Would a 216/224 114 be bad for a Turbo?
09-13-2002, 05:57 PM
#21
On The Tree
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lillooet
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Would a 216/224 114 be bad for a Turbo? I've heard long exhaust with turbos can burn the exhaust valves. You're not going to need as much duration when the turbo is pushing the gasses through. Just me but I'ld read up in a dedicated turbo book. Hough MacGinuess has a good one. Not sure if spelling is right. Good Luck
09-13-2002, 06:27 PM
#22
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Re: Would a 216/224 114 be bad for a Turbo? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by zturbo:
<strong>just for reference my old cam
220/229 .543/.510 114</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How did you like this cam? What kinda numbers and times did you put down with it? Would you use it again or choose a diff cam? What setup and boost? C/R? Pretty low lift, eh?
Thx!
<strong>just for reference my old cam
220/229 .543/.510 114</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How did you like this cam? What kinda numbers and times did you put down with it? Would you use it again or choose a diff cam? What setup and boost? C/R? Pretty low lift, eh?
Thx!
09-13-2002, 06:44 PM
#23
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Would a 216/224 114 be bad for a Turbo? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> How did you like this cam?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The cam was nice kinda suttle for my likes but it worked for the combo pretty well
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> What kinda numbers and times did you put down with it? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">. I made 503 rwhp and 619 rwtq through a 60-1 hifi turbo at higher boost
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Would you use it again or choose a diff cam? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">With a smaller turbo sure made good power and the cam got me 24 mpg <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> Worked good with the t-72 as well but never was able to get to a dyno before the system was yanked off and changed up completely
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> What setup and boost? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">383 ci afr heads street boost on 60-1 was 10-12 psi strip 17
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> C/R? Pretty low lift, eh?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">8.5-1 was getting it set for a big turbo. Motor was great imo had crisp power always and drove nice. This was with a 6 speed at the time. New cam is going to be alot more radical.
The thing that I see though is this. Where do your heads work best and match the cam to the complete package. Why have 700 lift if your package is saying you only need 500 etc.. Now I made my power at a lower rpm level and i liked that alot. I had max tq at 3200 rpms and max hp at 4750 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> Made for a blast around town and that was what the car was built for.
When the car would go to the track in this setup only thing it would do is break drivetrain components. (rear, driveshaft, clutches etc...)
Steven
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The cam was nice kinda suttle for my likes but it worked for the combo pretty well
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> What kinda numbers and times did you put down with it? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">. I made 503 rwhp and 619 rwtq through a 60-1 hifi turbo at higher boost
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Would you use it again or choose a diff cam? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">With a smaller turbo sure made good power and the cam got me 24 mpg <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> Worked good with the t-72 as well but never was able to get to a dyno before the system was yanked off and changed up completely
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> What setup and boost? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">383 ci afr heads street boost on 60-1 was 10-12 psi strip 17
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> C/R? Pretty low lift, eh?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">8.5-1 was getting it set for a big turbo. Motor was great imo had crisp power always and drove nice. This was with a 6 speed at the time. New cam is going to be alot more radical.
The thing that I see though is this. Where do your heads work best and match the cam to the complete package. Why have 700 lift if your package is saying you only need 500 etc.. Now I made my power at a lower rpm level and i liked that alot. I had max tq at 3200 rpms and max hp at 4750 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> Made for a blast around town and that was what the car was built for.
When the car would go to the track in this setup only thing it would do is break drivetrain components. (rear, driveshaft, clutches etc...)
Steven
09-13-2002, 07:35 PM
#25
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Re: Would a 216/224 114 be bad for a Turbo? zturbo:
Awesome results!! So you originally had a single 60-1 before moving to twins? Stock 60-1 or was it the custom one with T66 internals?
How many different turbo setups? Yours sounds similar to my 62-1 goals. What were your shift points? Did the 60-1 do ok at higher rpms, say 5500-6500?
Did you ever have engine problems? Ever try the 60-1 on a stock bottom end before upgrading?
Thx!!
<small>[ September 13, 2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: MelloYellow ]</small>
Awesome results!! So you originally had a single 60-1 before moving to twins? Stock 60-1 or was it the custom one with T66 internals?
How many different turbo setups? Yours sounds similar to my 62-1 goals. What were your shift points? Did the 60-1 do ok at higher rpms, say 5500-6500?
Did you ever have engine problems? Ever try the 60-1 on a stock bottom end before upgrading?
Thx!!
