Cam Motion Stage 2 cam for 6.2?

[Geotrash]

It's hard to find info including dyno numbers on the Cam Motion Stage 2 cam designed specifically for the 6.2L truck engines. Anyone have any experience with them or thoughts on which version to roll with? I ordered the low lift version but still have a little time before they start the production of it and could switch to the higher lift version if needed. It's for a 2012 Yukon XL Denali. Pulling out a damaged BTR stage 2 cam (story in another thread) and want to go back in with something that will still be reliable, durable, quiet, and suitable for pulling a 7000 lb camper. They offer it in 2 profiles:

"Drop-In" Version:
Grind # XA212/295-XA220/295-17+5
Duration at .050 - 212/220
Lift with 1.7 - .501/.501
Lobe separation 117
Intake center line 112

"High-Lift" Version:
Grind # XA212/325-XA220/325-17+5
Duration at .050 - 212/220
Lift with 1.7 - .553/.553
Lobe separation 117
Intake center line 112

Questions:
1/ How much power difference would you estimate there'd be between the 2 versions? Up high? Down low?
2/ Would the "high-lift" version likely require more care and feeding (e.g. new springs) in the next 100K miles? Note: I already have upgraded BTR beehive springs capable of handling the higher lift version
3/ Would the valvetrain likely still be as quiet with the higher lift version as the lower lift?

Thanks for any help and input you may have. I'm grateful.

 

[swathdiver]

It's hard to find info including dyno numbers on the Cam Motion Stage 2 cam designed specifically for the 6.2L truck engines. Anyone have any experience with them or thoughts on which version to roll with? I ordered the low lift version but still have a little time before they start the production of it and could switch to the higher lift version if needed. It's for a 2012 Yukon XL Denali. Pulling out a damaged BTR stage 2 cam (story in another thread) and want to go back in with something that will still be reliable, durable, quiet, and suitable for pulling a 7000 lb camper. They offer it in 2 profiles:

"Drop-In" Version:
Grind # XA212/295-XA220/295-17+5
Duration at .050 - 212/220
Lift with 1.7 - .501/.501
Lobe separation 117
Intake center line 112

"High-Lift" Version:
Grind # XA212/325-XA220/325-17+5
Duration at .050 - 212/220
Lift with 1.7 - .553/.553
Lobe separation 117
Intake center line 112

Questions:
1/ How much power difference would you estimate there'd be between the 2 versions? Up high? Down low?
2/ Would the "high-lift" version likely require more care and feeding (e.g. new springs) in the next 100K miles? Note: I already have upgraded BTR beehive springs capable of handling the higher lift version
3/ Would the valvetrain likely still be as quiet with the higher lift version as the lower lift?

Thanks for any help and input you may have. I'm grateful.

It sure is hard to find dyno numbers! I suspect there is a reason why!

I do not know the answer to your question but consider this line of thinking. According to a chart by Frankenstein Engine Dynamics, the stock 823 heads flow 277 cfm on the intake at .500 lift and 301 at .600 and 9 more cfm at .700. The exhaust is 190 at .500 and 199 at .600 and 202 at .700.

I do not think the performance gains for the higher lift are worth it for a truck doing truck things.

The only way to really know is stick a cam in it and make three passes at the track, swap cams and make 3 more passes! Very expensive thing to do these days.

I've only considered cam grind numbers with my 5.3 and 243 heads, haven't given much thought of what a similar set of standards would look like with the 6.2 L9H yet.

 

[Geotrash]

It sure is hard to find dyno numbers! I suspect there is a reason why!

I do not know the answer to your question but consider this line of thinking. According to a chart by Frankenstein Engine Dynamics, the stock 823 heads flow 277 cfm on the intake at .500 lift and 301 at .600 and 9 more cfm at .700. The exhaust is 190 at .500 and 199 at .600 and 202 at .700.

I do not think the performance gains for the higher lift are worth it for a truck doing truck things.

The only way to really know is stick a cam in it and make three passes at the track, swap cams and make 3 more passes! Very expensive thing to do these days.

I've only considered cam grind numbers with my 5.3 and 243 heads, haven't given much thought of what a similar set of standards would look like with the 6.2 L9H yet.

Thanks for the homework, James! The flow on these 823 heads is remarkable in stock form, isn't it??

I'll get a cam card for both of them from Cam Motion today that has the advertised duration on it at least, but most other Cam Motion truck cams I can find cam cards for have a ramp intensity of 55, which should be relatively easy on valve springs and lifters.

I posted this question on the performance trucks forum as well and one of the resident experts there estimates that the difference on the high end would be 25-30hp with little or no sacrifice on the low end.

