First off, let me state that I realize that this exercise is only a simulation. It's only here for comparison purposes and should in no way reflect real-life situations. Boy, that sounds like the warning they state before "Jackass" huh?
I've been doing some research over the past week or so trying to find the best OFF-THE-SHELF camshaft for my GT40P headed 306 project. There have been as many suggestions as there are camshafts available!
Please keep in mind that I really don't have the money right now for a custom cam, otherwise that's the way I'd go.
Anyhow, just to bring everyone up to speed on my little project, here's the plan: 306 (5.0L overbored 0.030-in), ~10.35:1 compression, TRW forged flat-top pistons, factory rods and crankshaft, GT40P cylinder heads w/ only a
mild port cleanup and shaving, roller rockers, full-length headers, Exploder intake, 65mm TB, ~3000rpm stall through a Lentech-valve-bodied AOD. Everything else I'm considering superfluous at the moment.
The notch already has 3.73 gears and full exhaust, with MAF conversion (1989 A9P EEC-IV), and an MSD box.
On to the sim!!! The attachment is part of the output graph. I compared Trick Flow Stage 1, Crane Cams' 2031 (requires 1.7 rockers), and FRPP's old E303 (which I currently own). I put everything into the simulation with some correction factors I thought were important, namely the size of the valves. It's beyond me why they ask the size of the valves if you already have an airflow file generated.
I used the airflow numbers that StangPro.com has posted on their GT40P article. The intake flow numbers I used in the simulation were high (1100cfm, Sequential Injection manifold), but this was done to eliminate the intake as a restriction in this simulation. I realize that the real intake is going to limit the available air to the combustion chambers and intake ports.
Worth pointing out:
1. No matter the camshaft, torque falls off at or shortly after ~5000rpm.
2. The highest-horsepower camshaft (Crane 2031) is lagging torque in what would be considered the "normal driving" RPM range, but only by about 50 lb-ft.
3. Even though the Crane has the highest horsepower, for an unmodified EEC-IV, that RPM wouldn't even be possible. Although in this simulation, it keeps climbing on up to the rev limit for a peak of ~475 HP.
4. Horsepower of the Crane cam is also below the others until approximately 5000 RPM, but again not by much.
It's all a tradeoff. It seems like sticking with the E-cam I already own is my best bet, and spending the money on another would just be a waste. My biggest problem with the E303 is that is just wouldn't work with my 2000 stall converter, but that's no longer going to be the case. I don't think the Crane is worth it since there's such a drop in torque for so little gain (for me) in the top end. This is going to be a daily driven vehicle, so I'm trying to keep as flat and high a torque curve as possible.
Any thoughts or suggestions???