Small block gas mileage DD magnum/LA ?

[rumblefish360]

I'll be glad to give you my recipe, which speaks for itself. And then you can run it by all of FABO, to get as many opinions as will satisfy you. It's no secret, I have published it here on FABO several times. And you can find a very similar combo in the Hughes Performance archives.
#11---360 Dyno Test (Feb 2000)
It's just too bad they stopped the test at 6000, cuz if you extrapolate the torque line down to 6600 or 6800, and convert what you find to horsepower, it is amazing how high this HE3038 cam (same as what I got, but with OOTB Eddelbrock heads), is willing to rev to.
And check out the torque curve; over 400 ftlbs from ~3800 to ~5700, 400/438=91.5%; simply amazing.


View attachment 1715621045

I like how the engine holds into the HP at the big end. The better the head, the longer it will hold into the HP at the end. I’d like to see a ported version of that. Also with the RPM-AG.

A good street engine should be designed in this fashion. I keep saying it. It’s a tried and true path for decades.

NO matter the engine size, the same basic recipe will hold true. Though a larger engine is better....

Run as much compression as you can.
Port your heads
Use the best intake for the application, step up the exhaust, to breath in and out easy.
(Think on the exhaust!)
Cam for the rpm range and use as much lift as the head will flow. It’ll do really well.

You year a lot about the 3 C’s. Cam, carb, compression.
I added 2 more C’s to it, Converter and cogs!
(Cogs are another name for gears.)

 

[DionR]

I have to look up the numbers I have, but I think all the published numbers for the 5.9 cam are wrong.

It’s kind of like the published intake valve size of 1.88, which is wrong as well. Been in a couple of arguments over the valve size on here, but I have yet to see any actual evidence that it isn’t 1.92 like the 5.2.

I think all the wrong numbers are due to the 5.2 being released in ‘92 and the 5.9 in ‘93. The published info for ‘92 showed the differences and then when the ‘93 info should have been updated for the 5.9 release it was either done poorly or not at all resulting in all kinds of misinformation on the 5.9.

Anyway, I had a cam reground by Bullet several years ago and asked if they would run it through a cam wizard (or whatever it is called) to get the actual numbers. Now this was a used 2000 5.9 cam, and other years could be slightly different, but it was bigger than the 5.2 cam.

Numbers to follow tomorrow....

 

[AJ/FormS]

 

[DionR]

Here are the specs I saved from about 4 years ago:

Here is a thread where another guy cam doctored a 1998 5.9 cam:

Duration @ .050 IN:189 EX:194
Valve lift with 1.6 Rockers IN:.439 EX:448
The lobe centerline IN:106.5 EX:114.5
Lobe separation and its 110.6

The numbers I got from Bullet are:

Duration @ 0.050: I/E 189*/194*
Lobe separation angle: 111*
Lift @ cam: I/E 0.273"/0.278"
Valve lift w/ 1.6 rockers: I/E 0.437”/0.445”

The numbers from Bullet are for a 2002 cam, not a 2000 cam like I was thinking. In my defense, the 360 in my Duster does have a 2000 5.9 cam in it.

The stuff I saved doesn't have much for comparisons to a 5.2 cam using the .050" lift specs. I do have the below info from a Sealed Power cam off the NAPA website, but no idea how accurate it is.

Cam Type : Hydraulic
Exhaust Duration : 191 Deg
Exhaust Lift (Inches) : .260"
Intake Duration : 191 Deg
Intake Lift (Inches) : .260"
Lobe Centerline (Exhaust) : 110 Deg
Lobe Centerline (Intake) : 110 Deg
Lope Separation : 110 Deg
Overlap : 50 Deg

I realize it is harder to compare specs if both aren't at the same measurement, but it's all I have. Not sure how to convert the .050" lift numbers to advertised.

If the info from Napa is legit, it appears that the 5.2 has a bit more intake duration, but less exhaust duration and less lift for both.

 

[DionR]

Here are, what I found in my quick search, for factory originally installed Mopar cams .
5.2 cam; 251/264/113Lsa
5.9 cam; 249/269/109Lsa
Can anyone verify if these are correct??

Based on the info I had, the durations above might not be far off.

An example of the wrong specs that I see often is the lift. Seems like most of the published specs for the 5.9 cam show the lift as 0.385"/0.401", which matches the pre-Magnum 360 lift spec and is significantly smaller than what was measured off the two cams above.