5.0 LS cam for 7500.
Moderator: Team
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
For my application, my initial ~.050" thoughts are:
IVO 30 EVC 23
IVC 68 EVO 61
Should peak around 8600 and peak tq ~5800-6000rpm
I wish I had some more rocker ratio and less rod/stroke ratio but dudes had already bought stuff
Budget limited so probably some LS7/LS3 variant heads. CID Intake manifold, thanks Jon Schmidt(sp?). https://www.cidheads.com/products/cid-l ... e-manifold
I'll probably end up with 3-5 different cams till I'm happy on the dyno. I'll probably try to kill the low lift flow on the intake port after some initial testing but will test both ways...plus some header mods during testing. We'll see
I won't know till testing with this short stroke and horrible rod/stroke ratio. I will test all variants with this combination. The extremely long carry during overlap will tell the tale and I will expose whatever it teaches me
IVO 30 EVC 23
IVC 68 EVO 61
Should peak around 8600 and peak tq ~5800-6000rpm
I wish I had some more rocker ratio and less rod/stroke ratio but dudes had already bought stuff
Budget limited so probably some LS7/LS3 variant heads. CID Intake manifold, thanks Jon Schmidt(sp?). https://www.cidheads.com/products/cid-l ... e-manifold
I'll probably end up with 3-5 different cams till I'm happy on the dyno. I'll probably try to kill the low lift flow on the intake port after some initial testing but will test both ways...plus some header mods during testing. We'll see
I won't know till testing with this short stroke and horrible rod/stroke ratio. I will test all variants with this combination. The extremely long carry during overlap will tell the tale and I will expose whatever it teaches me
Heat is energy, energy is horsepower...but you gotta control the heat.
-Carl
-Carl
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
It seems like this type of method would require you to average the flow from all lift points minus the points of reversion and then probably make an entirely new math equation.Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:26 pm Can someone else do the calculations using Ben's method?
Using Ben's method I get 197.25 degrees @ 0.050" Now to fair this method uses a fixed VE% of 100%.
Stan
Please Note!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
Plus the 3456 equation for processed air through a complete engine doesn't use (nor need to use) a vacuum drop, the flow bench does, they're to different measurements that aren't related by number of cylinders or cam timing. You can turn the engine over with an electric motor and physically get the 3456 figure.
Ones sucking air through a port, the other is physical consumption. We know each port processed 1/8 of the 662 cfm per cycle, 83 CFM. To pass that amount of air at 7500 and produce power it had everything that makes the engine make power involved, runner length, af ratio, ignition timing, fuel quality, valve event, overlap etc etc.
The 28" of vacuum airflow is almost empirical data, we know about what we need for x amount of horsepower on X combination because it's all been done before.
So if you make a formula from it for valve open timing or anything else, it will most likely be based on empirical data like the 128 rule, make a formula, throw in the magic factor that makes it come to an answer that you know it will on the dyno.
Bens formula needs a magic correction factor.
Ignorance leads to confidence more often than knowledge does.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
Yer, between the Coyote and the LS we're talking something like 238mm of valve circumference versus 160 odd mm.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Ignorance leads to confidence more often than knowledge does.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
Is the fundamental flaw in his calculation (formula) that if the cylinder head flow test depression is changed from 28” in/h2o then it’s selecting a different cam in search of the same outcome? The other obvious flaw is the head doesn’t present maximum tested flow to the cylinder for all of the cams opening duration so I see what Gary C says about the need for averaging flow at lift points minus reversion degrees which is only known with valve events.
I’m a Street/Strip guy..... like to think outside the quadrilateral parallelogram.
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
Peak port flow at any depression can't work as a formula for figuring peak HP at revs duration requirement without all the other factors, valve size, port size, runner length, exhaust system etc.
Runner length would be one of the few things that is somewhat constant for peaking power at X revs and it's still not truly constant for different engines.
That's where the difference will be between the 4v and 2v duration requirements, 238mm circ will let a lot more air in than 160mm circ at 100 thou lift.HQM383 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:40 pm The other obvious flaw is the head doesn’t present maximum tested flow to the cylinder for all of the cams opening duration so I see what Gary C says about the need for averaging flow at lift points minus reversion degrees which is only known with valve events.
