Good Cam Choice?

-
Yeah, that one always baffles me. If someone doesn’t want max power just open a catalog, pick a cam two sizes smaller than what you think you should have and run it.


Yet no one does it and in every one of these threads the guy always wants more power, but they usually don’t want to do the work to get drivability in shape.
I think many don't want to go two sizes smaller unless they have to. I think many, including me, are looking for the best balance of power and driveability. If my engine is down 5-10hp, but it is better on the street, I'll take it.
 
Yeah, that one always baffles me. If someone doesn’t want max power just open a catalog, pick a cam two sizes smaller than what you think you should have and run it.


Yet no one does it and in every one of these threads the guy always wants more power, but they usually don’t want to do the work to get drivability in shape.
The thing is, as you well know, there's a LOT more to just the camshaft for maximum power. I don't care how you build one, power is always left on the table. It makes no sense to me why people pull their hair out trying to choose one.
 
I think many don't want to go two sizes smaller unless they have to. I think many, including me, are looking for the best balance of power and driveability. If my engine is down 5-10hp, but it is better on the street, I'll take it.
And that is a very realistic approach.
 
The thing is, as you well know, there's a LOT more to just the camshaft for maximum power. I don't care how you build one, power is always left on the table. It makes no sense to me why people pull their hair out trying to choose one.

It depends on how many compromises that can be put up with, and really it comes down to how much work goes into doing it. Most guys won’t do the work to build something they can’t see done on a forum.

Then there is the tuning aspect. And that’s all I’ll say about that.
 
I think many don't want to go two sizes smaller unless they have to. I think many, including me, are looking for the best balance of power and driveability. If my engine is down 5-10hp, but it is better on the street, I'll take it.

That’s just it. Until you define power and drivabilty you can’t even begin to make a cam choice.

90% of drivabilty issues are tuning and the other 10% is a piss poor combination.
 
It depends on how many compromises that can be put up with, and really it comes down to how much work goes into doing it. Most guys won’t do the work to build something they can’t see done on a forum.

Then there is the tuning aspect. And that’s all I’ll say about that.
I think most guys build what they can afford. Although there are a few on here I'll call "very blessed" and good for them. I like seeing those type projects. Those with all of the aftermarket suspensions, big inch small blocks, big blocks and hemis. That's good stuff and I'm honored they share it. Even broke guys like me might pick up a thing or two we can use or do on our junk. I'll never be able to afford a real classy build and that's ok. But I can tune what I have to run its best so that's what I do. I like to have fun. Pulling my hair out over which camshaft makes more power isn't my idea of fun.
 
That’s just it. Until you define power and drivabilty you can’t even begin to make a cam choice.

90% of drivabilty issues are tuning and the other 10% is a piss poor combination.
But you can tune a piss poor combination to run pretty good. We proved that through the 70s and 80s with stock low compression engines that were way overcammed. Some of them ran pretty darn good.
 
My 414 Duster has a Comp flat tappet with specs of 242/250, 106 lsa, 107 ic installed, weighs 3300, 3.55 rear, 28" tires & 4 speed. Makes killer low end & mid range but is done @5400. I have FiTech efi, air gap intake. Timing was locked out @ 34 degrees & was a dog on the low end with a carb. Switched to efi which controls the timing now & it feels like a different car with the increase in low end power. I can be cruising on the hwy @2500 in high gear and floor it. No hesitation, pinging, it just gets up & hauls. Takes a little more rpm when taking off with the stick but so much fun to drive. The thing I love about this combo is from 3000-5400 the torque is at least 450ft;lbs. Peaked 510@3900. I'm sold on the narrow lsa.
 
I've noticed that when camshafts are discussed the main topic is always horsepower, isn't true that torque is what gets you going and that horsepower keeps you there?
 
I've noticed that when camshafts are discussed the main topic is always horsepower, isn't true that torque is what gets you going and that horsepower keeps you there?
Horsepower is what moves, accelerates, tows, drive at speed, pull away from light etc.. your car, And hp is made from a combination of torque and rpm.
 
US car companies seem to have this pre-occupation with wide LSA cams in production engines.
The factory cams in the British Leyland engines had 107.5 LSA. The factory performance cams had 102.5 LSA.
A 998 cc Mini engine made 94 hp with one of these cams. That would be 490 hp in a 318 ci engine.
They're balancing a ton of factors. Drivability, emissions, fuel consumption, 300k miles durability expectations, on and on. These are actual inputs to design.
 
Horsepower is what moves, accelerates, tows, drive at speed, pull away from light etc.. your car, And hp is made from a combination of torque and rpm.
Horsepower isn't real. Just torque and rpm combination. Torque is what moves stuff. Fast or slow it's torque.
 
Horsepower isn't real.
That's nonsense, like saying watts aren't real it's just amperage alone that moves your speakers, just cause a dyno can't measure it directly, you know how many things in the universe we can't measure directly?
Don't make them not real.
torque and rpm combination.
Yes

Torque is what moves stuff. Fast or slow it's torque.
Along with rpms which combined we call hp.

