3.1RS

I was wondering if swapping a camshaft would give me much of a power increase?? Has anyone done this before? Anyone with experience Please Respond!!! I am very interested in this






CRN-254122


Image is a representation of this part. Actual part may vary.


$169.95






Vendor: Crane Cams
Product Line: Crane CompuCam Camshafts
Material: Cast Iron
Finish: Machined

More power for your computer-controlled vehicle.

Chevrolet: 1981-89 2.8L-3.4L, 264/274 advertised duration, Compucam 2030, hydraulic, cam and lifter kit

This Crane CompuCam camshaft has a special profile designed to improve engine performance without sending the computer into fits or cause stalling, surging, or drivability problems some "computer-compatible" cams are known for, while offering tremendous power, torque and rpm potential. Includes camshaft, lifters, and assembly lube.

Sold as a kit.

Specifications:
* Advertised duration: 264 intake/274 exhaust
* Duration at .050 in. cam lift: 204 intake/214 exhaust
* Gross valve lift: .423 in. intake/.423 in. exhaust
* Lobe separation: 109 degrees
* RPM range: 1,500-4,500

LT1guy

iTrader: (1)

Redraif and I swapped her cam, ported the heads and intake, and installed a new timing set and valve springs. Overall it wasn't that bad, much easier than on a V8 car because there is more room to work. Its definitely worth doing IF you're planning to keep the V6. You'll probably be happy with that cam; the one we went with was a bit larger, and killed a bit too much low end (compensating with 3.73s and a 2800 stall).

KED85

This tends to be the factory cam in a 3.4 mill.
It works great.
Crane designed it for GM.
Says so in the GM Perf. Parts Book.

89camaroRSV6

yep have the same cam...lost to low end...

but the cars rpm maxes out at a much higher top
end...i can hit the 5500-6000 RPM mark much
easier in 2nd gear ....before the tranny shifts to 3

it pulls harder in the higher rpms...low end sucks
though...im still on the 3.42 and regular TC

it was worht it though...
go with that cam...and 1.52 roller rockers

/ 1.6 roller rockers if u can find a fiero valuve cover
do the timing chain too while your at it....

3.1RS

So if i got it I would need a new rear end too?

I want to know if my car would be faster in everyday driveing, not when i am redlining it.

Is the low end power loss to great to be worth it?


P.S. Oh and what would i do to the timing chain, Why do i need new roller rockers

2_point8_boy

With that cam I don'tthink you would need a different rear. The one that Red Raif got was bigger and made her lose low-end power, but the one that you are looking at is right in the middle. I'm pretty sure that's what is being described here. I plan to go with the same cam at some point, but don't have the money right now.

The 1.52 roller rockers will change how the cam affects the engine a little more. Think of it this way. Think of the rockers you have right now as 1:1 rockers. For every fraction of an inch lift your cam gives you, you actually lift the valve off the seat the same amount. With the cam you are looking at, the valve will come off the seat by 0.264", or just over a quarter inch. With the 1.52 rockers it makes it lift 1.52 times as much, or 0.401", or just under a half-inch. The more the valve opens, the more air can get sucked in. With 1.6 rockers you would get 0.422" of lift. For the 1.6 rockers, you'll either need to do some major modification to your factory valve covers, or get a hold of some covers off a Fiero. The Fiero ones look a lot better though. I plan to get a pair of these too at some point. This is all calculated on the intake, but the theory is the same for the exhaust.

Hope this answers some of your questions. Good luck man.

3.1RS

Thanks, you anwsered some but also created some new ones. If i got 1.5 rocker rollers wouldnt be the same as getting a really big cam. Wouldnt i loose a lot of low end in the end.

Just a question........if you can understand

2_point8_boy

yeah, I guess looking at it that way would produce similar effects. You would just havce to do some research on it I guess. I don't know first hand, I just know the theory behind it.

bes217

At PAW (Performance Automotive Warehouse) you can get a new cam for our engines that only costs 50.00. Just something to think about. It also comes with new lifters.

Grim Reaper

I was under the impression that the 60* V6 uses 1.5 RRs stock, just like a SBC. Definitely NOT 1:1.

