Cam vs mpg

[Sawlog]

Originally Posted by garyd1961

This has been the ruin of many of good motors.

I know I know, I was just wanting to go 216 216@ .5. 110 lsa. Sounds like I better leave well enough alone.

[garyd1961]

Originally Posted by Sawlog

I know I know, I was just wanting to go 216 216@ .5. 110 lsa. Sounds like I better leave well enough alone.

I am not an expert but I just spent a lot of money on a motor with a big lopy cam just to learn it was basically worthless in my truck. With a big lopy cam you need a big stall converter and big gears in the rear. What you end up with is a truck that is good for going WOT for a short distance but you sacrifice low end torque and gas mileage.
If you want a big lopy cam get a light weight car and build you a drag racer. If you want a good cruising truck with power in the low rpm range where you need it leave your motor alone.

[Boog]

Originally Posted by garyd1961

I am not an expert but I just spent a lot of money on a motor with a big lopy cam just to learn it was basically worthless in my truck. With a big lopy cam you need a big stall converter and big gears in the rear. What you end up with is a truck that is good for going WOT for a short distance but you sacrifice low end torque and gas mileage.
If you want a big lopy cam get a light weight car and build you a drag racer. If you want a good cruising truck with power in the low rpm range where you need it leave your motor alone.

That's solid advice right there.

[Captainfab]

You just have to ask yourself if having that lopey idle is worth loosing maybe 5 mpg's or more depending on the cam.

Originally Posted by Sawlog

I know I know, I was just wanting to go 216 216@ .5. 110 lsa. Sounds like I better leave well enough alone.

[toolboxchev]

Originally Posted by Captainfab

You just have to ask yourself if having that lopey idle is worth loosing maybe 5 mpg's or more depending on the cam.

After listening to these guys the 210-218 total lift at .526-.522 sounds like I would be losing out on mileage without gaining much if anything.

[BossHogg69]

Originally Posted by Sawlog

I know I know, I was just wanting to go 216 216@ .5. 110 lsa. Sounds like I better leave well enough alone.

Going to a 216* can @ .050" really isn't going to give you much 'lope' at all.
You might be able to tell that it has a mild cam, but definitely not the fender shaking crackle/thump/lope that you might be hearing in your head.

Just leave it like it is and enjoy a reliable daily driver with the good mpg you're getting now.

[toolboxchev]

Originally Posted by BossHogg69

Going to a 216* can @ .050" really isn't going to give you much 'lope' at all.
You might be able to tell that it has a mild cam, but definitely not the fender shaking crackle/thump/lope that you might be hearing in your head.

Really sounds like you have a great combo working on this right now. I wonder if those cam companies are engineering their product just for an idle sound?

I would hope that engineering's first priority would be HP/Torque at WOT then mileage on light throttle similar to a VVT tuned engine would be. I know some are ground this way yet there is a ton to understand to get there.