MY Camshaft might be messed up! 09 5.3 Suburban NEED HELP?

[swathdiver]

I am trying to find a cam that will build a ton of torque down low as I have no desire to push the engine to high rpms.

These are the best for that:

Crane 1449501 = 200 200 .502 .502 113
BTR 30202111 = 202 202 .507 .507 111
Cam Motion = 200 204 .501 .501 114+3
Crane 1449541 = 200 208 .502 .502 115

 

[kbuskill]

These are the best for that:

Crane 1449501 = 200 200 .502 .502 113
BTR 30202111 = 202 202 .507 .507 111
Cam Motion = 200 204 .501 .501 114+3
Crane 1449541 = 200 208 .502 .502 115

So I'm obviously not a cam expert, so enlighten me.

I know the lower the LSA the more lope it will have at idle so the BTR cam you listed would probably have the most lope out of these, correct?

I don't quite understand the 114+3 LSA.. what does that mean?

Out of those 4 cams which do you think would make the most torque across the board at lower rpm/off idle?

***EDIT***

I just found this while researching...


So it looks like going with a tighter LSA would build more Torque at a lower RPM which is what I want...The trade off being less vacuum and having to run higher Octane fuel.

With that being said, how does a lower lift cam affect torque vs a higher lift cam?

I know you are a fan of low lift cams but hypothetically if you went with a higher lift cam with a lower/tighter LSA wouldn't it make more torque than a low lift/wider LSA cam?

 

[swathdiver]

So I'm obviously not a cam expert, so enlighten me.

I know the lower the LSA the more lope it will have at idle so the BTR cam you listed would probably have the most lope out of these, correct?

I don't quite understand the 114+3 LSA.. what does that mean?

Out of those 4 cams which do you think would make the most torque across the board at lower rpm/off idle?

***EDIT***

I just found this while researching...
View attachment 242962

So it looks like going with a tighter LSA would build more Torque at a lower RPM which is what I want...The trade off being less vacuum and having to run higher Octane fuel.

With that being said, how does a lower lift cam affect torque vs a higher lift cam?

I know you are a fan of low lift cams but hypothetically if you went with a higher lift cam with a lower/tighter LSA wouldn't it make more torque than a low lift/wider LSA cam?

I'm not sure I agree with everything on those charts. The stock cam in my V6 Buicks had a 108 LSA and idled much like our trucks do. In an all out motor, where you want to squeak out every last drop of power, it makes sense to increase lift beyond .510 and that alone, in an all out race motor, will yield about 10-20 HP tops. The heads just don't flow much more beyond that to make such worthwhile in a truck where low rpm power and durability is concerned. The stock springs are good for about .510 lift and is why most camshafts require a spring upgrade of some sort. Vacuum is not a problem with any of those camshafts. Some naturally aspirated cams in the Buick V6s only had problems feeding the brake booster when LSA was down around 104 as in your example. Maybe a larger V8 would want a little more to keep the vacuum high?

One thing not mentioned is the shape and design of the lobes themselves. You can have two camshafts from different philosophies with the exact same profile but since their lobes are different (ramp profile) the engines will behave very differently. One type may cause the valves to open and close quicker, putting more strain on the valve train for example while providing a very snappy and quick throttle response.

The 114+3 is a reference to install the camshaft 3 degrees advanced timing. This lowers the peak power band.

I don't consider myself an expert on camshafts, knowing enough to get into trouble, but long ago learned that bigger is usually not better. Fellas get all carried away by big numbers and leave a lot of power on the table. If you look up that first camshaft, it's not even made anymore, and yet it's dyno numbers rivaled those with much bigger numbers while retaining street manners, towing prowess and durability. When I had my speed shop, I made more money taking the garbage off of the cars that they'd been sold by the magazines and made them faster with more conservative modifications, working within the designers intent.

For that reason, on our 2007-2009 5.3s I like the single pattern camshafts better. We don't have VVT and with it the advantage of running a dual pattern camshaft with more duration on the exhaust side.

The Crane 1449541 is the exact same camshaft as the Vinci HD Tow Stick (MT 5-065). Crane moved to Mississippi but Vinci is still here in Florida and he has no problem talking to us over the phone. I think Mark has him on speed dial still! @Rocket Man

 

[kbuskill]

I'm not sure I agree with everything on those charts. The stock cam in my V6 Buicks had a 108 LSA and idled much like our trucks do. In an all out motor, where you want to squeak out every last drop of power, it makes sense to increase lift beyond .510 and that alone, in an all out race motor, will yield about 10-20 HP tops. The heads just don't flow much more beyond that to make such worthwhile in a truck where low rpm power and durability is concerned. The stock springs are good for about .510 lift and is why most camshafts require a spring upgrade of some sort. Vacuum is not a problem with any of those camshafts. Some naturally aspirated cams in the Buick V6s only had problems feeding the brake booster when LSA was down around 104 as in your example. Maybe a larger V8 would want a little more to keep the vacuum high?