When cam companies quote camshaft lift specifications for Chevs, they ALWAYS specify them WITH the stock rockers (typically 1.5s). Very few quote the actual cam lobes (though that info is easy to calculate and/or may also be specified). But whenever I look at a camshaft for a SBC, I automatically assume with 1.5 rockers installed. And I'm quite sure 60* V6s are the same.

Also, very few guys tune their eprom. Regardless of whether you run SD or MAF, you should get a properly tuned eprom if you want optimum performance from your engine. On bone-stock L98s, I've noticed a significant difference in performance just by properly tuning the eprom. All the tools now exist to tune 60* V6 F-body cars - MAF & SD.

(I'm willing to be that some of those guys who lost some bottom end torque will find some of it if they re-did their eprom...plus find more top end power and probably improve gas mileage).

KED85

People have obtained used running 3.4 for as low as $210.
Average seems to be $400-600.
Think about that as you price out & start tearing down your engine from a cam & head work.
FAIR trade off would be obtain Fiero valve covers & find 1.6 ratio rockers.
Then those parts switch to your 3.4 mill.
You change your timing chain, generally if over 75,000 original miles. That chain replacement will return HP gain & smooth idle & better gas milage, all at once.
Have you rebuilt your distributor yet?
Upgraded ignition?
Make fresh air kit for engine?
Those return the gains ya also seek, too.
More power.

Grim Reaper

THEN you can invest the cam and head work on the 3.4.

KED85

NOW THERE IS A WORTHWHILE THOUGHT TO EXPLORE FOR THE EFFORT!
Yet, the factory 3.4 cam is the upgraded 2.8-3.1 designed for GM by Crane. The Crane "2030"
All ya really need do is install a 3.4 & run.
THEN decide if ya wanna play.
99% report running as is.
It is a very powerful upgrade.
Only one 3.4 swapper is down for rebuild.
He bought the 3.4 engine with that thought in mind, so he is following his plan.

That's why a 3.4 upgrade is such a value

Everything is done all at once, cam, heads, bore & stroke. Best of GM for this engine series. Until the new 60* V-6 mill hits the streets.
Then that is a different world & effort. See latest Hot Rod & look at our 60* V-6 mill, now!

LT1guy

iTrader: (1)

The cam specs above should be fine; we went further, and had to do more mods to accomodate that. Honestly, I don't think roller rockers are that great an investment. , esp if they're only 1.52 ratio. You gain some from the inconsistency of the stock rockers, which may vary from 1.40-1.5, but thats about it. If you're going to bother, change the cam, since rockers only affect lift, not duration. A cam swap on these engines is pretty easy, and if you're replacing the timing set anyway you might as well do a cam.

We're installing a custom burned prom tonight, so we'll see how much difference that makes.

2_point8_boy

I was just using this as an example for ease of explaining. I know it turned into a big long explination that could have just as easialy been explained with the real specs for the rockers, but it was easier for me to explain in my head at the time.

Just clarifying so that i don't look like a total idiot...

Grim Reaper

Good luck. I hope by custom, you mean "tuned hands on".

3.1RS

So you guys are saying that getting a 3.4 would be a wiser decision because it would be about as expensive and the 3.4 comes with the crane cam anyway?

KED85

Go buy the GM PERFORMANCE PARTS BOOK at ANY GM DEALER FOR $6.95 & study why this is the wise option.
You'll see the "Crane 2030" cam offered by GM (& it says it's designed by Crane Cams!)
Also note the 3.4 crate engine & check the specs.
You'll see it uses the Crane 2030 cam.
The 3.4 heads are better (larger valve springs & dual coil valve springs), thus can handle the revs!
It's a wonderful upgrade all the ways ya want it.
Labor intensive yet bloody simple swap. All you own under the hood, merely swaps onto the other 3.4 mill.
Enjoy the studying! You will.
This is my own 3.4 upgrade under my 1985 Firebird hood. With over 10,000 miles under it's belt!

Dale

iTrader: (12)

Looks like a 2.8l to me KED j/k.

Still awaiting parts/wiring info to finish mine. Looks good. Still goaling to have at car show this weekend.

