Just ran across this thread and though it's a bit old, thought I would share this in case someone else is looking for feedback on this cam. I'm sure the 151 cam could had used another 0.5:1 cr and would have made the results much closer. Too fast of a ramp can cause wear problems.Īlso, they didn't say what engine they did the test on and what the compression ratio was. However, like I said earlier, a slow ramp is easier on the valve train. They credit the faster ramps of the new cam grind as the reason for the better results. 'In this instance, the aftermarket cam delivered more top end horsepower, more low end torque and a smoother idle' The aftermarket cam made 335hp at 5500 and 383 ftlbs at 3250.ġ7.5 inhg of vacuum for the aftermarket cam and 16.5 for the 151 cam.
The 151 made 323hp at 5000 rpm and 369 ftlbs at 3500 rpm. The 151 cam has 0.447/0.447' lift, 290/290 advertised, and 222/222 at 0.050'.Īnd I quote 'at almost every point on the dyno, from 1750 to 5750, the aftermarket cam made produces more torque and horsepower than the Chevrolet high performance cam.' They tested it against an aftermarket cam with 0.454/0.480 lift, 274/284 advertised duration, 216/228 duration at 0.050'. Found a little write-up in an old small block chevy performance book about the 151 cam (3863151) originally used in RPO L-79 350-hp 327.
