opinions on motor build - purpose: towing
04-10-2007, 06:48 AM
#11
In the next couple months I will be making a few posts about my setup. Im running a 418 with a 224/218 114 cam with some good heads and a vic jr intake, then Ill be throwing small turbo on for max effort from 2000rpm to 5000rpm I will use my truck just like you(not as often) but I will be towing 10K regularly come deer season so I need towing power too. Ill have the motor in within the next month and the turbo on by August.
04-10-2007, 05:48 PM
#12
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Juda
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Steve Bryant
My build may be of interest to you as I think that we have similar goals.
I'm currently building a 408 as a daily driver/tow vehicle. I bought a good used 6.0 block and had it measured and sonic tested, bored to 4.031", align honed the mains, decked for 9.230", and installed new cam bearings. I have a Callies DragonSlayer 4.0" crank plus CompStar rods, and Wiseco -18 cc pistons with TotalSeal Gapless top rings and standard tension oil rings. I'm installing a LS6 valley cover and will re plumb the PCV. I plan on using the Patriot Predator Heads with 205 cc intake runners and 72 cc combustion chambers once they are available. I will re use a Comp 212* 218* 114* LSA cam that I used to run a couple of years ago and keep my Thorley Tri-Y headers with the big ugly truck intake. All of this is set up for good part throttle (and full throttle) torque below 5,000 RPM's. I'm not very concerned about HP at all and I want to continue to run 87 Octane.
You can see my trailer below and a graph of my desired torque and HP with this setup via DynoSim. The graph shows my current setup at 364 CID with the 200/206 109 cam and my former setup with the 212/218 114 cam (didn't have enough low end torque). Then you can see the same two cams in the 408 at 9.5 CR.
Steve
I'm currently building a 408 as a daily driver/tow vehicle. I bought a good used 6.0 block and had it measured and sonic tested, bored to 4.031", align honed the mains, decked for 9.230", and installed new cam bearings. I have a Callies DragonSlayer 4.0" crank plus CompStar rods, and Wiseco -18 cc pistons with TotalSeal Gapless top rings and standard tension oil rings. I'm installing a LS6 valley cover and will re plumb the PCV. I plan on using the Patriot Predator Heads with 205 cc intake runners and 72 cc combustion chambers once they are available. I will re use a Comp 212* 218* 114* LSA cam that I used to run a couple of years ago and keep my Thorley Tri-Y headers with the big ugly truck intake. All of this is set up for good part throttle (and full throttle) torque below 5,000 RPM's. I'm not very concerned about HP at all and I want to continue to run 87 Octane.
You can see my trailer below and a graph of my desired torque and HP with this setup via DynoSim. The graph shows my current setup at 364 CID with the 200/206 109 cam and my former setup with the 212/218 114 cam (didn't have enough low end torque). Then you can see the same two cams in the 408 at 9.5 CR.
Steve
Thanks,
Russ
04-10-2007, 06:43 PM
#13
LS1 Tech Veteran
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wichita, Ks
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noodleman,
Yes, the curves are of course theoretical and are crankshaft TQ and HP with no drag from accessories (A/C, water pump, alternator, P/S Pump). The 200/206 109 cam is more efficient by probably 1.5 MPG than the 212/218 114 cam. The smaller cam does great at getting the mass of the 3/4 ton 4X4 rolling with or without the trailer. The trailer weighs 8,600 pounds and the truck weighs 7,600 pounds.
The small cam isn't nearly as much fun to drive once you are above 2,800 RPM's at WOT. However, it's really a much better cam for the truck in daily driving with the 6.0 L. I figure that at 408 CID (6.7 L) I can get away with the 212/218 cam just fine. In reality, the 212/218 worked fine for light to moderate acceleration. However, at WOT it really sagged until it got up to about 2,800 (which probably only took about 1.5 seconds). With the 200/206, very light throttle gets the truck up to 30 to 50 MPH with ease and it idles way better. Even with the tight LSA, the overlap is probably less because the cam is smaller or I may have the idle parameters set up better now. I have learned a lot about tuning in the past couple of years.
Steve
Yes, the curves are of course theoretical and are crankshaft TQ and HP with no drag from accessories (A/C, water pump, alternator, P/S Pump). The 200/206 109 cam is more efficient by probably 1.5 MPG than the 212/218 114 cam. The smaller cam does great at getting the mass of the 3/4 ton 4X4 rolling with or without the trailer. The trailer weighs 8,600 pounds and the truck weighs 7,600 pounds.
