TPITuned Port Injection discussion and questions. LB9 and L98 tech, porting, tuning, and bolt-on aftermarket products.
Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!
I have the Crane Compucam 2032 camshaft in my rebuilt 355 TPI motor, which has yet to have even been turned over. Here are the cam stats:
Duration @ .050": 214/220
Advertised Duration: 270/276
Lobe Separation: 112
Gross Lift: .452/.465
Basic RPM Range: 2000-5500
I will be running this with a stock TPI intake setup except for gutted box with K&N's. I also have a custom PROM burned to those cam specs, headers with a 3" exhaust, reconditioned stock heads, an adjustible fuel pressure regulator, and a 2200 RPM stall-speed converter. What can I expect with this setup (HP, torque, 1/4 mile times, etc.)? How are you guys running with these cams? Also, it says for 87-89 TPI motors. My motor is an 89 TPI converted to speed density. Will this be a problem? Thanks. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by CamaroX84 (edited June 05, 2001).]
ive got it with 1.65 roller rockers ive run a best of 12.8 with it i love the cam idles good any more ques jus shoot them to my email
------------------
1992 camaro RS w/ 350tpi
195cc AFR heads with compition port work milled to 58cc
1 3/4 hooker long tube headers
4" mufflex system
custom ED Wright chip
eddelbroc intake base and runners and much more
new best ET 13.5 @104.66 on stock heads
no times with new afr heads hoping for 12's on motor
http://www.nav.to/badass355tpi
What about the biggest compucam, the next one up... I was looking into this one and would like to know if anyone runs it with a 'mildly smoothed' stock runnered 355 with 3.42 gears or is this too much cam? I think it specs out at .480" on the exhaust. I know it's the next bigger one.
They recommend 3.73's in the text, but....
Joel, I think the cam I am referring to is the biggest Compucam for our cars. At least it is in the Summit Catalog and the Crane website, but I'm not 100% sure. Also, why does it say for 87-89 TPI? I have an 89 TPI motor converted to Speed Density, and I have a custom burned PROM tuned to these cam specs. Will this be a problem? Thanks.
It's just for the type (roller) of cam, not the MAF/SD difference. I'm trying to figure out how the older flat tappet compucam would work, since i'm used to high lift/low duration rollers... I really can't judge this one as the duration is higher and the lift lower (damn flat tappets...)
The cam I'm referring to is the 2050 with specs of 272/284 advertised duration and .454/.480 lift.
Im not running that particular cam, I have the crane compucam 270/276 (non roller cam) in my 86 L98...
ALl I can say is this cam isnt very Big but it runs great, idle is great and easy to tune with the min air speed, TPS setting etc.
It seems to be very computer friendly and the car pulls alot harder since I installed this cam.
However, if I ever go with another cam and more mods ,I will get the Lingenfelter LPE219 roller cam.
A guy on the corvette forum has a 383 L98 with this cam and a SR and hit the mid 11/s in the 1/4...very impressive stuff.
Back to the topic, I dont think you will have much problem using a crane compucam of some sort..seems the people who have used it all said they worked great.
------------------
1986 Vette Coupe,auto, alum. heads,40 over,crane cam,3.73 Gears,The usual Mods..
Had an 86 Bird before..want to get another F car again!
CHP did a series called "My Generation Camaro" back the late 90s, early 2000s using this cam in their final issue and with a q-jet 355 retaining computer controls got 386 hp and 423 ft lbs on a dyno. The issue with this build is mar 03.
They seem to be good cams with a decent cams able to work with the stock computer. I am running a bit bigger cam at 218/224 on a 113lsa with the stock tune, no problems idling, running, anything, I have yet to dyno it. I'll tell you what everyone told me, there are better, more updated cams out today. The crane cams are great, but are probably 20 years old by now. Just like the LT4 HC, capable of making good power, but it's an old design, nothing wrong with that, just companies like Comp are getting more power with more aggressive ramps.
