I'm currently building up a Type-4 1911cc for my daily driver.

I plan on the continued use of the L-Jet fuel injection system I currently use.

I'm looking for feedback on the issues associated with swapping the
stock cam with a Web-Cam #73.

Is there any benefit?

Will I open myself up to idling, heat, drivability issues?

I need to buy a new cam soon and am looking for guidance here.

Thanks, Marty

I would never use anything but a stock cam with factory fuel injection. EVER.

What about Jake's 9550L cam? It was made for Ljet. I think it requires tweaking the MPS, but for benefits over stock.

There is no MPS on the L-Jet system.............

Oops. I knew that. The 9550 with Djet should have an MPS tweak... Would Ljet need some tweaking too?

LOL... Probably not. As long as the cam overlap is not too big, the L-jet will work fine. When the cam overlap gets too great, the AFM flap starts fluttering, and it makes the mixture way too rich at idle.

Now.. if someone wanted to adapt the LH-Jet system, then it would work. The LH-jet is identical to the L-Jet, with the exception of the AFM is replace with a Hot wire Mass airflow sensor. It wouldn't have the flutter problem with a high overlap cam.

I run the 9550 cam in my Westy with Ljet, nearly the same cam. Yes, you will need to tune the AFM using LM1 or something like a dyno. Works great!!! love it in my Westy...and lots of other Bus guys run Camper Special engines with the Ljet with great results, way lower CHT's and good MPG...

Screw the stock cam, it sucks.

Back in the day when I was doing a lot of engine building, I used all manner of cams. Even then, while I was young and adventurous, and read a lot of enthusiast magazines, it didn't take me long to realize the ONLY available camshaft profile that worked well with L-jet, D-jet, and CIS was the stock one for the particular application. If you don't mind a loss of driveability and negatively impacted emissions levels, and you are the kind of guy that can just put up with sh*t, then maybe a cam change will work for you. The Web Cam 73 was particularly irritating because, despite a ton of anecdotal real world evidence to the contrary, the engineers and sales people there insisted that it worked perfectly for FI applications. And their catalog STILL says so, 30 years down the road .....................

I, too, have heard good things about Jake's camshafts, but have no personal experience with them.

The Cap'n

this 2056 motor ran a stock D-jet with a Raby 9550 Cam. After a slight adjustment of the MPS it ran flawlessly.

That's my dilemma, I don't inherently believe what someone trying to sell me something says. I'm looking for real world experiences here. Can you expand upon the anecdotal evidence?

"nearly the same cam" as what? The Web-Cam-73?

What are you referring to as "LM1"?

The 9550 is not similar enough to the standard Web 73 to be remotely compared to it. The 9550 does share a similar intake profile, but the exhaust profile is vastly altered as well as the lobe separation.

I have sold over SIX HUNDRED 9550 camshafts since 2005, the majority of those have been used in engines with stock EFI, because thats specifically what the grind was developed for and evaluated with.

BTW- I am not trying to sell you anything- I developed this camshaft for my engine program specifically, I started selling them due to demand.

Please don't stereotype all vendors as snake oil salesmen that just want to rip the bottom of your pockets out and suck them dry. The 9550 is popular because it just plain freakin works.

but after today the 9550 as well as all my other camshafts will only be available with complete cylinder head and valvetrain assemblies....

Gee Jake, Not even If I say "Pretty Please"?

Just doing everything we can to avoid incompatibility issues that lead to some sort of failure.

Sure. Really high HCs at idle and low RPM (HCs are unburned fuel), dropping some as you rev a bit. Poor off idle transition, the need for a slightly higher idle speed, poor fuel mileage.

The Cap'n