I went to crank for test fires. Started getting oil under engine. WTF. The O-ring I got for the distrib plug didn't seal. I tad bit of silicone fixed that.

redraif

Well we don't have the means to burn one if thats what you mean. I'm working with a guy whoe has been tuning some 2.8s for friends. He is out of state though.

Ok the car was running pretty strong before the fuel pressure reg was set at 38 (19lb injectors) and believe it or not the cam allowed quite a bit more timing 15 degrees on 87 octane.

Then we went to 10 degrees of timing and 45 on the fuel (stock settings) with the chip. Runs about the same as we had it before, but its bogging when you floor it. Seems a bit thicker then w/ the stock prom. Has about 45 min driving time now, so the computer should be done learning by now! So I don't think the chip is quite right just yet!

LT1guy

iTrader: (1)

Honestly I'm not surprised...even professional tuners often take several tries before they can get it dialed in, esp when the tuner isn't there with the car on a dyno. I suspect it will take another try or two to get it right.

Grim Reaper

The "learning" capability is extremely limited and does little for WOT (or heavy part-throttle).

By "hands on" I mean, someone hooking up a scan tool and monitoring your engine to determine what is happening inside the engine and make appropriate changes. You may not do it, but someone needs to do it.

The worst thing is when you tell someone "it seems to be a bit sluggish at 2,500 rpm", and the guy just burns you a chip and says "try this" without doing any scan. We call that guessing.

LT1guy

iTrader: (1)

We're looking into that now, as I tend to agree with you.

redraif

Yeah no computer hands on tuning. We are planing the guessing try this game! I really need a lap top and need to learn how to burn my own proms. If I could find a local to teach me it would be no biggie. But I only know those who do it for a living and they have no reason to teach me how! I looked on the board and did some searches on it, but it was so over my head!

Honestly there was a piggy back computer I was going to go with. The guy who was going to hook me up with the computer and programmer has lost touch. It was going to be $300.00 including the dyno time. Still hoping to here back from him as this would be the ideal set up! We will probablt play with tehtiming a smidge and see what that does with this chip. My car love timing. Hence the 15 degrees with the stock chip and 87 octane.

Grim Reaper

Do you mean you have the base timing set to 15*? That may be the source of your problem.

With that much timing added over stock, the extra timing may be triggering the knock sensor. Especially in the rpm range you are talking about. To prevent engine knock from too high of a spark advance, the ECM pulls out more timing than you've added, ending up with less actual spark advance.

The knock sensor on these cars are funny. They hear what we don't. People often think they don't have any detonation problems because they don't hear any ping. But fail to realize that the knock sensor is doing it's job and retarding the spark until the knock sensor no longer "hears" the detontation. Because the knock sensor hears at a different frequency than our human ear does, the ECM will hear the knock before you do.

In fact, when the human ear starts to hear "knock", the damage has already been done. There is a lot of internal damage that still happens within the engine long before the human ear hears it. Luckily the knock sensor is already hearing it and retarding the spark advance.

But if you heavily advance the spark advance, the knock sensor is always "having to work" and pull out timing. Unfortunately, the knock sensor is setup to pull out a LOT of timing at the first hint of knock...so you end up taking 1 step forward but end up 2 steps back.

The only way to see this is with a scan tool that can plot the knock sensor and the amount of spark retard occurring.

A better alternative, is to leave the base timing at "stock" and have all the advance added to the eprom - but only in the places you need it and not it the places you don't. Add too much spark too soon, and you probably trigger the knock sensor.

Make sure you discuss this with the guy who's burning you an eprom. When I burn an eprom, I leave the base stock and control all the spark timing within the eprom.

redraif

Well the only reason the car was set that high is that it would not idle otherwise. It surges and stalls and has no acceleration. That's why we shimmed the distributor. The 15 might have been a bit too much on the fixed dist though. Honestly I never knew what a knock sensor did. We were playing with it. Thanks for the intell! I thought the car would code for a knock sensor though! At 10 on the stock chip the car runs like butt though!

I would prefer the chip do the timing advance hance me going that route. Its at 10 with the new chip though!

