After all, even though the L92 offered plenty of displacement and head flow, it, like all LS motors, was in dire need of a cam swap. We’re sure he had boost and/or nitrous in mind, but we decided to start on the mild end of the destructive scale, with a simple cam test. Most of all, we were excited to see if the extra displacement and head flow allowed the healthy Summit cam profile to shine.įull disclosure, the L92 test mule did not belong to us, though our good buddy Jason Trejo at Fort Meade, FL-based JTFab, gave us permission to go wild with it. The all-aluminum LS engines are hard to come by in the junkyard, as they are quickly snatched up by savvy enthusiasts and resell companies. In addition to the difference in displacement and cylinder head design, we enjoyed the refreshing change from running another junkyard 5.3L.

There is a lot of misinformation about cam profiles favoring one head design over another and it would be interesting to see how well these cam specs worked on each application. We also liked the fact that the cam test on the 5.3L was run with ported cathedral-port heads, while this 6.2L L92 featured factory rectangular-port heads. In fact, we broke the 500-horsepower mark with that cam on the little LM7, so we naturally had high hopes for the larger 6.2L. The first was that we had previously run the Summit Stage 4 Pro LS cam (SUM-8711) successfully on a smaller 5.3L.

Why were we so excited about swapping cams on the all-aluminum L92? Having previously run the Summit Pro LS Stage 4 cam on a 5.3L, we were excited about testing this stick on the larger 6.2L L92.

Hp tuners tune for cam in chevy 5.3