Looks like i got the Performance bug

[andrew383]

all the LS engines like to rev and make power at higher RPM's, which means TC and gears. The TR220 would only enhance those higher RPM's, IMHO.

So who wants to turn there tahoe to 6500 rpms??? The comp 212/216 low lift was dyno'd with a header swap and gained 44hp/19tq at the top of the curve but at 6400rpm gain 60hp/55tq..
There was nothing lost at 2k rpm's either,so why would you want to move the power band up even more with that cam???

 

[hoe]

212-217 range IMO. I agree with Andrew. And those ranges are better suited for 6.0s... I would go Lil smaller with a 5.3 as well.

 

[Travieso]

212-217 range IMO. I agree with Andrew. And those ranges are better suited for 6.0s... I would go Lil smaller with a 5.3 as well.

so the question should i or should i pass on the voodo cam ?
http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=2023&gid=288

and what are the benefits of ported heads ?

 

[hoe]

so the question should i or should i pass on the voodo cam ?
http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=2023&gid=288

and what are the benefits of ported heads ?

yes, for the price, and the gains, I would. Its not like the cam is a 224/224 or 230 or something. That 217/223 is ideal for my vmax 6.0 NA engine. For your 5.3 I would use it too, if you are staying NA. I would just use a higher stall converter since you have a smaller engine. You would love that cam with a 2800 Circle D stall converter. It will allow alot more midrange power, and upper rpm power, without sacrificing much of the bottom end. And with the stall, you will be in the powerband of the cam faster.

I mean no need to spin a engine to 6400 rpms, when that power can be made at 2900 rpms. Suvs are heavier than pickups, pickups are heavier than 2 door cars as well. Trucks need low-midrange power.

That cam will work good with ported heads. Better yet slap some 6.0 heads on with that cam ontop of the 5.3.

 

[blueflamed03]

So who wants to turn there tahoe to 6500 rpms??? The comp 212/216 low lift was dyno'd with a header swap and gained 44hp/19tq at the top of the curve but at 6400rpm gain 60hp/55tq..
There was nothing lost at 2k rpm's either,so why would you want to move the power band up even more with that cam???

re-read my ORIGINAL post, I clearly stated 212/218..........and where did I say rev to 6500 ? The TR220 is tried and true in a 5.3 with a Circle d 3200+ish stall and gears. I have NO clue how the original poster drives or plans to run. Want TQ, yank it out and add a 6.0. But many use the Tr220 in 5.3's and love the powerband.

looking at my post, I stated LS engies like to rev, sorry, thats a fact. A stock cam could benefit with a stall converter. The TR220 would move that up in the powerband, and the tr220 would enhance that. Me, I wouldnt add one in a 5.3...a 6.0 sure, but I'd rather do the Comp I originally posted.

 

[hoe]

re-read my ORIGINAL post, I clearly stated 212/218..........and where did I say rev to 6500 ? The TR220 is tried and true in a 5.3 with a Circle d 3200+ish stall and gears. I have NO clue how the original poster drives or plans to run. Want TQ, yank it out and add a 6.0. But many use the Tr220 in 5.3's and love the powerband.

looking at my post, I stated LS engines like to rev, sorry, thats a fact. A stock cam could benefit with a stall converter. The TR220 would move that up in the powerband, and the tr220 would enhance that. Me, I wouldnt add one in a 5.3...a 6.0 sure, but I'd rather do the Comp I originally posted.

well said, my stock cam in the lq9 is 196/207. And Im putting a Yank 3200 stall behind it this week, not a new camshaft!... also adding LPP longtubes and ORY. Leaving the cam stock, cause its a good cam, and produces good power, just needs to rev into the powerband, thus almost all LS cams, thus me adding the stall. These engine are great to begin with, boltons alone can get it moving nice.

When the money tree shakes again, I may do the 216/224 in my LQ9. Big step up from the 196/207. Also the 5.3s cam is smaller than that IIRC.