Learning cams from the Ford camp
Thread Starter
On Probation
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 19
From: Northern Utah
Car: seeking '90.5-'92 'bird hardtop
Engine: several
Transmission: none
Axle/Gears: none
Thread Starter
On Probation
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 19
From: Northern Utah
Car: seeking '90.5-'92 'bird hardtop
Engine: several
Transmission: none
Axle/Gears: none
Re: Learning cams from the Ford camp
The 12th paragraph isn't totally correct. The wide lobe separation angle by itself isn't hurting the upper-RPM power. It can correctly be argued that the lack of overlap hurts headers' tendency to extend the useful RPM range, but the problem is the lack of exhaust duration, or rather, the poor exhaust port flow for the better fix, and the long-runner intake manifold. The wide LSA delays the intake closing, and that alone extends the RPM range, even with a short-duration cam. The L69 was the first evidence, then the '90s LT1. Those 2 cams had less overlap than this, and less duration. But the lack of duration was what limited their top-end.
Thread Starter
On Probation
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 19
From: Northern Utah
Car: seeking '90.5-'92 'bird hardtop
Engine: several
Transmission: none
Axle/Gears: none
Re: Learning cams from the Ford camp
And from the Mopar camp: http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/t...t/viewall.html Applied to a 305, you'd need a loose 12" 2500-stall and a 3.73:1 at the minimum, and you'd need flat-top pistons.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




