Any cam that increases power within stock rev range?
12-27-2006, 03:13 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: PORTLAND, OR, MULTNOMAH
Posts: 3,499
I meant 210/224...
The lift with 1.6 RRs is 510/552. The dual-pattern of this cam and the high exhaust lift is probably more beneficial on a stock head which has a bit to disire on the exhaust side. A ported head with good exhaust numbers may not benefit as much with the dual-pattern though.
As someone mentioned, perhaps putting 1.6s on the intake and leaving the 1.5s on the exhaust, where exhaust ports flow well might also be an option.
This would put the intake at 510 and the exhaust at 517----don't know if you would gain anything by this, but someone else may be able to address. JMHO
The lift with 1.6 RRs is 510/552. The dual-pattern of this cam and the high exhaust lift is probably more beneficial on a stock head which has a bit to disire on the exhaust side. A ported head with good exhaust numbers may not benefit as much with the dual-pattern though.
As someone mentioned, perhaps putting 1.6s on the intake and leaving the 1.5s on the exhaust, where exhaust ports flow well might also be an option.
This would put the intake at 510 and the exhaust at 517----don't know if you would gain anything by this, but someone else may be able to address. JMHO
12-28-2006, 04:57 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fresno, Ca
Posts: 386
I had a buddy with the crane 227 cam and ported heads+ full bolt ons smoke the hell outa my other friends 400rwhp cobra and neither of them had a better launch than the other. My friend with the cobra thought the guy was sprayin haha. Torque baby...
12-28-2006, 06:24 PM
#34
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sweet home Chicago
Posts: 215
I've learned a LOT from this thread. 
One of the things that really surprises me is that I don't recall ever reading anything about this Crane 227 cam before now, yet it appears to be quite the stellar performer in the LT1... very interesting...
One of the things that really surprises me is that I don't recall ever reading anything about this Crane 227 cam before now, yet it appears to be quite the stellar performer in the LT1... very interesting...
12-28-2006, 06:49 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Posts: 2,743
12-28-2006, 08:29 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Tacoma, WA, USA
Posts: 2,442
I will provide my $.02 on this. I've dyno'd my car both before and after the Hotcam, and in my experience the Hotcam makes nearly identical power to the stock cam below 5,000 rpm. The power lines on my dyno graphs run RIGHT through each other. I believe the poster wants a cam that will improve power in this area. The Hotcam won't provide down low.
12-28-2006, 09:08 PM
#37
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sweet home Chicago
Posts: 215
12-28-2006, 10:11 PM
#38
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sweet home Chicago
Posts: 215
While we're on the topic of this Crane 227, I took a look at their recommended springs... #99893, 130 lb@1.85", 314 lb@1.36", 1.08" coil bind... these have an OD of 1.46". but I'd really rather not machine my heads, so...
How about these? #99846, 125 lb@1.80", 383 lb@1.20", 1.10 coil bind, OD is 1.255... now I know the Open pressure doesn't appear to match the 99893, but to compare apples-to-apples, the Open pressure of this spring must be determined at 1.36", too ... this is 0.16" more than 1.20"... at this spring's rate of 428 lb/in, 0.16 x 428 = 68 lbs. So the 99846 has 68 lbs less pressure at 1.35" than it does at 1.20". So, at 1.35", this spring has a pressure of 383 - 68 = 315 lb (!)... virtually identical to the 99893.
If all this makes any sense, it looks like the "standard" diameter 99846 could work as a substitution for the larger diameter 99893...?? (at least for this cam, where its maximum lift does not exceed the max lift of either spring)
How about these? #99846, 125 lb@1.80", 383 lb@1.20", 1.10 coil bind, OD is 1.255... now I know the Open pressure doesn't appear to match the 99893, but to compare apples-to-apples, the Open pressure of this spring must be determined at 1.36", too ... this is 0.16" more than 1.20"... at this spring's rate of 428 lb/in, 0.16 x 428 = 68 lbs. So the 99846 has 68 lbs less pressure at 1.35" than it does at 1.20". So, at 1.35", this spring has a pressure of 383 - 68 = 315 lb (!)... virtually identical to the 99893.
If all this makes any sense, it looks like the "standard" diameter 99846 could work as a substitution for the larger diameter 99893...?? (at least for this cam, where its maximum lift does not exceed the max lift of either spring)
12-28-2006, 10:29 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ocala, Florida
Posts: 3,245
While we're on the topic of this Crane 227, I took a look at their recommended springs... #99893, 130 lb@1.85", 314 lb@1.36", 1.08" coil bind... these have an OD of 1.46". but I'd really rather not machine my heads, so...
How about these? #99846, 125 lb@1.80", 383 lb@1.20", 1.10 coil bind, OD is 1.255... now I know the Open pressure doesn't appear to match the 99893, but to compare apples-to-apples, the Open pressure of this spring must be determined at 1.36", too ... this is 0.16" more than 1.20"... at this spring's rate of 428 lb/in, 0.16 x 428 = 68 lbs. So the 99846 has 68 lbs less pressure at 1.35" than it does at 1.20". So, at 1.35", this spring has a pressure of 383 - 68 = 315 lb (!)... virtually identical to the 99893.
If all this makes any sense, it looks like the "standard" diameter 99846 could work as a substitution for the larger diameter 99893...?? (at least for this cam, where its maximum lift does not exceed the max lift of either spring)
How about these? #99846, 125 lb@1.80", 383 lb@1.20", 1.10 coil bind, OD is 1.255... now I know the Open pressure doesn't appear to match the 99893, but to compare apples-to-apples, the Open pressure of this spring must be determined at 1.36", too ... this is 0.16" more than 1.20"... at this spring's rate of 428 lb/in, 0.16 x 428 = 68 lbs. So the 99846 has 68 lbs less pressure at 1.35" than it does at 1.20". So, at 1.35", this spring has a pressure of 383 - 68 = 315 lb (!)... virtually identical to the 99893.
If all this makes any sense, it looks like the "standard" diameter 99846 could work as a substitution for the larger diameter 99893...?? (at least for this cam, where its maximum lift does not exceed the max lift of either spring)
12-29-2006, 10:24 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Carol Stream, Il.
Posts: 3,557
I'm not knocking the recommended springs, but you really can't go wrong with the 918's. A little more money but pretty much fool proof for many of the cams that guys are running.
12-29-2006, 11:09 AM
#42
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sweet home Chicago
Posts: 215
... how does a 1.46" OD spring fit OK into a spring seat designed for a 1.255" OD spring? (unless you machine the head?)
