Stock ECU + dyno tune will run it without any issues.
Stock ECU + dyno tune will run it without any issues.
Your 5 series Bimmer has plenty of torque down low and all kinds of gearing (multiply 1st gear times the rear gear) to multiply it with. You've had some experience - so I'll stop harping after this post. But I've ridden in quite a few 3200 lbs cars with 3.73 or better gearing powered by 300 ish cube motors with less cam than you're contemplating -- that complained anytime the revs dropped below 1800-2000 rpm in a higher gear. A blast above 3500. But not much fun on the street. I made the mistake the first time I built the 5.0L in my 2960 lb. 242 --- with less cam than spec'd above. After 3 weeks I pulled the cam and put something in more useful below 3000 rpm. MUCH better. For me of course.
He gave you what you asked for -- with a power band that's fattest in the 5500-7000 range, it's going to be pretty flat below 2000. There's little way around that naturally aspirated -- unless, of course, you add displacement. I'm not questioning his specs. I'm questioning whether what you asked for is really what you want or not. If you're just going to track the car -- knock yourself out. But if you want to enjoy it on the street, you may want more on the bottom.
Ok. All done.
I think you missed this part:
At 3400lbs. you don't need much torque down low to get the car moving, and this thing will really start to pour on the coals from 3500-4000rpm and up, but it won't lose anything over the stock camshaft down low and still will probably gain over stock from 2000-3500rpm.
The 4.8 is no slouch in a 5500lb truck with a 3.23 rear end. In a car half the weight, it'll be fine.
In reply to MichaelYount:
I get what you saying, but think of it by the (stock) numbers:
530i = 3700lbs w/ 220 tq @ 4500 rpm at the flywheel
I found this car to be a blast on the street. I could hoon and keep it under the speed limit.
780 = 3400lbs w/ 285 tq @ 4000 rpm at the flywheel
If I thought 220tq was fun on the street, subtract 300lbs and add ~50 hp and ~45 tq at 500 fewer rpms, surely should make me giggle.
Bobzilla wrote: I think you missed this part:At 3400lbs. you don't need much torque down low to get the car moving, and this thing will really start to pour on the coals from 3500-4000rpm and up, but it won't lose anything over the stock camshaft down low and still will probably gain over stock from 2000-3500rpm.The 4.8 is no slouch in a 5500lb truck with a 3.23 rear end. In a car half the weight, it'll be fine.
I saw it zilla - my experience has been quite different, so I don't believe it. That's why I posted. And yes, it moves the 5500 lb truck with authority --- but not with the camshaft spec'd out earlier in the thread.
Strike - I'm sure you'll let us know how it works out. The issue isn't how much torque at the torque peak. It's how much torque does it make from 800-1500 rpm..... As the valve timing gets more aggressive, the torque down low gets much less aggressive. So comparing the way you did is apples and oranges. In other words, if you want to compare stock numbers, then keep the stock cam. And in that scenario - you'll be just fine down low. It moves the truck - it's gonna move the ton-less weight 780 easy. You're making my point for me -- milder valve timing if you want to preserve bottom end.
That's why I used the 530i . . . It has near 6 cylinder power below 3000 rpm (2.5L M50) and then screams (exaggerating a bit) until the 7000 rev limit. I have a ball in that car.
I HIGHLY doubt a cammed 4.8L will make any less hp/tq than that 3.0L at low RPMs. I'm almost willing to bet it will make numbers in the low RPM range that will rival what the 530i makes peak . . .
Great article in this month's CarCraft comparing about 12 different cams (10 of them Chevy cams from different engines - LS9, LS7, LQ4, etc.) in an otherwise stock 5.3L truck motor with dyno runs.
In reply to MichaelYount:
Awesome . . . I need to pick that up.
I know there were a lot of internet hearsay regarding some stock Chevy cams in lower displacement motors.
I know for the newer GenIV cams, I would have to get a new front cover and other junk for a front cam sensor.
Since I'm done on the Corolla for now, I decided to the 780 for a judicious cleaning session.
Threw a battery in it and drove it around the block for a few. I vacuumed the interior (still has some FL beach sand in there) and took some notes on the direction I want to go in the interior.
I received a ping from a friend that always gets my in trouble by sending awesome deals my way.
It has nearly all of the suspension mods (~8k miles old) I was planning for my 780. Even though I'm not too keen on the blue/black interior, it is lightyears better than one in mine. The price is > $2k.
If go for this 780, I will have to either sell my current 780 or part out my E36 project and repurpose the 5.0 and T-5 to my current 780 (mounts are ~$150) . . . Dilemmas
Ok . . . here is all of the goodness I found on the 780 
Wow... Is that particular to that model? Or is that type of rust common where you are for some weather/road-care reason?
You're making me really glad I live where I do and/or that I prefer normal-roofline Volvos 
I have to get an estimate from the windshield dude on how much it will cost to remove and replace.
Since this cat can't weld, I have to find a shop that won't drag me on cost to repair.
Some peeps suggested using fiberglass matte and filler to repair.
Regardless, I have get the windshield removed to see how bad this is . . .
In reply to ransom:
The car lived a large chunk of it's life near FL beaches.
This was PO induced . . .
As far as I know, all 780s came with a sunroof. Owners seem to NEVER check the drains for clogs.
On mine, there is no sunroof . . . but it has all the sunroof interior . . . They had the sunroof cut out and regular sheet metal welded in. But apparently didn't fix it correctly.
The sail panels (passenger rear windows) are susceptible to rust as well. I have replacements for those.
All 780s suffer from this if the PO didn't unclog the sunroof drains and allow it leak.
We haven't given up on the 780 just yet . . .
Fuel, Varnish, and Tar?
There were sooooo many rust spots located around the perimeter of the trunk . . . yay!
You'll need to log in to post.