Shouldn't be a lot of reversion at 7500, especially for the 4v that will have way way less overlap and also an earlier inlet valve closing to pass the same amount of air even though both heads may show a peak flow of about 300CFM at 28" on a flow bench.
Ignorance leads to confidence more often than knowledge does.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
That’s right, too many other factors. The way I see it using the data from a developmental tool (flowbench) and including it in the formula the way he has can only spit out erroneous results. It’s been said a million times that an engine doesn’t operate on 28” depression.Tom68 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:18 pmPeak port flow at any depression can't work as a formula for figuring peak HP at revs duration requirement without all the other factors, valve size, port size, runner length, exhaust system etc.
Runner length would be one of the few things that is somewhat constant for peaking power at X revs and it's still not truly constant for different engines.
I’m a Street/Strip guy..... like to think outside the quadrilateral parallelogram.
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
But it can of course be used very accurately to help optimise any given package combined with a power test to confirm the improvements.
Better calculate that 82cfm for the LS as an average flow number.
Ignorance leads to confidence more often than knowledge does.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
Let me try this.
5 l @ 7500 rpm, 662cfm divided by 8 cylinders, 83CFM.
Out of each 720 degrees the intake is drawing for say 240 degrees. So 1/3 of every two revolutions, or 1/6 of a single revolution.
83 CFM divided by 0.16666 equals an average of 498 CFM airflow speed (speed, not quantity of) through the port per intake stroke.
Now we just have to crank up a flow bench to flow 498 CFM at say 400 thou lift and lock the depression rate in.
Any improvements we make there (doesn't allow for wet flow problems) should show as an almost directly proportional power improvement at 7500 for a 305.
400 thou because that will be closer to high piston speed, 300 thou would be closer to average lift but the piston speed will be down, especially on the closing ramp.
5 l @ 7500 rpm, 662cfm divided by 8 cylinders, 83CFM.
Out of each 720 degrees the intake is drawing for say 240 degrees. So 1/3 of every two revolutions, or 1/6 of a single revolution.
83 CFM divided by 0.16666 equals an average of 498 CFM airflow speed (speed, not quantity of) through the port per intake stroke.
Now we just have to crank up a flow bench to flow 498 CFM at say 400 thou lift and lock the depression rate in.
Any improvements we make there (doesn't allow for wet flow problems) should show as an almost directly proportional power improvement at 7500 for a 305.
400 thou because that will be closer to high piston speed, 300 thou would be closer to average lift but the piston speed will be down, especially on the closing ramp.
Ignorance leads to confidence more often than knowledge does.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
Interesting. I did a budget 297 SBF build with about 9.9:1 compression and a cam with an intake lobe of 224 duration at .050 and over .630 lift at the valve with 1.7 rockers. Stock Canfield 195 cylinder head (little over 270 cfm when I had them put on a local flowbench) Parker Funnel Web intake and 750 Holley HP on the dyno. Peak HP was 6,900 rpm. Didn’t like being pulled to 7,500.
Intake valve is moved to the center of the bore on those heads to avoid shrouding and I was trying to get away with roller rockers and a Jomar girdle. After the dyno sessions I could not get over the slight angle the rockers came onto the valve with and how it went to crap pulling to 7,500. Bought the right shaft rockers and it pulled clean to 7,500 at the track. So peak with shaft rockers may have been slightly higher. But never put it back on the dyno. Only track.
New combo will be a 306 cube SBF 11.4:1 compression. This time an overkill AFR 220 cylinder head. Undecided on the single plane intake and will use an old 950 Holley HP. Keeping it under 8,500 rpm for a drag racing application that will get putted around on the street for fun. Stick shift, light car, and short 26” tire. Zero care nor need for low rpm anything. 4-2-1 headers from Calvin Elston (great person to do business with). Cam and valvetrain from Ed Curtis (EDC on this forum and another good person to do business with).
This time the cam is just over 250 at .050 on the intake lobe with over .730 lift. Projected peak is around 7,800. Should be coming together and get on the engine dyno in a couple months. I’ll report results here when it does. These days everything takes longer to get in your hands. Lack of intake manifold options has been KILLING me!
Comparing my new build to a Coyote isn’t something I’ve thought about. But the Coyote will KILL my engine in the lower rpm range even if I do keep up in the mid to high range. But I have my Duramax if I need lowend torque.
