When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Tech / General EngineIs your car making a strange sound or won't start? Thinking of adding power with a new combination? Need other technical information or engine specific advice? Don't see another board for your problem? Post it here!
Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
What the title says. I'm looking for the best cam for a 305 with the L69 heads. Current mods are, as far as I know, custom 2.5" Y-pipe that goes into a full 3" pipe kit all the way to the back, HEI distributor, and a 600CFM carb replacing the stock quadrajet. I don't know if this engine can use hydraulic lifters (I assume it can) but I'd prefer hydraulic if possible. It'll be getting a performer intake and Hooker 2460 headers as well in the near future.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
L69 heads are the same as LG4. 416 casting; 1.72" intake, 1.5" exhaust valves.
A cam that is well and widely known to work well in the L69 is the Comp XE262.
Virtually all cams that anyone would use in a motor these days, including the factory ones and the one above, use hydraulic lifters. That motor however is too old to have the factory roller system in it. It has the older flat type of tappets (lifters).
Get the whole "kit" that they make for that; the cam, lifters, timing set, and valve springs. Don't try to put an aggressive aftermarket cam under stock springs, bad things are sure to happen.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Yup, sorry, they were 1.84"; was thinking of the earlier 305s with the heads like 434 for some reason.
What Fast said: the heads were always the same between LG4 & L69; the difference was the pistons. All L69s and then the later LG4s had flat-tops. Early LG4s had dished.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Originally Posted by Fast355
L69s and LG4s after 85 have flat top pistons.
L69 have flat top pistons prior to that.. also a lot of times I hardly see any mention of the LU5 motor, the crossfire… if you happen to carb convert that system you have essentially an L69. The 416 heads where put in all 3 of them, LG4 early on did not have flat top pistons but the LU5 and L69 did the only difference is LU5 had different intake, dizzy, and TBI’s. Upgrading it to performer intake, vacuum advance dizzy, carburetor and removing all wires and harness, slapping some headers on it it would be the EXACT same if you replaced the same parts on the L69 motor
i have an 83 z28 it came with the crossfire and I confirmed all of this when I did a carb swap on it, the blocks and intervals are 100% same for LU5 and L69
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
L69 have flat top pistons prior to that
Yes we're all aware of that.
As was covered previously, without the specific year change in the LG4:
All L69s and then the later LG4s had flat-tops. Early LG4s had dished.
Commas in that other statement would have made his intent clearer:
"L69s, and LG4s after 85, have flat top pistons."
Kinda like the difference between "I helped my uncle, Jack, off his horse" and ... something else.
I hardly see any mention of the LU5 motor
Which is probably just as well, given how altogether gutless those were. I recall taking a business trip in maybe 80 or 81 or so, and getting a rent-a-mule with "the latest" electronic fuel injection on it. Must have been a Citation or some such. Had a 4-cyl, 2.5L or so, whatever that was, with this weird-looking thing sitting perched over its throttle blades just kind of peeing gasoline down in there. Ran GREAT; started RIGHT UP and drove off without any hesitation reservation or equivocation WHATOSEVER; got GREAT gas mileage; EXCELLENT torque, like at a stop light; butt had ABSOLUTELY NOT THE FAINTEST TRACE of "fun" or anything resembling highway "speed" about it AT ALL. (the limit was still 55 at the time so I guess they figured it didn't really matter anyway) It was like driving a tractor. I remember when the 82 pace cars appeared; GORGEOUS cars; first time I saw one, I damn near filled the cup on the spot. I HAD TO get to the stealership and test-drive one (I had a 79 Z28 at the time). Unfortunately I was TOTALLY underwhelmed by its "performance" (more exactly, the lack thereof). When I asked to see what was under the hood, imagine my thoughts as I saw 2 of those same stupid little things peeing down into the 305; twice as much motor, with 2 ... urinary organs feeding it. It was no wonder that IT ALSO ran about like a forklift. No whooma-whooma, so little in fact it would have disappointed my grandma.
