I've *FINALLY* gotten some camshaft recommendations - YOUR thoughts??
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
From: 39.84N 105.11W
Car: '89 Trans Am GTA
Engine: WAS 350 - now L92 (alum. 378/6.2L)
Transmission: WAS 700R4, now a built T56
Axle/Gears: 3.27 9-bolt
I've *FINALLY* gotten some camshaft recommendations - YOUR thoughts??
(Sorry this got so long!)
Maybe I was lucky today, but I was finally able to get through to the cam companies that I called.
What I'm hoping to get from the group here are suggestions as to which of these would give me the best balance between power and emissions/tunability/streetability..
A quick refresher on my car - '89 GTA, L98, HSR intake, AFR 195 heads, 24# injectors, SLP headers, 3" exhaust, 3.27 9-bolt rear end. Currently has a 700R4, but will be swapping to a 6-speed in the near future. I'll also have a custom chip done when I install the heads/cam/intake...
My primary goal for the car is to run over 130 mph (from a standing start) within one mile on the Bonneville salt flats. This wouldn't appear to be a very tough thing to do, but the salt is very traction-limited. One person described it this way:
Another quote:
So - keeping in mind the fact that low-end torque won't be my friend - which of these cams seems to you like the best match for a street car (w/ emissions) that'll be trying the salt?
Cam A:
Dur. @ .050 222/230
Lift 509/528
LSA 112˚
Cam B:
Dur. @ .050 224/230
Lift .503/.510
LSA 112˚
Cam C:
Dur. @ .050 204/213
Lift .484/.505
LSA 112˚
Cam D:
Dur. @ .050 214/220
Lift 452/465
LSA 112˚
Thanks guys, again, sorry this got so long...
Maybe I was lucky today, but I was finally able to get through to the cam companies that I called.
What I'm hoping to get from the group here are suggestions as to which of these would give me the best balance between power and emissions/tunability/streetability..A quick refresher on my car - '89 GTA, L98, HSR intake, AFR 195 heads, 24# injectors, SLP headers, 3" exhaust, 3.27 9-bolt rear end. Currently has a 700R4, but will be swapping to a 6-speed in the near future. I'll also have a custom chip done when I install the heads/cam/intake...
My primary goal for the car is to run over 130 mph (from a standing start) within one mile on the Bonneville salt flats. This wouldn't appear to be a very tough thing to do, but the salt is very traction-limited. One person described it this way:
-You only get 5 runs to figure out how to get the 130MPH and most of those 5 runs is spent trying to figure out how to get the tires hooked the best way you can so the car can get up to speed.
-It's a slippery b-tch and people don't realize that you can still be spinning the tires at 130mph.
-It's a slippery b-tch and people don't realize that you can still be spinning the tires at 130mph.
-I have a friend from Idaho who took his ****** drag car to Bonneville in the 1990's to run that that 130 club.
-His comments about the traction were that it was nothing different that trying to run WFO on the freeway right after a 4" snowstorm with snow tires.
--------------------------------------------------
-An example of the traction problem is---back in the about 1989 Karl Staggemier for NOS and Gary Eaker from GM windtunnel brought a new transam out there with one of Joe Ruttmans carbureted Winston cup engines.
-300mph was the elusive mark that several production bodied cars were flirting with at the time like Mike Cook had gone 298 with a T-bird and blown hemi.
-seems like the HP numbers needed to do 300 mph are something like about 1200 to 1600.
-----------------------------------------
-Karl had like 5 huge nitrous bottles in the trunk of that trans am with some of that nitrous to the engine and some was being wasted thru air to air intercoolers where they supposedly were getting the air temp to way below zero F.
-This was a big deal so we were witnessing the event at the 5mile mark which is the end of the long course----Gary was driving-----and buzzing the tires off and on all the entire way searching for traction----and still only went 298mph.
-His comments about the traction were that it was nothing different that trying to run WFO on the freeway right after a 4" snowstorm with snow tires.
--------------------------------------------------
-An example of the traction problem is---back in the about 1989 Karl Staggemier for NOS and Gary Eaker from GM windtunnel brought a new transam out there with one of Joe Ruttmans carbureted Winston cup engines.
-300mph was the elusive mark that several production bodied cars were flirting with at the time like Mike Cook had gone 298 with a T-bird and blown hemi.
-seems like the HP numbers needed to do 300 mph are something like about 1200 to 1600.
-----------------------------------------
-Karl had like 5 huge nitrous bottles in the trunk of that trans am with some of that nitrous to the engine and some was being wasted thru air to air intercoolers where they supposedly were getting the air temp to way below zero F.
-This was a big deal so we were witnessing the event at the 5mile mark which is the end of the long course----Gary was driving-----and buzzing the tires off and on all the entire way searching for traction----and still only went 298mph.
Cam A:
Dur. @ .050 222/230
Lift 509/528
LSA 112˚
Cam B:
Dur. @ .050 224/230
Lift .503/.510
LSA 112˚
Cam C:
Dur. @ .050 204/213
Lift .484/.505
LSA 112˚
Cam D:
Dur. @ .050 214/220
Lift 452/465
LSA 112˚
Thanks guys, again, sorry this got so long...
