Is there any good reading (or input) on...

[DamnYankee]

...how cam specs affect torque and hp?

I ask because I'm still perturbed about my track times (best of 15.08). I'm wondering if my cam (specs in sig) are giving me more top end and costing me torque?

Is there a cam I'd be better off with to improve 1/4 mile times without killing mid-top end?

[vv8]

well the 116 lsa isn't helping you at all for lowend tq. thats for sure, try finding a cam with the stock 114 lsa and you will see your times come down, charlie wheatly put in a 212 218 581 581 114 cam in his 4 door truck and full weight went same time as you, and that is cam and tune only, good luck.

[TxStVanWilder]

hey Moze what was your race weight and your 60ft times??

[SCIV]

That cam you have looks similar to a Procharger spec.

[DamnYankee]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vv8 &#064; Dec 11 2006, 09&#58;31 PM) [snapback]76059[/snapback]</div>

well the 116 lsa isn&#39;t helping you at all for lowend tq. thats for sure, try finding a cam with the stock 114 lsa and you will see your times come down, charlie wheatly put in a 212 218 581 581 114 cam in his 4 door truck and full weight went same time as you, and that is cam and tune only, good luck.
[/b]

Thanks man...a couple other guys said the same thing. They even recommended a 112 or 110. Maybe my int/exh duration is too high too. Thanks again.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TxStVanWilder &#064; Dec 12 2006, 09&#58;22 AM) [snapback]76090[/snapback]</div>

hey Moze what was your race weight and your 60ft times??
[/b]

Race weight was 210 pounds, but that was because of that burger you made me get.

Kidding...not sure what the truck weighs. My best 60&#39; was 2.24.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SCIV &#064; Dec 12 2006, 09&#58;53 AM) [snapback]76098[/snapback]</div>

That cam you have looks similar to a Procharger spec.
[/b]

Yeah I&#39;ve been told it&#39;s similar to a blower cam. Starting to think I need something with a 112 or 110 LSA and a tighter duration.

[TXsilverado]

lowest i would go is 112.

[DamnYankee]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TXsilverado &#064; Dec 12 2006, 08&#58;05 PM) [snapback]76160[/snapback]</div>

lowest i would go is 112.
[/b]

Reason being? I don&#39;t know cams as well as most, so any explanations for reasons given are highly appreciated&#33;

[TXsilverado]

110 will make the idle worse, and maybe bring the power band too low. beau has a small cam on a 110 lsa and it has amazing low end, but falls off up top.

[DamnYankee]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TXsilverado &#064; Dec 12 2006, 08&#58;15 PM) [snapback]76166[/snapback]</div>

110 will make the idle worse, and maybe bring the power band too low. beau has a small cam on a 110 lsa and it has amazing low end, but falls off up top.
[/b]

Falls off because of the LSA?

[misterp]

The wider the LSA the broader/flatter the power band (generally); the narrower the LSA the more peaky the powerband is. Comparing two cams with identical lobes, if one cam is ground on a 114-degree LSA then it will have a flatter power band from idle to beyond redline but not as exciting; a 110-degree LSA will have fair low-end power and an explosive midrange pull then quickly run out of steam on the top-end. Also, the wider LSA (114-degree) will idle far better than the narrow LSA (110-degree) and have better vacuum and street manners; having a wider LSA kind of waters down the rowdiness of the cam. If you are running a blower or turbo you will want a wider LSA to prevent valve overlap from leaking boost out the exhaust pipe.

Mr. P.