GM LS3 Hot Cam

Discussion in 'Chevy' started by TXFlyGuy, Oct 8, 2016.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Oct 8, 2016 #1

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    [HR][/HR]We have an LS3 6.2 V8 installed in our plane. In stock form, at cruise altitude between 9,000 and 11,000 feet, using 3600 rpm (1890 prop) for power, we will get 180hp. With the Hot Cam our horsepower goes up to 217, or a 20% increase.

    This is figuring a 3% power loss per thousand feet, and a standard day.

    Would the resulting increase in IAS, and the extra climb performance make the new cam worthwhile? The kit is $500. And, the cam in question is a bone stock GM LS3 component.

    Hoping that some of you "engine gurus" will have some good input!
     
  2. Oct 8, 2016 #2

    Kyle Boatright

    Kyle Boatright

    Kyle Boatright

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    430
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Very much a judgement call. When you modify a system that is functioning properly, you may make things better, or you may make things worse. Perhaps the shop goofs up the cam install. Perhaps the additional power pushes your PSRU over the edge. On the other hand, improved climb and speed are always nice.

    Personally, I wouldn't make the conversion unless I already had the engine apart.
     
  3. Oct 8, 2016 #3

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    The goal is not to increase power much over 300hp, but to have a better performing engine at cruise altitudes between 7,000 and 10,000 feet. The horsepower gain averages plus 33 with the Hot Cam.
    The other positive note, is that the 300hp can be obtained at a lower rpm, which should be beneficial for the entire drive train.
    Cam swaps are pretty simple and straightforward. Any competent shop would be able to do it.
     
  4. Oct 8, 2016 #4

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,328
    Likes Received:
    3,580
    Location:
    Australian
    Darn easy job for big changes that can just as easily be reverted back to where you were if you're not happy, so it's a "Yes" in my book.
     
    TXFlyGuy likes this.
  5. Oct 8, 2016 #5

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Well, the question is...is 305 sea level hp (Hot Cam / 3600rpm) worth the change? Stock cam is 265hp at sea level. At altitude (10,000), this would be 213hp vs. 185hp.

    This data is taken from the GM Performance charts, and I figured in a 3% / thousand feet power loss. I am now in discussion with Comp Cams. They are looking at a custom grind tailored to performance from 2800 - 4200 rpm. They said this is a first for them!

    image0_1.jpg
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2016
  6. Oct 9, 2016 #6

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,639
    Likes Received:
    3,269
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    You might make more HP but it will change the characteristic of the engine probably. Unlike a car pulling back the power will not matter much because you have the windmill effect of the prop, but engine acceleration when you need power like a go around might have the engine bucking and coughing if its too much. Cams change the hp but most of the time they move the powerband and if you loose a power spot you were using, your trade is probably not worth it. P51 is not a P51 without a supercharger. I would be more inclined to add a Paxton or like and use it to normalize at your 10,000 ft; you also get to keep your short stack exhaust.
     
  7. Oct 9, 2016 #7

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    A supercharger is not doable, for a number of reasons. Here is the Hot Cam chart:
    Scan.jpg

    Based on data from the Van's forum, I would estimate an increase in cruise speed of 7 to 9 mph, which is not that much. But the ROC would improve significantly.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2016
  8. Oct 9, 2016 #8

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    The GM LS3 Hot Cam would give us a solid 13% - 14% power increase at all altitudes. I would guess that would be good for 6 to 9 mph increase, but would improve the ROC by a much bigger margin. The standard T-51D (V8) will easily achieve climb rates of 3,000 FPM or greater. The supercharged T-51 (Honda V6) would do the same in climb, and cruise at 210mph IAS @8000'. Most Honda and Suzuki owners report econ cruise speeds of 170 - 180 mph IAS.

    The T-51 Mustang will easily do 232 mph IAS at 5500', with the new high speed wing, and the V8 or V12. Add a conservative 8 mph to that and you get 240. I'll take that!

    A simple cam swap nets 40 to 50 hp with the LS3. There are several performance websites that have experimented with this, and with published dyno lab results. Just a cam swap, nothing else. The LS3 responds well to this as it already has great breathing heads.

