TR6 Cam choices?

[glemon]

I have a Delta Cam regrind in my car, they did the lifters too, at the time (around 2008) it was not that much over $100 dollars. The car is much punchier than stock across the rev range (I have a shaved head and lightened flywheel too). No issues with drivability, they call it their "low torque" as I recall the specs (lift and duration) are very slightly less aggressive than the 150 hp petrol injection cam. Been working fine for about 9 years now.

 

[Rut]

I don’t think any cam conversation would be complete without including https://www.aptfast.com/. David Anton is excellent to work with and knows his way around LBC engines. I’ve discussed an upcoming TR4a build with him and he provided a VP12 cam and lifters for an MGB build that I love. His former partner, David Vizard is well known for his performance work as well.
Rut

 

[Tybalt]

Having dealt with both Richard Good and David Anton, both are good people to deal with and would not hesitate to deal with either in the future. At the time I was doing the camshaft model building Richard Good did not offer a camshaft so it is not included in the model table posted earlier. It also looks like APT has superseded the camshaft part number that was included in the set of models. Those two still carry the TR26 and TR56 prefix but the trailing letter has been changed from "N" to "BK." Whether or not that translates into a change in duration and lift specs is unclear. If we operate on the assumption that the change is in regard to the metal and being new billet material, not to the duration and lift, then two of the various offerings for the six cylinder Triumph engine are shown in the spreadsheet screenshot, but were not plotted in the previously attached plots. You could always pull those numbers down from the spreadsheet and make a plot to see how they look relative to others in the table. APT has also added some new camshaft grinds that did not exist at the time the models were being built, so nothing on those is included in the table.

Also bear in mind that as previously stated, we always viewed the model numbers as being optimistic. A big part of this is that the model calculated power at the flywheel with no drivetrain losses which does not reflect the real world where the cars are driven. It looks like the dyno charts for Richard Good's cams are done on a chassis dyno and therefore would include drivetrain losses.

 

[jdavis]

On my previous engine, I used Richard Good's GP2 cam with 1.65:1 roller rockers, triple strombergs, header and lightened flywheel. Compression was 9.5:1 I really liked this engine. Rear wheel dyno was 125 hp with about 150 lbs torque. The problem was I wiped the cam due to inadequate oiling and too much valve spring pressure on the cam. I attributed this mostly to the use of the roller rockers. On my current engine, I have his GP3 cam with stock valve train. I really don't like this cam for around-town driving. It lacks bottom end grunt. Although, I realy like the lope at idle. at 3500 rpms, the cam comes in like a turbo and pulls hard to 6,000 rpm. I put 4.08 gears in the rear end to keep my RPMs a little higher, and I'm more satisfied. If I were to do it again, If I were to use the Richard Good stuff, I'd go back to the GP2 . Driving too agressively around town attracts negative attention.