I've got one of those 'old' TR224's with .560 lift and from reading this thread, I see that there isn't much difference at all between a 224/224 cam from 2001 to TSP's newest version.

What I get from reading this, is that at most, it's a 10hp difference, but when that gets put into a drivetrain, with a water pump, alternator, powersteering pump, a/c, the difference is going to be closer to 2-3 hp. My question is what type of lobes are on the TSP cam? They've already said that they have 0.200" more lift, what about how aggressive the profiles are?

No ax to grind here, no conspiracy theories, I owe my allegiance to myself and my wife and God (not in that order), so don't lump me in with anyone else.

Who's to say the best dyno was picked for the TSP cam, and the worst for the TR cam? If TSP didn't do that, then they did themselves a disjustice, but again proves my point. I want the 224 cam that is the friendliest on the valvetrain because it appears that once in a car, they'll all make the same power.

 

I can assure you we didn't take the best TSP graphs and worst TR224....each was retuned multiple times to get the A/F ratio as close to the same as to eliminate any variables we could, timing was tweaked for each to achieve the best power, etc.

 

And that my friends is the God's honest truth.

 

You are judging ramp rate with lift value which is not the way to do it.
You should be looking at .600>.050 variance and the higher it is the softer the lobe. You'll find that TR proprietary lobes are not that much softer than you think.
Comp XE would be softer and XE-R just a tad steeper.
And while similar 224s will make close to each others power, I did not see a major change in the ones tested.
Like mixing lobes and more overlap; you guys might re-evaluate your arguments.
One thing very valid Jon Bauer stated is that looking at the entire graph and understanding what affects it at different rpms besides cam specs in a combo and how to juggle those parts to get the powercurve you want is the real "magic" or just pure physic knowledge if you like.

 

First, thanks to TSP for providing the testing!

I do not agree with Jon's analogy of giving a fish vs teaching to fish for this particular excercise. It's too vague. I don't believe that someone taught you how to size a cam by applying physics and you were able to spec out a real world cam that worked the best on the first try. There is a trial and error factor in there somewhere and there are only 2 ways to learn that. By trying and failing or by learning from other people's failures. If you don't share the specifics of what has or has not worked for you, then there really isn't anything for the rest of us to learn.

 

I hear what you're saying, but obviously, it's a different lobe on the tsp cam vs. the TR cam or else we wouldn't see a difference at all, or shouldn't.

And to correct my mistake, it's not 0.200 more lift, it's only 0.020" more lift.

Any comparisons of a cam on a 114 lsa vs 112? My tr224 is the 112lsa (108 icl) variety and to be honest, it's got great midrange through topend pull, but then again, I've maximized my setup.

 

No offense Killer, but perhaps I was too vague. I did not mean you should be taught how to spec a cam (valve events), but rather that you should educate yourself in the physical sciences like physics, thermodynamics, statics, dynamics, and most especially compressible fluid flow so that you achieve some understanding of how and why engines actually produce torque/power.

With that background there are some great (math-heavy) writings that can lead you toward methods of determining how to choose valve events, lifts etc. that will produce the torque/power the engine is capable of. The more you understand about "how engines really work" the easier it is to make your first valve event selection fairly close to optimum, or at least closer than most of your competitors. Of course there are methods of evaluation of your choices, the engine dyno being a good one. Getting really close on your initial design surely cuts down the testing time and expense.

I suggest you look at the first quote in my siggy. If one is really able to think...inside the box, then stepping outside of it may turn on the light. It happens for a few, but not all.

Understanding how engines really work takes a great amount of time and study. It comes easier to some folks than it does to others. Many folks don't have the ambition nor the guts to do the work. Part of the problem, IMO, is the "entitlement mentality" of so many folks. That's a shame, but our society fosters that mentality. More's the pity! In the end, the spoils will go to those who do the work/study or IOW "pay their dues".

I have met one man in my life who could "think like air". Among his many talents was superb port work. I learned a lot from this kid who was almost 40 years my junior. Bret is only 35 years my junior and has a very good knowledge of how things work. He didn't inherit the knowledge, he earned it. This isn't a meant to be commercial nor a lovefest, it is just an observation.

If you want to know what works, spend a few years studying and learn it for yourself. That's what I meant about teaching someone to fish.

Don't expect too many of those who have learned it the hard (right?) way to spoon feed you the answers. Not many will. In fact, if you don't learn the basics yourself you'll need to be spoon fed each and every time you need a new cam.

You can buy into any of this or not. It doesn't matter to me. It is, however, one proven method that works.

Enough, already!

Jon

 

i agree we need sum help in here!!!

 

Lets try some wild changes, like over .630 lift, 116 LSA or even 108 LSA. Why not try the extreme ends. Lets see if a reverse split cam works 224/216 or something the opposite way. Testing the same basic 224/224 .550-.580" lift with either 112 or 114 ther isnt much difference.

 

Thank you TSP!

When adding a Lid, Pulley, EWP, ported TB, FAST intake or any other mod that adds between 5-10hp we gladly pay $50-$800, so why when TSP shows us a FREE 5-10hp people talk ****??? (free in the sense of buying one cam vs. another)

Is it worth pulling out a TR224 for the new 224/227? Hell no, but for someone purchasing a 224 cam to replace the stocker the better choice would be the one that offers more hp.

More hp is what this game is about correct?

 

Who would have though a comp lobe 224 would have made more hp with more lift than one with less lift? Thats insane!

 

I am with vettenuts Matt. The double spring vs beehive would be real interesting.

 

the LSK lobes with more lift didnt really prove to make more power than comparable duration less aggressive lobes Blu...what now biatch

 

you are talking about different lobes biatch. Im talking about same lobes with more/less lift.

LSK lobes are turds and tear **** up.

 

That was a big reason my g6x3 came out. Very noisy valvetrain, violent opening and slamming shut of the valves.

 

The lobes on the TR224 and the TSP224R are different lobes completely, FYI. We have the cam doctor reports as well

 

So which one is more aggressive? My guess, the TSP cam is more aggressive. I've got the cam doctor for my TR224, I'd be interested in seeing your cam specs.

 

When do we get to see the results on this one?

 

TSP224R are XE-R lobes, just a tad more agressive on intake and a bit more on exhaust.
TR lobes are proprietary and a bit harsher than XE on intake.

 

Just in case no one noticed...

TR 224/224 114 Camshaft= .563"/.563"
TSP 224R 114 Camshaft= .581"/.581"
TSP 224R 112 Camshaft= .581"/.581

Just FYI. Interesting testing though.