The small cam isn't nearly as much fun to drive once you are above 2,800 RPM's at WOT. However, it's really a much better cam for the truck in daily driving with the 6.0 L. I figure that at 408 CID (6.7 L) I can get away with the 212/218 cam just fine. In reality, the 212/218 worked fine for light to moderate acceleration. However, at WOT it really sagged until it got up to about 2,800 (which probably only took about 1.5 seconds). With the 200/206, very light throttle gets the truck up to 30 to 50 MPH with ease and it idles way better. Even with the tight LSA, the overlap is probably less because the cam is smaller or I may have the idle parameters set up better now. I have learned a lot about tuning in the past couple of years.
Steve
04-10-2007, 08:30 PM
#14
FormerVendor
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reseda, CA
Posts: 1,853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Steve Bryant
Noodleman,
Yes, the curves are of course theoretical and are crankshaft TQ and HP with no drag from accessories (A/C, water pump, alternator, P/S Pump). The 200/206 109 cam is more efficient by probably 1.5 MPG than the 212/218 114 cam. The smaller cam does great at getting the mass of the 3/4 ton 4X4 rolling with or without the trailer. The trailer weighs 8,600 pounds and the truck weighs 7,600 pounds.
The small cam isn't nearly as much fun to drive once you are above 2,800 RPM's at WOT. However, it's really a much better cam for the truck in daily driving with the 6.0 L. I figure that at 408 CID (6.7 L) I can get away with the 212/218 cam just fine. In reality, the 212/218 worked fine for light to moderate acceleration. However, at WOT it really sagged until it got up to about 2,800 (which probably only took about 1.5 seconds). With the 200/206, very light throttle gets the truck up to 30 to 50 MPH with ease and it idles way better. Even with the tight LSA, the overlap is probably less because the cam is smaller or I may have the idle parameters set up better now. I have learned a lot about tuning in the past couple of years.
Steve
Yes, the curves are of course theoretical and are crankshaft TQ and HP with no drag from accessories (A/C, water pump, alternator, P/S Pump). The 200/206 109 cam is more efficient by probably 1.5 MPG than the 212/218 114 cam. The smaller cam does great at getting the mass of the 3/4 ton 4X4 rolling with or without the trailer. The trailer weighs 8,600 pounds and the truck weighs 7,600 pounds.
The small cam isn't nearly as much fun to drive once you are above 2,800 RPM's at WOT. However, it's really a much better cam for the truck in daily driving with the 6.0 L. I figure that at 408 CID (6.7 L) I can get away with the 212/218 cam just fine. In reality, the 212/218 worked fine for light to moderate acceleration. However, at WOT it really sagged until it got up to about 2,800 (which probably only took about 1.5 seconds). With the 200/206, very light throttle gets the truck up to 30 to 50 MPH with ease and it idles way better. Even with the tight LSA, the overlap is probably less because the cam is smaller or I may have the idle parameters set up better now. I have learned a lot about tuning in the past couple of years.
Steve
Great info here.
Richard
04-10-2007, 09:02 PM
#15
LS1 Tech Veteran
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wichita, Ks
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noodleman and Richard,
Thanks for the kind words! I'll keep you folks posted as I progress through the build of the engine and installation. I probably won't start until I've helped my wife remodel a bathroom. Gotta keep peace in the family!
Steve
Thanks for the kind words! I'll keep you folks posted as I progress through the build of the engine and installation. I probably won't start until I've helped my wife remodel a bathroom. Gotta keep peace in the family!
Steve
04-10-2007, 09:07 PM
#16
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Juda
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, an excellent discussion. I've really been looking hard at tight LSA cams, and as usual I was trying to get the best of both worlds. I was trying to achieve as close to 500fwhp/500fwtq as possible with the 6.0, but have the peak hp at about 5600 rpms and the peak tq at about 4600 rpms. (with a very high average power, not just great peaks. alot like what both of you have done)
I was thinking that the L92 heads, w/ the L76 intake and a cam somewhere in the range of 216/220 110 LSA (or less) and advancing it 2-3 degrees. The reason I wanted to switch to the L92 set up is because in all of the handfull of dyno tests they have had much better tq curves compared to the 317's.
