Is it me or has there been ALOT of MS3 threads recently??
#1
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (30)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it me or has there been ALOT of MS3 threads recently??
It seems that there has been like 6 threads started this week about this cam. Im wondering why this cam has just recently been so popular. I mean, it has always been a great cam but up untill now, I havent seen much talk about it. Oh well, just an observation.
#2
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I noticed too... After doing enough research to understand cams a little better and which lobes have more agressive profiles I gravitated to X-ER lobes. Maybe it's contagious...
BTW - I picked the TSP 233/239 (595"/.603" 112+4) because it seems to have better range than the MS3 and more power than the Torquer v2. The split looks ripe for some juice too. I'm getting a new clutch tomorrow, and we're throwing a rear end girdle on the 10-bolt. If I have time I might finish up the welds on the axle tubes and weld little steel braces between the axle tubes and the housing. (A little cheap insurance for the 4.10's) Gotta get ready for some serious torque.
BTW - I picked the TSP 233/239 (595"/.603" 112+4) because it seems to have better range than the MS3 and more power than the Torquer v2. The split looks ripe for some juice too. I'm getting a new clutch tomorrow, and we're throwing a rear end girdle on the 10-bolt. If I have time I might finish up the welds on the axle tubes and weld little steel braces between the axle tubes and the housing. (A little cheap insurance for the 4.10's) Gotta get ready for some serious torque.
#5
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (30)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha im definately gonna agree on that^^^ but I cal DIBS!!!! Seriously though...this cam is rediculous. I cant wait to get mine in. Im already excited and its gonna be a couplpe months. How are you liking it walker??
FunLS1...yeah you better have a little insurance for all that torque!! When are you getting it in. I live in Fairfax and I would LOVE to get a ride in it before I buy it. That would be AMAZING!! Let me know!
FunLS1...yeah you better have a little insurance for all that torque!! When are you getting it in. I live in Fairfax and I would LOVE to get a ride in it before I buy it. That would be AMAZING!! Let me know!
Trending Topics
#8
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (33)
im not sure if there have been other changes but a lot of other complaints about cams even in general is people having to spin the motor so high to make more power. Just take a look at dyno graphs, pay no attention to peak power and just look and compair values at lower rpms and you will see what I am talking about.
#9
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (30)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thats not really a problem with how they are made. You can get cams that dont need to be spun that high to make power. I thought you meant complaints about the company and how they constructed the cams.
#10
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (33)
yes, the general design of the cam by the numbers which give poor numbers IMO, at least the cars i have seen. spinning the motor high does have to do with how the cam is made, its all in the design. i htink some of the new revisions fixed that though, that was the big turn off for me.
#11
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (30)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah thats how they were designed but I thought you meant the quality was bad. TSP does have plenty of cams now that dont have to be spun that high. Have you looked at those?
#13
Super Hulk Smash
iTrader: (7)
Originally Posted by WS6FirebirdTA00
yes, the general design of the cam by the numbers which give poor numbers IMO, at least the cars i have seen. spinning the motor high does have to do with how the cam is made, its all in the design. i htink some of the new revisions fixed that though, that was the big turn off for me.
An XE-R lobe is very aggressive and can make a ton of power if the rest of the engine is properly set-up to compliment it. The 237/242 on a 113+0 is a very large cam for stock compression ratios on a 346. To make good power with the MS3, you need to run 11.8:1 CR. Yes, you can run that high on pump gas no problem with a cam that big in a 346. The difference is probably 30-40rwtq and that's everywhere in the power band.
Now, before anyone tries to point out that 11.8:1 CR will push the torque up on any car, most smaller cams will push the DCR (I contend the most important factor for determining overall power for a given cam) way past what pump gas can support, which is ~8.5-8.8:1. The difference is the MS3 or other Comp XE-R 230s/240s cams can support a load of compression on pump gas. To clarify, it's like running the stock LS1 on 8.5:1 CR instead of 10.1:1 if you run a big cam like that on a 10.1 or 10.5:1 CR. You'd not be taking full advantage of the setup and would be leaving lots of power on the table.
