The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network







Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Go Back   The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network > General Truck Forums > Engine & Drivetrain

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-11-2017, 04:31 PM   #26
BossHogg69
motor exploder
 
BossHogg69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sherwood, AR
Posts: 2,184
Re: Cam vs mpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawlog View Post
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.
__________________
Adam

1969 Chevy CST/10 swb stepside

2005 GMC ccsb 1500, 5.3/3.73 G80, tow pkg

1965 Chevy Belair Wagon, 350/TH350, factory a/c

Use the SEARCH function on this forum - it is your friend!!

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "NUMBERS MATCHING" '67-72 C10!

Last edited by BossHogg69; 09-11-2017 at 10:49 PM.
BossHogg69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 04:57 PM   #27
toolboxchev
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: 2nd left past the stump on a dirt road.
Posts: 1,122
Re: Cam vs mpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by BossHogg69 View Post
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.
toolboxchev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 06:38 PM   #28
Coley
Senior Member
 
Coley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Victoria, B.C
Posts: 2,388
Smile Re: Cam vs mpg

Put a couple of interupter wires into one or two of the spark plug leads.
When you pull up to a light or idle through a parking lot, just hit a switch and ground off one of the spark plugs....that'll give you a rough idle for appearance/sound sake.
Then when you leave the parking lot, click back onto 8 cylinders.
Way cheaper...probably $25 worth of parts....same sound....same roughness.

All Good
Coley
__________________
....for some men, there is experience, skill and effort....for the others...there is visa and UPS LOL
1966 Chevy 1/2 ton (Florida- Red/white)
1972 Chevy 1/2 ton (California- Blue/white)
2005 Chevy Silverado HD2500/Duramax
2000 Dodge Ram 1500
Coley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 08:06 PM   #29
mattfranklin
Senior Member
 
mattfranklin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Moraga, CA
Posts: 291
Re: Cam vs mpg

Except for the getting shocked part when you touch the switch. ;-)
__________________
(Very) Slow-Going Build Thread: Stock 1970 Short Step with Stock 1970 LT-1

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=567340
mattfranklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 10:07 PM   #30
garyd1961
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Henderson NC
Posts: 398
Re: Cam vs mpg

I can't believe the guys on here suggesting you should screw up the tuning on a perfectly good running motor to imitate a big cam. Why not just get a set of old heads with some burnt valves, that would really make a rough idle.
garyd1961 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 03:58 PM   #31
Square up 84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Denton, Tx
Posts: 7
Re: Cam vs mpg

I have a 454 with a big Loby Cam in my 86 Silveraydo is not a fun cruising truck.
Square up 84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2017, 10:15 PM   #32
edhtrd71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Edinburg, Texas.
Posts: 186
Re: Cam vs mpg

Unfortunately lopey idle and good mpg don't exist together. Maybe if you were willing to raise the compression a bunch with the cam swap it might not hurt mpg as bad. Just a theory there, others may say that's bologna.
edhtrd71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 08:44 PM   #33
Sawlog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Central illinois
Posts: 38
Re: Cam vs mpg

Thank you for all the replies, I have a itch to scratch. I ordered a comp xe256. Going to swap out this weekend. I want to see how much differance these faster m0ving valves make.
Sawlog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1997-2013 67-72chevytrucks.com