 

[Dantheman1540]

The 117 LSA seems a little high on those, I have a feeling it would sound nearly stock in a 6.2. With -18* of overlap, it probably helps maintain factory mpg and minimize emissions while also moving the power band up a tad. I agree with doing a low lift version if you do because it's a truck, not a Vette. I feel like it would probably make more than 30hp tho.

 

[Geotrash]

The 117 LSA seems a little high on those, I have a feeling it would sound nearly stock in a 6.2. With -18* of overlap, it probably helps maintain factory mpg and minimize emissions while also moving the power band up a tad. I agree with doing a low lift version if you do because it's a truck, not a Vette. I feel like it would probably make more than 30hp tho.

Thanks Dan. Just for clarity, that poster meant that the high lift version would be good for an additional 25-30 over the low lift version. Even at that though, .553 lift is considered 'low lift' by other cam makers.

To be sure, I had a chat with Cam Motion's tech expert this morning and he mentioned that .550 is standard lift on many GM performance engines from the factory, and those go 150K+ miles with standard beehive valve springs. He also thought that given the driving I do with pulling a trailer, I would be happier with the higher lift version. I spend a fair amount of time in 4th at 2800 RPM on the highway, but when I really need the most power is when I'm climbing hills in 3rd at 4000+ RPMs.

The perfect solution would be to re-activate VVT and get a VVT cam, but I don't want to deal with VVT limiters, or the attendant additional installation hassles, maintenance, etc etc.

 

[Dantheman1540]

Thanks Dan. Just for clarity, that poster meant that the high lift version would be good for an additional 25-30 over the low lift version. Even at that though, .553 lift is considered 'low lift' by other cam makers.

To be sure, I had a chat with Cam Motion's tech expert this morning and he mentioned that .550 is standard lift on many GM performance engines from the factory, and those go 150K+ miles with standard beehive valve springs. He also thought that given the driving I do with pulling a trailer, I would be happier with the higher lift version. I spend a fair amount of time in 4th at 2800 RPM on the highway, but when I really need the most power is when I'm climbing hills in 3rd at 4000+ RPMs.

The perfect solution would be to re-activate VVT and get a VVT cam, but I don't want to deal with VVT limiters, or the attendant additional installation hassles, maintenance, etc etc.

I actually did not look at the specific lift numbers on those and assumed .550 was low lift and .600 was high. Looking at them correctly I agree with Arthur on PT.net high lift all the way! Me and him trade parts a lot and the cam in my Tahoe now was something he had custom speced and then changed directions on and sold me cheap haha, hes a cool dude.

Anyway Yeah, high lift cam out of those 2 and I think you would get a nice meaty gain in the 4k range with little to no loss down low and probably minimal idle sound. Would love to know how the MPG would change because I'd suspect better mpg.

 

[Geotrash]

I actually did not look at the specific lift numbers on those and assumed .550 was low lift and .600 was high. Looking at them correctly I agree with Arthur on PT.net high lift all the way! Me and him trade parts a lot and the cam in my Tahoe now was something he had custom speced and then changed directions on and sold me cheap haha, hes a cool dude.

Anyway Yeah, high lift cam out of those 2 and I think you would get a nice meaty gain in the 4k range with little to no loss down low and probably minimal idle sound. Would love to know how the MPG would change because I'd suspect better mpg.

Small world. Yes, he seems to be, and I found his information very helpful. Cam grind is still a few weeks out, so it will give me time to replace my oil cooler lines, and driver’s side motor mount. I have an H3 mount on hand, ready to go.

 

[PatDTN]

When I called Texas Speed to get the AFM elimination kit for the 6.2 I dropped into my '09 Tahoe they made me a deal on an LS9 cam. I thought that was such a deal. Now I wonder where my torque went and want to swap so I've been watching both of these threads. My question; I installed a new set of valve springs to make the LS9 cam work per TS. Would those work with the "high lift" cam we're discussing here? They're not beehive springs.

 

[Geotrash]

When I called Texas Speed to get the AFM elimination kit for the 6.2 I dropped into my '09 Tahoe they made me a deal on an LS9 cam. I thought that was such a deal. Now I wonder where my torque went and want to swap so I've been watching both of these threads. My question; I installed a new set of valve springs to make the LS9 cam work per TS. Would those work with the "high lift" cam we're discussing here? They're not beehive springs.

It depends… Which springs did you install? The low lift version of this cam is designed for factory valve springs, but the high-lift requires upgraded beehive springs or you can also use dual valve springs if desired. I have the brian tooley beehive springs designed for their stage 2 truck cam which has an identical .553 lift, but more aggressive ramps and a lower LSA so it lopes a little too much for many drivers.

 

[PatDTN]

I just thought to look for an emailed receipt.

28-12713265-16 - GM High Performance LS .550"
Lift Springs, Set of 16

So I'd have to go with the low lift if I'm not confused. It sounds like I'd still get a large bump in low end torque vs the LS9 cam I put in.