This question might have already been asked somewhere, but need your D series expertise on this....
I know I keep referring to the 5.0 on most of my posts and am sorry if that bores people, but it is what I have to compare my knowledge against these motors - as I do know they are different animals....
Question and comment is this ?
For the speed density car mustangs/capris (86-88) - we use to choose a cam that had a mild LSA (114) and a smaller duration with higher lift and/or use the old trick of replacing the 1.6 rockers with 1.7 rockers which gave us appox .030 more lift.This is turn gave the car less drivability and idle problems. Now I know what you all are probably thinking. We didn't have tuners for our speed density cars back then. Yes - that is correct, but we did find we did make pretty decent choices in doing this. We kept our low/mid range torque up while also extending upper rpm hp. Of course if any of you have ever been behind a pretty stout 5.0 - you know torque is not necessarily a major problem....;-) Since I have a feeling my rocker arm 'trick' is out of the question with my Z6 motor, I was looking at the crower turbo cam.
The turbo cams profile is as follows: Which it gave the LSA on these cams vs the stock as this IS an important factor in idling, etc, but OH WELL).
Advertised Duration Duration @ .050" Gross Lift w/ 1.6 int /1.8 ext
312 / 318 234 / 217 430 / 427
while the NA stage 2 cam is as follows:
319 / 310 235 / 223 432 / 436
Doesn't seem like a huge difference here. I don't pay much attention to advertised duration as much as the starting point of .050 duration is what matters to me and they seem pretty close. Seems to maybe favor the exhaust side a LITTLE more probably because the thought of the turbo. Lift also seems to favor the exhaust side also because of the same reason.
Was thinking this cam might actually perform better than the NA cam. Any one actually try this or have any dynos on this cam vs the other....?
Any comments are appreciated....
Jason
I know I keep referring to the 5.0 on most of my posts and am sorry if that bores people, but it is what I have to compare my knowledge against these motors - as I do know they are different animals....
Question and comment is this ?
For the speed density car mustangs/capris (86-88) - we use to choose a cam that had a mild LSA (114) and a smaller duration with higher lift and/or use the old trick of replacing the 1.6 rockers with 1.7 rockers which gave us appox .030 more lift.This is turn gave the car less drivability and idle problems. Now I know what you all are probably thinking. We didn't have tuners for our speed density cars back then. Yes - that is correct, but we did find we did make pretty decent choices in doing this. We kept our low/mid range torque up while also extending upper rpm hp. Of course if any of you have ever been behind a pretty stout 5.0 - you know torque is not necessarily a major problem....;-) Since I have a feeling my rocker arm 'trick' is out of the question with my Z6 motor, I was looking at the crower turbo cam.
The turbo cams profile is as follows: Which it gave the LSA on these cams vs the stock as this IS an important factor in idling, etc, but OH WELL).
Advertised Duration Duration @ .050" Gross Lift w/ 1.6 int /1.8 ext
312 / 318 234 / 217 430 / 427
while the NA stage 2 cam is as follows:
319 / 310 235 / 223 432 / 436
Doesn't seem like a huge difference here. I don't pay much attention to advertised duration as much as the starting point of .050 duration is what matters to me and they seem pretty close. Seems to maybe favor the exhaust side a LITTLE more probably because the thought of the turbo. Lift also seems to favor the exhaust side also because of the same reason.
Was thinking this cam might actually perform better than the NA cam. Any one actually try this or have any dynos on this cam vs the other....?
Any comments are appreciated....
Jason