Welcome To CK5!
Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.
Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.
Discussion in 'The Garage' started by m1ndless, Mar 3, 2007.
Is a RV cam a good way to improve torque? What else can I do? Maybe new headers too?
Header and a nice flowing exhust should help.
I've only ever had 1 RV cam, and it didn't do much of anything, except limit my top end power. Not that, that engine was a big RPM build.
I'd really look to some other camshaft designs. Comp Cams 4x4 Extreme Energy series for one.
So an RV cam isnt necessary? Just a better cam? I was thinking headers, and what is a free flowing exhaust?
2 1/2 " exhaust from the headers back to your choice of free flowing mufflers (Flowmaster, Hooker, Magnaflow, many others) and tailpipes (If you're the tailpipe kinda guy). RV cams are probably a little better than a stock cam, but there are many good cams designed for torque these days. Call up a good cam company and have them recommend you one.
an exhaust with nice bends like straight pipes
How about these headers..
& this exhaust
If not those, can someone reccomend some?
Any other good stores to check out? I want my blazer to sound like a BEAST!
Also what about this from jegs...
both look like good choices to me. Add some mufflers. A non-built motor just doesn't sound good straight piped in my opinion.
You live here in Phoenix, if this truck you are wanting this cam installed in is a street driver, you need to make sure it will run the motor and meet emissions standards.
Not sure what they have done with cam grinds lately, but back when i had a different motor built, that's pretty much all that was available to me was the "RV" cam to keep within emissions standards.
From the way i understood it, the RV cam was like two stages above stock grind? maybe one? not sure, someone on here should know this.
I just noticed that exhaust is only 2.25 though... Hmm.
I am going to do all of this AFTER I do emissons in april, that will give me 2 years of freedom before I have to worry.
After emissions is a good idea, and in reality, with true dual exhaust on a non-built engine 2.25" is actually a better choice. If all your doing is headers, small cam, and maybe an intake, don't worry about the size. Unless you just want it to look bigger and beefier. Which I can't argue with. I had 2.25" on my K5 and it looked a little small but it was torquey and sounded good. But the 2.5" dual flowmasters right off the headers on my Suburban sounded SICK... and illegally loud.
I don't know jack about this but the headers you listed are for 2WD trucks. I don't know if there is a difference.
for low end torque, you want a cam with moderatley low lift, a small lobe seperation angle, and as little overlap as possible. the CompCams Xtreme energy 242 cam is a good choice. but calling the comp cam helpline is always a good idea.
as for headers, for torque you want a small primary tube (1.5in to 2in) long tube setup, and a stepped tube design is even more preferable.
also for torque a little backpressure in the exhaust isnt a bad thing, so the 2.25in exhaust pipes, especially if you have a 305.
"small LSA" and "little overlap".... thats like an oxymoron. You want larger LSA and yes little overlap.
i have an RV cam in my 454, and it practically runs like a diesel, however, i literally have no high end horse power. torque in the 1000 to 1500 range is incredible, of course that doesnt really matter unless your towing 10,000 pounds. i plan on getting a cam that'l allow me to spin at higher rpms next.
If anyones got stock truck cam specs, I'd be curious to know if you can improve on the low end torque. Even in the darkest emissions days the 350's made pretty decent torque in truck engines.
Everyone complains about the "weak" truck cams, I would be willing to bet GM sacrificed upper end for low end with them.
Perhaps technology has advanced cam design enough that low end performance isn't necessarily exclusive of mid range performance, but I can't imagine the torque is greatly improved down low, even with new cams.
I'm talking off idle, not 2000RPM+, which is where almost all dyno charts start.
when i mentioned the small lsa's and small overlap, i was referring to a cam with less durration, which would acheive both those things, at lower speeds the cam dosnt need to be open as long, so for propor valve timing, for low end torque, the short durration, small overlap (or no overlap) cams will have a smaller LSA than a high performance cam.
regarding the cam technology of the 80s, alot has changed, as far as ramp angles, cam profiles, and what is referred to as "area under the curve" where a modern cam that has the same specs as an older cam, due to the modern design of the cam profile, will actually allow more air into the cylender thus creating more power. this is acheived through more aggressive opening and closing ramps more often than not. so actually a modern cam would be an improovment over an original smog era cam, and even a cam from the 80's even if it has the same specs on paper.
I was worried about an RV cam not having enough top end power, I want something in the middle, more leaning towards tourque. I will be driving around an hour to get to table mesa and my other spots around AZ.
I am going to call around to a few Cam manufs and see what I can get. Along with the cam I will be doing headers and exhuast, I have a decent magnaflow muffler on it already, not sure of the model though... Ill have to check.
It's not going to kill your top end power all together, just won't have the power to rev to like 5000-6000, for the type of driving you are most likely going to be doing out here, and the wheelin, you will be ok with it.
Awhile back, i had a "RV' cam installed in a 305 (granted it was a 305) but in all honesty i didn't feel any difference in the performance of the way the car drove. The exhaust was opened up some and was running an Edlebrock dual plane manifold and carb with it.
Separate names with a comma.