[RocktimusPryme]

Is it fair to say that Cliff's method is more likely to be closer to universally effective, while the tight LSA method can be effective if other criteria is met?

For example, some people like this intake or that, this single plane with a 2" spacer did the best. But most of the time you can throw an RPM on a street motor and feel pretty good about your choice.

Point being that one answer is more of a one size fits most than the other?

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by RocktimusPryme

Is it fair to say that Cliff's method is more likely to be closer to universally effective, while the tight LSA method can be effective if other criteria is met?

For example, some people like this intake or that, this single plane with a 2" spacer did the best. But most of the time you can throw an RPM on a street motor and feel pretty good about your choice.

Point being that one answer is more of a one size fits most than the other?

No. I know builders that like tight lsa and their engines run low 11/10's all day long. It's how you design the engine determines what it'll like. Cliff has done very well with his build and his cams, others have done just as well with different cam in their builds.
Im not engine build but ever iron headed engines that i've built (4 total) have all been tight ls engines on pump gas and ran as good or better than Cliff's. Maybe i got lucky?? Or maybe there is more than one way to build these things and still work.
Just to be clear Cliff does a great job and i not saying don't listen to him just saying don't poo poo others that go about it different.

[RocktimusPryme]

Originally Posted by slowbird

No. I know builders that like tight lsa and their engines run low 11/10's all day long. It's how you design the engine determines what it'll like. Cliff has done very well with his build and his cams, others have done just as well with different cam in their builds.
Im not engine build but ever iron headed engines that i've built (4 total) have all been tight ls engines on pump gas and ran as good or better than Cliff's. Maybe i got lucky?? Or maybe there is more than one way to build these things and still work.
Just to be clear Cliff does a great job and i not saying don't listen to him just saying don't poo poo others that go about it different.

Im not debating that. What I meant was, it seems based on Cliffs arguments that you can go very wrong with the tight LSA. Pinging everywhere and whatnot.

Is it just as easy to make a wide LSA cam be a total disaster? Or would it at least function tolerably in a greater variety of scenarios.

Obviously when I or most people on this board plan a motor you plan for everything to work in concert. Its the right way to do it. But we all know that not everyone does that. Is it easier to stay in the "OK" zone with the wider lobe separation?

FWIW if I recall my cam is only 110*.

[Jay S]

Over lunch for kicks I looked at drgncars old pump gas 455 ho combo and threw together a couple cams for the high ports with 11:1 scr based on the old engine with the 9.3 scr HO heads and the UD cam. Here are what I came up with written on few post it notes. But we all know the best ideas are written on bar napkins and post it notes right.

more friendly version in UD profiles, looks like they all need bigger rockers than 1.5.

300/306. 266/273 @0.050 .434/.454 tappet 112 lsa 110icl degree in a 108

Trailered version, about the same power band as the first cam. 4500-7500 best guess over dinner looking at numbers like v/p index , head cfm for cid , e/I ratio , numbers are based of the old combo, which appeared to run very well.

311/321. 278/285 .4544/.4563. 108 lsa, 106 Icl, 104 installed

HP heads might need more exh duration, just a guess there.. I don’t have enough info on the crower to make a guess, looks like a cam well designed for the ho heads though.

[ponyakr]

Yeah, opinions differ.

Comp Cams must think a 110° LSA is best for most all Pontiac HFT apps, since that's what most of their shelf cams have.

Crower has lots of 112° LSA shelf cams.

Only way I can see how to tell which LSA would be best, for a particular cam & app, would be to test the same cam, with only LSA changes. With the price of cams/lifters, dyno time, and labor prices, there will likely never be any of this type testing.

Guys will just continue to post how great their cam runs, with whatever LSA it happens to have. We'll never know how much difference a different LSA would have made, in their engine/car.

And the cam debates will continue.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by ponyakr

We'll never know how much difference a different LSA would have made, in their engine/car.

Paul K, Ken Keefer and Len Caverly have all track or dyno tested identical cams with only LSA changing. David Vizard has done an insane amount of testing.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by pastry_chef

Do you have full flow for intake and exhaust?

Will the intake be matched in flow?

My first guess is 104 would be too tight.

The heads were just pocket ported. Port opening are almost stock.
The intake is a Norhtwind. Its one of SDs CNC ported intakes for its 350 E heads. I sold the 4500 Victor I had up there(got a good deal Paul) And wish I still had it.
The NW is about .100 + larger than the port openings on the heads. I can do the epoxy this but it will be a pain.
I called Jeff at KRE and asked him about the mismatch. He has done tone of dyno testing and gave me one of his examples. Basic bracket 455, 330cfm E heads. 700ish HP engine. It was dyno-ed with a out of the box Victor. He port matched it and only got 8 HP.
I bracket race and I doubt it is worth the trouble. Even with the Crower cam its all going to make good power. Low 10s at least.