If memory serves the LU5 had the same drinking-straw exhaust as the LG4. I can't recall whether they had the electric fan the L69 did butt I kinda don't think so. Those also had TERRIBLE gears like 2.93 or something whereas the L69 at least had 3.73 (same as my 79 came with) when it first came out. L69s also came exclusively with the T-5 in their first year whereas the LU5 cars had a 200C POS. The LU5 also had the same "peanut" cam as the LG4, not the FAR BETTER, if still weeeenie, one that they introduced for the L69. So there's LOTS of things you'd have had to change about a LU5 car to get it to ANYWHERE NEAR the L69.
I waited until the L69 came out before I traded in my 79.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
I got off track in my post….. I did use the xe262 as mentioned and was pleased at the time, I have since installed a much better cam, but its inside the 355 I swapped in it lol I wanted to be faster instead of fun for a little bit. Love canned 305s there great for donuts and burnouts and showing off but I needed some speed to get away too!
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Originally Posted by SbcScarecrow355
L69 have flat top pistons prior to that.. also a lot of times I hardly see any mention of the LU5 motor, the crossfire… if you happen to carb convert that system you have essentially an L69. The 416 heads where put in all 3 of them, LG4 early on did not have flat top pistons but the LU5 and L69 did the only difference is LU5 had different intake, dizzy, and TBI’s. Upgrading it to performer intake, vacuum advance dizzy, carburetor and removing all wires and harness, slapping some headers on it it would be the EXACT same if you replaced the same parts on the L69 motor
i have an 83 z28 it came with the crossfire and I confirmed all of this when I did a carb swap on it, the blocks and intervals are 100% same for LU5 and L69
Definitely misread what I typed. I know ALL L69s have flat tops. L69s and later LG4s both had flat tops.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Originally Posted by sofakingdom
Yes we're all aware of that.
As was covered previously, without the specific year change in the LG4:
Commas in that other statement would have made his intent clearer:
"L69s, and LG4s after 85, have flat top pistons."
Kinda like the difference between "I helped my uncle, Jack, off his horse" and ... something else.
Which is probably just as well, given how altogether gutless those were. I recall taking a business trip in maybe 80 or 81 or so, and getting a rent-a-mule with "the latest" electronic fuel injection on it. Must have been a Citation or some such. Had a 4-cyl, 2.5L or so, whatever that was, with this weird-looking thing sitting perched over its throttle blades just kind of peeing gasoline down in there. Ran GREAT; started RIGHT UP and drove off without any hesitation reservation or equivocation WHATOSEVER; got GREAT gas mileage; EXCELLENT torque, like at a stop light; butt had ABSOLUTELY NOT THE FAINTEST TRACE of "fun" or anything resembling highway "speed" about it AT ALL. (the limit was still 55 at the time so I guess they figured it didn't really matter anyway) It was like driving a tractor. I remember when the 82 pace cars appeared; GORGEOUS cars; first time I saw one, I damn near filled the cup on the spot. I HAD TO get to the stealership and test-drive one (I had a 79 Z28 at the time). Unfortunately I was TOTALLY underwhelmed by its "performance" (more exactly, the lack thereof). When I asked to see what was under the hood, imagine my thoughts as I saw 2 of those same stupid little things peeing down into the 305; twice as much motor, with 2 ... urinary organs feeding it. It was no wonder that IT ALSO ran about like a forklift. No whooma-whooma, so little in fact it would have disappointed my grandma.
If memory serves the LU5 had the same drinking-straw exhaust as the LG4. I can't recall whether they had the electric fan the L69 did butt I kinda don't think so. Those also had TERRIBLE gears like 2.93 or something whereas the L69 at least had 3.73 (same as my 79 came with) when it first came out. L69s also came exclusively with the T-5 in their first year whereas the LU5 cars had a 200C POS. The LU5 also had the same "peanut" cam as the LG4, not the FAR BETTER, if still weeeenie, one that they introduced for the L69. So there's LOTS of things you'd have had to change about a LU5 car to get it to ANYWHERE NEAR the L69.
I waited until the L69 came out before I traded in my 79.
