Cam recomendations
- Thread starter 6 beats 8
- Start date
turbotwister
FAST COMPANY PERFORMANCE
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
HI,
I would use a 212 comp with your set up,it seems to work very well with heads that flow similar to your new set ray
!the ultimate would be a roller but the flat tappet will work just fine.the 212 will give you the best of both worlds.if your heads didnt flow as much as they are going to and/or you were running a smaller turbo i would say the 206 but since your air flow pontential will be great i definetely see the advantage of the more duration.be carefull!at the rate your going your gonna need a girdle soon.trust me,i know!
talk to ya soon.!
nick,
I would use a 212 comp with your set up,it seems to work very well with heads that flow similar to your new set ray
!the ultimate would be a roller but the flat tappet will work just fine.the 212 will give you the best of both worlds.if your heads didnt flow as much as they are going to and/or you were running a smaller turbo i would say the 206 but since your air flow pontential will be great i definetely see the advantage of the more duration.be carefull!at the rate your going your gonna need a girdle soon.trust me,i know! talk to ya soon.!
nick,
TurboTnZ06
Go on red!
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
210/210 billet hyd roller...Got one myself. These cars don't need huge cams.
Who told you these cars don't "need" large cams???
Large being relative, since I've had huge cams in my old 69 GTO Judge that a Buick can't even begin to contemplate...
I'll tell you this: I had Dave Crower grind me a custom cam.. I run a 4000 stall converter, and with the T-76, throttle response is *instant* and it spools VERY quickly. Then again, I have GN-1 "r" heads with a few tricks in them. I also have the larger downpipe, and ATR headers, so I'm huffing a little bit of air through this heap.
To recap, the "need" of a camshaft is directly relevant to the combination you're trying to put it with. To say "these cars don't need large cams" is a sweeping generalization that will only result in you going slower than you could (again, assuming you have the equipment to *need* one).
Large being relative, since I've had huge cams in my old 69 GTO Judge that a Buick can't even begin to contemplate...
I'll tell you this: I had Dave Crower grind me a custom cam.. I run a 4000 stall converter, and with the T-76, throttle response is *instant* and it spools VERY quickly. Then again, I have GN-1 "r" heads with a few tricks in them. I also have the larger downpipe, and ATR headers, so I'm huffing a little bit of air through this heap.
To recap, the "need" of a camshaft is directly relevant to the combination you're trying to put it with. To say "these cars don't need large cams" is a sweeping generalization that will only result in you going slower than you could (again, assuming you have the equipment to *need* one).
qwknuf6 jr
100% street car
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2002
Large cams = less steetablity
Less torque at lower RPM's=need for higher stall T/C ,again less steetablity .
For a hot STREET Turbo Buick stick with a 206-206 cam . You need power under 5700 rpm with stock bottom end motor .
There are 2 cars in Tulsa that run 206 cams and trap at 130 mph . steel heads and full wieght . 3000 stall T/C , stock bottom end cars , both cars have been driven to BG 1300 mile round trip
A "Race CAR" thats a whole diff game
Less torque at lower RPM's=need for higher stall T/C ,again less steetablity .
For a hot STREET Turbo Buick stick with a 206-206 cam . You need power under 5700 rpm with stock bottom end motor .
There are 2 cars in Tulsa that run 206 cams and trap at 130 mph . steel heads and full wieght . 3000 stall T/C , stock bottom end cars , both cars have been driven to BG 1300 mile round trip
A "Race CAR" thats a whole diff game
A "large" cam is good for high rpm, not needed or helpful at low rpm. Since the turbo Buick uses a cast crank, cast rods, and otherwise is not suited for high rpm, it is easy to say it does not "need" a large cam. As mentioned above, a bigger engine, like the Pontiac V8 in the GTO, can use more cam for a given rpm, so the small displacement of the Buick V6 is another reason it does not "need" a large cam. Most cam vendors give an rpm band for their cams, and for the Buick V6, max rpm is probably around 6000.