Now, if you put some advance in it, you can bring up the DCR, but you don't get the same top end effect. Putting a 224/228 113+0 cam against a 234/238 109+0 will give you the same DCR for a given SCR and will peak very similarily. So, the graph would look like an overlay but the 234/238 would drive like ****. Put the 234/238 on a 113+0 and bump the compression .5 or higher, and the 234 will walk away from the 224 with more average power and a much higher top end.
Last edited by JakeFusion; 03-16-2006 at 01:01 PM.
#14
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (30)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of good info there.
Well I dont know where I have been the last couple months but I had no idea trmn8tr was running that cam. I have seen that video 1000 times but never even registered. Well I guess its a testiment to the cam.
Well I dont know where I have been the last couple months but I had no idea trmn8tr was running that cam. I have seen that video 1000 times but never even registered. Well I guess its a testiment to the cam.
#16
Super Hulk Smash
iTrader: (7)
Originally Posted by WS6FirebirdTA00
I understand a good setup but cam only these cams are not impressive through the whole rpm range as others are. Just my opinion though, doesnt mean its scripture lol
#17
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (33)
Originally Posted by JakeFusion
Yeah, I totally agree with you. Cam only, it's going to suck. But, put some milled heads on it or mill the factory heads and look out.
What are you guys planning to do? Heads and cam or cam only? That is prob the biggest factor and I assumed we were talking cam only. If you go with heads you dont want to cheap out on them either...
#18
LS1 Tech Administrator
iTrader: (14)
IMO, big duration and wide LSA only works well if you are willing to spin the motor to the moon (like in Pro Stock). In a stock displacement LS1, you'll want a cam that brings dynamic compression into the 8.5:1 range (or slightly more if you can tune around it) and with a late enough intake valve closing point to allow a high power peak. To do this usually means a fairly big duration cam with a narrow LSA, but I'm going to try a new torque-monster cam out (smaller duration) to really pump up the mid-range torque numbers of my current setup. My goal is to have DCR in the 8.7-8.8:1 range along with a IVC in the 43 degree ADBC range (at .050"). This should bring more total power under the curve with similar overlap to what I'm running now.
__________________
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2022 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 S&B CAI, Corsa catback.
2023 Corvette 3LT Z51 soon to be modified.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2022 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 S&B CAI, Corsa catback.
2023 Corvette 3LT Z51 soon to be modified.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
#19
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (30)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly dont think this cam is going to "suck" in a cam only application. Granted, it will not be able to be used to its full potential on the street...that is unless you want to spin the daylights out of the motor. That being said, I still think it will be a strong cam to have. Personally, I definately dont plan on stopping the mod process after a cam, meaning I will be doing heads at some point. I was actually thinking of getting a custom cam ground to the same duration as the MS3, but tightening up the LSA so that I get that power in a more useable range. I have not thoroughly thought out this idea, but does it sound like something worth doing?
#20
Super Hulk Smash
iTrader: (7)
Yeah, and you won't need as much compression if you do that.
Patrick, I understand where you are coming from. The MS3 is a drag type cam, though, so my thoughts were directed that way. However, I still like a wider LSA and more static compression to acheive roughly the same thing as a narrower cam and lower compression. Let me explain why.
From a drivability standpoint, the wider LSA will not be as "explosive," it'll idle better, and with lots of compression on the big duration cams, it'll make the midrange power necessary (midrange might mean different things with these cams, but eh, work with me). The big, wide cam with tons of compression can make the same DCR as a smaller, narrower cam with much less duration, but the engines are designed to work much differently, of course.