The LU5 had the 929' cam in it not the peanut cam. 194/203 @ 0.050 with 0.390/0.410 lift same as a 350 and some 305 truck engines in that era.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
OK, not the peanut cam, just, the legendary 160 HP 350 cam from back in the 60s. What a steaming bucket of elephant plop. 10 gallons of it in a 5 gallon bucket. If it needed a bra you could just use Clearasil on it instead.
Cletus: "That thing got a cam in it?" Billy Bob: "I think there's one, it's running"
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
I liked my steaming bucket of plop. It plopped it's way to a 14.5@95mph, w/Edelbrock TES "headers"/exhaust and free mods. I was happy with that, for those days. I should note that it did have the advantage of being the vastly superior, 1983, 170hp version.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Originally Posted by sofakingdom
OK, not the peanut cam, just, the legendary 160 HP 350 cam from back in the 60s. What a steaming bucket of elephant plop. 10 gallons of it in a 5 gallon bucket. If it needed a bra you could just use Clearasil on it instead.
Cletus: "That thing got a cam in it?" Billy Bob: "I think there's one, it's running"
Like it or not the 300 hp 327 and 350 used the same camshaft. It is not a bad cam for what GM was using it for. Long lobe and valvetrain life, smooth idle, good fuel mileage, great idle vacuum and the biggest factor emissions compliance. That cam makes good power with decent flowing heads especially with 4° advance and 1.6 rockers. In emissions era engines it was often retarded by the timing set from the optimum intake centerline making it lazier than it should have been.
Granted we are talking older slower lobe grinds that will live 100K miles it did very well in an 80s cam shotout I saw. They took the same 9:1 350 that was nothing more than a late model forged flat top Corvette 350 short block and a 487 open chamber 76cc head like a 71-72 LT1 had and ran about 8 different cams in it. 3 stock GM cams and 5 aftermarket from memory. 204/214, 214/224, 224/224, 234/244 and 244/254 offerings. The 204/214 outperformed it but not by as much as I would have expected it to. The biggest cam they tested ended up over 400 hp.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
the 300 hp 327 and 350 used the same camshaft
And made MAYBE 200-225 actual measured HP as measured by the modern measuring method, as opposed to blatant ad copy puffery and insurance avoidance obfuscation.
You're right, starting in about 68 in CA engines and 71 or so in 49-state ones, they used a crank sprocket with the keyway cut 4° different to retard ALL cams that were used after that, with the possible exception of the solids in the 302 etc. Not sure about exports. Which is why replacing the timing set makes those engines run different: the aftermarket sets are cut on the old standard and therefore advance the cam 4° from the factory angle.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Originally Posted by sofakingdom
And made MAYBE 200-225 actual measured HP as measured by the modern measuring method, as opposed to blatant ad copy puffery and insurance avoidance obfuscation.
You're right, starting in about 68 in CA engines and 71 or so in 49-state ones, they used a crank sprocket with the keyway cut 4° different to retard ALL cams that were used after that, with the possible exception of the solids in the 302 etc. Not sure about exports. Which is why replacing the timing set makes those engines run different: the aftermarket sets are cut on the old standard and therefore advance the cam 4° from the factory angle.
GM had a few years they stated both the Gross and Net HP of the same engines in truck applications. The 9:1 255 hp high torque 350 as they called it was 200 net hp.
Gross HP 255 @ 4,600
Net HP 200 @ 4,000 rpm without A.I.R
Net HP 195 @ 4,000 rpm with A.I.R.
Gross TQ 355 @ 3,000
Net TQ 310 @ 2,400 without A.I.R
Net TQ 305 @ 2,400 with A.I.R.
Given the accessory loads placed on an engine would be similar and the weather correction change is minimal in power difference the 300 hp/380 tq 350 would be 245 hp and 335 tq or in line with a stock L31 350 in a truck or van.