One thing not mentioned is the shape and design of the lobes themselves. You can have two camshafts from different philosophies with the exact same profile but since their lobes are different (ramp profile) the engines will behave very differently. One type may cause the valves to open and close quicker, putting more strain on the valve train for example while providing a very snappy and quick throttle response.

The 114+3 is a reference to install the camshaft 3 degrees advanced timing. This lowers the peak power band.

I don't consider myself an expert on camshafts, knowing enough to get into trouble, but long ago learned that bigger is usually not better. Fellas get all carried away by big numbers and leave a lot of power on the table. If you look up that first camshaft, it's not even made anymore, and yet it's dyno numbers rivaled those with much bigger numbers while retaining street manners, towing prowess and durability. When I had my speed shop, I made more money taking the garbage off of the cars that they'd been sold by the magazines and made them faster with more conservative modifications, working within the designers intent.

For that reason, on our 2007-2009 5.3s I like the single pattern camshafts better. We don't have VVT and with it the advantage of running a dual pattern camshaft with more duration on the exhaust side.

The Crane 1449541 is the exact same camshaft as the Vinci HD Tow Stick (MT 5-065). Crane moved to Mississippi but Vinci is still here in Florida and he has no problem talking to us over the phone. I think Mark has him on speed dial still! @Rocket Man

I emailed Vinci with this question...
"I have a 2008 Chevy Suburban 1500 2wd with the LMG 5.3L (Flex fuel) engine and the 4L60E (4 speed) transmission.

It has 3:73 rear gears and I am running 285/40/22 tires (31" diameter).

I live in Northeast Florida (sea level).

It has an Airaid MIT intake tube and high flow air filter in the factory air box.

The truck also has a set of ceramic coated JBA Cat4ward (shorty) headers, no cats and a full exhaust through a 3 chamber Magnaflow muffler and has been custom tuned by Diablew with a Diablo sport tuner.

It is a 6,000 lb truck, I couldn't care less about peak HP numbers or high RPM. The truck is mostly driven around town with an occasional road trip with the family.

I would like to delete the AFM system and gain as much Torque down low and mid range as possible. I would also like some chop at idle without sacrificing vacuum and I don't want to change the torque converter.

What would you recommend for my goals (cam, etc.)?"


and this is what he said...

" I would recommend the VHP 553 camshaft. 208/216 530/530 113 +5A. It is designed for high torque gains with a moderate choppy idle."

The lope isn't a requirement for me but it would be cool if it had a little chop to it.

What do you think?

 

[swathdiver]

I emailed Vinci with this question...

and this is what he said...

" I would recommend the VHP 553 camshaft. 208/216 530/530 113 +5A. It is designed for high torque gains with a moderate choppy idle."

The lope isn't a requirement for me but it would be cool if it had a little chop to it.

What do you think?

Well Ken, I still think it's too big but he's the expert.

Have you ever looked at 799/243 head flow charts?

This is what hooked me:

https://markenperformance.com/n-867...-for-ls-stock-oe-valve-trains-4-8l-to-6l.html

These cams have been out for at least 6 years and now BTR came out with the similar grind posted about in late '18 or so.

 

[BurTan67]

Well success. I was able to reinstall the head. New Gaskets New Push Rods New plugs (ALL 8) no leaks. Everythings seems to be running smooth at the moment. I appreciate everyone that chimed in on my issue.
Thank you.
Chris

 

[kbuskill]

Well Ken, I still think it's too big but he's the expert.

Have you ever looked at 799/243 head flow charts?

This is what hooked me:

https://markenperformance.com/n-867...-for-ls-stock-oe-valve-trains-4-8l-to-6l.html

These cams have been out for at least 6 years and now BTR came out with the similar grind posted about in late '18 or so.

No I never have looked at any flow charts for these heads... do you have a link?

 

[kbuskill]

Well success. I was able to reinstall the head. New Gaskets New Push Rods New plugs (ALL 8) no leaks. Everythings seems to be running smooth at the moment. I appreciate everyone that chimed in on my issue.
Thank you.
Chris

Glad you got it sorted out... sorry I kinda hijacked your thread .. lol

 

[swathdiver]

Well success. I was able to reinstall the head. New Gaskets New Push Rods New plugs (ALL 8) no leaks. Everythings seems to be running smooth at the moment. I appreciate everyone that chimed in on my issue.

That's great news Chris!

No I never have looked at any flow charts for these heads... do you have a link?

http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/en...numbers-from-our-stock-ls-cylinder-head-test/

https://www.performancetrucks.net/f...ns-158/tech-only-gm-head-casting-info-434396/

 

[BurTan67]

Glad you got it sorted out... sorry I kinda hijacked your thread .. lol

AHH no problem. This is the GM family all good..
Chris