Grim Reaper

Get him to re-burn the eprom with the base timing set to stock. Then get him to add his spark but not too quickly until he gets around 2,800 rpm. At 2,800 start adding the spark advance and get it all dialed in by 3,200-3,600 rpm. But by 3,600 rpm you should have all your spark advance dialed in.

Under no circumstances should your TOTAL Spark advance when you add the base and the eprom exceed 36*. In fact, that's probably too much and the knock sensor is pulling timing. In all honesty, the GM stock heads (V6/V8) with all the "casting flash" that's left in the combustion chambers of the stock heads will cause so many hot spots that it's often difficult to add much timing.

On my L98 when I ran the stock iron heads, I couldn't go past 28* of TOTAL timing or I'd trigger the knock sensor. I did various "tricks" including reducing the maximum amount of knock retard pulled out to just 1*. (I don't recommend anyone do this unless they are willing to suffer the potential consequences). This basically disabled the knock sensor entirely. This way I had total control of how much and how fast of the spark advance I was adding. But it is a very dangerous way to tune.

Last summer when I swapped on some new heads. I noticed all the casting flash inside the combustion chamber of the original stock heads. You could feel the sharp edge and cut you finger on it if you wern't careful. On the new heads I installed, I personally sanded out the casting flash and smoothed out the combustion chambers. Just to make sure there were no sharp edges.

Now I can put 34* before detonation begins with the new heads. If I set it back to 28* like I had on the old stock heads, I lose a lot of power over the 34* I can now run. There was no way I could ever run 34* with those stock heads. But if I had sanded out the casting flash, I probably could get a couple more degrees of timing (and more power). Proper control of your spark advance is the key to making the max power possible.

All the people that I let try out my "special bin" said it really perked up their SD L98 but most couldn't even take 28* and needed to be cooled down a few more degrees at the top. Once lowered, they loved it.

3.1RS

So KED you would recomend me not getting the cam and when i need a new engine, just get the 3.4?

LT1guy

iTrader: (1)

I understand we're running a lot more initial timing than you would think possible, but the car continues to run better with more timing to this point...in fact, we have gone higher (when we were getting inaccurate timing readings). If it were pulling timing, I think we would know...we didn't just arbitrarily turn the distributor, we worked up to it.

You mention casting flash in the combustion chambers, but the heads are ported, as is the intake, so maybe that is contributing to being able to run so much more timing than stock. I think the cam overlap is contributing as well.

The car is now at stock fuel pressure and 10 degrees, with the new chip, and it runs horribly...lots of bogging, no power down low, and sometimes it barely wants to start. Ideally, I'd prefer to be able to run a PROM that is dialed in correctly that will allow the fuel pressure and timing to be set at stock levels, as I see the advantage to what you are saying, but honestly my old tune runs circles around this one, and I'm not convinced that even several tries to burn a new chip are going to yield any better results. A friend of ours uses an aftermarket piggyback type system on his 2.8 Fiero, and found nearly 30hp on a mildly modded 2.8, so that will probably be the route we go. $300 including dyno time, not bad for that kind of result.

Grim Reaper

Porting has nothing to do with cleaning up the combustion chamber. The ZZ3 Aluminium heads that I swapped were ported too by a professional, and they didn't do anything in the combustion chamber. Ports yes, combustion chamber no.

I think you should calculate EXACTLY what your total spark advance SHOULD BE and then confirm it with a scan tool. It's the only way to see that the knock sensor is NOT pulling timing away. Conversely, if you don't have access to a scan tool, have him set the max "knock retard" to only 1* and that will confirm it "audibly". But immediately backoff if you hear ANY ping whatsoever.

Every person that I've ever seen add that much spark advance ends up loosing more advance to the knock sensor than they gain. Right now, you "spark curve" really needs work if you are adding that much spark - seriously. It is definitely not optimal for an internal combustion engine.

redraif

Oh man this morning it was way worse! I turned the key and it cranks and stalls. It does not even catch enough for me to lightly throttle it up to keep it going. It took 3-4 tries to get it where I could keep it running with feathering the gas. Then after 3-4 min of that, I had enough to get it into gear and back out of the driveway. It still would not idle. Then it took about a mile of driving down the road and the car would idle normally. Then at a light about 5 miles down the road I have to turn. Well I wait for traffic to clear and try to go. I did not even floor it. I lightly got got on it. The car stalled. It took 2 times to get it cranked back up and even then the car was straining. Then I had to throttle it up again to keep it running. Tried to get it in gear and it stalled. Again it was a bear to crank and I throttled it up in neutral and had to quick pull it into drive and go. Weird. I spoke with the guy who burned the chip. He siad it might be a bit on the lean side, so we will play with it and see!

funstick

being as im tunning the proms for cost no bodys lossing out. ie cost of the chip and carrier and if you send it back its free. i think there might be some misnomer going on. i also had a conversation with reraif via email today. there sevral issues going on. the engine want a **** load of advance at idle and low rpm. the cam must be literally tossing cylinder pressure out the door. i instructed her as to bump timing blah blah blah. i did not have her orignal BCC number so i did a $3a mask from scratch based on a somewhat similarly modded s-10 ive been diging around with for about a yr or so. im sure if she gets a laptop up and running and send me some data logs with the chip i sent her that i can nial it down. i also think the 38 psi is a little to low for fp pressure as i did the injecotr to maf curve correction based on 45 psi @19pph. so my geuss is that its running lean judging by the bog. either that or via shipping and handling the eprom got screwed up ??

glenn thanx for the input. the only other thing to consider is this motor doenst have a knock sensor. i did add soem advance here and there in the tables. but with her cam i have a feeling it really needs work down in the 3400rpm and down range. if she could get some scans for me id like to see them. as i siad i rescalled the pw table for those bigger injector and the cut may have been to large. very possiable. so playing with fp might solve the whole problem. if it does i can always go back and reissue another prom with the correct fix in it so thing can stay static.

my goal is to get the bin finished and post it here. im not in it for the money. just trying to help the 60* guys out.

KED85

Buy the GM Parts manual & read the specs on both items
Either project
a cam upgrade & head work
or a complete used running long block engine swap
YA GOTTA REALLY LOVE YOUR CAR to do the effort.
PS How is your trany?
Ever engine swapper reports tranny trouble right after the engine swap.
The upgraded 3.4 mill output is brutal on marginal trannys.
My Blazer swap?
I've installed a fresh rebuilt tranny behind it.
This 1985 Federal Version 2-Bbl S-10 Blazer is a 1995 Camamro engine w/50K miles on it.
Again my 3.4 swaps are smog legal & that benefits me, too.
Everything works, right.

Enjoy the research & the decision.

LT1guy

iTrader: (1)

Ok, clarification...we ported the heads and cleaned up (polished) the combustion chambers.

I agree with what you're saying about calculating what the total spark advance should be, just that none of this has been done yet. No scans yet. The spark curve does need major help; again I agree, I think it is what has been holding this combo back the whole time we have messed with it.

redraif

No I'm not loosing out at all. I'm happy for any assitance. You have been very professional and helpful! I'm very pleased with our dialog as well!

As Joe stated, this cam has an overlap and does allow for cylinder pressure to go down. I bet that is part of why the car wants more timing. Hecks its a very aggresive cam for a 6. Not something that is seen or tinkered with often. I was well aware that this was going to take some time! All I'm doing is hoping that with enough feedback we can point ourselves the right way. And not have so many trial and errors.

On the fuel pressure...it was 38 before your chip. We did set it to 45 like you instructed. The car is at 10* and 45 psi..just to make sure that is clear.

redraif

When I ported the heads I did clean up the cumbusion chamber. I was very careful around the valve seats, but I smoothed/polished out everything exactly like the instructions said to. I don't think there is anything for the carbon to cling to. Heck in all honestly my port job was better looking then a set of heads Joe had for his LT1 that was professionally done.

LT1guy

iTrader: (1)

Please don't misinterpret what I have said as ingratitude for your help; obviously you went to a lot of trouble, and aren't in this for money. I know how difficult tuning can be, esp when its by mail and you don't have all the info you need to go on. Even still, people who do this for a living often need 3-4 tries and still may not get it right.