If nothing else I now know how much power the pair of A.I.R. pumps sucked off my 305 back in the day and explains why it ran noticeably stronger when that complete nightmare of junk was removed.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Originally Posted by Fast355
Gross HP 255 @ 4,600
Net HP 200 @ 4,000 rpm without A.I.R
Net HP 195 @ 4,000 rpm with A.I.R.
Interesting, and revealing data. To me, this is NUTS! and exemplifies the term "malaise" for that era. One can rationalize low hp/perf b/c OEM's were venturing into uncharted territory w/emissions regs...it's understandable that they thought low compression, minimal cam, and tiny heads/valves/intakes were the only path to emissions compliance.
But ^here^, you got a 55 hp - 65hp....and 600 RPM loss(!) from accessories and ancillaries that have nothing to do with emissions!! The 600 RPM tells that story; water pump/alt/smog would consume power but not reduce the power range,(as seen in the AIR pump w/and w/o) so what did? Exhaust and air filter housing. All things that are cheap, easy to design well (especially in a truck), and the cost diff between say, a shitty exhaust manifold and a decent one is pretty negligible once in production. The engineers had to have seen what is clearly visible above and known that a decent, stamped tin air filter housing would cost about the same as a crappy, too-small air filter housing...buuuut...the went ahead and choked engines anyway, for no good reason. Malaise. Unfortunate that it got to that point.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
But ^here^, you got a 55 hp - 65hp....and 600 RPM loss(!) from accessories and ancillaries that have nothing to do with emissions!!
No. You're overthinking it.
The loss disappeared during the transition from negotiations in smoke-filled corporate conference rooms between the marketing (wants the largest CYAable # possible, for ad copy and puffery) and insurance coverage (wants the smallest CYAable # possible, to minimize premiums) departments, to something less dimly resembling actual as-installed REALITY. Usually - butt by no means always - the marketing bozos won, and we got YYYYYYUUUUUUUUUJJJJJJJJJE numbers that couldn't ever be backed up by anything RW.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to overstate how WARPED published HP claims from the 60s actually were. Nowadays though, since Algore invented the Interwebz, we all know that you can't post anything on the Internet unless it's true. That should help weed out dishonesty and lies, for sure.
Last edited by sofakingdom; Jan 12, 2025 at 03:56 PM.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Originally Posted by Tom 400 CFI
Interesting, and revealing data. To me, this is NUTS! and exemplifies the term "malaise" for that era. One can rationalize low hp/perf b/c OEM's were venturing into uncharted territory w/emissions regs...it's understandable that they thought low compression, minimal cam, and tiny heads/valves/intakes were the only path to emissions compliance.
But ^here^, you got a 55 hp - 65hp....and 600 RPM loss(!) from accessories and ancillaries that have nothing to do with emissions!! The 600 RPM tells that story; water pump/alt/smog would consume power but not reduce the power range,(as seen in the AIR pump w/and w/o) so what did? Exhaust and air filter housing. All things that are cheap, easy to design well (especially in a truck), and the cost diff between say, a shitty exhaust manifold and a decent one is pretty negligible once in production. The engineers had to have seen what is clearly visible above and known that a decent, stamped tin air filter housing would cost about the same as a crappy, too-small air filter housing...buuuut...the went ahead and choked engines anyway, for no good reason. Malaise. Unfortunate that it got to that point.
For one you are comparing power production in different air conditions, then you are adding air intake, exhaust, and accessory loads. Last I checked a mechanical water pump and fan draw more HP the faster they spin. Thus peak power very well could change in RPM from the cooling system load alone.
If anything in the 60s manufacturers were understating the horsepower they were advertising or atleast rating them at a lower rpm than peak power was achieved. A DZ302 was a 340-360 hp engine that was rated at 290 hp @ 5,800. Probably did make 290 hp @ 5,800, now rev it to 7,000 rpm.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Yup, the 302 was one of those where the marketing types LOST the argument. Why, I don't know. Might have been sandbagging for the SCCA's benefit.
