| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
alloy T56 Elitist

Joined: 25 Jan 2004 Posts: 1716 Location: Vancouver, WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: SLP cam |
|
|
I've got a chance to pick up an SLP cam for $50. I have the L98 I got from Mike, but this one is $50 and I'm not much of a cam guy when it comes to computer controlled engine.
Specs are:
lift intake:.480
exhaust: .487
duration intake: 258
exhaust: 264
duration at .050
intake: 206
exhaust: 212
centerline: 212
Slp doesn't list this cam now, but they did back in 2002.
Here is what they say about it.
SLP hyd. roller camshafts are designed for 305 and 350 TPI engines in computer controlled street driven camaro's and firebirds. We have put a lot of dyno and road testing into these cams to ensure good driveability, acceptable idle and compatibility with all electronic engine controls, including the mass air flow sensor. Power gains as hgh as 30 extra horsepower on a 305, and 35 in a 350. Slp cams work equally well in both manual and auto cars.
I'm looking for a cam that will let me have torque down low, give me some top end, and not destroy my milage.
Anyone have any thoughts on what this cam will be like in a daily driver with vortec heads, 9.3 compression, scoggins/dickey intake, headers, manual trans, 3.42 gears? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rjmcgee The Hammer

Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 2328
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Should be a pretty good match for what your wanting out of her. Nice thing about the roller cams, if you don't like it switch it out with a differant one later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dewey316 The Lama

Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 7295 Location: Bringing the tech
1990 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That might be even a hair small. I am running a 206/216 on my 305. it has the same torque at 1800rpm as it does at 4000rpm. With your goals, I wouldn't go too radical, that really isn't much diffrent than that stock L98 cam, just a little more aggresive.
--John |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
alloy T56 Elitist

Joined: 25 Jan 2004 Posts: 1716 Location: Vancouver, WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't want to go aggressive, I like low end grunt, and good milage. And at 4:45 in the morning it's nice for it to start up and get me to work everyday.
Gotta build those airplanes you know  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Twilightoptics Hardcore (12sec Club)

Joined: 13 Jan 2004 Posts: 9191 Location: Auburn , WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What are the specs of the L98 to compare? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Schultzy89GTA M.R.A. (11sec Club)

Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 4417 Location: Gresham, OR
1989 Pontiac GTA
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
These are the specs as I understand them for the diff years. If this is to believed the SLP cam is actually a tad smaller than the 89 L98 cam that I sold you. I would be interested to see what part number is stamped on the cam Dan.
CAM 87 L98 14093643 Dur @.050 202/207 Lift (w/1.5) .404/.415 LSA 114.5
CAM 88-89 L98 10066049 Dur@.050 207/213 Lift (w/1.5) .415/.430 LSA 117
CAM 90-91 L98 10111773 Dur@.050" 202/207 Lift (w/1.5) .413/.428 LSA 114.5
-Schultzy _________________ Red Sled: 89 GTA, 383, TKO, N2O
12.73 @ 109.39, 1.793 60 \ 11.794 @ 121.16, 1.62 60 (old combo) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
alloy T56 Elitist

Joined: 25 Jan 2004 Posts: 1716 Location: Vancouver, WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
here's a pic the seller sent me.
I'll post more when I get home today. Can't stay online long at work.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
alloy T56 Elitist

Joined: 25 Jan 2004 Posts: 1716 Location: Vancouver, WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, home now. Had a 747 flap track I had to finish up before leaving today.
I've been searching looking for info on the 51002 SLP cam and found some conflicting info. In their catalog the 51001 and 51002 have the exact same data. I think they had a typo and the 51002 specs are as follows.
51002 duration: 206/214 lift: .470/.490 seperation: 112deg
But............I also just found a post on TGO about the same cam and he has the cam spec card with the same specs I originally posted Who's right? http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/tech-general-engine/24091-looking-info-slp-cam.html
I'm just not sure if it's worth going to this cam over the one I already have from Mike. It's cheap, but what are the correct specs and it is any real improvement over the stock L98 bumpstick? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dewey316 The Lama

Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 7295 Location: Bringing the tech
1990 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would think ZZ4 cams would be easy to find, they are a small step up, and should fit the needs your looking for well.
--John |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Schultzy89GTA M.R.A. (11sec Club)

Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 4417 Location: Gresham, OR
1989 Pontiac GTA
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan,
I was talking about the numbers on the L98 cam. The specs on some of the L98 cams are actually 'bigger' than the SLP cam.
-Schultzy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Twilightoptics Hardcore (12sec Club)

Joined: 13 Jan 2004 Posts: 9191 Location: Auburn , WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Run the L98 cam. The LSA alone will be a great improvement in drivability and tunability. Not that tuning cams that small are tough... it's just that much easier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
izcain 9sec Club
Joined: 09 Sep 2006 Posts: 1306 Location: Port Angeles WA
1983 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
no wonder they produce a flat torque curve lol that lsa is a great match for street driven applications. _________________
1983 Z28 383 + 201ci more = New Heart for this season!
9.17 @ 148 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|