Tweet
Here is a little cam comparison I made.
http://members.cox.net/fsae/camparo.jpg
NOTES:
Everything is farily accurate, but expect all those cams to actually peak about 500 rpm later than they do. (Pretend 6500 rpm = 7000 rpm). Also expect the low end to drop off a bit more than it does.
Those are all HP curves, the cam specs are on the right side. (dur intake/dur exh LS IC) All these cams run .512" or so lift, so they are for stock heads. I would run the same cam, high lift on a ported set of heads. Durations at .050".
The last two are 7000 RPM cams, the rest are 6000-6500 rpm cams. Expect a wicked bad idle past the 224/224 110 108. I am becoming fond of this cam.
Nothing is gained from going past 235 lift, in fact a loss occurs. (at least to 7K rpm). These curves are the max for stock heads for the most part.
[ September 26, 2005, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: AZ3.8Camaro ]
http://members.cox.net/fsae/camparo.jpg
NOTES:
Everything is farily accurate, but expect all those cams to actually peak about 500 rpm later than they do. (Pretend 6500 rpm = 7000 rpm). Also expect the low end to drop off a bit more than it does.
Those are all HP curves, the cam specs are on the right side. (dur intake/dur exh LS IC) All these cams run .512" or so lift, so they are for stock heads. I would run the same cam, high lift on a ported set of heads. Durations at .050".
The last two are 7000 RPM cams, the rest are 6000-6500 rpm cams. Expect a wicked bad idle past the 224/224 110 108. I am becoming fond of this cam.
Nothing is gained from going past 235 lift, in fact a loss occurs. (at least to 7K rpm). These curves are the max for stock heads for the most part.
[ September 26, 2005, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: AZ3.8Camaro ]
Comment