Stroke should be 3.85 Bore should be 3.800 at standard. Gasket bore seems large like Chevy specs. Should be 3.860. The crower gets advanced 4 at 9 to 1 or increase static. If your getting cam saver lifters you may be better off. Either kit coming with springs? i would still go crower myself.
Not: Have changed the values stroke bore and gasket. It made some minor differance. static compr. raised to 9.245 Nope, just cam and lifters in this kit. Should I change the springs as well?
DCR is being misused here. Typically during the engine build planning stage the already chosen cam specs are used to figure the most static compression that can be used based on DCR versus fuel octane and a few other considerations. It is only a tool that is used for detonation sensitivity and the goal is to have max compression for engine torque and stay within the octane limits of the fuel. However in this case the engine is already assembled with a set static compression and the only reason to consider DCR is to make sure it is not too high with the cam choice which there is no chance of it in this case. Since the SCR is already set, the DCR has very little to do with power output. Power output at this point is mainly the function of the cam's .050" duration and valve lift, not DCR. If you look at the Crower Level 3 and Comp cam specs there are some differences that are far more important than DCR. The Crower cam has more duration between the advertised and .050" durations than the Comp cam making it easier on the valve train resulting in better longevity than the Comp. The Comp cam has a -2* overlap. The Crower has a -9* overlap. As a result the Crower cam will have a smoother idle and possibly better fuel mileage than the Comp. I suspect the Comp 268 will make more power because of the full length header. A full length header will take advantage of the overlap of the Comp cam. The .050" intake closing points between the Crower and Comp are almost the same so the low end torque will be close. The Comp cam does cost less. It is very important to consider all the cam specs when making a comparison The TA 212 is still going to make the most power and have the widest power band. It will be a good match for the 2400-2600 rpm converter and will meet the above criteria. It has been pointed out many time before: Volumetric Efficiency outweighs DCR in respect to making power. Paul
Something else to consider is a custom cam for not much more money, and could prove to be a wise move for your needs. Take the TA 212-350 cam as a fine example of a general purpose, 'off the shelf' performance cam. If you were to increase the advertised (.006) exhaust duration to 288 instead of 285, making the ramp profile a bit gentler on the geometry and stress, you can actually increase the lift from .456 to .459 and still be gentler, while improving the intake lift from .454 to .468 to get an identical intake and exhaust ramp profile intensity for more even camshaft wear, while maintaining a similar powerband, torque curve, and increasing the hp slightly, with all else being the same. This is with just exhaust manifolds--headers would show an even better improvement. Use this as a guide to whichever camshaft grind you choose to use.
As someone who has actually used both Comp and Crower let me just say. Crower, Crower, Crower, Crower.......
I read somewhere that TA uses Crower as their camshaft source. Can anyone else verify this? ...as another fine example, and using the grind philosophy as above, the Crower level 3 cam can be tweaked even further. With all else remaining the same, increase the .006 exhaust duration from 281 to 282 and get another .002 lift (from .468 to .470), making it slightly more gentle here than before, then match the intake lift for a similar intensity increases intake lift from .446 to .479 (a fairly substantial gain), will increase both torque and hp, keeping the powerband the same. This method of emphasizing the intake lift over exhaust, while having more duration on exhaust has been shown from different sources to improve power over older methods and camshaft paradigms, not just through mathematical computations, but with real world testing. If anyone else out there cares to add to this, feel free. I'm all about advancing the understanding and implementation of componentry.
Mr Ed Iskenderian (isky cams) said if you need more exhaust duration to make top end power then your intake duration is to small.
http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?147066-TSP-9-5-quot-Street-Strip-converters-Lifetime-warrantee! Jim Weise, right here on the board.
What Mart said. I have one of JW's 9.5" convertors, gave him my build details, and WOW, did the 1/4 mile almost a second quicker!! No downsides to street driving either. Jim knows his stuff:beer
I also have one of JW's 9.5 converters, gave him all of my specs on engine, trans, rear gears, and elevation I live at with what I want out of my combo and he had a custom ground cam for me done for $195.00. cam to arrive today, will post specs keith
Yes, the old paradigm of straight pattern cams. I'm familiar with it. They do well with headers and ported heads. What I'm referring to is camshaft designs engineered toward Buick engines specifically, which tend to be a bit exhaust restrictive. The camshaft designs I'm suggesting has been performed by others with results that outperform the old paradigm on camshaft designs. The idea is that a more intense exhaust ramp profile, coupled with greater duration, will help airflow two-fold: improve exhaust evacuation so that it can then draw harder on the intake, which most of the split pattern cams already do; however, if one were to match the intake intensity with the exhaust (with benefits previously mentioned) by increasing the lift to match, tends to give the intake lobe more lift than the exhaust lobe, allowing it to draw even more. This is not just 'theory', it's my way of explaining what's going on with this camshaft design that has already been proven to work. Ironically, it also reinforces Isky's assertions, albeit in a more advanced way. It helps to balance out the intake and exhaust lobes, but shift them more toward better movement of air by improving the way the lobes work hand-in-hand with each other. That's my understanding of it, anyway. Re-evaluation of camshaft designs is always fun. To everyone else answering TA's camshaft source: thank you. Schneider's it is!