Just happened to run across this thread while searching for some other cam info so thought I’d weigh-in. I’ve been running a Crane CompuCam for a while and have been contemplating a cam change (running Grind 2020, Part # 114122. Note - the CompuCam name is no more. They are now just referred to by Grind # in the Crane Catalog.) My car is a torque monster and will pin you in the seat to 5000+ with pull out the wazoo in all 4 gears (700R4, stock converter, 360ci TPI, modified GenI heads, Dynomax headers into 2 1/2” Flowmasters, 3.42 w/Truetrac). So why would I consider a cam change? Two reasons: (1) when reviewing specs of possible cams, it’s a peanut. No, a very small peanut (204/214 @.050, 110 LCA/106 ICL, .423/.446” @ 1.5), and (2) to see if some upper HP/RPM could be gained without losing much torque (advertised powerband is 1200-4800). Well, after doing a lot of research, I’m not changing for now. Again, why? Because after running simulations on DDyno (simulated Vortec head flows and stock TPI intake), with everything constant but the cam; believe it or not, the CompuCam 2020 came out near the top of 15 or so cams analyzed! Hard to believe but true, and there are some likely reasons (discussed later). But first the data. It’s provided in the attachment and summarized below. Many will say that DDyno is not 100% accurate, and I agree. But when all the engine components are held constant and the only thing changed is the camshaft, then the results from DDyno are all relative to each other. That is, the comparisons among camshafts as DDyno sees them is accurate, even thought one might quibble with the detailed data. So here’s some summary data: Brand********Grind****Range******MaxHP/RPM***MaxTQ/RPM CompuCam**2030**1200-4800******370/5000******431/4000 CompuCam**2040**1600-5400******354/5000******417/4000 CompuCam**2050**1800-5600******373/5500******422/4000
Note that the 2020 compared better than the 2040 and is very close to the 2050 in HP albeit at a lower RPM, and looking at the torque curves the 2020 is better than the other two. I believe this is because my car is not an all out race car. It's induction limited now with the stock TPI base. So, it’s a mild street rod that is very enjoyable to drive and easy to tune with a very throaty idle (49* overlap) and tons of torque. Some would not like the fact that it’s not the drive-in rumpty rump favorite, but from traffic light to traffic light it’s amazing. In fact the 2020 cam simulated better with the dynoed setup than the Comp cams 08-304-8 hydraulic roller used in a torque monster 454 killer. See post #195: http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/en...-builds-4.html (Atilla's best builds)
When the Vortec intake is added and some other changes are made, one of the other cams analyzed will likely shine. But not right now.
So to summarize what has been said so many times before about camshafts – Sometimes, smaller is better. You just don’t “sound” as cool!
Last edited by 84Elky; 07-18-2011 at 10:26 AM.
Reason: Corrections & Uploaded omited file.
86Z --- There are newer camshafts out there, but "better" is questionable. Yea, in an all out race engine, you're probably right where every last # of torque and every last incremental hp makes a difference. But in a street rod that is constrained by many things the all out race engine is not, there is little perceptible difference in a newer cam with more rapid lift rates and others that are of the "old scchool" design. Real and simulated dynos prove that. All that really matters is duration, overlap, lca and lift in the right proportions for the build they are going to be used in.
The simulated dyno results of a fast ramp cam like the Comp Extreme Energy or Lunati Voodoo are hardly any better if at all than older cams with identical specs. And frankly for a street rod the older cams with less aggressive lift rates provide a cam that will last longer and is not nearly as harsh on valve train components.
Look at the uploaded file. The "old" Crane (Compu)cams have a lobe intensity of around 30, where similar Comp cams have a lobe intensity of 22-23. Small is more intense and has a faster lift profile. But with that comes a lot of downside in lobe and valve train abuse. Just look at all the posts of those with failing lobes on the newer Comp cams. Not casting aspersions on Comp cams; they have a fine product, but to say the newer cams are better or superior in a street engine is marginal at best.
I play a lot of competitive tennis and cams are a lot like tennis rackets. There are new ones every year, alledgedly better than those prior. In some cases yes in the hands of a professional, but for the average player, generally not so unless there is a major change in technology.