All in all I was hoping to get my results in similar rpm ranges as you but with a little higher peaks. How far off am I, can anything be done better or be improved?
Thanks for all the ideas and help.
I was thinking that the L92 heads, w/ the L76 intake and a cam somewhere in the range of 216/220 110 LSA (or less) and advancing it 2-3 degrees. The reason I wanted to switch to the L92 set up is because in all of the handfull of dyno tests they have had much better tq curves compared to the 317's.
All in all I was hoping to get my results in similar rpm ranges as you but with a little higher peaks. How far off am I, can anything be done better or be improved?
Thanks for all the ideas and help.
04-10-2007, 11:23 PM
#17
LS1 Tech Veteran
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wichita, Ks
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are actual dyno runs (using an inertial dynamometer) of the two cams in the 6.0 L. Note, I'm loosing over 100 HP from the prediction. This is probably real since I'm running with the torque converter unlocked with a 4L80E transmission through the transfer case and I'm accelerating some heavy 265 R16 Load Range E tires. Now, you'll see that I'm loosing about 30 HP with my the smaller cam. That's why the 212/218 was more fun above 2,800 RPM's. What you can't see is that the 200/206 cam pulls like a son of a gun off idle.
Steve
Steve
04-12-2007, 01:08 PM
#18
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Juda
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Steve Bryant
Here are actual dyno runs (using an inertial dynamometer) of the two cams in the 6.0 L. Note, I'm loosing over 100 HP from the prediction. This is probably real since I'm running with the torque converter unlocked with a 4L80E transmission through the transfer case and I'm accelerating some heavy 265 R16 Load Range E tires. Now, you'll see that I'm loosing about 30 HP with my the smaller cam. That's why the 212/218 was more fun above 2,800 RPM's. What you can't see is that the 200/206 cam pulls like a son of a gun off idle.
Steve
Steve
I haven't seen any proof of the theory but can't you keep your duration in the mid teens with a tight LSA and some advance and still have peak hp around 5700 and peak tq around 4400? Or is it once you hit that many degrees up to the low 230's everything is 6300 and 5000 with the 6.0?
Thanks for the help.
04-12-2007, 06:50 PM
#19
LS1 Tech Veteran
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wichita, Ks
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noodleman,
The following explanation is an oversimplification. But, the duration of the cam lobes determine where the power band will be (smaller = lower RPM and larger = higher RPM). Also, LSA determines the shape of the power-band (tight = narrow band with higher peak and wider = broader band with lower peak). Then the valve lift should be a trade off between taking maximum advantage of the flow rates of your heads versus long term durability of the valve train. All of these things are a compromise.
The 212/218 110 LSA with 4 degrees advance, would have maybe given me more peak TQ/HP, poorer gas mileage and still not had nearly enough bottom end torque for a truck as heavy as mine with as much rolling resistance in the drive train. The +4 degree advance wouldn't have helped much here. I'll make a graph of what you propose and post it in the next few days.
If I had the same engine in a regular cab short bed truck (C1500), I could run a 118/124 cam or a little larger and do fine. But the RCSB truck would be easily 2,000 pounds less and not have nearly the rolling resistance. The ability to tow a heavy load with a cam like that would be non existent.
Steve
The following explanation is an oversimplification. But, the duration of the cam lobes determine where the power band will be (smaller = lower RPM and larger = higher RPM). Also, LSA determines the shape of the power-band (tight = narrow band with higher peak and wider = broader band with lower peak). Then the valve lift should be a trade off between taking maximum advantage of the flow rates of your heads versus long term durability of the valve train. All of these things are a compromise.
The 212/218 110 LSA with 4 degrees advance, would have maybe given me more peak TQ/HP, poorer gas mileage and still not had nearly enough bottom end torque for a truck as heavy as mine with as much rolling resistance in the drive train. The +4 degree advance wouldn't have helped much here. I'll make a graph of what you propose and post it in the next few days.
If I had the same engine in a regular cab short bed truck (C1500), I could run a 118/124 cam or a little larger and do fine. But the RCSB truck would be easily 2,000 pounds less and not have nearly the rolling resistance. The ability to tow a heavy load with a cam like that would be non existent.
Steve