waterdog

Here is some info on the 212-218 low lift and nos.http://www.vetteweb.com/tech/vemp_06...comp_cams.html

budhayes3

iTrader: (19)

True, lazy lobes on the 216/220, but still a good cam with a *decent* track record. A lot of guys here have used it through the years with good results...I remember that litreddevil was putting down great numbers with that cam in his 6.0.

No denying that the TR220-112 is the king of the 5.3's...I hope my LQ9 runs as good as bluecajun's 5.3

_zebra

iTrader: (5)

i hate to necro this thread again, but i'm seriously considering either of these cams, too, as well as the *possibility* of the 220. my deal is that i've got a 5.3 RCSB with the 5 speed (left foot is all the stall i need ), and i'm 4x4 with 31.5" tires (soon to be 32.5") & 3.73s. i also occasionally tow my & a couple of friends' cars, so i can't afford to loose much on the bottom end. that's why i was looking more towards the 212/218 on something like a 110+4 over the 220, but then i started hearing about the 216/220.

how would y'all rate these for my application? i'm never spraying & don't plan on any head work. i do have an intake & catless LTs, though. this is for real-world street & DD power. i've only tracked the truck twice

jrmchevyman

Those would be good for your application. The 212/218 would work well for you I think and have plenty of torque. You wouldn't have to necessarily go to a 110 with +4 degrees advance, but if that is what you want then go for it. Yes you could go 1 step slightly bigger on cam if you wanted, you might get tired of the 212/218 sooner than you think.

Have you ever been to the emerald coast dragstrip in Holt? It's only 1/8th mile, but its all we got around here lol. I need to take mine there soon.

_zebra

iTrader: (5)

yeah, that's what i'm afraid of - i don't wanna spend this kind of time & moniez doing a cam swap that'll get old real quick (which i reckon's inevitable anyway, but i'd like to not regret going too small), which is why i'm considering the 216/220. i've heard a bunch of people say the 220 ain't the greatest for 4x4 or towing, which is why i kinda want to stay a little smaller. the reason for the 110 or 112 is to keep the power band low (and for the awesome chop).

i've been to EC a few times. busted a heater hose fitting last time i was there in Apr, but i still came away with a 2.10 & 9.6 @ 70.4. not great, but it works for now.


ps - with a supercharged vette, any cam in this truck ain't really gonna seem like much

budhayes3

iTrader: (19)

Keep in mind that if you go a little wider on the LSA, you will have a broader, flatter torque curve, which will definitely be a benefit if you tow. The 4* advance is a good idea either way, as that will help you bring the torque on sooner

_zebra

iTrader: (5)

so what're you thinkin? maybe the 216/220 on a 112+4
what's that i hear about 'lazy' lobes on that cam compared to the 212/218, and what's that even mean?

budhayes3

iTrader: (19)

The "lazy" lobes refer to the ramp rates...the 212/218 and 216/220 are the same XE lobes, which are less aggressive than XER lobes, TR lobes, EPS lobes, etc. They still perform well, and are fairly kind to the valvetrain, they just don't have as fast of a ramp rate as the more aggressive lobes. The more aggressive lobes also seem to have more lift in my experience.

A 216/220ish on a 112+4 sounds like what you're looking for, although you could go with more lift than what the Comp shelf 216/220 offers

_zebra

iTrader: (5)

okay, gotcha

and what kind of lift are you thinking (and how would that affect my curve)? turns out to get the 216 on something besides a 115 LSA, it has to be custom-ground anyway... at least that's what i was told today

_zebra

iTrader: (5)

great! now thunder racing's recommending the TRuTorq Level 1 - 219/224 .609/.604 115
it's sounding promising, but now i'm gonna have to look up a lot more stuff