Got the camaro back today!! Disappointing numbers???
#21
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I fould a handful of other cars running 224/224 cams or close that were at 340rwhp@5000 rpm too and did 368-375rwhp at 6000rpm.
Does the graph look like the engine pulled timing or something, or could rain have caused that. It's really starting to bother me. I want to go back and get another pull done.
Does the graph look like the engine pulled timing or something, or could rain have caused that. It's really starting to bother me. I want to go back and get another pull done.
#23
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It was a dyno dynamics dyno. I always thought the mustang dyno was the lower reading one and knew it wasn't a mustang dyno and didn't think anything of that. So if they read 5% lower I'm at where I thought I would be on a dynojet.
So the cam definately seems too advanced? How far off would it be to cause max hp at 5200-5300 rather than 6000.
My mpg was 23 avg before the cam and was wondering what you tr224 guys are getting now to compare in the future. Thanks.
So the cam definately seems too advanced? How far off would it be to cause max hp at 5200-5300 rather than 6000.
My mpg was 23 avg before the cam and was wondering what you tr224 guys are getting now to compare in the future. Thanks.
#26
Launching!
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: eastern shore, VA
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
i have also had a ton of guys tell me it totally not necessary with a small cam like the 224. but i also agree with you because something is definitely wrong. i am personally just gonna pull mine out and go with something bigger, but i will for damn sure degree the new cam
#28
10 Second Club
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: St. Michael, MN.
Posts: 4,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech20year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It was a dyno dynamics dyno. I always thought the mustang dyno was the lower reading one and knew it wasn't a mustang dyno and didn't think anything of that. So if they read 5% lower I'm at where I thought I would be on a dynojet.
So the cam definately seems too advanced? How far off would it be to cause max hp at 5200-5300 rather than 6000.
My mpg was 23 avg before the cam and was wondering what you tr224 guys are getting now to compare in the future. Thanks.
So the cam definately seems too advanced? How far off would it be to cause max hp at 5200-5300 rather than 6000.
My mpg was 23 avg before the cam and was wondering what you tr224 guys are getting now to compare in the future. Thanks.
#31
11 Second Club
iTrader: (18)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Sounds a bit odd. Let us know if you find something out. My numbers were pretty low too and also cam peaked sooner than I expected. My cam is somewhat similar to a tr224 since its based on the tr230.
The other things you describe sound like symptoms of a cammed, no stall car. Unless you just didn't mention the stall.
But it kinda sounds like the tune isn't all that hot to be honest with those driveability issues. Those should not be any kind of issues with a cam that small.
The other things you describe sound like symptoms of a cammed, no stall car. Unless you just didn't mention the stall.
But it kinda sounds like the tune isn't all that hot to be honest with those driveability issues. Those should not be any kind of issues with a cam that small.