Torque = Driveability ? (Engine Masters LSA shootout)

Jersey Devil said
I would love to see that put to work, especially if you want to keep the top-end.
The howard's Hyd. roller cam they recommended me
241/247 @.050 on a 112 lsa, you would have to shrink it to a,
229/235 @ 0.050 on a 106 lsa to have the same overlap

Be interesting but don't see it keeping the top end, DV's idea seems instead of sacrificing lsa (midrange) for driveability sacrifice duration (top end).

Jersey Devil said
and to maintain the dynamic compression the 10.36:1 static compression with the 112 lsa would have to dropped to 9.57:1 for the 106lsa.

I'd love to see a dyno comparisons of that. Might have to pay to do it so I can post it??

That would be kool

Jersey Devil said
Also if you are building the engine from scratch, would would be building the to get in the 8<8.5 dynamic compression ratio, if you built it for the 106 and swapped in the 112 cam the engine would be a turd from the drop in dynamic compression.

I don't think turd is the right word, it might make less power but does that equal turd ?
Say someone runs manifolds instead of headers he'll make less power but is it a turd now cause he didn't run headers ?

Jersey Devil said
Vise versa, if you had built the engine FOR the late Int. valve closing of the 112lsa, You would need to run race gas, if you dropped in the tight cam. The above cams, the 241 int closes at 48.5* @ 0.050 vs. only 36.5* ABDC for the 229 cam, thats a 12 degree difference.

There is no stock, I'm going from a '93 5.2L magnum with 9.1cr and a tiny 190'ish @0.050 on a 114lsa to a 390ci with 10.7cr and TFS 190 heads. I am WAY out of the Stock envelope.

I just meant if your really worried about driveability don't run a big cam.

From what I've seen depending on the engine above 220-229 ish is where you start really trading bottom end for top.

What's your power goals ?