I need schooling - old vs. new engines

DionR said
Here's an interesting comparison (to me anyway :D ).

The 380 HP crate motor cam specs I found are 288/292 duration with 0.501/0.513 lift.

The 6.4 cam specs I found are 286/288 duration and 0.577/0.537 lift.

I know there is more to a cam than just those numbers, but as a rule a 28_+ cam is fairly rowdy and I know the 380hp crate motor was a beast but not the best driving motor.

But the 6.4 cam with similar duration numbers makes gobs of power everywhere and is a peach to drive.

Not saying the 380hp crate motor should have been better, it has it's compromises for sure. Just saying that if one compares the cams it would seem that they should drive the same and yet they are worlds apart for drivability. Maybe the narrow LSA of the 380hp crate motor has a lot to do with that? Pretty sure the 6.4 cam is in the 112-114 LSA range.

Interesting to note too that the Eagle 5.7 makes similar power to the crate motor and is again head and shoulders above it in drivability.

I have a problem with this. Again, you are comparing different generations of engines. That’s wrong.

Those crate engines (most of that junk anyway) had flat tappet cams. And no computer to control the tune(r).

Look at cam timing between the LS and the G3 and see what that looks like.

I‘m a proponent of valve lift being no less that .3 LD, as long as the valve train can handle the lift. The cheesy 5/16 bolts holding the shafts down limit actual lift to about .650 or so. Anything less is giving up power.

That means with a 2.02 valve you should be around .600 lift. You can do the math for other valve diameter.