I don't think too many of the EMC entries ever make it into a real car. One of the few I did hear about is a member here that participated with a SBM combination. I wish I could remember his name, but he did post after the EMC event how the engine did on the track and it seemed to run pretty strong.

Sort of how I have always picked cams.

For a street car pick the overlap for the desired idle, pick intake closeing point based on compression, exhaust opening as late as possible to get the desired lift (as much as possible).

For a more race oriented engine I pick the overlap to get the most HP in the desired RPM range, intake closing based on compression and RPM range, as much lift as possible...

Other things play into it a little like not lifting it way past where the flow tappers off...

if its purple, I slide it in

ummmm......

I have to wonder about the LSA thing, according to his chart I should be running a 103 LSA, which seems a bit ridiculous. But I will say I'm working on tuning my car, and maybe I still have a long ways to go, but with Stealth heads and 252/260 @ .050 on a 110 LSA I'm not really impressed. I've been in cars with 509 cams and pocket ported 906s that feel like they would blow this thing away. I'm beginning to wonder if I should have gone with a tighter LSA.

The LSA thing is a very cylinder head dependent thing IMO. There is no blanket statement than can be made, no one "magic bumpstick". Even comparing what works on a canted valve head to an inline wedge is apples to oranges..Just saying don't everyone jump off the cliff or sip the koolaid at once

I am running a EMC small block and very happy with the results so far. I think it will be even quicker when I get all the bugs worked out. It is a pump gas 394 ci.

Overlap changes with duration regardless of LCA. The more duration the wider the LCA needs to be to maintain the same overlap. Cutting edge motors run more duration than the street stuff, thus many have wide LCA. LCA is just a function of the correct closing point for the exhaust and opening point of the intake. When duration and overlap are correctly selected LCA is just a number.
Doug

Quote from Herb McCandless around 1983....."Don't get hung up on duration,,,put all the lift in it you can get" I know I have gone with different ideas since,,,but,,,it seemed to work back then.

Nothing really new here from Vizard IMO, Myself and several others right here on Moparts I believe have been building stroker motors for years with tighter spreads and earlier (100-102) ICLs....and if you look back it's pretty standard practice on most of the EMC style builds that try to get the most power out of their cam/head combos with either rules-limited or self-imposed) RPM ceilings. I think back when I was doing it with Strokers it was to offset the comparatively poor rod ratios and high piston speeds by using up as much of good head flow power potential in as few peak RPM as possible. The EMC's came along judging primarily on the highest "streetable" average 2500-6500 torque curves, so the cam phasing philosophy to get there really seemed to go hand-in-hand, IMO Where the EMC's take it to the extreme is with spring killing lifts and higher rocker ratios than most people would be comfortable running in a "real world" street car. But I concentrate mostly on having great to extremely great head flows in the more moderate, real streetable .300-650" lift ranges and not chase the .750-up lifts. It seems Davids writing at the more extreme limits of such a build, but the principals are essentially the same, and the extreme builds (1.8:1 rockers, etc) will generally have the best brag rights HP numbers too, which I suppose sells more books. (which is what he's probably after).

I think he's just writing about (but hopefully not trying to claim as his own) a trend that's been out there for quite a long while for anyone who cared to see it.