque MORE than the 264HR. It was 20 ftlbs more at 2800, and 3" more vacuum at idle.
With 9:1 CR, the 270 VooDoo is as big as I would run, and it works with 3.23 RAR.
Computer simulation programs assume that all cams flow air the same way, but they do not. If they did, one company's 300*, .500" lift cam would make power like another's. They don't.
A computer simulation program that gave an accurate Horsepower/torque curve would be similar to those used by the major car manufacturers, and would require the exact cam/valve lift curves, not just a couple of numbers.
UDHarold ][/QUOTE]
[QUOTEThe one I remember dynoing was the VooDoo 60120, the 262/270 cam vs the Xtreme Energy 264HR. The VooDoo was 211/219 at .050, the 264HR was 212/218. The VooDoo lift was a little higher, and LSA was 112 vs 110.
From 5000 to 5600 the VooDoo averaged 10 BHP higher that the 264HR.
From 3200 to 4200 the VooDoo averaged 8 ftlbs torque higher that the 264HR.
But the best news was at 2500, where the VooDoo had 30 ftlbs torque MORE than the 264HR. It was 20 ftlbs more at 2800, and 3" more vacuum at idle.
With 9:1 CR, the 270 VooDoo is as big as I would run, and it works with 3.23 RAR.
Computer simulation programs assume that all cams flow air the same way, but they do not. If they did, one company's 300*, .500" lift cam would make power like another's. They don't.
A computer simulation program that gave an accurate Horsepower/torque curve would be similar to those used by the major car manufacturers, and would require the exact cam/valve lift curves, not just a couple of numbers.
UDHarold ][/QUOTE]
#104
Registered
iTrader: (1)
That was very noble of him.
From one biz owner (myself) to another (him) - that should never happen.
I would love to trust everyone who walked thru my door or called me, but if I did, I would have been out of business and on the street along time ago.
From one biz owner (myself) to another (him) - that should never happen.
I would love to trust everyone who walked thru my door or called me, but if I did, I would have been out of business and on the street along time ago.
#105
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe my wording was less then stellar. I proposed 2/3rds down and the last full amount 2 weeks later which he said he could do that and yes it was very noble of him.