this is why cars like honda's have such high rpm's and still produce 100hp per litter of eng cause they have NO torque but they can rev like no tomorrow hense the horsepower.

 

yeah...what he said

 

I read that article too, and I thought that engine was a turd, for a few reasons: 1. Stock 5.3 heads won't flow for **** at .631" of lift. 2. The engine didn't get back ALL the torque it lost until 4200rpm. 3. They lost 57ft-lbs at 2200, 50ft-lbs at 2400 and 31ft-lbs at 2600. 4. This engine will just suck in a heavy SSR. 5. Did I mention it lost a **** ton of torque?!?

Hey, I'm all for given up a little torque to get a lot of top end, but come on. They keep using the term "truck" throughout the article. Well if that's what they're putting this in, then have fun. Maybe porting the snot out of those heads will make them flow better, but damn.

They didn't even mention how many inches of vacuum the GT-1 cam pulled. You can kiss your power brakes goodbye. I would just love to hear that damn thing trying to idle with 242* duration.

I usually love Car Craft articles. I've only had beef with a few in the past, but this one really pissed me off. CC preaches that it's not all about peak hp and tq fiqures, its area under the curve. If anyone from CC is reading this: practice what you preach! It's called Car Craft, so maybe they should stick to cars. So if your reading this CC, and you want help, let me know, I'll be graduating in May.

 

[QUOTE=vanillagorilla]

They didn't even mention how many inches of vacuum the GT-1 cam pulled. You can kiss your power brakes goodbye. I would just love to hear that damn thing trying to idle with 242* duration.

QUOTE]


not me i have a stock vacuum pump on my brakes lol

 

thats what I said, hp is torque... * rpm divided by a constant that some dude figured out.

As for the weak torque, I'd just get a stall converter. Problem solved. I mean roughly $1700-2000 (cam, headers, stall) for 100 hp and an awsome launch isn't that bad. It seems like thats what alot of much more expensive superchargers do.

Of course I am in a rather light, and pretty gutted truck with 4.10 gears, so I don't worry about torque. What do I need torque for? I already burn out bad.

 

I don't remember the article saying anything about fly cutting the pistons for either cam or wether it was run with accessories. I'll post up the complete dyno charts when I get home. I'll admit that I did just read the article and quickly scanned the charts.

What I do wish they would do is keep this engine and start stabbing every cam in the book in it and test them. I'd love for them to put it in a truck and test it, but at Car Craft, that will never happen.

 

The GT-1 cam I would think that the pistons would have to be flycut. With .634 lift without flycutting would be very impressive on a stock engine with just a cam.

 

I wonder if the 5.3's dished pistons have anything to do with that?!? LS1's and 4.8s have flat tops...

 

According to the article they just did the cam swap. Nothing was done internally. Stock pushrods and rockers just changed the springs. I posted something about this a few weeks ago in the internal section. The major problem is the extreme loss of low end. I mean great numbers and all but come on.. in my 6000lb truck lossing 50ft lbs at the crank would absolutley kill my milage and movement. Even with a high stall the truck would be a dog.

Thats why I gave up on doing the CC build up. I am just going with a tuned PCM for now and calling it a day. trying to get 6000lbs to move without a turbo or S/C is just pissing in the wind if you ask me.