Silverhawk_02TA

Then you must really baffle yourself!

Did I ever say I was pissed about my numbers? Can you read? I think my HP is right on. I think my TQ is lower than it should be with my current setup, without a tune. Not pissed about it, just my opinion. This is a legitimate issue. Now if I get it tuned and pick up a boatload of TQ I can say "Wow. A good tune really unlocks this cam."

And the "half-assed" comment is pretty ignorant as well. I apologize for not clicking my heels 3 times and conjuring up my car in what I envision to be it's "complete, fully modded state". It's a process pal; there's a lot of things I still want/need. If it pisses you off, please go troll some other thread.

And to think, up until your last post you seemed like a rational person...

tim99ws6

iTrader: (31)

tim99ws6

iTrader: (31)

Gomer IS, other than maybe the TSP guys, probably you're most educatated LSx person that has decided to post in this thread. He is trying to tell you why you are not making what you expected to make. You might wanna use the search feature to learn a little more about him, and who he is on LS1tech before firing back off at him. I believe he is partly responsible for some of the huge HP gains LSx motors have made over the past years due to his own PERSONAL R&D.......what he is saying is this..in a little meaner way:

You don't have a dog in the hunt about why your Tq numbers are "low"...here's why:this cam(considered a pretty aggresive cam at that), was not intended to be used on a car with anything less than optimal bolt-ons....

If you wanted to skip the bolt-on "process" of building your car, then you should have gotten a cam that was a little tamer....say a TR224, or a MTI C2.....the cam you have chosen will ONLY show it's true colors once it has all the contributing bolt-ons....


you are missing key elements that make power on a cam-only car:
Dyno-tune
Crank Pulley
Ported TB
Not even a freaking airlid!

you chimed in asking "where's my tq at??!!".....there's your answer...it's when you skipped those minor things that multiply when you go with something as major as a Large cam...

Cobraeater

Silverhawk, first off you need a lid, the stock lid is a POS and is usually the first mod done to a car.

I've heard of people running a stock lid with all the bolt-ons, but with a huge cam you're choking the motor from making more power.

A ported tb and pulley will help too along with a good tune.

I've made more torque with a stock cam and with SAE numbers not STD, and that's because I had all the bolt-ons before I went to a cam.

The lid alone would probably bring your torque up by 10-15.

For all you guys with the low numbers, having all the bolt-ons is critical if you expect big cam numbers.

dvandentop

iTrader: (1)

good lord people follow the correct chain of mods before doing the big ones.

it only makes sense to add headers, ls6 intake airlid, before tossing on heads or a damn cam

Zach@Texas-Speed

iTrader: (7)

Exactly

Silverhawk_02TA

I don't doubt Gomers knowledge at all. He has demonstrated his knowledge many times on these boards. Regardless of that, his last post was ignorant and hostile, simple as that.

The purpose of my first post in this thread was to show that I was down 50 ft-lbs compared to TSP's dyno. The specs as they posted for the car in that thread were mine exactly, minus the tune. Of course, they have expanded on that here to state it was a full bolt-on car, which I had already assumed. However, a lid, pulley, and ported TB will not net me 50 more ft-lbs. I believe the tune might be the key in this situation. And keep in mind, there are tuned, full bolt on cars that have posted similarly low TQ figures. Again, this leads me to believe that the key to maximizing the torque in these 2 cams is in the tune.

I can see how someone reading my first post might assume I was complaining because I wasn't duplicating TSP's numbers. Since this thread started heating up, I have tried numerous times in numerous posts to explain that this is not my intent. I KNOW I can't expect to get those numbers with my current setup. I merely felt that my TQ was lower than I thought it should be with my CURRENT setup, and that it was a trend I had seen many other posts. I was hoping we could as a group see what these setups have in common, and maybe find out what many people with these cams are missing or doing wrong that could be resulting in these lower figures.

Here is a quote from WAHUSKER from my regional thread, and he perhaps explains what I'm getting at a little better than I do myself:

Now, please read my original thread about my Torquer dyno numbers here: https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/258110-torquer-dyno-numbers.html .

Now, as you can see, I was and still am happy with my cam choice. I realize I need a tune, and a lid, and those are both in the works. I am not unhappy with my current numbers. I only question why my TQ specifically, along with many others, is so much lower than it seems it should be. I know the power is there.

