383 cam advice?
Interesting reading indeed! Makes me start thinking of stretching my budget to a hydraulic roller :rolleyes:
Just wonder why they choose a RMP instead of the lower Performer.
Both items will produce extra torque and horsepower.
In addition, the RPM is a better intake even on mild engines with a higher RPM ceiling to grow into. A Performer is a basic aluminum version or OE replacement intake manifold.
I have actually started considering headers instead of the HP manifolds. I just remembered I have a nice used pair. Think they are 1 3/4"
Perfect size.
Just changed my mind, it will get headers.
Power wise, wise choice.
Since I'm in Sweden there's a time difference, and I was busy last night.
Been looking at the cam(s) you recommended but they look rather small in both duration and lift?
The LS on both Elgin and Crane are 112-114 which I think is a little high?
The wider center lines do a few things over a narrow one. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. A lot depends on the characteristics and usage of the cam and the vehicle. A wider centerline will;
Have a smoother idle.
Extend the top end HP curve. (Hang on to the power longer.)
Normally require more static compression to equal a more narrow centerline. It will produce less power down low which isn’t what most people want, but, if your combo is a slight miss match and/or not a hot street ride or race car, this becomes desirable with low numerical gears, large tires, low compression engine and a mismatched stall converter.
I did this with a 318 @ 7.8-1 compression ratio & 3.21 gears. It still burned rubber off the line very well. Once the engine comes into its power band, it worked very well even though it still had stock small valve heads. The volumetric efficiency rpm area of it all starts to work, you regain ground.
An old member here once used a Crane Cam @ 216/228-.454/.480-112, listed above, in a 360 in his bracket Duster. He ran the car down to mid 12’s.
The car also had a good diet plan, not an extreme one, and lot of gear.
