opinions on motor build - purpose: towing
#21
Noodleman,
Here's the graph I promised showing the 6.0 L (364) with the 200°/206° 109° LSA @ 0° advance versus the 212°/218° 114° LSA @ 0° advance versus your suggested 212°/218° 110° LSA with 4° of advance. To my surprise, your proposed cam (in theory at least using DynoSim) actually works slightly better than the 212°/218° cam that I have! However, I'm sure that the idle would be choppier, the emissions greater and the gas mileage poorer. A program like DyonSim or better Dynomation is a great tool in planning engine modifications. It let's you see in to the future with a bit more clarity when used properly.
All my best,
Steve
Here's the graph I promised showing the 6.0 L (364) with the 200°/206° 109° LSA @ 0° advance versus the 212°/218° 114° LSA @ 0° advance versus your suggested 212°/218° 110° LSA with 4° of advance. To my surprise, your proposed cam (in theory at least using DynoSim) actually works slightly better than the 212°/218° cam that I have! However, I'm sure that the idle would be choppier, the emissions greater and the gas mileage poorer. A program like DyonSim or better Dynomation is a great tool in planning engine modifications. It let's you see in to the future with a bit more clarity when used properly.
All my best,
Steve
#22
This helps alot, thanks. I always thought that you could tighten up the LSA and get back the lost torque that the increased duration gives up down low. I can see that it's minimal. The only true way to keep bottom end on a given displacement is to keep the duration small. Thanks again.
By the way you said that you have better economy with the smaller cam. What is it in the city and on the highway, no towing.
By the way you said that you have better economy with the smaller cam. What is it in the city and on the highway, no towing.
#23
Now, I get about 11 MPG city, 14.5 MPG highway if I stay around 55 to 60. When I drive about 75, the mileage goes to about 13.5 MPG. I lost about 1 MPG city and highway with the other cam. It was often worse because I would horse around more at WOT with the bigger cam. It was too much fun to accelerate on almost every on-ramp at WOT . . . not necessary, just fun!
Steve
Steve
#25
Noodleman,
Here's the graph I promised showing the 6.0 L (364) with the 200°/206° 109° LSA @ 0° advance versus the 212°/218° 114° LSA @ 0° advance versus your suggested 212°/218° 110° LSA with 4° of advance. To my surprise, your proposed cam (in theory at least using DynoSim) actually works slightly better than the 212°/218° cam that I have! However, I'm sure that the idle would be choppier, the emissions greater and the gas mileage poorer. A program like DyonSim or better Dynomation is a great tool in planning engine modifications. It let's you see in to the future with a bit more clarity when used properly.
All my best,
Steve
Here's the graph I promised showing the 6.0 L (364) with the 200°/206° 109° LSA @ 0° advance versus the 212°/218° 114° LSA @ 0° advance versus your suggested 212°/218° 110° LSA with 4° of advance. To my surprise, your proposed cam (in theory at least using DynoSim) actually works slightly better than the 212°/218° cam that I have! However, I'm sure that the idle would be choppier, the emissions greater and the gas mileage poorer. A program like DyonSim or better Dynomation is a great tool in planning engine modifications. It let's you see in to the future with a bit more clarity when used properly.
All my best,
Steve
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Three6GMC
THE TRUCK STOP
4
08-03-2015 08:53 PM