2003 Z06 cam-only, 432rwhp/400rwtq (Guess the cam!)
#44
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
My actual graph is not uploaded yet, but it starts at 2.5k RPM. I believe both cams made the same power up to 2.5k RPM, but then XFI cam starts breaking away proportionately. It made 30-40 rwhp soon thereafter and peaked at about 55 rwhp more. The new curve essentially just shifted vertical 30-50 HP, keeping the torque curve flat. No peaky stuff here.
#49
10 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: orlando, fl
Posts: 4,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nice gain above 3500 rpms, but not digging the marginally better that stock cam torque numbers under 3500 rpms. now, if the torque line from 2700 - 3700 rpms was a straight line versus the trough there, it would be killer. like jim said, maybe it can be tuned out by richening the fuel up in that area, as it is a bit lean. assuming WOT is at 2200 rpms, i see 16:1 at 2700 rpms with 13:1 by 3700 rpms. i am no tuner by any means, but just seems to me that's lean.
#50
#51
nice gain above 3500 rpms, but not digging the marginally better that stock cam torque numbers under 3500 rpms. now, if the torque line from 2700 - 3700 rpms was a straight line versus the trough there, it would be killer. like jim said, maybe it can be tuned out by richening the fuel up in that area, as it is a bit lean. assuming WOT is at 2200 rpms, i see 16:1 at 2700 rpms with 13:1 by 3700 rpms. i am no tuner by any means, but just seems to me that's lean.
#52
10 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: orlando, fl
Posts: 4,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i don't recall saying it was a cam issue. i was refering to the numbers produced and the a/f ratio at those rpms. just looking for a way to enhance what you already have. maybe some additional tuning might help.
Originally Posted by mrr23
marginally better that stock cam torque numbers under 3500 rpms
#54
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
man this cam has got me scratching my head. I'm thinking for my new setup, this cam, stock 243's with .040 cometics, and a FAST 90. It seems that would do 450 rwhp or damn close with stock heads and great drivability!! its hard to do this with budget after- market heads.
#56
Do the lobes make that much of a difference? I'm seeing a bunch of big XER type cams making around the same power or less on this forum and the Vette forum. Hell, even some of these guys have ported AFRs and Fast 90s. My car barely has a lope at idle and seems almost stock. Why are people still buying XER stuff??
#57
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very nice results!
I am seeing a lot more xfi cams out lately and I'm seriously considering using them on the intake and exhaust for my grind because of the results I'm seeing.
How is the valve train noise? I heard the xfi lobes are a little quieter than xer lobes.
I am seeing a lot more xfi cams out lately and I'm seriously considering using them on the intake and exhaust for my grind because of the results I'm seeing.
How is the valve train noise? I heard the xfi lobes are a little quieter than xer lobes.
#58
Valve train noise is almost stock. That's the thing... it has a tiny lope and is pulling awesome numbers with a lack of other mods. I'm confused in a sense. I decided on this cam because it made sense to me that a higher lift and more aggressive lobe will let in more air in a short period of time (duration), which should equal more power. I don't see why people are using XER lobes on this cam since the lift is pretty weak, yet drivability is almost unchanged
#60
I don't have any vids yet. I didn't have any plans on an intake manifold or heads, but now I wished I balled up and grabbed a ported FAST 90/92 and tried to shoot for 450-460 range. I didn't expect much more than 415rwhp with the cam so it never crossed my mind.