Interesting that in 70½, the "Z/28" "LT-1" was "rated" at 375 HP, with the identical same cam, heads, exhaust, intake, carburetor, etc. etc. etc. BY PART NUMBER. Only difference was about 48 CID. In theory, the CID should have taken the 290 HP 302 up to a 345 (or so) HP 350. Or conversely, the 302 should have been "rated" closer to 330 or thereabouts. So you tell me, WHICH ONE was in Fantasy Land? The 302, the 350, or maybe BOTH?
Abuncha Pontiac motors suffered the same fate: for a long time, GM had a rule of no more than .1 HP per lb. So lots of the GTO motors made RIDICULOUSLY more power than their "ratings". Pretty sure 4-4-2s were the same way, being very comparable motors in essentially identical chassis. I KNOW FOR SURE the 427 Chevelles were "under-rated".
For those few years when GM published both "gross" and "net" ratings, THE SAME problems still apply. Neither was based on any kind of MEASURING anything. They were then, and remain to this day, mere fantasy figures, phantasms pulled from thin air by non-car-people corporate bureaucrats (one of my favorite words in the entire English language: a portmanteau composed of a French word and a Greek one, meaning essentially "rule by desk") serving purposes beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. aka GARBAGE.
In any case, none of that invalidates how SO MANY of the others were rated FAR above anything they were even remotely capable of, in ANY "accessory" trim, including 327s & 350s with the 929 cam in them. Blaming the entire drop in HP "ratings" on emissions is not in any way an accurate reflection on the physical PARTS. All of those "ratings" from before the mid-70s are COMPLETE HORSE PLOP, and ZERO real-world meaning can be ascribed to ANY of them. Yes, even in vans.
Last edited by sofakingdom; Jan 12, 2025 at 09:28 PM.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Oh god...here we go.... Someone wants to argue for the sake of arguing, tonight? Even argue their own points!
Originally Posted by Fast355
For one you are comparing power production in different air conditions,
Right? Buuuuut, did someone say......
Originally Posted by Fast355
Given.....the weather correction change is minimal in power difference...
Originally Posted by Fast355
then you are adding air intake, exhaust, and accessory loads.
Right? THAT is what accounts for (some of) the loss in hp....obviously.
Originally Posted by Fast355
Last I checked a mechanical water pump and fan draw more HP the faster they spin.
Of course...ALL accessories do. Even this one...
Originally Posted by Fast355
Gross HP 255 @ 4,600
Net HP 200 @ 4,000 rpm without A.I.R Net HP 195 @ 4,000 rpm with A.I.R.
If nothing else I now know how much power the pair of A.I.R. pumps sucked off my 305 back in the day and explains why it ran noticeably stronger when that complete nightmare of junk was removed.
"Noticably stronger"? Another one of you wicked pissa objective measures! So...5 hp better? That's..."Big time".
Anyway, "Last time I checked a mechanical smog pump draw more HP the faster they spin"....buuuuut look at the peak hp RPM in the data that YOU posted, smog pump and none! Not 1 RPM diff in peak power. WHA....? HOW????....
Originally Posted by Fast355
Thus peak power very well could change in RPM from the cooling system load alone.
Sure it could, budddy! Sure it could. 600 RPM??? No.
Originally Posted by Fast355
If anything in the 60s manufacturers were understating the horsepower they were advertising or atleast rating them at a lower rpm than peak power was achieved.
For the most part, no they weren't. You might be able to cherry pick ~3 examples from each OEM, but in general, no....they were most definitely NOT under rated. We can easily see this in the trap speeds of the day, in the period mag road tests.
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; Jan 12, 2025 at 09:14 PM.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Originally Posted by Tom 400 CFI
Oh god...here we go.... Someone wants to argue for the sake of arguing, tonight? Even argue their own points!
Right? Buuuuut, did someone say......
Right? THAT is what accounts for (some of) the loss in hp....obviously.
Of course...ALL accessories do. Even this one...
"Noticably stronger"? Another one of you wicked pissa objective measures! So...5 hp better? That's..."Big time".
Anyway, "Last time I checked a mechanical smog pump draw more HP the faster they spin"....buuuuut look at the peak hp RPM in the data that YOU posted, smog pump and none! Not 1 RPM diff in peak power. WHA....? HOW????....