Don't know why people refuse to accept that.
 
Horsepower can certainly be DIRECTLY measured. It is the ability to lift 550 pounds 1 foot in 1 second. THERE is your DIRECT measurement.
 
Horsepower can certainly be DIRECTLY measured. It is the ability to lift 550 pounds 1 foot in 1 second. THERE is your DIRECT measurement.
On the dyno that's everyone's argument, hp is basically meaningless cause there's no direct measurement.
Which is a silly argument, I could argue torque ain't measured directly off the crank but we measure the effect of equal opposite force, doesn't change the fact that we can figure it out just like hp.
 
No, HP cannot be directly measured. TQ is measured on a dyno & HP is arrived at by calculation:
hp = rpm multiplied by tq divided by 5252.
 
No, HP cannot be directly measured. TQ is measured on a dyno & HP is arrived at by calculation:
hp = rpm multiplied by tq divided by 5252.
I just told you how it can be directly measured. Go check your toilet.
 
You give an engine job an measure how fast it does the job.

But doesn't matter if you can directly measure it, has no bearing on it's merit.
Moving towing driving accelerating your car are jobs/work and hp is what's needed to do that work and that hp is created by different ratios of torque and rpm. Don't know why that's so controversial.
Should be basic understanding.
 
You give an engine job an measure how fast it does the job.

But doesn't matter if you can directly measure it, has no bearing on it's merit.
Moving towing driving accelerating your car are jobs/work and hp is what's needed to do that work and that hp is created by different ratios of torque and rpm. Don't know why that's so controversial.
Should be basic understanding.
I never said anything about an engine. I just said horsepower can be directly measured and then gave an example. Our friend from down under doesn't seem to understand.
 
We measure Torque, We observe Horsepower..
Engine #1 peak Tq 400@5,000rpm
Engine #2 peak Tq 400@6,000rpm

We've measured the same peak torque,..
but We've observed Eng.#2 doing it at a faster rate/minute.
 
If you are interested in such things, this is a good read.

SI System

There are seven base units that can be measured (and cannot be broken down into something more basic). Everything else is a derived or calculated value that depends upon the base units.
 
I think many don't want to go two sizes smaller unless they have to. I think many, including me, are looking for the best balance of power and driveability. If my engine is down 5-10hp, but it is better on the street, I'll take it.
I would run what You have, run valvesprings that can accommodate .625" lift, get this package optimized 1st... I think it will be very close to what You're looking for.
 
My point isn't that power isn't real. It's that horsepower isn't real. It's a calculation. It was derived for marketing purposes in the old days.

An engine that makes big torque at low rpm but the torque curve falls off with rpm. That's your stock engine.

We alter cam timing and other aspects and now we're making peak torque higher. It's a more powerful engine. It's still torque production. It's just capable of it at higher rpm, which helps the vehicle accelerate faster.

Put another way: when you look at the horsepower curve, you ARE looking at the torque curve. The power curve rises and falls in proportion with rpm and a random *** constant, 5252.
 
My point isn't that power isn't real. It's that horsepower isn't real. It's a calculation. It was derived for marketing purposes in the old days.
Power is real, that's a false statement you can say hp standard is kind of made up, it's very loosely based off what a horse can do, but that don't matter we don't use the number to compare what horses vs engines can do but what amount of work an engine can do. Power is real and we use hp as the measurement, you can use different types of power measurements if you like, but all convert to one another.

It like saying speed ain't real cause distance and time measurements are based of arbitrary units miles and hours.
An engine that makes big torque at low rpm but the torque curve falls off with rpm. That's your stock engine.

We alter cam timing and other aspects and now we're making peak torque higher. It's a more powerful engine. It's still torque production. It's just capable of it at higher rpm, which helps the vehicle accelerate faster.

Put another way: when you look at the horsepower curve, you ARE looking at the torque curve. The power curve rises and falls in proportion with rpm and a random *** constant, 5252.
Torque and rpm combined is what moves and accelerates your car but we need someway to rate that combined effort which is power and here we use hp to do that can use watts or some other power rating if you like.

I feel people don't quite grasp rpm is just important as torque. Eg.. Take an electric motor (flat tq curve) that makes, 500 lbs-ft from 0-6000 rpms, without a factoring the power at each of those rpms it looks like the motor ability is equal across the rpms. But rpm multiplies the torques abilities, eg... About 19% for every 1000 rpms, so @1000rpm hp is 19% of 500lbs-ft = 95hp, @2000rpm 38% of 500lbs-ft = 190 hp, @6000rpm hp is 114% of 500lbs-ft = 570 hp. So with out figuring out the motors power we'd be in the dark about calculating it's capabilities eg.. 0-60, et/mph, top speed etc.. Making it hard to match the required engine to the job.
 
Last edited:
-
Back
Top