OK,
I added the 212 and 112 to the RV-12 in a Dyno 2003 comparison below. Dyno 2003 will not calculate below 2000 RPM. I used 9.75:1 static compression for the 212, 9.5:1 static compression for the 112 and 9.25:1 for the RV-12. All of the camshafts had roughly 8.0:1 dynamic compression using the static compressions above. They seem to behave as expected. All have 112 LS and duration and lift is increasing for each cam. As they breath better the are capable of higher rpm and HP. I think you can extend the curves lower in your mind and see that the RV 12 will have greater tourque at lower rpm then any of the others.
How about the 212? I am still trying to give Edouard a little thrill along with good economy. TA describes it as:
"Excellent performance cam. Gives 25 HP increase over stock cam. Substantial improvement without hurting fuel economy. Stock valve train, converter and gears ok. Good idle. 9.0:1 or more CR."
And I almost forgot the graph:
Bookmarks