Heads and Cam
06-23-2005, 03:52 PM
#11
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lawrence, KS / DFW
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 02sierraz71_5.3
Or you can have some unshrouding done in the cc then put larger valves in thats what I did but I only went to 2.00 on the intake, left exhaust the same. LPE did a buildup of a 5.3 where they used larger intake valve car craft nov 2004 all on a 5.3 of course it had a huge cam and fast intake but it produced over 450 around 6600 rpm. The valve seats cant be opened more than .1 more or you have to go with different seats. If you dont mind running 93 and staying NA I would have them mill around .035.
Are you sure about that duration number Im running a 222 cam and that fairly large. Is this your daily driver
Are you sure about that duration number Im running a 222 cam and that fairly large. Is this your daily driver
big *** cam
heads
pushrods
roller rockers
valvesprings
valves
supporting ****
Thanks,
Ben
06-24-2005, 06:35 AM
#13
TECH Addict
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Northeast, NJ
Posts: 2,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 02sierraz71_5.3
Or you can have some unshrouding done in the cc then put larger valves in thats what I did but I only went to 2.00 on the intake, left exhaust the same. LPE did a buildup of a 5.3 where they used larger intake valve car craft nov 2004 all on a 5.3 of course it had a huge cam and fast intake but it produced over 450 around 6600 rpm.
06-24-2005, 09:30 AM
#15
02 tahoe on 20s
Dont get caught up with the idea (like some do) that small motors high revving giant cams with hogged out heads are the way to make heavy fat tired trucks run.Go mild with more cubic inches and you will run harder with better driveability.Look at different hotrodders results.Here is a good example of what I would consider a great proven combo for your average Tahoe.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...ighlight=candy
Dont get caught up with the idea (like some do) that small motors high revving giant cams with hogged out heads are the way to make heavy fat tired trucks run.Go mild with more cubic inches and you will run harder with better driveability.Look at different hotrodders results.Here is a good example of what I would consider a great proven combo for your average Tahoe.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...ighlight=candy
06-24-2005, 10:52 AM
#16
TECH Addict
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Northeast, NJ
Posts: 2,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gonzo 6.0
02 tahoe on 20s
Dont get caught up with the idea (like some do) that small motors high revving giant cams with hogged out heads are the way to make heavy fat tired trucks run.Go mild with more cubic inches and you will run harder with better driveability.Look at different hotrodders results.Here is a good example of what I would consider a great proven combo.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...ighlight=candy
Dont get caught up with the idea (like some do) that small motors high revving giant cams with hogged out heads are the way to make heavy fat tired trucks run.Go mild with more cubic inches and you will run harder with better driveability.Look at different hotrodders results.Here is a good example of what I would consider a great proven combo.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...ighlight=candy
06-24-2005, 11:32 AM
#17
Originally Posted by tdrumm
I saw the articles that you are referring to, and that engine made great peak hp, but would be useless in any truck because it lost around 50 lb-ft down low.
If you do go with the ls6 heads I would mill them.
06-24-2005, 02:39 PM
#18
TECH Addict
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Northeast, NJ
Posts: 2,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 02sierraz71_5.3
I have unshrouded valves with a 2.00 intake and milled .050 with a 222/222 cam I just ran an 8.8 with a 1.9 60' at 78 mph in a 5400 pund ext cab z71 NA, the heads arent ported either The cam they used is rediculous for a daily driver but as far as low end suffering thats why they make higher stall tq converters.
I'm just trying to help this guy from falling victim to More's Law of parts selection.
06-24-2005, 03:24 PM
#19
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lawrence, KS / DFW
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To clarify a bit, this truck will not be a daily driver. Part of my goal with this truck is actually to turn it into a semi-streetable semi-dragable truck. the goal was to take the stock displacement (minus perhaps crank and bore) and make it faster than ****. What I'm really looking for is a cam that will pull exceptionally hard from 2400 ish rpm to about 6200 ish rpm. with a 2400 stall converter i'd be right at the powerband, and figure that would compensate for loss of low end torque. The goal is n/a about 500 crank hp.
Thanks for the input guys. I think i'm starting to figure it out now.
Ben
Thanks for the input guys. I think i'm starting to figure it out now.
Ben
06-24-2005, 04:17 PM
#20
I drive my truck everyday its my only vehicle
I would go bigger on the stall at least 3k you will need it to make up for a larger cam, the cam they used in craft is rediculous I wouldnt go with it unless this was a trailor queen.
We really need to know what your rwp goals are and what sort of times you want to run. If you want to be faster than 13's in the 1/4 you are going to need more engine NA.
Tdrumm: I agree with you this guy is going to fall victim, he just needs more knowledge and a specific goal
I would go bigger on the stall at least 3k you will need it to make up for a larger cam, the cam they used in craft is rediculous I wouldnt go with it unless this was a trailor queen.
We really need to know what your rwp goals are and what sort of times you want to run. If you want to be faster than 13's in the 1/4 you are going to need more engine NA.
Tdrumm: I agree with you this guy is going to fall victim, he just needs more knowledge and a specific goal