You are out of your mind. My cam makes great continous power all the way to my rev limiter (currently set at 6000 RPM).
I could run *more* RPM if I had the appropriate valvetrain...
I run solid lifters, 4000 stall, and it's a DAMN good street car.. (I drive it all the time)
Go try it yourself instead of regurgitating someone elses less then accurate information...
I could run *more* RPM if I had the appropriate valvetrain...
I run solid lifters, 4000 stall, and it's a DAMN good street car.. (I drive it all the time)
Go try it yourself instead of regurgitating someone elses less then accurate information...
- Joined
- May 26, 2001
Getting a little "testy" this morning aren't we Steve?
I am sure your "street" motor can adaquately utilize a big can like a 224/224, but our experience with builds similar to 6 beats 8 is a 212/212 or 214/310 works well into the 10's with great street manners.
Higher flowing heads and more RPM is where the 224/224 does well.
By the way, you never did mention your cam specs and I cann't remember?
I did say "assuming you have the equipment for it"....
A stock machine will *not* benefit from a larger cam whatsoever. A machine that has windy heads, good exhaust, a strong valvetrain, and a good turbo *can* and *should* cam up if you want to make power with that heap.
I run T&D 1.65 roller rockers, so keep that in mind. From the cam card:
Intake: Duration, 254*, lift .490 .016 clearance hot, .018 cold
Exhaust: Duration, 250*, lift 480
That's based on 1.60 geometry. (straight off the card)
at .050 lift, intake opens 4.0BTDC, closes 40.0ABDC
Exhaust opens 46.0BBDC, closes -6.0BTDC
112* lobe separation
Installed on a 108* centerline, lobes 2,4,5,6,8,10,12 conv taper, lobes 1,3,7,9,11 rev taper
How are those for specs?
It's not a *wild* cam, just larger than what most folks typically run. It's not much different than a 224/224. I know of at least 3 folks personally running larger cams than this on their Stage 2 mills. They also drive their heaps on the street and occasionally race them on the track.
A stock machine will *not* benefit from a larger cam whatsoever. A machine that has windy heads, good exhaust, a strong valvetrain, and a good turbo *can* and *should* cam up if you want to make power with that heap.
I run T&D 1.65 roller rockers, so keep that in mind. From the cam card:
Intake: Duration, 254*, lift .490 .016 clearance hot, .018 cold
Exhaust: Duration, 250*, lift 480
That's based on 1.60 geometry. (straight off the card)
at .050 lift, intake opens 4.0BTDC, closes 40.0ABDC
Exhaust opens 46.0BBDC, closes -6.0BTDC
112* lobe separation
Installed on a 108* centerline, lobes 2,4,5,6,8,10,12 conv taper, lobes 1,3,7,9,11 rev taper
How are those for specs?
It's not a *wild* cam, just larger than what most folks typically run. It's not much different than a 224/224. I know of at least 3 folks personally running larger cams than this on their Stage 2 mills. They also drive their heaps on the street and occasionally race them on the track.
A Stage block and heads can use a larger cam than the stock block, with stock or modified heads. And you can turn your stock block to whatever rpmyou want. But if you do it past 6000 rpm, and do it often, the YOU are out of your mind. Or maybe just undersupplied in that department to begin with. Hey, it doesn't take brains to break something... When you build an engine, you build a combo, and the block/crank/rods are the foundation. Those who run fast over and over without breaking something start out with a good foundation. Oh yeah, and there is also an upper limit on "effective" valve lift, based on the size of the valves. Going beyond that lift gains nothing, and can hurt the bottom end. But you can make up for some of that by going to something stout, like a 4000 rpm converter.
Blown&Injected
Active Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2001
I have the 224/224 - you guys think it is OK for what I have done to my engine?
I'll say that the car is totally streetable and has no low end problems. However, since my MAF's have died on my the last two time I have been to the track and a turbo got munched by parts from on of the MAF's, I cannot say if it helped my at the track - also went to MSD 50's so it really is not a fair cam only experiment.
