DailyAluminumBlock

Guys, I am seeing all of these high dyno numbers and alos wandering what is going on. In one short sweet phrase, THE AFTERMARKET TUNERS AND PARTS ARE EVOLVING FOR THIS MOTOR. You must remember that this motor has only been around since 97 which is not a very long time for the aftermarket to make max power out of a combination. It takes a long time for these companies to ring out every last bit of power that this motor is capable of. Like what has been said before, you used to be the man if you had a heads and cam package that made 400 rwhp. Now that is pretty sub par (for a stage 2 head anyway). I say we should rejoice in these higher numbers. Hell, maybe in a couple of years we will be running down big single turbo supras with nothing but a heads and cam setup <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

niphilli

I am rejoicing <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

But what is annoying to me is that no-one knows the route that this "development" has taken.

Are we talking about extremely radical cam profiles, or some "miracle" specd cam that just complements stock LS-1 heads well. I mean come-on, for three years the average aggressive cam-only dyno was 385 RWHP and now all the sudden it is 430? Its just a lil hard to swallow.

For me the H/C package results are a little less hard to swallow because there is an "art" to matching a specific aftermarket cam-profile to a specific aftermarket head....that is prooven. But we are talking about a serious "art" to get an engine with heads that flow 250cfm to put out 430 RWHP including all of the bolt-ons. For example on my car I would have to gain 80-100 RWHP from only changing to an LS-1 intake and an aftermarket cam.

I am not trying to be a skeptic, just a little dumbfounded on how someone just upped the cam-only bolt-on bar by a solid 40 RWHP?

Very interested to see these revolutionary cam specs that have been developed.

-Nick

<small>[ February 01, 2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: niphilli ]</small>

RAMBIRD2002

This has got to be one of the most logical, realistic statement's I've heard in a long time. Good for you for making a great statement <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> The ls1 and ls6 engines have been brought to a new level. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

DailyAluminumBlock

I also believe that these numbers are part of the fact that the tuning is also done in house. Changing to a different cam requires different things to be changed for optimum results (i.e. some cams like the timing to come on faster and more abruptly, some cams like more fuel in certain areas). However, the only thing I don't like is hidden specs. I think it is silly to not revielle cam specs because anybody can get their hands on one and put it on the cam doctor. However, tuning is entirely up to the shop and there is no way to find out what there tricks of the trade are without them being kind enough to share with us. You can't blame them, even know I would love to benefit from there info, as this is how they make their living.

P.S. Some, however, are still very helpful.

JF WS6

I also would like to see some more details and cam specs as well. Julio at Cartek is the only guy so far to provide cam and head specs. on his revised package, and props to him for doing that.

--JF

RAMBIRD2002

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about weather or not it's fair or not fair to release their cam spec's. After all it's their cam design and their decision to keep the spec hush hush. One more thought to think about, how can you be sure that the cam you are purchasing is really the cam you think your getting????? I know from experience (not saying who it was because I'm not like that) but there is 1 if not more companies out there that are lying on the actual cam spec. Here again, don't ask who but it's the god's honest truth... What you think your getting might not always be what you are getting, especially when there is no cam card or when it's the wrong one. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="gr_sad.gif" />

RAMBIRD2002

After all almost everything here is based on competition.

DailyAluminumBlock

You can always put the cam on a cam doctor (i.e. send it to some one who has one). This will tell you exactly how your cam is ground.

LS1derfull

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RAMBIRD2002:
<strong> After all almost everything here is based on competition. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

zTrackerz

Still dwelling on this subject. I have been reading about this for a while now. Let's just leave it alone.

I mean I highly agree with some of what's being said.To have the HP levels jump so high from a cam change and tuning, it seems unbelieveable, but not totaly impossible...
Also I respect the company for not wanting to share specs because anyone could copy the cam. But also in the same aspect please accept me not even wanting to hear about it. I would not even consider purchasing anything I did not have all the details on prior to buying it. And just hearing that there is a cam out there that produces so much power, does me no good either.
Someone mentioned that there are companies out there not giving you what you think you are purchasing. Isn't that illegal???? They also mentioned that they don't want to give out any information on this/these companies. If this information is true it should be shared.
That's whats wrong with people today. Look at some of these businesses. They can charge what they want,offer terrible service, offer terrible products.....Some food service industries in particular. Imagine if everyone who had a complaint about them stood up. Imagaine if all these people banned together. Imagine if there was such a thing as a boycott by people... Things would change...

But none the less, can we leave this cam issue alone? Either choose to believe it, or not.....

<small>[ February 02, 2003, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: zTrackerz ]</small>

VTtransam

I think that a major factor in the last couple years with 430+ rwhp head/cam cars was the advent of the LS6 intake. It has proven to be good for around 20-25rwhp oh h/c cars over the ls1 intake. Another factor is the great tuning with LS1edit that has become very widespread within the past couple years. These factors alone plus more and more guys running true duals plus the LSx cylinder head and cam technology is increasing by the day means these cars are just going to keep putting up big numbers. More time = more research = better results <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

Matt

mattf2

I thought jason was at 410 w/ a tr230 cam and stock heads (12 bolt?). w/ a better cam grind, tuning, and some custom headers on a 3.42 10 bolt, a 20 HP gain isn't too outrageous.

I hope it's true. Bring the HP to the Masses! <img border="0" alt="[burn out]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_burnout.gif" />

verbs

I don't see why 430rwhp is that outrageous on a stock rear end..

