Polluter Track Times???
04-25-2010, 05:06 AM
#23
TECH Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: olathe,ks
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a buddy of mine has the polluter with lt's and ory. it runs mid 12's. thats with ~2.0 60. the cam is gutless on the bottom end. as far as specs go i think the ms4 should start pulling a little sooner. not 100% sure tho.
edit: i havent installed my ms4 yet, thats why i cant say for sure how they compare haha
edit: i havent installed my ms4 yet, thats why i cant say for sure how they compare haha
04-29-2010, 03:47 AM
#26
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya this cam is supposed to make pretty good tq number 3k+ rpms. Rev a little higher and slip the clutch and should be good to go. What I'm wonder is what this cam will do on a bolt on car with 1.8's or so in an m6, as well as how it would respond to some of the higher flower 215 heads (prc, tfs) with that big of a lift.
05-13-2010, 09:11 PM
#28
It went 6.7 in a Regal and 6.5 in the Mustang. Is that really that good? That's 18 more cubic inches than an LS1 and 30 more cfm heads in a light car with a TH350. Any decent cam (230 range) should be capable of the same times in the same car.
The only 2 cars running any kind of number at the track is that one and Tick's gutted out, over geared car. Both would probably run better with a better cam.
The only 2 cars running any kind of number at the track is that one and Tick's gutted out, over geared car. Both would probably run better with a better cam.
05-14-2010, 08:36 AM
#30
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It went 6.7 in a Regal and 6.5 in the Mustang. Is that really that good? That's 18 more cubic inches than an LS1 and 30 more cfm heads in a light car with a TH350. Any decent cam (230 range) should be capable of the same times in the same car.
The only 2 cars running any kind of number at the track is that one and Tick's gutted out, over geared car. Both would probably run better with a better cam.
The only 2 cars running any kind of number at the track is that one and Tick's gutted out, over geared car. Both would probably run better with a better cam.
05-14-2010, 11:33 AM
#31
Wow you hard on them. The 6.0 mustang you talking about, I thought that was fast. Heck I hope mine runs that good. In my area thats quick no matter what it is. Alot people build there cars on a budget and might have picked that cam up cheap. I know where not talking about budget builds but I still think its fast.
05-14-2010, 01:43 PM
#32
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so you think the same car would run 6.7s in a boat regal with a 230 grind? if its geared for the big 240 cam and also set up with a converter for the 240 cam IMO it would slow down
05-16-2010, 10:14 PM
#33
11 Second Club
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Noff Cakylak
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the motor didnt pick up that much going from the regal to the stang, we only picked up a little over a tenth cause the weight of the cars were real close to each other. the fox has been on a major diet though for the last month so im sure it will run faster now...
05-16-2010, 10:42 PM
#34
Chris1313s car ran 6.6s in a 3200lbs cam only Camaro. Those might not be typical results, but he doesn't have a 6.0 with 799 heads either. Oh yeah, his cam was a 230/230. And he's only 1 tenth behind Tick's cam only best of 10.5, in there 3000lbs, 5:1 geared M6 car that leaves the line at 7800rpm with there street friendly polluter cam.
I'd love to see some results from that cam in a car more similar to what most people have. I bet you that they don't run that well. Dyno? Sure. Track times? Who knows.
05-17-2010, 10:06 AM
#35
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im not retarded im just stating my opinion, and yes the regal is a boat compared to any fox body. 3200 is light i agree. bottom line is this is the internet and we dont know whats done to anyones cars truthfully.
05-17-2010, 12:55 PM
#36
A boat Regal? 3200lbs aint that heavy. I think it would easily run that. If the setup is wrong then change it. Are you retarded?
Chris1313s car ran 6.6s in a 3200lbs cam only Camaro. Those might not be typical results, but he doesn't have a 6.0 with 799 heads either. Oh yeah, his cam was a 230/230. And he's only 1 tenth behind Tick's cam only best of 10.5, in there 3000lbs, 5:1 geared M6 car that leaves the line at 7800rpm with there street friendly polluter cam.
I'd love to see some results from that cam in a car more similar to what most people have. I bet you that they don't run that well. Dyno? Sure. Track times? Who knows.
Chris1313s car ran 6.6s in a 3200lbs cam only Camaro. Those might not be typical results, but he doesn't have a 6.0 with 799 heads either. Oh yeah, his cam was a 230/230. And he's only 1 tenth behind Tick's cam only best of 10.5, in there 3000lbs, 5:1 geared M6 car that leaves the line at 7800rpm with there street friendly polluter cam.
I'd love to see some results from that cam in a car more similar to what most people have. I bet you that they don't run that well. Dyno? Sure. Track times? Who knows.
05-17-2010, 11:30 PM
#38
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: DAVIDSON NC
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 6.70 pass in the regal was on a very good day and the 6.50 pass in the fox was on its first day out(with fuel preasure issues)..the next time i run it im hoping for low 40's to high 30's...as far as weight being one of the reasons i took it out of the regal but the other factor was the aerodynamics...not to offend any g-body owners but they are shaped like a brick(the cars that is)....lol
Last edited by billyflantos; 05-18-2010 at 04:13 PM.
05-27-2010, 12:42 AM
#39
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: DAVIDSON NC
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
update...6.33@107 thru the eigth and went a 10.02 with a 1.35 short time in the qtr....the last pass i got to make it went a 10.02 again with a 1.38 short time(spun)...almost got my 9.90's....close but no cigar..lol