Sure it could, budddy! Sure it could. 600 RPM??? No.
For the most part, no they weren't. You might be able to cherry pick ~3 examples from each OEM, but in general, no....they were most definitely NOT under rated. We can easily see this in the trap speeds of the day, in the period mag road tests.
I did not change or argue points. The only jack @$$ wanting to argue and not read is you!
I stated the weather correction factor did make a difference but a minor one. It is not nearly as much of the equation as measuring the engines power as installed in the vehicle. Richard Holdener has even done dyno testing on a 5.3L to figure out the amount of power each part of the system loses seperately.
Not sure why you claim it is 5HP. It was a 10 HP difference on my 305 since it had DUAL smog pumps, then again you are not one for reading well. The engine only had 165 hp to start with, 10 hp was an increase that was noticeable.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Originally Posted by sofakingdom
Yup, the 302 was one of those where the marketing types LOST the argument. Why, I don't know. Might have been sandbagging for the SCCA's benefit.
Interesting that in 70½, the "Z/28" "LT-1" was "rated" at 375 HP, with the identical same cam, heads, exhaust, intake, carburetor, etc. etc. etc. BY PART NUMBER. Only difference was about 48 CID. In theory, the CID should have taken the 290 HP 302 up to a 345 (or so) HP 350. Or conversely, the 302 should have been "rated" closer to 330 or thereabouts. So you tell me, WHICH ONE was in Fantasy Land? The 302, the 350, or maybe BOTH?
Abuncha Pontiac motors suffered the same fate: for a long time, GM had a rule of no more than .1 HP per lb. So lots of the GTO motors made RIDICULOUSLY more power than their "ratings". Pretty sure 4-4-2s were the same way, being very comparable motors in essentially identical chassis. I KNOW FOR SURE the 427 Chevelles were "under-rated".
For those few years when GM published both "gross" and "net" ratings, THE SAME problems still apply. Neither was based on any kind of MEASURING anything. They were then, and remain to this day, mere fantasy figures, phantasms pulled from thin air by non-car-people corporate bureaucrats (one of my favorite words in the entire English language: a portmanteau composed of a French word and a Greek one, meaning essentially "rule by desk") serving purposes beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. aka GARBAGE.
In any case, none of that invalidates how SO MANY of the others were rated FAR above anything they were even remotely capable of, in ANY "accessory" trim, including 327s & 350s with the 929 cam in them. Blaming the entire drop in HP "ratings" on emissions is not in any way an accurate reflection on the physical PARTS. All of those "ratings" from before the mid-70s are COMPLETE HORSE PLOP, and ZERO real-world meaning can be ascribed to ANY of them. Yes, even in vans.
Neither engine is in fantasy land. There was an article where all 3 of those 11:1 solid lifter small blocks were duplicated as closely to stock as possible. All 3 of them made almost identical peak HP numbers a vastly different RPMs. Similarly if you take a 4.8L and a 5.3L that share the same block, cam, heads, intake, etc and run both on the engine dyno, the power curves of the engines will actually crossover each other at higher rpm. The 5.3L starts out making more torque, then the 4.8L blows past the 5.3L on the top-end.
Does not take a rocket scientist to realize that the 375 HP 396 in the Chevelle and the 425 hp 396 in the Corvette were the exact same engine. I do not believe for a moment that the Corvettes factory exhaust system was that much better.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
D00d, GIVE IT A REST. Those old "ratings" are GARBAGE and FANTASY. The ENGINES are NOT, butt the "ratings" ARE. They're AD COPY. "Puffery", to apply the term the law uses (and allows advertisers to get away with, to a point). They have no basis in REALITY. They are DETACHED from ANY AND EVERY connection to ANYTHING that exists in THE REAL WORLD.
the 375 HP 396 in the Chevelle and the 425 hp 396 in the Corvette were the exact same engine
NO SH**!!!!! My point EXACTLY. Both numbers are just MADE UP, from out of some "prophet's" "revealed truth" I guess. I'm so glad you FINALLY get the point and agree, even though you're not BRIGHT ENOUGH to admit that you've been WRONG all along about all the rest of that STUUUUUUUPID CRAP.
