RustyRatRod's Guide To Hot Rod Bliss

rumblefish360 said
Yes it is, it’s all about the torque. The idea of the “RV” cam was help more easily move a heavier vehicle.

My point was it's hard to get any decent increase over stock low power cam idle - 2500 rpm, not torque ain't important but where it's made is more important .

rumblefish360 said
Not exactly correct ether. Never mind the values of torque you place on the displacements. For one it’s to general. Second, it’s misleading. The main focus of the “RV” cam is to increase the amount of air and fuel to make more power for more torque no matter the size of the engine. While a bigger engine “should” make more torque, this is not the actual case since depending on the year, some small blocks out power big blocks. During the dark years of the first introduced emissions standards that cut power dramatically during the era which spans from ‘72 on up for decades, even the big blocks were struggling to pull and push around small campers. Hence the introduction of the RV cam & as suggested by name, to help the RV vehicles.

Torque per Cid matters cause the amount a RV type can make is pretty narrow 1.1-1.2 lbs-ft per Cid over 1.25 is usually a well put together street strip type build and under 2500 rpm don't matter.Even getting over 1.15 would be lucky in most cases And a lot of the gain in torque will 4bbl and exhaust.

I probably should of broke powerband into 3 idle-2500 2500-4500 4500-6000.
And saying try to build or least not lose much idle - 2500 while focusing on mainly 2500-4500 while gaining useable range into the third but with least focus. For most street type builds.

rumblefish360 said
While volumetric efficiency has a big roll in power production, it’s not the most easily fixed with OEM / stock parts. The OEM parts only work so well so you just increase the amount of time the valve is open to fill up the cylinder a little more.

filling the cylinder more isn't that ve ?

rumblefish360 said
Mostly wrong. While the improved torque is the goal, below you over estimate and push the camshaft as if it was pushing the rpm limits beyond its basic usage description. This is so not the case.

Being the OE camshaft is very small in most cases never mind the big 114 LSA’s, the RV cam (normally) narrows the LSA, increases the duration a minor amount as well as the lift.

The rpm band of the cam barley increases any meaningful amount.

In the above paragraph, your stretching the rpm range and unjustly assuming his targeted goal of what rpm he wants to perform in and the stretch is very wide and not a balance between a RV cam and a mild cam just above it but way beyond since you labeled the rpm range.
3K-5K? Seriously?!?!

Yes I could be unjustly assuming he cares about above 3k performance, but if he does maybe it will helps him but if not could help others reading this thread.

rumblefish360 said
Above you listed that last.
“Now for RV basically doesn't mean more torque but where torque is made, ”
But it’s the cam keeping the valves open for more cylinder filling. Changing the stall, gear ratio and tire size helps in a lot of areas just through math alone. Better torque release. You didn’t help the engine power.
Are you sure about what message your sending?

My point about stall gear etc.. You could not worry so much about idle-2500 if one so chooses when picking a cam and yes that would not be an RV cam now.

I appreciate telling why you disagree or find me wrong then using and X or just say wrong. Definitely I'm not an expert but it's my take on it.