PLEASE, let's all take a deep breath, and come back at this in a calmer fashion. We're all here to learn and exchange information, and there is no need for a thread to degenerate to this extent.

Cobraeater

1) A LS6 intake over a LS1 intake does gain alot in torque. I've seen a 20hp and 20torque increase on a 224 cammed car.
Here's a graph of another car.
http://www.ls1howto.com/howto/geniii...ph-1-15-01.jpg

2)Any intake or exhaust restriction is going to bring down you're torque. You've got a stock air lid. Have you looked at the inside of it with the ridges and the two baffles. If that doesn't kill power and torque I don't know what would.

Silverhawk, you're losing torque from using a stock lid and 97bowtie is losing torque from a LS1 intake. That's the reason for the low torque numbers and not the torquer and 233.239 cams.

3)Not every car gets to 400torque, it helps if your car is a freak before the cam. Most LS1's hit 380 to 390 torque with a big cam.

Comparing your car to another car with not even the same mods isn't the best comparison.

Silverhawk_02TA

Yes, I understand about the lid and the LS6 intake resulting in more TQ, no argument there.

To expound on my point a little, here is the setup and the numbers Billinz28 posted: '02, lid ,LT headers, ory, 4.10 gears, cutout, self ported tb; pretty much only missing a pulley. He made 391/370 through the cutout, and 384/360 through the Hooker cat-back. This is a tuned car.

Now, why did he make TQ numbers so much less than TSP with almost the same setup? Now, there is a lot we can't take into account because we don't have his graph. But what I've been trying to get at is that there may be some factor that might be critical to making the TQ numbers shown by TSP. At this point I'm thinking that it may be in the tune, and taking full advantage of the high low-duration lift of these cams. I am not trying to insinuate that these cams do not make the power that TSP claims. I believe the numbers from TSP implicitly. I want to know what the key to making the high TQ numbers is, and from what I've seen so far, it's not just having all the bolt-ons.

Cobraeater

You missed my 3rd point. Not every car is going to throw down big numbers.

With duals Billinz28 could probably hit 380, but not the 400 like TSP did which doesn't mean it's the cam's fault it just means TSP had a stronger car that's all.

Very few cars hit 400 torque cam only, no matter what the cam is called.

Silverhawk_02TA

Okay, this is the kind of stuff I was looking for!

Now, I know TSP has posted at least one graph of the 233/239 making over 400 TQ. Is this another "freak" car? (Note: This is not sarcasm but a serious question) Now, I know even stock cars dyno at different numbers, and different cars respond to mods differently. But, can having a "stronger" car really be the sole reason for making 20 or more ft-lbs? (Again, serious question) One thing that I would say makes this difficult to determine is not having a bone-stock baseline for the cars in question to see how their numbers varied while stock, and how much power was gained.

Cobraeater

I would say TSP's car was pretty strong to hit 400 torque.

Unusual T/A has a freak car that got 368rwhp and 378rwtorque with stock heads and a stock cam, and made 429rwhp and 404rwtorque with a G5X2(232/240 specs) similar to TSP's 233/239. And he had all the bolt-ons.

Here's his graph here.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...highlight=G5X2

If Unusual T/A made 404rwtorque, it doesn't mean everyone else will. Some people don't make his bolt-on numbers with a cam.

So in the end it helps if you have a strong car to make some big numbers.

Silverhawk_02TA

Good Lord! I don't know what bolt-ons he had when he dyno'd that, but that's pretty damned stout!

Okay, here's another way to look at it that I just thought of; let's say we have a "strong" car that dyno's about 15/15 over the average car with similar mods. Well, if we have "strong" cars out there, we have to assume we also have "weak" ones too. Let's say for example our "weak" car dyno's 15/15 less than your average car. If you add the same mods, and compare the dyno's, you'd have numbers that are off by 30/30. Of course, that's probably a fairly extreme example, but it is food for thought. What we really need are more dyno's of these 2 cams to accurately determine what the "norm" power levels are for a full bolt on, properly tuned car. That way we have a good average to compare our numbers against, so we can see if we are reaching the correct level of performance.

It may turn out that TSP's numbers are the "high" end, and Billinz28's the "low" end (don't take offense please!), with most peoples final numbers being somewhere in-between.

jrp

iTrader: (16)

just a FYI but that car has heads as well.