The fuel pressure is set at 45 now, and timing at 10, as you said...with the stock chip, and the 19lb injectors, 38psi and 15 degrees was best. We haven't run that with your chip.

We'll see about getting the info you need, and play around with fuel pressure and timing some to see what we can do. I think we're getting close as far as the whole combination, and hopefully the tuning will pay off.

funstick

well leave the fpr at 45 and go after the timing then the bog must be a lack of cylinder pressure or the extra ae fuel i put in to help with the cam isnt being greeted with enough spark. if taking the advance back to 15 based fix it but it loose out up top then i know what i gotta do. i just need to get some input as to what the spark table needs. im not saying go for the kill with 15 initial but work up to it and keep notes. then pass those notes back to me. also does the car feel like its running lean is it miss firing i need some info with winaldl. a laptop might not be a bad investment. a basic p1 that runs win98 should be more then adequte for winaldl.

redraif

There has been no misfire what so ever. No backfier. Nothing weird like that. Car is smooth except for the bogging at throttle. Its bogs at all RPMs. Like a delay and then it catches up and acts like it did before the chip with our settings.

I'm going to check with Dynolab tonight to see what they can do about a computer scan. Do you need the scan with your chip and the stock one as well? Would it help if we could get a chip identical to my stock one to sent to you? Then you could tweak the fuel and timing of it programming?

funstick

the tps AE differntial pump shot i put in may have been to large. hmmmm ??? try upping the timing and get back to me. if its not missfiring then the a/f is most likely fairly close. i would like to get a scan of both chips as wel as the BCC off the silver sticker on the stocker.

funstick

also scans of both chips much apporeciated so i can see the affect the new chip has etc etc etc.

Doward

Just curious... what exactly are your cam specs, Redraif? IMHO, anything over about 216-220 @ .050" lift is entirely too much on a 2.8... on a 3.4, you MIGHT get away with it, but I'm not gonna bet on it.

Seriously, just how much overlap are we dealing with here? Advertised duration and LSA needed to determine that...

redraif

silver sticker... delco HNR 5639

So this number is specific to my run of chips...1987 2.8 engine with its options?

redraif

Specs direct from Reed Cams...TM276/282H12A2...
this cam is 223/228 with 471/480 lift on 112 int C/L is108

Doward

N/M, brain fart. Hold up...

funstick

thank you for the cam specs as well. ill get a fresh one done and send it off. this explain a few problems now. i was pretty sure itd be a hnr but i dont have a copy of this prom. ill have to go back and redo the whole thing. i had no idea the cam was that big !!! wow.

mail the other chip back. wwhhooaa !!! completely different engine then i tunned for !!! i got some map so splice togehterh fro sure now. !!

Doward

Jesus H Christ.

PLEASE tell me you upgraded your springs, Redraif - with that sort of cam, you are looking at over 6500+ rpm powerband. You'll spin to around 7000-7500 before dropping power!

redraif

Hey I had to get a new computer about 8-9 mo ago. Something in my original ecm went haywire in the fuel sys. part of its program...anyway...we got a computer out of a camaro at pull-a-part. I believe it was a 87 equiped near identical to mine. I will check the prom we pulled out of it. We put my original one in the new computer. If the HNR # is the same as my original its the same chip right? If so I will send it to you! then you can get the right info...we can also snag a handful of this style prom for some chips...

Does this mean you will not be needing the scan for your chip in my car, since you think it is so sckewed? I can still see about getting a scan with my stock chip...

Doward

And increased your compression ratio... that's the problem, you're bleeding all your pressure off at lower rpms. no pressure = no engine running on its own

You really need like 10:1 CR for that engine to run well... I'd also recommend when you get new pistons, that you also be sure to blueprint/balance the rotating assembly. You REALLY don't want to be spinning almost 7 grand and something pop. ARP bolts/studs, please.

redraif

Bigger springs...yeppers! Joe's done plenty of cam swaps. That was at the top of the list...

Big yes...Hey its sounds Awesome! We got the bigger injectors figuring I would need them. Hence needing the chip... Now we did loose some on the bottom end. So we are compensating with a 2800 torque convertor and 3.73 gears. The shift kit woke it up a bit too!