I like to play with engines and I might just start out with the Crower and try a custom cam if I want to go faster. If I get a good deal on a stock Victor or NW try that.
Cam cards.
BTW, this engine
Also this engine will have 1.6 Norris SS rockers and stud girdle. Dan measured the Norris rockers ans the actual ratio is 1.65
I have some 1.5 RR but they are Angus/Butler so I would not use them on a engine like this.
The engine will have a 100% Megga brace but I do not want to run a cam that will seriously put the block at risk.

[Steve C.]

"Comp Cams must think a 110° LSA is best for most all Pontiac HFT apps, since that's what most of their shelf cams have."


Call Comp Cams order desk and you will find they probably have no cams in their inventory sitting on a shelf that are ground on a journal diameter for a Pontiac application, at least not for a hyd or solid roller. Maybe even a HFT cam. It is my understanding all hyd and solid roller cams for a Pontiac application are ground as they are ordered. And the obvious you can get them with any lobe separation desired.


.

[Skip Fix]

Most cam companies use 110 LS as their shelf grind.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by slowbird

What happened to Gach's cam? Personally i don't like either of the 2 you listed for the HP headed engine. But that's me

Its not as big as I thought. .441 lobe and a .460 lobe. 274-280 108
That gets me .759 on one side with my 1.65 rockers.
But, is it too much for a stock block. Would a good set of 1.5 rockers help.
It is a custom pump gas cam, new.

[77 TRASHCAN]

Kinda like house salad dressing. Use it on any salad, cereal, or donuts...

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

The heads were just pocket ported. Port opening are almost stock.
The intake is a Norhtwind. Its one of SDs CNC ported intakes for its 350 E heads.

2.2 and 1.7 valves?
I/E numbers at .500, .600, .700 ?

[Steve C.]

"Most cam companies use 110 LS as their shelf grind."

In a old UltraDyne catalog I have on hand every hyd flat tappet cam listed within the Pontiac section with more than 223/231 degrees at .050 was listed with a 110 lobe separation.


.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by RocktimusPryme

Is it fair to say that Cliff's method is more likely to be closer to universally effective, while the tight LSA method can be effective if other criteria is met?

For example, some people like this intake or that, this single plane with a 2" spacer did the best. But most of the time you can throw an RPM on a street motor and feel pretty good about your choice.

Point being that one answer is more of a one size fits most than the other?

I think I understand what your asking and probably yes. I'm not sure I'd call it "Cliff's" method. Cam companies started grinding cams on a wide LSA more than half a decade ago. It was done to help save their customers that routinely picked out too large of a cam. Most cam companies offer their "street" shelf cams ground on a wider LSA and then in their "specialty" section you'll find a list of cams ground on tighter LSA's.

[RocktimusPryme]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

I think I understand what your asking and probably yes. I'm not sure I'd call it "Cliff's" method. Cam companies started grinding cams on a wide LSA more than half a decade ago. It was done to help save their customers that routinely picked out too large of a cam. Most cam companies offer their "street" shelf cams ground on a wider LSA and then in their "specialty" section you'll find a list of cams ground on tighter LSA's.

That makes sense. Save people from themselves and prevent negative feedback. Most people aren’t going to actually dyno their motor, so if it runs solid, and feels good on the seat of the pants dyno they are going to be happy.

A younger version of myself made the same type of cam choices, so I can sympathize. And I was attributing the method to cliff just for the purposes of this thread, where he was clearly championing one side of the debate.

[ponyakr]

"Comp Cams must think a 110° LSA is best for most all Pontiac HFT apps, since that's what most of their shelf cams have."...

Call Comp Cams order desk and you will find they probably have no cams in their inventory sitting on a shelf that are ground on a journal diameter for a Pontiac application...Maybe even a HFT cam..."

I don't know what cams CC has on their shelves. But Summit has 7 different CC HFT Pontiac cams, with a 110° LSA, on their shelves, ready to ship.

"Most cam companies use 110 LS as their shelf grind..."

That MAY be true. I'd say Crower is an exception. I count about a dozen HFT cams with a 112° LSA. I don't know how many of these are actually on the shelf, in a Crower Cams building. And, some may not even still be made.

http://ronspontiacpage.com/reference-pages/crower.htm

Summit only has 2 different numbers on the shelf. That's probably because they are so much higher than most other popular brands.

https://www.summitracing.com/search/...rder=Ascending

The Summit 2800, 2801 & 2802 are all 112° or higher.

