ULTIMATE CAM Specs/ Info thread for the LS3/ L99!!

[Martin@Tick]

Originally Posted by 1989GTA

Martin, I see some of your camshafts are holding on pretty good at 6500 rpm where they where the dyno pull was stopped. If the valve train and other parts are up to it I wonder what the curve would look like if you took it to 7000 rpm? I was just thinking of the other graph where the dyno operator went to 7000rpm and the power was still holding on.

Yea, I like to see them taken up higher myself. I have learned one thing in this industry and that is that everyone has a different comfort level and ways of doing things.

I know some tuners who will not take a customer's engine over 6500rpm if it is a stock bottom end engine. I'm sure they have their own personal reasons for doing so. Maybe one too many had scattered an engine on their dyno before, dunno.

I personally have revved my own stock bottom end engine to 7400rpm for many track passes. I do tend to push the envelope in my own vehicles though for the most part.

[christianchevell]

TSP top of the line cam, CAI with scoop, and Stainless power 1 7/8 headers with cats, tune and stock NPP exhaust: 491 h.p., 448 torque .639/.623 235/239 112 lsa








On a honest Mustang dyno, h.p. tuned, running rich to protect the engine of course on fairly W.O.T. it climbs until cutoff on h.p. with no data smoothing on the sheet. I think this cam is the bomb, compare it with any other with the same mods.........even if they are using a dynojet...... and of course I am a old hot rodder......go big or stay at home....... lol

[Martin@Tick]

I personally am not a fan of Mustang Dyno's. They are very easily manipulated as the operator has to enter parameters on their own that can highly affect the power numbers.

Where as a Dyno Jet cannot be manipulated in such a way and only through weather corrections can they be manipulated.

JMO.

[christianchevell]

wow well I personally am not a fan of the inflated numbers the inertia dynos give compared to load bearing dynos, especially if you do research and read articles on line about mustang vs dynojet dynos and see how many relate to the dynojets inertia type having inflated numbers that have to have a correction factor for a mustang read out of up to 15% according to some who go from one dyno to another to compare. ANd without a doubt yes the load BEARING dyno can be calibrated better than the dyno jet.

here from one article about measuring rear wheel versus crank h.p. on a dyno jet:

True, rear wheel horsepower is the standard of measuring the power that is actually delivered to the rear wheels. It is honest, true, fair and duplicable. It is the ONLY standard that can be duplicated by the entire industry - regardless of the dyno manufacturer. From my experience and that of many others, when comparing True, rear wheel horsepower to DJHP you must apply a factor. It appears that this is a sliding scale based on horsepower but the best estimate is 1.05 to 1.21 (maybe higher). What this means is that for those of you trying to calculate what your crankshaft horsepower is based on DJHP, and are adding 15%, the most common number I hear, you are actually doubling (at least) the factor. Why? Because DJHP already has a puff number added into their DJHP. Lets say DJHP shows 200 hp and you add 15%, you get 230 hp crankshaft horsepower. In reality DJ has already added in 15 or 20% to their 200 DJHP number. How does this help us.? It does not, and is fact harmful to the many dynamometer test facilities that report only what the dyno actually measured. I can not tell you of the many discussions that we have had as to why the horsepower numbers we recorded lower than that of DJ. For those manufacturers that use DJHP as proof of their claims, can you imagine the shock your customers get when the horsepower number of a vehicle tested on a load bearing dyno do not come close to their claim.

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showt...ower-Good-Read

or how about a ton of other examples from other auto enthusiast clubs that compare the two........... and yes the mustang can be messed with of course to give higher readings, but generally they are usually always lower and more real world and less inflated, and yes over time dyno jets are making theirs more like a mustang actually from what I have read, and dyno jets are more popular because they are cheaper and thus more prevalent. And just because you cannot enter more various factors into a dynojet its better? think again........ its made by what? you ever hear the story of the guy who invented the dyno jet and how its based off the h.p. of one particular engine way back in the day. And even he says well its what I could do and create this math.........

The ultimate cam is one that does exactly what you want it to do based on what you desire.......... and the cams have a lot of variables that require research into what you want...a cam for a blower in the future? a daily driver quality with no noticeable large lope or cam surge? a radical idle and the most performance? or a cross of several things..... here is a article from comp cam who makes most the blanks for everyone who turns one into their " what ever named" cam about just the effects LSA have and timing advance and retarding. http://www.compcams.com/Pages/413/ca...ion-angle.aspx And remember on some cams with tight clearance due to max lift and such for performance you have to worry about piston to valve interference and do not want to mess with timing too much if at all if going with cam that's high lift as our performance cams are very high compared to say flat tappet hydraulic cam and our cams require springs that need to be checked over time, and the cams can be really screwed up if not using the right 30 weight oil with ZDDP in it, I use driven racing oil and used br30 break in oil because I used to always do flat tappet cams a lot in chevy engines and always broke them in as springs need break in too...... I use LS30 now and will remain using it as it is formulated for our engine, as was the cam I chose from a shop specializing in the LS engines. I do not use too little pressure on the springs and sure the heck do not want to use too much as it will eat the cam and lifters and such.
I have a .639 lift on the intake that's higher than the .623 on the exhaust yet the exhaust has a longer duration to allow it to move more out.... things like that matter, and my springs are .675 springs I will spec out about 25k down the road to see how they are living as valve float could be a disaster etc etc with worn out springs as we have.... stock from the factory a engine that has higher lift than anything a old classic muscle car ever had..... And with more real flywheel h.p. than anything they had..... A 454 ss chevelle with the highest ranking h.p. in the day really only put out around 285 rwhp as it was inflated as heck..... imagine it having around 375 rwhp that we have stock in a ls3.... that would have had to make that chevelle rated at 450 h.p. back then have to be.....550...600? who knows.......... So do research is my advice and use a dyno as a tool and use the same one if you ever have to use it to tune for more mods if you can otherwise you way just find the truth about dynos is they can be made to lie and no two will be the same, and if lucky they will be close if they are the same brand and model and the adjustments made right for barometric pressure etc...... I am close to sea level here so it does not matter much some of the adjustments that can be screwed..... And what really matters is a complete package that gets power to the ground if that's what you want, or you may want fuel economy, or a bucking bronco, or a quiet sleeper, or.............. The ultimate cam is what you decide you like the best in advance unless you change it several times and find something you like better, and that's not a cheap proposition. Or easy on the other parts that go into the supporting build.