Hot Cam?
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles CA
Car: 1985 IROC
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 700r4
Hot Cam?
what is a Hot Cam? is it just the lt4 cam or is it a name for a type of cam? what engines usually use this cam, maybe an Ls1? what are the specs for it too if it is just one cam?
Supreme Member
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 18,457
Likes: 16
From: Loveland, OH, US
Car: 4
Engine: 6
Transmission: 5
The one everybody talks about is the over-the-counter upgrade one that GM sells for the LT4. It's not the "hot" cam; it's the "HOT cam", it's an acronym, stands for something, I can't recall what.
It's a good FI cam, since it's carefully optimized to work well with an otherwise mostly stock, emissions compliant, computer-controlled FI motor. As such, it's part crippled for use with a carb setup, that doesn't need any of those compromises.
It also doesn't work real well with a stock TPI, especially not in a little motor like a 350; people sometimes actually slow down by installing it that way. It needs to be in a setup where it can rev more than TPI will allow. The LT1/LT4 type of intake doesn't impose the severe restriction on RPM capability that TPI does.
http://www.sdpc2000.com/catalog/992/...mshaft-Kit.htm
Note that the lift spec it quotes is with 1.6 rockers such as what comes in that kit, NOT the stock 1.5s. Also, the springs that come with it are crap, many people have reported spring-realted valve train failures with the kit. Also, the rockers are merely Crane Gold narrow-bodies, with a GM logo on them instead of Crane. In spite of all that, if you have the right motor for it, it's an excellent value for the dollar. If you have a LT1 or even a SuperRam, and you replace the springs, and don't drive the car too much, it can be a great bang for the buck.
It's a good FI cam, since it's carefully optimized to work well with an otherwise mostly stock, emissions compliant, computer-controlled FI motor. As such, it's part crippled for use with a carb setup, that doesn't need any of those compromises.
It also doesn't work real well with a stock TPI, especially not in a little motor like a 350; people sometimes actually slow down by installing it that way. It needs to be in a setup where it can rev more than TPI will allow. The LT1/LT4 type of intake doesn't impose the severe restriction on RPM capability that TPI does.
http://www.sdpc2000.com/catalog/992/...mshaft-Kit.htm
Note that the lift spec it quotes is with 1.6 rockers such as what comes in that kit, NOT the stock 1.5s. Also, the springs that come with it are crap, many people have reported spring-realted valve train failures with the kit. Also, the rockers are merely Crane Gold narrow-bodies, with a GM logo on them instead of Crane. In spite of all that, if you have the right motor for it, it's an excellent value for the dollar. If you have a LT1 or even a SuperRam, and you replace the springs, and don't drive the car too much, it can be a great bang for the buck.
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Bowling Green
Car: 1992 Chevrolet Corvette
Engine: LT1
Transmission: ZF-6
Originally posted by RB83L69
and don't drive the car too much
and don't drive the car too much
Sure there are cams out there that idle a little bit smoother and get a little better gas mileage but they give up power. There are also those that make more power but they cost driveability and economy.
I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand your reasoning.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 784
Likes: 1
From: New Mexico
Car: 1991 Camaro Z28 5.7 G92
Engine: L98 Tuned Port Injection
Transmission: TH700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.23 Posi G80
My hot cam idles at 15 in HG and I can beat all bolt on LS1 cars around here and some "cam only" ones. Great all around cam. Mine is done after 6000 though. Huge torque numbers. My car put down 382 torque at the wheels.
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Bowling Green
Car: 1992 Chevrolet Corvette
Engine: LT1
Transmission: ZF-6
Originally posted by GASGZLR
My car put down 382 torque at the wheels.
My car put down 382 torque at the wheels.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 784
Likes: 1
From: New Mexico
Car: 1991 Camaro Z28 5.7 G92
Engine: L98 Tuned Port Injection
Transmission: TH700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.23 Posi G80
The problem is my engine is not an LT1, and not fuel injected, and has crappy Edel-junk valve springs. The LT1 cars don't rely on the cam to suck fuel into the engine like a carbed car does. If my setup were mini rammed and had decent valve springs, then maybe it would struggle to 6500.
See sig for setup.
See sig for setup.
Trending Topics
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Bowling Green
Car: 1992 Chevrolet Corvette
Engine: LT1
Transmission: ZF-6
Hmm, well here's what it does in an LT1.
http://www.wku.edu/~nathan.plemons/g...no_rockers.jpg
Ever consider that you might be running a tad too much carb or possibly too high a port volume on the heads therefore costing you velocity?
I don't honestly think that would be the case, a bad setup usually results in decent HP numbers but crappy torque. You've certainly got the torque.
I saw your post on the other cam. Expect it to give up some of that torque. It should pull a little harder in the upper RPM rage but the car may well actually feel slower. Now if the gain you get up top outweighs that which you give up on the lower end, only the track will tell that.
Good luck!
http://www.wku.edu/~nathan.plemons/g...no_rockers.jpg
Ever consider that you might be running a tad too much carb or possibly too high a port volume on the heads therefore costing you velocity?
I don't honestly think that would be the case, a bad setup usually results in decent HP numbers but crappy torque. You've certainly got the torque.
I saw your post on the other cam. Expect it to give up some of that torque. It should pull a little harder in the upper RPM rage but the car may well actually feel slower. Now if the gain you get up top outweighs that which you give up on the lower end, only the track will tell that.
Good luck!
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 784
Likes: 1
From: New Mexico
Car: 1991 Camaro Z28 5.7 G92
Engine: L98 Tuned Port Injection
Transmission: TH700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.23 Posi G80
Nice dyno! Mine looks similar but with better torque. Right where your HP passes 350 mine just dies and stays flat, torque drops too. I think I have really poor valve control. The angle of my HP curve is just like yours and I should be making around 380 horse too but then it just stops.
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Bowling Green
Car: 1992 Chevrolet Corvette
Engine: LT1
Transmission: ZF-6
What are the specs on your springs? Mine are 1.440" double springs with titanium retainers, etc. They'll support near .700 lift stock height. They were shimmed slightly originally for about 140# seat pressure.
Yes it's overkill but they've saved me more than once on some missed shifts.
http://www.wku.edu/~nathan.plemons/g...te/rockers.jpg
The springs don't look all that big until you scale the rockers against something
Yes it's overkill but they've saved me more than once on some missed shifts.
http://www.wku.edu/~nathan.plemons/g...te/rockers.jpg
The springs don't look all that big until you scale the rockers against something
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 784
Likes: 1
From: New Mexico
Car: 1991 Camaro Z28 5.7 G92
Engine: L98 Tuned Port Injection
Transmission: TH700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.23 Posi G80
They are just the springs that came with the Edelbrock heads. 1.45 diameter single/ no dampener. Supposedly good to .600 lift but I know the valves are floating at 62-6300 rpm and I have heard bad things about edelbrock springs.
Once I get my titanium retainers and comp dual springs I should be good to go.
Once I get my titanium retainers and comp dual springs I should be good to go.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post