<small>[ September 13, 2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: MelloYellow ]</small>
09-14-2002, 03:09 AM
#26
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Would a 216/224 114 be bad for a Turbo? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> zturbo, are you going with a high overlap cam?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Going with a custom cam from Turbo people it comes with a no cam card just says to install on a 1**. They work like a champ but are not cheap.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> zturbo:
Awesome results!! So you originally had a single 60-1 before moving to twins? Stock 60-1 or was it the custom one with T66 internals? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I had a single 60-1 (stock) on a turbo tech system for a while. Went to a t-72 Q trim after that. Had a system built from a turbo shop that fit horribly so now working on a custom twin for this car. I have a stealth twin turbo too <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> Next up a custom s10 blazer with a twin turbo v8 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" /> yes i am a sick sick man.
The turbos that i have for this setup are new and have never been installed on my car besides fitment for headers.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> How many different turbo setups? Yours sounds similar to my 62-1 goals. What were your shift points? Did the 60-1 do ok at higher rpms, say 5500-6500?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shift points were 6100-6200 never needed to go higher as per the cam just ran out of steam.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Did you ever have engine problems? Ever try the 60-1 on a stock bottom end before upgrading?
Thx!! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Before the 60-1 was on the camaro I had a few other motors (355 and a 408) the turbo motor was built from the ground up for being turbocharged. I just wanted a power adder and at the time this was not the cookie cutter setup that others had. I have never had engine problems with this motor. My hat is off to MTI for helping me choose components that are strong as they come.
I have come close to trying a stock bottom end a few times just to see what I can do. Talking to Corrilo about my new motor and associated parts they have told me that a turbo motor is soo much easier on the rotating assembly even versus a NA motor. The turbo takes some of the shock out of the motor making everything smoother and work better. They were really good people to talk to.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Going with a custom cam from Turbo people it comes with a no cam card just says to install on a 1**. They work like a champ but are not cheap.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> zturbo:
Awesome results!! So you originally had a single 60-1 before moving to twins? Stock 60-1 or was it the custom one with T66 internals? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I had a single 60-1 (stock) on a turbo tech system for a while. Went to a t-72 Q trim after that. Had a system built from a turbo shop that fit horribly so now working on a custom twin for this car. I have a stealth twin turbo too <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> Next up a custom s10 blazer with a twin turbo v8 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" /> yes i am a sick sick man.
The turbos that i have for this setup are new and have never been installed on my car besides fitment for headers.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> How many different turbo setups? Yours sounds similar to my 62-1 goals. What were your shift points? Did the 60-1 do ok at higher rpms, say 5500-6500?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shift points were 6100-6200 never needed to go higher as per the cam just ran out of steam.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Did you ever have engine problems? Ever try the 60-1 on a stock bottom end before upgrading?
Thx!! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Before the 60-1 was on the camaro I had a few other motors (355 and a 408) the turbo motor was built from the ground up for being turbocharged. I just wanted a power adder and at the time this was not the cookie cutter setup that others had. I have never had engine problems with this motor. My hat is off to MTI for helping me choose components that are strong as they come.
I have come close to trying a stock bottom end a few times just to see what I can do. Talking to Corrilo about my new motor and associated parts they have told me that a turbo motor is soo much easier on the rotating assembly even versus a NA motor. The turbo takes some of the shock out of the motor making everything smoother and work better. They were really good people to talk to.
09-16-2002, 12:15 AM
#27
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Re: Would a 216/224 114 be bad for a Turbo? Thx Z!
Anyone want to talk about a larger exhaust duration allowing a little bit of reversion and that reversion can reduce detonation by cooling the charge at the expense of a bit of power?
At least I remember reading that in one of these threads. I thought reversion would increase heat?
Also, what does the A/R stand for in a turbo exhaust housing A/R ratio? More Cam duration would work better to spool a larger turbo with a lower A/R, whereas a smaller turbo with a higher A/R might cause reversion?
TIA!
<small>[ September 16, 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: MelloYellow ]</small>
Anyone want to talk about a larger exhaust duration allowing a little bit of reversion and that reversion can reduce detonation by cooling the charge at the expense of a bit of power?
At least I remember reading that in one of these threads. I thought reversion would increase heat?
Also, what does the A/R stand for in a turbo exhaust housing A/R ratio? More Cam duration would work better to spool a larger turbo with a lower A/R, whereas a smaller turbo with a higher A/R might cause reversion?
TIA!
<small>[ September 16, 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: MelloYellow ]</small>