I'll say that the car is totally streetable and has no low end problems. However, since my MAF's have died on my the last two time I have been to the track and a turbo got munched by parts from on of the MAF's, I cannot say if it helped my at the track - also went to MSD 50's so it really is not a fair cam only experiment.
qwknuf6 jr
100% street car
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2002
How about some ET's for the ppl with larger cams ?Lets see if the loss of steetablity is worth it???
Blown&Injected
Active Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2001
Originally posted by qwknuf6 jr
How about some ET's for the ppl with larger cams ?Lets see if the loss of steetablity is worth it???
Is 224/224 a big cam? Because if it is there is no loss of streetability.
A true street car wouldn't have an ET would it?
I'm making roughly 700 rwhp. I've run low 10's on this car... I've also run 11.02@128 with 14 PSI on the *old* cam. I have yet to 1/4 the car with the new cam... We'lll see. That has no bearing on it being "streetable". The car is perfectly well mannered. No stumbling, no tip-in problems, no startup issues, no rumbling and sputtering... The FAST may have something to do with that (I'd hate to think I had to do all of this on the stock ECM) however.
The RPM is more of an issue with the crank being externally balanced and the valvetrain rather than the fact that it is "cast". These cranks are actually *very* strong. There isn't a "HP limit" with the stock block that someone has been able to nail down. Every "experiment" I've seen involved systems with no cylinder pressure measurements, no FAST, or something like that. I submit that with the appropriate due diligence, you can make one HELL of a fast car that will *still* be very streetable.
I'm making roughly 700 rwhp. I've run low 10's on this car... I've also run 11.02@128 with 14 PSI on the *old* cam. I have yet to 1/4 the car with the new cam... We'lll see. That has no bearing on it being "streetable". The car is perfectly well mannered. No stumbling, no tip-in problems, no startup issues, no rumbling and sputtering... The FAST may have something to do with that (I'd hate to think I had to do all of this on the stock ECM) however.
The RPM is more of an issue with the crank being externally balanced and the valvetrain rather than the fact that it is "cast". These cranks are actually *very* strong. There isn't a "HP limit" with the stock block that someone has been able to nail down. Every "experiment" I've seen involved systems with no cylinder pressure measurements, no FAST, or something like that. I submit that with the appropriate due diligence, you can make one HELL of a fast car that will *still* be very streetable.
That is a relief to me. I have what should be a stout piece in the garage about to go in the car. It has a solid 224/224, 1.5 springs 220#on the seat, heavily ported Stage I heads (almost identical to 8445, no egr, other differences) 1.65 T&D modded to clear springs. The lifters are modded hydraulic, spring cups flipped. They have a small amount of preload that just takes the slack out of it. So it should be fairly quiet. BMS crank, Carillo's, JE's. Should be really alive at 6000. Glad to hear people out there that can vouch for the streetability of this cam.
qwknuf6 jr
100% street car
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2002
And your ET is???????????
Remember a cam is give and take , larger cams take from the bottom and give to the top ,there is no ands, ifs or buts about that ,its fact. (its why almost all carmakers have a V V T systems)
To large of a cam on a mtr that sees 6K RPM or less is a waste .
I say get the smallest cam that will still make power at your peak rpm.
Lets say 5500 rpm is your max rpm and your T/C is a 3000 stall , this covers most stock bottom end, street TR's . A 205 to 210 cam will make more Torque in that RPM curve than a 224-224 cam , and as stated above a 206 -206 cam will push a full street GN past 130mph . So why go for a larger cam ?
I built and ran seveal cars with 206/206 cams ,I know it works.
No need for 4k stall T/C's or pushing your stock bottom end past 5700rpm to get the car to perform.That ='s better street manners and engine reliablity .
There are more than one way to skin a cat and everybodys ideal of a street car is different so dont get to bent out of shape , build your car the way you like it and I will see ya at the track .