Now, if we think about an 8.7 or 8.8:1 DCR, that will give us a certain torque output on a 346, regardless of the cam. If you play with multiple cam profiles, and I know you have, you'll see there is a correlation in ABDC (whether very wide LSA, huge duration, or whatever) and the amount of static compression necessary for a given dynamic compression ratio. Keep bumping the SCR up whenever you increase duration or LSA, and eventually you'll hit the same output of 8.8:1 DCR as you would with a much tighter cam with less compression. So, if an 8.8:1 DCR, no matter how you get to it, gives you a theoretical limit of 460rwtq (regardless of RPM) on a 346 on 93 octane, you'll need more octane to pass it or cubes or something. Of course, a narrower cam will make that torque number in a lower RPM range and the larger, wider cams will try to make it higher, but since the intake runner is now the limiting factor, 4800rpm will be the torque peak on either cam. Therefore, the smaller, tighter cam may have a higher number, because 4800rpm may be 95% of it's peak, whereas the larger cam may only see 85% of it's peak at 4800. Either way, I like spinning the **** out of my motors to make HP uptop.
Oh, and the reverse is true and perhaps provides a better picture. A smaller duration, wider LSA cam will look similar to a high duration, narrow LSA cam. Specifically, a 224/228 113+0 cam and a 234/238 113+4 will give you the same DCR for a given SCR and will peak very similarily, but the 224 will idle better and provide better drivability. So, the simple answer is, I think that by going with a 234/238 on a 113+0, one is taking better advantage of the camshaft profile, but will need a sizeable bump in compression to keep torque up. Yes, it pushes the RPM range way up there, but if that's what you want, you'll need the compression to compliment it, or else it'll be like driving a stock LS1 with 8.5:1 compression; lethargic and underperforming.
Patrick, I understand where you are coming from. The MS3 is a drag type cam, though, so my thoughts were directed that way. However, I still like a wider LSA and more static compression to acheive roughly the same thing as a narrower cam and lower compression. Let me explain why.
From a drivability standpoint, the wider LSA will not be as "explosive," it'll idle better, and with lots of compression on the big duration cams, it'll make the midrange power necessary (midrange might mean different things with these cams, but eh, work with me). The big, wide cam with tons of compression can make the same DCR as a smaller, narrower cam with much less duration, but the engines are designed to work much differently, of course.
Now, if we think about an 8.7 or 8.8:1 DCR, that will give us a certain torque output on a 346, regardless of the cam. If you play with multiple cam profiles, and I know you have, you'll see there is a correlation in ABDC (whether very wide LSA, huge duration, or whatever) and the amount of static compression necessary for a given dynamic compression ratio. Keep bumping the SCR up whenever you increase duration or LSA, and eventually you'll hit the same output of 8.8:1 DCR as you would with a much tighter cam with less compression. So, if an 8.8:1 DCR, no matter how you get to it, gives you a theoretical limit of 460rwtq (regardless of RPM) on a 346 on 93 octane, you'll need more octane to pass it or cubes or something. Of course, a narrower cam will make that torque number in a lower RPM range and the larger, wider cams will try to make it higher, but since the intake runner is now the limiting factor, 4800rpm will be the torque peak on either cam. Therefore, the smaller, tighter cam may have a higher number, because 4800rpm may be 95% of it's peak, whereas the larger cam may only see 85% of it's peak at 4800. Either way, I like spinning the **** out of my motors to make HP uptop.
Oh, and the reverse is true and perhaps provides a better picture. A smaller duration, wider LSA cam will look similar to a high duration, narrow LSA cam. Specifically, a 224/228 113+0 cam and a 234/238 113+4 will give you the same DCR for a given SCR and will peak very similarily, but the 224 will idle better and provide better drivability. So, the simple answer is, I think that by going with a 234/238 on a 113+0, one is taking better advantage of the camshaft profile, but will need a sizeable bump in compression to keep torque up. Yes, it pushes the RPM range way up there, but if that's what you want, you'll need the compression to compliment it, or else it'll be like driving a stock LS1 with 8.5:1 compression; lethargic and underperforming.
Last edited by JakeFusion; 03-16-2006 at 08:33 PM.