novadude wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:31 pm
NewbVetteGuy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:57 pm
No idea what kinda @#%# GM was smoking, putting that cam in an engine with that compression ratio.
Whatever they were thinking, they are still thinking it, as the "290 hp" GMPP crate engine they sell today is really just a '75 L48 with a L82 cam. Yup... same crappy features of the '75 L82 with even LOWER compression ratio!
Look at the torque specs on the Chevrolet Performance website. I think that pig makes 330 lb-ft PEAK with a free flowing exhaust. Pretty pathetic for a 350 ci engine.
EDIT: Looks like they bumped the hp / tq ratings for some reason - still not even 350 lb-ft, and peak tq comes in at 3900 rpm.
https://www.chevrolet.com/performance/c ... 350-290-hp
Somehow people on the Corvette Forums still have the audacity to repeat the mantra that "the L82 cam is a good old-school street-grind". -No, no it's not; and no, it never was. I'm sure if you raise the static compression several more points it would be much better, but those are horrifically lazy lobes I have to think even spring technology in the late 60s could deal with far more aggressive lobes than that with the peak 5,500 RPM that even the L82 was rated at...
A few springs from a BIC ink pen should be able to control those lobes; that cam is practically just circle cam stock without any lobe ground into it.
That cam needs to go extinct!
-I've noticed some of the aftermarket cam companies that have "classic" cam lines have take the L82 @ 0.050 duration #s (222/222) and kept the peak lift numbers but tightened up the Advertised / Seat-to-Seat duration #'s to provide some remote semblance of modernish performance. -I'm hoping that GM Perf cam in that crate motor is the same (can't find the advertised duration #s).
Adam