kjmdrumz3

iTrader: (1)

I currently have a TR224 .563 112 cam in my car. Would I gain, lose or stay same hp/tq wise by going with a stock Z06 cam? Pro's and Con's of the swap? Thanks.

P.S. a more stock-sounding idle is desireable.

qqwqeqwrqwqtq

Depends on your combination and goals, but the simple answer is you would most likely lose horsepower unless you are talking about a restrictive/inefficient system.

That being said, you can make -ALOT- of power with tiny cams, zo6 cam included. All depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

kjmdrumz3

iTrader: (1)

Just for now on a stock bottom end car pushing 8psi....want to up it to 10 or 11 and also start injecting. I am making around 480/450 now. Lack of tq was the converter I believe. Replaced it with a converter built for a turbo LS1 application. I'm looking for 525 to 550 to the wheels both hp and tq. Then the forged 370 iron block goes in
I guess my question i.....at that psi and power level, will I lose hp with the Z06 cam? Even if I do lose some power, will it be minimal, would it be better for the motor? What turbo cam would you recommend for my car as it sits/plus a couple psi?

kjmdrumz3

iTrader: (1)

Anyone else?

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

I think a cam like a Z06 cam would potentially make higher peak hp, but that's not always what is faster on the street or the track. A 224 single pattern with a 112 LSA will most likely have more overlap, but it might have a stronger mid range since you would have more intake duration.

qqwqeqwrqwqtq

For the stock engine I would use the stock cam. You would break the bottom end before it became a restriction.

To generalize, comparing the 224/224 112 cam to the LS6 cam, the 224 cam would make more mid and high rpm power with an extended rpm range, while the LS6 cam would have better idle characteristics and low end torque. (low end as in below 2500 or so).

Mr_president

iTrader: (38)

and you want more lowend becuase you let the turbo do the high end correct im in the same boat thinking of switching to zo6 cam

kjmdrumz3

iTrader: (1)

That's what I'm thinking. It's all about the lowend.

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

I would think you want more high end.

ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

Think about it.....driving down the track how often is the car below 2500rpms....in an auto.........practically NEVER.You want more high end.

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

Going down the track I would doubt that I will be below 5000 rpms for an entire pass... maybe 5500 for me.

ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

EXACTLY....i said 2500 because that was the said low end.....there just isnt a low end while at the track....and on a launch its being revved probably above that as well for him and you obviously so that pretty much is self explanatory about the Z06 cam helping out.On the street might be different but at the track,more duration= faster et's 99% of the time.

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

I'd like to see more folks some dyno numbers and track numbers to show case different combos... If the Z06 cams were the best bet, then those cam'd cars would consistently put the best numbers down. Fact is that a 207/218//117 cam like the Z06 will get walked by many bigger duration cams with less LSA. Take the blower combos for example, how many folks posted over 140mph ever with a blower? Like four. I don't think most of them were running a Z06 cam.

ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

we also have to remember that blowers like more compression and nasty cams usually,in general.Turbo's usually like low compression and low overlap which would make it tough to put a big nasty cam in a car and have little to no overlap.

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

Not sure you have listed any examples to support your opinion. Which cars are you refering to and what do they run? I see a lot of folks on here talk about combos but I have rarely seen any of them trap over 130mph, much less 144mph. I run a 236/246//114 with 8.2:1 compression. But it's sold.

kjmdrumz3

iTrader: (1)

So, what would be a good turbo cam for a stock motor? I'm thinking there has got to be a better cam for a turbo application (8-13psi) than the TR224?

kjmdrumz3

iTrader: (1)

hello? lol

Mr_president

iTrader: (38)

hey do what i dit call cammotion have your specs rety of your car and they will custom grind one for you. i have a stock bottom end my cam that they grinded is a 218 214 564 546 115 + 5 sounds good to me!!

kjmdrumz3

iTrader: (1)

Thanks

Big Geek

iTrader: (2)

There are a couple of trains of thought regarding this subject and ALLOT more than just the cam itself. Here a few of them (And I can provide proof if so desired.) small cams (relative to the motor) such as the stock piece are going to build boost MUCH faster than a larger duration camshaft suffice the turbo compressor mapping is within reason for the motor in question. This will lead to quicker times generally speaking for a street car that is moderately geared. The reason being is massive amounts of torque down low. A larger camshaft would be necessary for a either a larger displacement motor or one with a compressor map that is on the upper rpm range of the C.I.D. of the motor it is being used on. If you don't believe me here is a prime example. I had a camshaft that was 218@.050 in my 87 Buick GN and it had went a best of 10.89@126 but then just for ***** and giggles I swapped it out for a smaller camshaft that was 206@.050 to test this theory and BOOM !!! Waddya know it responds with a 10.52@129. My 60'ft was roughly the same but I noticed a significant improvement in my 330-ft/660-ft and so on. Here is another good example. A friend of mines wife’s 87 Buick Turbo-T makes 700-RWHP@5200-RPM and 1016-RWTQ@4300-RPM and the camshaft in her car is also a 206@.050 (I got the idea from him.). This is all with 231-C.I.D. You can find her car in the Nov. 2003 edition of GM HIGHTECH PERFORMANCE on page 19. titled "Jane Says”. The car runs 10.20’s with 231-C.I.D and the owner is "Red" Armstrong’s wife (Buick GURU). The reason for my ramblings is that I am trying to convey the point that for a mainly street driven car a smaller camshaft is going to be ALLOT more efficient and produce more usable power on a turbocharged motor that it's larger brethren. Now this is not without a tradeoff in that if one uses a smaller camshaft launching easy is going to be in order unless you have some STOUT pieces under the rear but with a moderately sized turbo and small camshaft lag will be cut to a minimum. So even with a soft 1.55-1.60 60-ft time a 10.xx should not be an issue with a car that uses a 3.23-3.42 gear, 28x9-in slick, stock cam and heads and a turbo that will support the C.I.D. and RPM range such a PT-66, PT-70 or the like. I am building one now and will be using a COMP-CAMS 212/218 w/stock heads and intake and a PT-72. Hope this rambling helps.

Jim C.