My progress so far.....

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Feb 3, 2008 | 08:09 PM

#16

gamudslinger88

Thread Starter

Junior User

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 85

Likes: 0

From: middle Georgia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conanski

No.. smaller LSA means more valve overlap which lowers dynamic compression and raises the powerband.

Yes you are correct. I was mistaken about that. I was wrong here. YOU 1-ME 0, you got me,lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conanski

The 5.0 makes better power in the upper rpms, but the heads don't flow hugh numbers so there's only so much you're gonna get anyway. The HO cam produces the widest powerband in this motor, and that's with a 266 advertised duration(211@050"), but the HO motor is weak at low rpms in a heavy truck as reported by several here who have swapped one in. Replacing the whole top end with GT40 parts produces more high rpm power but weakens the low rpm even more. FMS cams like the B303 are a further step in that direction.. there's no beating the physics here. There's nothing wrong with building a motor that works best between 3000-6000rpm, just be prepared to supply gears and maybe a high stall converter to go along with it.

I agree and I am accepting the fact that I will sacrafice torque for the overall horse power fiqure. Torque being more practical for a truck, I agree here also, but I am trying to build a strong puller on the bottom end that doesnt peter out on top.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conanski

In defense of the guys at the other end of the phone at a cam company.. his suggestion is only gonna be as good as the information provided. If you ask for the max HP for your engine combo he's probably going to suggest a cam that does best at 6000rpm. But if you ask for the most power for street applications in a 4500lb truck you'll probably get something that looks a lot like the Crane 35-255-5. I bet most people phoning in are looking for every last pony they can get out of their combo for race applications, so it's easy for a tech to misinterpret the 1 guy in 100 that asks for something different.

I give them the information but they seem to just want to push a certine cam and not want to here what I am wanting to do with the vehicle. Maybe just my luck, I dont know?

I wasnt trying to start a fire here I was just asking a logical question then certine folks want to jump and say "do more research". The research has been performed and the decision has been made. Thinks happy thoughts people. We are all adults here.....or are we.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssidney

for the benefit of all, thanks...

I know that wasnt directed at me but Im glad I could be a part of your day

Feb 4, 2008 | 07:48 AM

#17

Conanski

FTE Legend

Joined: Jun 2006

Posts: 31,930

Likes: 1,499

From: Ottawa, Ontario

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamudslinger88

That may be part of the reason you get the responses you do from the cam guys.. the 302 is just not gonna produce as wide a powerband as a 351 for example.. just not enough displacement for a heavy vehicle. A near stock 5.8 with the HO cam(or similar) produces a fat powerband from 1500 to 4500rpm.. which is great in a truck. But the 5.0 needs at least another 1000rpm before it starts producing enough torque to move a truck with that kind of authority. You know the saying.. there's no replacement for displacement.

Feb 4, 2008 | 10:12 AM

#18

gamudslinger88

Thread Starter

Junior User

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 85

Likes: 0

From: middle Georgia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conanski

You know the saying.. there's no replacement for displacement.

Yes sir I have heard that one a time or two. My father lives by those words! Maybe I should have went with a 351 then. I have run up on a good deal on a 88 bronco 4x4 that I may buy to convert mine over to 4wd. I have a dana 44 out of an 79 F150 that I may use instead though. not sure yet but Im sure that the 5.0 will get the life saped out of it having to turn over some 35s or better. Even with 4.56 gears. We will have to wait and see.