Intake valve is moved to the center of the bore on those heads to avoid shrouding and I was trying to get away with roller rockers and a Jomar girdle. After the dyno sessions I could not get over the slight angle the rockers came onto the valve with and how it went to crap pulling to 7,500. Bought the right shaft rockers and it pulled clean to 7,500 at the track. So peak with shaft rockers may have been slightly higher. But never put it back on the dyno. Only track.
New combo will be a 306 cube SBF 11.4:1 compression. This time an overkill AFR 220 cylinder head. Undecided on the single plane intake and will use an old 950 Holley HP. Keeping it under 8,500 rpm for a drag racing application that will get putted around on the street for fun. Stick shift, light car, and short 26” tire. Zero care nor need for low rpm anything. 4-2-1 headers from Calvin Elston (great person to do business with). Cam and valvetrain from Ed Curtis (EDC on this forum and another good person to do business with).
This time the cam is just over 250 at .050 on the intake lobe with over .730 lift. Projected peak is around 7,800. Should be coming together and get on the engine dyno in a couple months. I’ll report results here when it does. These days everything takes longer to get in your hands. Lack of intake manifold options has been KILLING me!
Comparing my new build to a Coyote isn’t something I’ve thought about. But the Coyote will KILL my engine in the lower rpm range even if I do keep up in the mid to high range. But I have my Duramax if I need lowend torque.
- Stan Weiss
- Vendor
- Posts: 4815
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
Sorry but I don't agree with your math.Tom68 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:26 pm Let me try this.
5 l @ 7500 rpm, 662cfm divided by 8 cylinders, 83CFM.
Out of each 720 degrees the intake is drawing for say 240 degrees. So 1/3 of every two revolutions, or 1/6 of a single revolution.
83 CFM divided by 0.16666 equals an average of 498 CFM airflow speed (speed, not quantity of) through the port per intake stroke.
Now we just have to crank up a flow bench to flow 498 CFM at say 400 thou lift and lock the depression rate in.
Any improvements we make there (doesn't allow for wet flow problems) should show as an almost directly proportional power improvement at 7500 for a 305.
400 thou because that will be closer to high piston speed, 300 thou would be closer to average lift but the piston speed will be down, especially on the closing ramp.
662 / 4 = 165.5 cfm
240 is 2/3 of a single revolution
165.5 / (2 / 3) = 248.25 cfm
Stan
Stan Weiss/World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
Yep I see what I messed up. I did say try... Cheers.Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:24 amSorry but I don't agree with your math.Tom68 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:26 pm Let me try this.
5 l @ 7500 rpm, 662cfm divided by 8 cylinders, 83CFM.
Out of each 720 degrees the intake is drawing for say 240 degrees. So 1/3 of every two revolutions, or 1/6 of a single revolution.
83 CFM divided by 0.16666 equals an average of 498 CFM airflow speed (speed, not quantity of) through the port per intake stroke.
Now we just have to crank up a flow bench to flow 498 CFM at say 400 thou lift and lock the depression rate in.
Any improvements we make there (doesn't allow for wet flow problems) should show as an almost directly proportional power improvement at 7500 for a 305.
400 thou because that will be closer to high piston speed, 300 thou would be closer to average lift but the piston speed will be down, especially on the closing ramp.
662 / 4 = 165.5 cfm
240 is 2/3 of a single revolution
165.5 / (2 / 3) = 248.25 cfm
Stan
248 average for 240 degrees it is.
That's where the 28" makes a nice number for flowing heads.
Ignorance leads to confidence more often than knowledge does.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
My brother graduated with honors from cal tech on an internship from JPL. Helped write the landing program on the mars rover. Graduated at the top of his class with honors. You can believe in math or understand you don’t have the information to compute anything beyond a generalization.
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
Some worship calculations and others worship acceleration down the track. You don’t have to perfectly understand it to realize what works. Just me.
Re: 5.0 LS cam for 7500.
Hiya Nate,
Oh we could all brag, lol. The sim in my head says mine will make 589hp. That isn't enough I want 650hp. Maybe with some good trickery on the pipes and some variable valve timing, I'll get what I want
Oh we could all brag, lol. The sim in my head says mine will make 589hp. That isn't enough I want 650hp. Maybe with some good trickery on the pipes and some variable valve timing, I'll get what I want
Heat is energy, energy is horsepower...but you gotta control the heat.
-Carl
-Carl