The "ratings" from back in the day are pure unadulterated unvarnished unalloyed unmitigated BULL DOODOO. The factories just MADE UP numbers that they thought at the moment would best serve their ever-shifting purposes at the moment. Cannot be believed in any manner way shape form or fashion any more than economic or public health data supplied by the Chinese, North Korean, or Russian govts can. They are MEANINGLESS except as a means of selling more cars or dodging higher insurance premiums. Their master IS NOT reality, it's SOMETHING ELSE. Period. Paragraph. End. Done.
Even the ones in vans.
Please quit posting this CRAP, it just makes you look like an IDIOT, even if you are in a van.
Last edited by sofakingdom; Jan 13, 2025 at 02:28 PM.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
the 4.8L blows past the 5.3L on the top-end
The 4.8 is a GUTLESS TURD. It doesn't "blow past" ANYTHING except some 6-cylinders.
Sorry, some of us actually DRIVE those vehicles. Not only "special" vans, butt even some REAL WORLD ones, that actually exist in The Real World as opposed to your FANTASY LAND .
I stated the weather correction factor did make a difference but a minor one.
Ayuh. THEN, in response to my post, you said:
Originally Posted by Fast355
For one you are comparing power production in different air conditions
Can you SEE what you did there....with your eyeballs? Yikes.
Originally Posted by Fast355
Richard Holdener has even done dyno testing on a 5.3L to figure out the amount of power each part of the system loses seperately.
So what? And? What's that got to do with the price of bread?? *I* was talking about induction/filter housings and exhausts.
Originally Posted by Fast355
Not sure why you claim it is 5HP. It was a 10 HP difference on my 305 since it had DUAL smog pumps, then again you are not one for reading well. The engine only had 165 hp to start with, 10 hp was an increase that was noticeable.\
Speaking of reading comprehension, this is SUPER simple: I "claim it is 5 hp"...because (get ready)...the data that YOU posted, showed a 5 hp diff w/the smog pump. I go with that data, vs. "Van-land"/pole-vaulting 'data'", any day of the week. :thumbs:
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
This stuff is AWESOME!....
Originally Posted by Tom 400 CFI
water pump/alt/smog would consume power but not reduce the power range,(as seen in the AIR pump w/and w/o) so what did? Exhaust and air filter housing.
Originally Posted by Fast355
Last I checked a mechanical water pump and fan draw more HP the faster they spin. Thus peak power very well could change in RPM from the cooling system load alone.
Originally Posted by Fast355
It is not nearly as much of the equation as measuring the engines power as installed in the vehicle. Richard Holdener has even done dyno testing on a 5.3L to figure out the amount of power each part of the system loses seperately.\
Interesting that you brought up Holdner's video(s). Ya didn't make any point....ya just said, that "has even done dyno testing on a 5.3L to figure out the amount of power each part of the system loses seperately."...whatever that was intended to "prove". But? YES HE DID!
Show me how the accessory removal changed the RPM range? By ~600 RPM. Would you, please?
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; Jan 13, 2025 at 02:52 PM.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
You can quote dyno graphs and other such as much as you want, and argue over how many hundredths of a HP a smog pump costs. Doesn't change the BASIC FUNDAMENTAL FACT that NONE of the output figures that were/are advertised (NOT "measured", ADVERTISED by the factories) for the old muscle cars of the 60s and early 70s, before the FTC stepped in and began requiring that such claims contain at least a GRAIN of truth somewhere, are more than vaguely dimly related to ACTUAL output. They were mostly a "shiny" designed to dazzle prospective buyers with blinding and eye-popping glory so that they'd come off the hip for the MOST PROFITABLE POSSIBLE new-vehicle configurations. When they weren't THAT, they were mostly a smokescreen intended to disguise the ACTUAL output from insurance carriers, so that they wouldn't charge higher liability premiums. They were just MADE UP ON THE SPOT exactly like 79.28% of all statistics quoted in arguments are, and as such, CANNOT be used to validate or even EXCUSE POSs like the 929 cam. Sorry, not sorry.