Mark
Blown&Injected
Active Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2001
Mark, if you read my posts to this thread carefully you will find that I already asked others about the size of my cam and mentioned that I do not have a true way of comparing ET's with the 224/224:
I will say again, with the same converter and turbo that I went 11.7x @116.xx (on blue tops, with only 22# of boost, 100 octane, street tires, did not lock the converter, bad 2-3 flair in the trans) I cannot detect any loss of low end and there are no streetability issues at all.
MY ET??? - I hope to get my ET down to low 11's and to cross the 120 mark - full weight/full accessory car with closed exhaust, street tires, and street legal 100 octane.
Q. What prompted the change to my engine? A. I wiped the cam that was in the car so I needed another one. The car is buzzing thru the traps so it did not seem as if a bigger cam would hurt, The O2's were dropping to the high 600's with the blue tops so in with the 50's - that's all there was to those choices.
I do not have a bar in the car, and I am not planning on putting one in so I was just attempting to make the best of the current situation. So, does anybody think I hurt things with the 224/224 as far as power/ET goes? The power and ET thing is all I'm really concerned with because I know there are no driveability issues. As far as the low end, the car goes to full boost and breaks the tires loose about as fast as I can slam the throttle down - but since the last two MAF's died on me on the first pass on my last two trips to the track I have no real idea how I'm doing.
I will say again, with the same converter and turbo that I went 11.7x @116.xx (on blue tops, with only 22# of boost, 100 octane, street tires, did not lock the converter, bad 2-3 flair in the trans) I cannot detect any loss of low end and there are no streetability issues at all.
MY ET??? - I hope to get my ET down to low 11's and to cross the 120 mark - full weight/full accessory car with closed exhaust, street tires, and street legal 100 octane.
Q. What prompted the change to my engine? A. I wiped the cam that was in the car so I needed another one. The car is buzzing thru the traps so it did not seem as if a bigger cam would hurt, The O2's were dropping to the high 600's with the blue tops so in with the 50's - that's all there was to those choices.
I do not have a bar in the car, and I am not planning on putting one in so I was just attempting to make the best of the current situation. So, does anybody think I hurt things with the 224/224 as far as power/ET goes? The power and ET thing is all I'm really concerned with because I know there are no driveability issues. As far as the low end, the car goes to full boost and breaks the tires loose about as fast as I can slam the throttle down - but since the last two MAF's died on me on the first pass on my last two trips to the track I have no real idea how I'm doing.
Yeah Steve, but what do you know..
Let them run tiny cams... It's their $hit...
I knew there was a reason I stopped posting.... Trying to tell someone a "different" way of doing things on this board encounters such resistance it's almost unbelievable. Even in the face of scientific fact and evidence, you still get people regurgitating knowledge and doing "what the other guy does" with no real understanding of what those little changes mean to *their* combo...
224 is a good cam. Very streetable. I recall when people also used to say a T-70 was not a streetable turbo... Those guys don't say that crap much anymore though.
Let them run tiny cams... It's their $hit...
I knew there was a reason I stopped posting.... Trying to tell someone a "different" way of doing things on this board encounters such resistance it's almost unbelievable. Even in the face of scientific fact and evidence, you still get people regurgitating knowledge and doing "what the other guy does" with no real understanding of what those little changes mean to *their* combo...
224 is a good cam. Very streetable. I recall when people also used to say a T-70 was not a streetable turbo... Those guys don't say that crap much anymore though.
qwknuf6 jr
100% street car
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2002
Theres no easy anserws, Thats why I rely on track performance to validate ones claims , drivablity is subjective . Track #'s are not ,
Can a car performe well with 224-224 cam?Sure it can .
Is it your perfect cam ??? Way to many variables for "anyone"to tell ,but if your motor is a 231 cu in , 8 to 1 comp . stock heads.ect ect. I would bet it would ET better with a smalller cam .
PS ....dont tell my wife I have a small cam