Don't know how many vendors actually have any on their shelves, but the Voodoo 700, 701, & 702, as well as the Lunati 10510312 all have a 112° LSA.

Summit has only the 702 on the shelf, at this time.

Don't think many buy Crane nowadays. But they use to have lots of HFT Pontiac cams with a 112° or more LSA.

http://ronspontiacpage.com/reference-pages/crane.htm

Anyhow, do MOST cam companies use a 110° LSA for their milder HFT Pontiac shelf grinds ?

I don't know. In fact, I may know less than anybody else posting on this thread.

Oh well, who cares. I'm just an old has been, that never was much.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by RocktimusPryme

Im not debating that. What I meant was, it seems based on Cliffs arguments that you can go very wrong with the tight LSA. Pinging everywhere and whatnot.

I really think the pinging everywhere is a little exaggerated, at least I hope it is. It's kinda like the parts being thrown down the hill behind the shop.

Originally Posted by RocktimusPryme

Is it just as easy to make a wide LSA cam be a total disaster? Or would it at least function tolerably in a greater variety of scenarios

Yes definitely, here's an example; Crane made a HFT shelf cam approximately 244/254 .500 lift 116 LSA this cam is going to be a poor choice for just about any naturally aspirated application but makes a good choice for a mild supercharged application. They offer it in their "speciality" section on a 108 LSA and the cam will fly if set up properly. These lobes are similar to the H-O Racing Specialties HC-03 cam and also one of Nunzi's high-lift Ram Air grinds but they had them ground between the 108 and 116 LSA.... I think H-O was 113.5 and the Nunzi cam was 110 going from memory.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

It was done to help save their customers that routinely picked out too large of a cam.

Agree, I've seen this exact comment from many others.

Here is another generalization -

if you are wanting the most performance for your engine, you will be better off with tighter centers than wider centers- I am not talking about street drivers, but street racers or drag racers. MANY people get mixed up between street and race- they are NOT the same

JOE SHERMAN RACING ENGINES

More specific

Here is the way I see it-- The better the head, the more it will like wide centers. the WEAKER the head, the more it will want tighter centers-- It works this way on every engine I have ever seen

JOE SHERMAN RACING ENGINES

Vizard agrees with this theory.

1.5 horsepower / cube not very serious? This is 675 HP from 450 cubes.

I do not want to get anybody confused-- Lets go this way- up to around 1.50 HP per cubic inch is not very serious, I call street racer ( what ever ) as you get closer to 2.00 HP per cube, I start calling this a serious race piece--The more HP per cubic inch, the engine will want or like the spread centers( It will also have very high compression, and so forth )Maybe I should put it this way, on pump gas, I go for the tighter centers all the way- Even when I run a 114 center cam, it does not have as much mid range as the closer centers, but it will have more top end horsepower- I hope this helps explain my thinking

JOE SHERMAN RACING ENGINES

I designed ALL the VooDoo cams, hydraulic, solid, hydraulic roller, and solid roller. I just did 5 more for the LS1, sent in Sunday.
I was not asked to take part in any testing done by Dave Vizard, and I do not yet have a copy of the article.
However, if those are single-pattern cams on a 106 LSA, they would have tremendous mid-range power, and probably fall flat at a little over 6500.
If that was what he was looking for, those cams would deliver it.
I run 107, 108, and 109 when I want good mid-range, and some top-end too.

UDHarold

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

I think I understand what your asking and probably yes. I'm not sure I'd call it "Cliff's" method. Cam companies started grinding cams on a wide LSA more than half a decade ago.

Half a decade? So what did they do before 5yrs ago?

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by pastry_chef

I designed ALL the VooDoo cams, hydraulic, solid, hydraulic roller, and solid roller. I just did 5 more for the LS1, sent in Sunday.
I was not asked to take part in any testing done by Dave Vizard, and I do not yet have a copy of the article.
However, if those are single-pattern cams on a 106 LSA, they would have tremendous mid-range power, and probably fall flat at a little over 6500.
If that was what he was looking for, those cams would deliver it.
I run 107, 108, and 109 when I want good mid-range, and some top-end too.

UDHarold

What should be mentioned with Harold and this quote, is his lobe designs. They were nothing like the other cam manufactures, and his 110 LSA's that you commonly see now in the voodoo lineup don't really act like tight LSA cams, and they carry the power out pretty far compared to other 110 LSA cams.
It's been mentioned here quite a bit in the past.