Since I was making 363rwhp with bolt ons, full exhaust (no tricks) and no tuning, there is no reason why I couldn't have picked up say 40-45rwhp with a big cam on stock heads and some ls1 edit tuning.

So 403-408rwhp with a cam only through a 33 spline 12 bolt and 3.73's.

Swap a stock rear end back in and I'm sure I'd be hovering near the 420rwhp mark on stock heads. Drop the exhaust and I'd be getting closer to 430rwhp.

Yes its outrageous, but his car is a dyno car with nothing really robbing any power to the wheels.

Fly By

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by verbs:
<strong> his car is a dyno car with nothing really robbing any power to the wheels. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bet you ther are more stock rear cars than moser 12 bolt cars <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Put it this way, your car is at a disadvantage. The norm is NOT the advantage. BTW, a stock rear and drivetrain robs power. If it didnt, we would be comparing Flwheel #s <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="gr_images/icons/tongue.gif" />

verbs

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fly By:
<strong> [QUOTE]Originally posted by verbs:
[qb] BTW, a stock rear and drivetrain robs power. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why of course....just not as much as us 12 bolters with gears <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

soslo

iTrader: (12)

I think the biggest change is due to the camshaft, specifically 2 things:
1. Lift. Lift has increased greatly. Stock LS1 cams lift around .450", whereas many of the new high power cams are lifting between .580" and .600"!!!
2. Lobe profiles. The new profiles are very aggressive and are holding the valves open at/near max lift for quite a bit of the duration, whereas the older cam profiles took their sweet time to hit max lift only to start the journey back down.

Couple the 2 of these together and you get a low lift cam that isn't even spending a lot of time near its max. The result is a huge restriction in airflow. People are now slapping these new cams in a stock-heads car and taking advantage of their relatively free-flowing qualities (about 240 CFM at .550" lift). That is why we are seeing cam only cars making near 400 RWHP with the proper tuning. Physics says that these heads should be good for almost 500 flywheel HP in a perfect world, so 400 RWHP doesn't seem out of the question for a finely tuned system.

Now to heads - it is obvious that head porters are figuring out how to squeeze both CFM and velocity of the the LSx heads, and we are seeing that technology join forces with these new cams that can really provide the heads the flow they need, and people are making wonderful amounts of power.

Good times. <img border="0" alt="[driving]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_driving3.gif" />

Colonel

My FULL bolt-on internally stock car dynoed 359 RWHP corrected with the converter locked. The timing and mixture were dialed in to perfection through trial, error, track, and dyno tuning. I do not believe that ANY hydraulic cam will get me to 430 RWHP on the same dyno that I pulled 359 RWHP while shifting below 7000 with no other changes regardless of exhaust configuration or tuning.

There is no magic to camshaft designing. A stock set of heads is a stock set of heads and they are restrictive. A cam alone can't get past that.

There is no magic to tuning for HP. Get the mixture close, get the timing close, and every bit of fine tuning you care to do won't amount to much. Sure, you might eek out a few more HP by getting it perfect but not much. This has been my experience. Take it for what it's worth.

My stand on all of the dyno hoopla is this. Put 'em on the SAME dyno with the same dyno operator. Otherwise it's just long distance dyno racing which means absolutely diddly squat to me (dynos are for tuning. Not for comparing to one another, IMO.) Better still, put 'em in very similar cars and take 'em to the track. Consider density altitude, wind, etc... and let the trap speeds tell the tale.

John B

iTrader: (10)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> and let the trap speeds tell the tale </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Preach on brother <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

SStrokerAce

iTrader: (2)

Amen Colonel!

Chassis Dynos are never a good comparison, hell state of the art engine dynos that have all been dialed in on the same engine all aross the country give better numbers some places.

The only way to tell what the best is:

Take the engine out, ship it to Westech, or Lingenfelter, or any Superflow Engine Dyno, test every combo and engine on the same dyno and correct all of them. If it's not on the same dyno in the same room, it's not the same. I've seen 10% power increase going from a Superflow Dyno on the east coast to a Superflow dyno on the west coast and that is the premier stuff in the world! Now take a 430rwhp Cam car and take 10% out of that! 390rwhp , now add in all the other aspects of a chassis dyno. Variable RPM a second, cooling fans, correction factors, EVERYTHING! 10% difference would be a mild difference to me.

BTW I have a guy with just bolt ons running my ported TB on his car and he did 370rwhp with just bolt ons! I don't think that includes tuning. That is amazing. It was dynoed at MTI FWIW, but I don't go around advertising the highest bolt on dyno out there because of my TB. That's bunk.

It does give us alot of numbers to look at.

BTW the Cartek head numbers look good. But for $2800 and LS6 heads they should look that good!

Bret

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">you used to be the man if you had a heads and cam package that made 400 rwhp.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thats for sure! I was the first one on the net to clear "400 rwhp" with heads/cam, back in 1999. I was also the first one to use a 112 LSA camshaft on these engines. MTI Stage 2s with a T1 cam. Back then, people thought that 400 rwhp with heads/cam was THE target number. I still think my old numbers were impressive considering the car had stock tuning, an LS1 intake, and MAC headers (no longtubes back then), not to mention the relatively smaller 221/221 T1 cam.

1999 = <img border="0" alt="[worship]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_hail.gif" /> 400 rwhp
2003 = <img border="0" alt="[worship]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_hail.gif" /> 500 rwhp

I wonder why more shops aren't tinkering with all-out BIG engines instead of 346ci setups.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />