TTP is top notch
02-12-2006 | 08:56 AM
#61
Matt do your cams come with a larger base circle than stock? or are they smaller?
I wouldnt call myself an expert but from personal experience (7 cam swaps )If the heads arent milled you should be running a 7.4 pushrod unless the base is larger. If the base is smaller ( which most after market cams are) and you use the 7.35 that will be on sloppy loose goose.
I wouldnt call myself an expert but from personal experience (7 cam swaps )If the heads arent milled you should be running a 7.4 pushrod unless the base is larger. If the base is smaller ( which most after market cams are) and you use the 7.35 that will be on sloppy loose goose.
02-12-2006 | 09:09 AM
#62
I just read your post that your cam has a smaller base circle which means the correct length is probably closer to 7.425.... definatly not 7.35 on a stock unmilled head. But thats just one mans opinion
02-12-2006 | 09:30 AM
#63
Thread Starter
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,975
Likes: 17
From: eatontown,nj
Originally Posted by TTPMatt
ULTIMATE: If you have any idle issues just give us a call. This cam is meant to be in a drivable car with full max a/c on. Sometimes it takes a bit more fine tuning, but we did not touch your throttle body hole I did everything thru ls1edit. If you have any issues you let me know asap I'll address them.
ok,cool.
02-13-2006 | 09:54 AM
#65
Sounds good I was just letting you know what my personal experience has been but if you are happy sending this guy out with a 3 hp gain and telling him his lifters are bad thats ok with me. Im not trying to tell you your business as you can handle that any way you like but when you say you have a smaller base circle cam with stock unmilled heads what would make you think you need a shorter pushrod? I was just trying to make sense of your reason. Maby there is just some confusion and your cams really have a larger base. I hope your right and I am wrong for the sake of the 60+ cams you personally installed and checked yourself.. Good luck
02-13-2006 | 10:02 AM
#66
Sorry Jeremy, if I did say smaller base than I was incorrect. Where did I say this so I can correct myself?
I was not trying to poke at you with the number of cams we've installed.. You brought it up first so I am just saying I have used my cams over and over.
Once again, just like I have guaranteed a few other guys on the board. If my lifter diagnosis is wrong than I'd be happy to cover the labor and parts for free.
I was not trying to poke at you with the number of cams we've installed.. You brought it up first so I am just saying I have used my cams over and over.
Once again, just like I have guaranteed a few other guys on the board. If my lifter diagnosis is wrong than I'd be happy to cover the labor and parts for free.
02-13-2006 | 10:11 AM
#67
Originally Posted by TTPMatt
Our cam's, because of the base circle, usually use a 7.350" pushrod. We always check proper geometry with a dial indicator, but we know our cam + stock heads usually equals 7.350 pushrods. These 7.350's were so loose that you could move the rocker very easily when the valvetrain was properly setup (Stock rockers torque'd to 22 ft lbs). Then after we dyno'd the car with the acceptable length 7.400 pushrods (Which we never use for our smaller base circle cam), I had Jake pull the driver side valvecover and Nick inspected the pushrods again. Once again, I had him put in 7.350 pushrods just to double check since the car sat for a bit that the lifters didn't bleed down (I highly doubted this but I wanted to check every possibility).
Its in here, Trust me matt I am not trying to bust your ***** although it might look that way. We have done business in the past and I have been very happy. You also take good care of petes car and I respect all the work that has been done there. I was just trying to look out for this guy as there might have been a mistake .Glad to hear it was just a mistype.
Jeremy
02-16-2006 | 05:08 PM
#69
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
v2.
347 i think.
i dynoed 344 with an ls6 cam. this sucks.
347 i think.
i dynoed 344 with an ls6 cam. this sucks.
Wait.... I am ever so lost.
Isnt this the cam that , according to http://www.ttperformance.net/valvetrain.shtml , makes "440rwhp/402rwtq - 2002 Camaro A4, Stock LS1 Heads Untouched" Now I understand not having the 90/90 set up and posibly maybe even a more restrictive exhaust, but sheesh! 93HP!? How does that happen?
Is the motor leaking down 40% on all 8 Cyl?
That is awesome consistency Matt!
George left TTP and they go from 440HP to 350HP on the same cam. Coincidence?
02-16-2006 | 05:24 PM
#70
Originally Posted by WS6TransAm01
Wait.... I am ever so lost.
Isnt this the cam that , according to http://www.ttperformance.net/valvetrain.shtml , makes "440rwhp/402rwtq - 2002 Camaro A4, Stock LS1 Heads Untouched" Now I understand not having the 90/90 set up and posibly maybe even a more restrictive exhaust, but sheesh! 93HP!? How does that happen?
Is the motor leaking down 40% on all 8 Cyl?
That is awesome consistency Matt!
George left TTP and they go from 440HP to 350HP on the same cam. Coincidence?
Isnt this the cam that , according to http://www.ttperformance.net/valvetrain.shtml , makes "440rwhp/402rwtq - 2002 Camaro A4, Stock LS1 Heads Untouched" Now I understand not having the 90/90 set up and posibly maybe even a more restrictive exhaust, but sheesh! 93HP!? How does that happen?