I always wanted to create a business software package and call it something like Millenium Year Application Sofware System (MYASS). That way, minions could invent numbers for sales projections or cost savings or other warm fuzzy pipe dreams, kinda like factory horsepower ratings, and present them to the cigar-smoking Big Boss, who could then ask questions like "where did these numbers come from?" and the henchman could answer, "oh, I pulled them out of MYASS just now". I would definitely include a subroutine in that program so that it could be used to generate old muscle-car HP "ratings" too.
Last edited by sofakingdom; Jan 13, 2025 at 02:47 PM.
Can you SEE what you did there....with your eyeballs? Yikes.
So what? And? What's that got to do with the price of bread?? *I* was talking about induction/filter housings and exhausts.
Speaking of reading comprehension, this is SUPER simple: I "claim it is 5 hp"...because (get ready)...the data that YOU posted, showed a 5 hp diff w/the smog pump. I go with that data, vs. "Van-land"/pole-vaulting 'data'", any day of the week. :thumbs:
So what you reported a post.
Once again you know the intent of what I was saying. Its not like the weather condition is the whole difference in power. Never what I meant or even implied.
That is exactly what Holdener tested. Stock exhaust manifolds, stock type exhaust, stock air box and accessories compared to open long tubes with collector extensions, open throttle body, electric water pump, etc.
The data I posted was 5 hp for a single smog pump. As I said in the very first post I removed dual smog pumps. That is how I get to 10 hp. There were 2 of those same pumps on my 305 as built by GM. Not my mistake you cannot read plainly typed english.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Here is one Holdener did as a chassis vs engine dyno on a LS2. As installed in the vehicle with a full exhaust, air intake, accessories it absolutely did shift the power curve substantially lower than the engine dyno and it shows up even more with the engine attached to the rest of the powertrain.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
The factory GM parts diagram for the dual smog pump setup my 305 had. Total nightmare to work around with 100 lbs of crap in a 10 lb bag. Changing spark plugs was a nightmare and required pulling about half the crap on top of the engine.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
No one cares about vans....Fast. No one. Not even parts schematics....of vans.
I see a 200 RPM shift there. Where's the 600 RPM like in the data that YOU posted? :bigears: And engine to chassis comparo?? YIKES. Here's another RH...same Dyno....show me the change in the RPM range...
Hey, YOU brought RH intonthie convo!
As you were my man. IDK why you even felt compelled to start arguing against my original point....and your own previous points. Back to van-land you go.
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; Jan 13, 2025 at 03:10 PM.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Originally Posted by Tom 400 CFI
No one cares about vans....Fast. No one. Not even parts schematics....of vans.
I see a 200 RPM shift there. Where's the 600 RPM like in the data that YOU posted? :bigears: And engine to chassis comparo?? YIKES. Here's another RH...same Dyno....show me the change in the RPM range...
Hey, YOU brought RH intonthie convo!
As you were my man. IDK why you even felt compelled to start arguing against my original point....and your own previous points. Back to van-land you go.
No fixed blade fan and no stock exhaust or mufflers used in that testing as in the engine data I posted.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
Here was a LT1 test that the peak power rpm shifted higher in rpm substabtially just freeing up the intake side of the engine. The peak HP RPM of the last L31 I built shifted up about 400 rpm just changing from a TBI 350 air cleaner assembly to a 454 air cleaner using the matching intake duct for each air cleaner. The stock 350 air cleaner was building 2.5 in/hg vacuum at 5,600 rpm, the larger 454 air cleaner does not even build 1 in/hg.
Re: Best cam for mostly stock '84 Z28 camaro with L69 heads?
You should definitely keep posting.... I think thank you and your van collection are close to proving my original observation wrong, so keep at it, don't give up!
The 302, the 350, or maybe BOTH?
Someone wants to argue for the sake of arguing, tonight? Even argue their own points!