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
From: 39.84N 105.11W
Car: '89 Trans Am GTA
Engine: WAS 350 - now L92 (alum. 378/6.2L)
Transmission: WAS 700R4, now a built T56
Axle/Gears: 3.27 9-bolt
Thanks Sofa - so you're basically thinking that any of them should allow me to pass emissions testing as long as I have a good tune?
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 27,819
Likes: 2,406
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
Iunno.... guess that depends on what you mean by "pass"...
Certainly not though, if you have visual where you live; given that the HSR doesn't have any provision for EGR.
Certainly not though, if you have visual where you live; given that the HSR doesn't have any provision for EGR.
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
From: 39.84N 105.11W
Car: '89 Trans Am GTA
Engine: WAS 350 - now L92 (alum. 378/6.2L)
Transmission: WAS 700R4, now a built T56
Axle/Gears: 3.27 9-bolt
Yeah, I've been having a dialogue with the local inspection office about that... 
Thanks again!
Anyone else have any thoughts on the cams above?
Thanks again!Anyone else have any thoughts on the cams above?
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
From: 39.84N 105.11W
Car: '89 Trans Am GTA
Engine: WAS 350 - now L92 (alum. 378/6.2L)
Transmission: WAS 700R4, now a built T56
Axle/Gears: 3.27 9-bolt
OK, let me phrase it a bit differently - what kinds of "behavior" (or characteristics) would you expect from each of the cams above? 
Supreme Member
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,068
Likes: 1
From: Ohio, near columbus
Car: 89 iroc-z
Engine: 305tpi
Transmission: wc-t5
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt 3.08 posi (4 now)
Cam A:
good cam choice nice mild lift, fairly wide lobe seperation which should be good for th efi applications like you described with your hsr. Duration is still pretty mild it should be real street friendly and not at all what i'd call radical. Something like a 6000rpm redline sounds about right probably makes power from 2500 up is my guess. Although it would probably have the worst street manors than the other 3 but, not anything like i 'd consider bad manors....
Dur. @ .050 222/230
Lift 509/528
LSA 112˚
Cam B: Good cam also but, a is better imo since it's pushing a bit more lift.
Dur. @ .050 224/230
Lift .503/.510
LSA 112˚
Cam C: To small of duration would be perty torquey most likely. Lift #s aren't as high as i'd go either.
Dur. @ .050 204/213
Lift .484/.505
LSA 112˚
Cam D: Way to low of lift and a little low on duration so less overall power and more low end torque.
Dur. @ .050 214/220
Lift 452/465
LSA 112˚
so i will have to agree with the above a then b then c then don't even think about d.
Btw i'm nowhere near a cam expert and have never actually built an engine yet so take this with a grain of salt.
Cam manufacturers make a big difference also i wouldn't go with any other than lunati or comp cams anymore myself. The r&d from these 2 companys far surpass all the others and do perform better and more streetable than other companys comparable sized like mellings and those sorta off brand guys.
good cam choice nice mild lift, fairly wide lobe seperation which should be good for th efi applications like you described with your hsr. Duration is still pretty mild it should be real street friendly and not at all what i'd call radical. Something like a 6000rpm redline sounds about right probably makes power from 2500 up is my guess. Although it would probably have the worst street manors than the other 3 but, not anything like i 'd consider bad manors....
Dur. @ .050 222/230
Lift 509/528
LSA 112˚
Cam B: Good cam also but, a is better imo since it's pushing a bit more lift.
Dur. @ .050 224/230
Lift .503/.510
LSA 112˚
Cam C: To small of duration would be perty torquey most likely. Lift #s aren't as high as i'd go either.
Dur. @ .050 204/213
Lift .484/.505
LSA 112˚
Cam D: Way to low of lift and a little low on duration so less overall power and more low end torque.
Dur. @ .050 214/220
Lift 452/465
LSA 112˚
so i will have to agree with the above a then b then c then don't even think about d.
Btw i'm nowhere near a cam expert and have never actually built an engine yet so take this with a grain of salt.
Cam manufacturers make a big difference also i wouldn't go with any other than lunati or comp cams anymore myself. The r&d from these 2 companys far surpass all the others and do perform better and more streetable than other companys comparable sized like mellings and those sorta off brand guys.
Last edited by flaming-ford; Apr 19, 2006 at 09:00 PM.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
From: 39.84N 105.11W
Car: '89 Trans Am GTA
Engine: WAS 350 - now L92 (alum. 378/6.2L)
Transmission: WAS 700R4, now a built T56
Axle/Gears: 3.27 9-bolt
Thanks a bunch Ford, it definitely makes me feel a bit better to think that I'm on the right track.
it definitely makes me feel a bit better to think that I'm on the right track. 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
88SS6SPEED
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
7
Nov 11, 2015 07:05 AM
