221 221 558 558 114 cam ?
03-19-2007, 12:59 PM
#1
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (28)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: waynesburg, KY.
Posts: 1,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
221 221 558 558 114 cam ?
221 221 558 558 114 cam, would a 2600 yank be to small for that cam?? in a 5.3 l 4x4 with 373 gears. thanks larry
03-19-2007, 04:03 PM
#3
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Alvin,TX
Posts: 4,123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it'd be a tad small personally. I mean it would run and wouldn't be all that bad, but for optimal performance, I'd say a 3000. I had a 2500 in my CC when I was running the comp 216/220~114 and It was just barely enough, it ran good times, but I knew I was leaving a lot on the table.
If your not worrying about optimal 60' times, then you could probably get by with it.
If your not worrying about optimal 60' times, then you could probably get by with it.
Trending Topics
03-20-2007, 08:58 AM
#8
Originally Posted by L33Z71
I think it'd be a tad small personally. I mean it would run and wouldn't be all that bad, but for optimal performance, I'd say a 3000. I had a 2500 in my CC when I was running the comp 216/220~114 and It was just barely enough, it ran good times, but I knew I was leaving a lot on the table.
If your not worrying about optimal 60' times, then you could probably get by with it.
If your not worrying about optimal 60' times, then you could probably get by with it.
03-20-2007, 09:43 AM
#9
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (28)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: waynesburg, KY.
Posts: 1,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah ive already got the 2600. i wish i would have gotten the 3000, but the 2600 is really perfect for daily driving. and i put on alot of hwy miles. so i guess ill just stick with the 216 220. thanks everyone. larry
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