Is the motor leaking down 40% on all 8 Cyl?
That is awesome consistency Matt!
George left TTP and they go from 440HP to 350HP on the same cam. Coincidence?
But yes everyone here knows that something else is wrong with the car.
02-16-2006 | 06:04 PM
#73
Originally Posted by WS6TransAm01
Wait.... I am ever so lost.
Isnt this the cam that , according to http://www.ttperformance.net/valvetrain.shtml , makes "440rwhp/402rwtq - 2002 Camaro A4, Stock LS1 Heads Untouched" Now I understand not having the 90/90 set up and posibly maybe even a more restrictive exhaust, but sheesh! 93HP!? How does that happen?
Is the motor leaking down 40% on all 8 Cyl?
That is awesome consistency Matt!
George left TTP and they go from 440HP to 350HP on the same cam. Coincidence?
Isnt this the cam that , according to http://www.ttperformance.net/valvetrain.shtml , makes "440rwhp/402rwtq - 2002 Camaro A4, Stock LS1 Heads Untouched" Now I understand not having the 90/90 set up and posibly maybe even a more restrictive exhaust, but sheesh! 93HP!? How does that happen?
Is the motor leaking down 40% on all 8 Cyl?
That is awesome consistency Matt!
George left TTP and they go from 440HP to 350HP on the same cam. Coincidence?
Oh MY!
02-16-2006 | 06:08 PM
#74
Here's the description for that graph
447rwhp/413rwtq - 2001 Camaro MN6, Best E/T - 11.32 @ 122.8mph, 1.55 60', Stock LS6 Heads, TTP V.2 Camshaft, REV Dual Springs/Titanium Retainers, FAST 90mm Intake/FAST 90mm Throttle Body, Meziere Electric Water Pump, Kooks 1 3/4" Longtube Headers with 3" Offroad Y-Pipe, Moser 12-Bolt, 30 Spline Axles, 4.10 Gears, Stock Bottom End 346ci.
447rwhp/413rwtq - 2001 Camaro MN6, Best E/T - 11.32 @ 122.8mph, 1.55 60', Stock LS6 Heads, TTP V.2 Camshaft, REV Dual Springs/Titanium Retainers, FAST 90mm Intake/FAST 90mm Throttle Body, Meziere Electric Water Pump, Kooks 1 3/4" Longtube Headers with 3" Offroad Y-Pipe, Moser 12-Bolt, 30 Spline Axles, 4.10 Gears, Stock Bottom End 346ci.
02-16-2006 | 07:50 PM
#76
Originally Posted by Roarin_8
Here's the description for that graph
447rwhp/413rwtq - 2001 Camaro MN6, Best E/T - 11.32 @ 122.8mph, 1.55 60', Stock LS6 Heads, TTP V.2 Camshaft, REV Dual Springs/Titanium Retainers, FAST 90mm Intake/FAST 90mm Throttle Body, Meziere Electric Water Pump, Kooks 1 3/4" Longtube Headers with 3" Offroad Y-Pipe, Moser 12-Bolt, 30 Spline Axles, 4.10 Gears, Stock Bottom End 346ci.
447rwhp/413rwtq - 2001 Camaro MN6, Best E/T - 11.32 @ 122.8mph, 1.55 60', Stock LS6 Heads, TTP V.2 Camshaft, REV Dual Springs/Titanium Retainers, FAST 90mm Intake/FAST 90mm Throttle Body, Meziere Electric Water Pump, Kooks 1 3/4" Longtube Headers with 3" Offroad Y-Pipe, Moser 12-Bolt, 30 Spline Axles, 4.10 Gears, Stock Bottom End 346ci.
If you are seeing the same website info that I am why does it seem like you are arguing with me? LOL
Even if it is the lifters, I dont see a lifter issue causeing an over 50RWHP Loss.
Maybe there is something foul a foot?
02-16-2006 | 07:51 PM
#77
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
anyone know where matt has been?
You mean your car dyno'd a min of 50HP low and Matt is no where to be found? Shocking!
I am such a ball-buster!
You are right man... TTP IS Top Notch. A huge cam goes in, 3hp are gained, and the owner is nowhere to be found!
Sounds Top Notch to me :p
02-16-2006 | 08:18 PM
#78
Originally Posted by WS6TransAm01
If you are seeing the same website info that I am why does it seem like you are arguing with me? LOL
Even if it is the lifters, I dont see a lifter issue causeing an over 50RWHP Loss.
Maybe there is something foul a foot?
Even if it is the lifters, I dont see a lifter issue causeing an over 50RWHP Loss.
Maybe there is something foul a foot?
02-16-2006 | 08:37 PM
#79
Originally Posted by Roarin_8
No, those #s are for the V3 not the V2.
"440rwhp/402rwtq - 2002 Camaro A4, Stock LS1 Heads Untouched, TTP Equalizer V.3 Camshaft, Crane Dual Springs/Titanium Retainers, Vig 4000 Verter, 3.73 Gears, TTP True Dual Exhaust, FLP LTs, LSX 90 Intake/TPIS 90mm TB, Stock Bottom End 346ci."
Im sure Matt or Michael will chime in sometime soon.