    "Using just a cam, we managed to increase the power output of the LS3 from 496 hp to 573 hp, while torque was up from 491 lb-ft to 526 lb-ft."

    http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tec...e-engine-dyno/

    http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/eng...ick-boomerang/
     
  9. Oct 9, 2016 #9

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,447
    Likes Received:
    3,246
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    The hot cam may buy you some benefit but if a cam manufacturer is going to do a custom grind at your lower RPM levels, do it. The idea to build an optimum cam at 4500 and below is essentially unheard of in the automotive performance world. The LS-3 heads are excellent castings right out of the box and outflow all but the most exotic SBC race heads of just a few years ago. Tie that to a cam profile that tops out at 4500 RPM and you will have a real winner.

    And before you get too far down the road and Comp Cams lawyers get involved, make sure you tell them this is for an "airboat".
     
  10. Oct 9, 2016 #10

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Yes! They were advised its for an off-road vehicle, sand dune type racing, as well as a Pikes Peak climb. I gave them the rpm profile of what we need, mainly from 3000 to 4200. Anything above that is a waste. The LS3 is a great candidate as it responds so well.

    BTW...we have had more than one manufacturer hang up the phone as soon as the word "airplane" was mentioned.
     
  11. Oct 12, 2016 #11

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Just heard from Crane Cams..."Sorry, we have nothing that will work for you."

    Hope to hear back from Comp Cams with better news. The GM LS3 Hot Cam may be the best (only?) option.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2016
  12. Oct 13, 2016 #12

    PW_Plack

    PW_Plack

    PW_Plack

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    West Valley City, UT
    Can you explain the basis for this assumption? The same HP at lower RPM will mean larger torque pulses spaced at at longer intervals. You'll be hitting the drivetrain fewer times per second, but with a larger hammer. This also changes the torsional vibration picture.
     
    wsimpso1 likes this.
  13. Oct 13, 2016 #13

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Just the long held theory that slower turning speeds equals less wear and tear.

    Comp Cams contacted me, and they have a stock off the shelf cam that they claim will work for us.
     
  14. Oct 13, 2016 #14

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,893
    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Location:
    Saline Michigan
    You got it backwards. Making the same power at lower rpm means more torque at that new lower rpm than you had at the same power at a higher rpm. Power is torque time speed. Torque is the origin of mean force applied to every gear tooth, bearing, shaft, hub, and blade in your system. Increased torque and lower rpm may also make for larger amplitude firing pulses, which makes this change have both higher mean load plus bigger oscillations. It also means the engine internals run at higher forces to obtain the same power at lower rpm. While the engine itself will most likely be fine with it, and it might be a little more fuel efficient, I would check with your PSRU maker to see if they have a problem with the engine mod.

    Billski
     
  15. Oct 13, 2016 #15

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    The PSRU has a design limit to withstand up to 600hp. The published numbers claim 300hp maximum, building in a large safety margin. There are no torque/rpm limits.

    This is still 8 cylinders firing. If we shut down 2 cylinders, with the same power output, then I could envision issues.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2016
  16. Oct 13, 2016 #16

    Winginit

    Winginit

    Winginit

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    242
    Location:
    x
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2016
  17. Oct 14, 2016 #17

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    We have decided on the GM LS Hot Cam. A mild performance cam, and totally GM O/E.

    GM claims a 15% increase in power output. The custom rod / engine websites actually show that GM's numbers are quite conservative. We are only interested in recouping some of the power lost at altitude, say from 9000 to 11000 feet.

    The standard LS3 will do 270 hp @3600rpm, sea level, standard day. At 10,000', that drops to 189hp. With the Hot Cam, we will have 224hp at ten grand. Plus the bonus of better rate of climb. I like to cruise high, where it is cool and smooth, above most other traffic.
     
  18. Oct 14, 2016 #18

    PW_Plack

    PW_Plack

    PW_Plack

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    West Valley City, UT
    If you make the same eight cylinders produce the same HP at 25% lower RPM, you've created the identical effect as switching to a V6 of equal power. Fewer power strokes in a given time interval require more power from each stroke.
     
  19. Oct 14, 2016 #19

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    Republic of Texas

    I actually do not agree. Because, you still have 8 cylinders firing, and a smoother power distribution versus a V6. We will soon find out.
     
  20. Oct 14, 2016 #20

    Winginit

    Winginit

    Winginit

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    242
    Location:
    x


    Hmmmm.
     
    TXFlyGuy likes this.

Share This Page

arrow_white