<img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" />

 

Thanks guys. I guess the question now is, C1 or C2? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

 

I want more! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

 

C1 would easyier on valve springs, peak at a lower rpm, produce almost as much power, and have a better idle. IMO, the C2 wouldn't be worth it unless you're going to do heads as well.

<small>[ February 28, 2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Cal ]</small>

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ChiTownSS:
<strong> I'm just torn between 112 (for lope & torque) and 114 lsa for track times (peak power). </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you have the torque and peak power backwards.

The 112 will give a higher "peak" power (bigger spike at its optimum RPM). The low end torque will be less because of poor cylinder filling at low rpm (more lope).

The 114 will give better torque and a flater/longer torque curve. It makes more low end torque because it is filling the cylinders better at low rpm (not as much lope).

I have the TR 224 on a 112 and it has a "pretty" good lope to it . I wish I could have gone with the 230/224 on a 111 (harder lope) but I milled the heads and did not want to flycut my stock pistons <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="gr_sad.gif" /> . If and when I change pistons (382 all bore some day <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> ) I will go to a larger (more lope) cam. I only had to raise the idle + 50RPM (now at 850 RPM) to make it not stall at lights. I have 3.73s so I actually was looking to give up some low end torque (I burn the tires doing anything).

From what most people have said, the loose in low end torque is easily offset by the good sound.

Later

Chris

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 2001CamaroGuy:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ChiTownSS:
<strong> I'm just torn between 112 (for lope & torque) and 114 lsa for track times (peak power). </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you have the torque and peak power backwards.

The 112 will give a higher "peak" power (bigger spike at its optimum RPM). The low end torque will be less because of poor cylinder filling at low rpm (more lope).

The 114 will give better torque and a flater/longer torque curve. It makes more low end torque because it is filling the cylinders better at low rpm (not as much lope).

I have the TR 224 on a 112 and it has a "pretty" good lope to it . I wish I could have gone with the 230/224 on a 111 (harder lope) but I milled the heads and did not want to flycut my stock pistons <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="gr_sad.gif" /> . If and when I change pistons (382 all bore some day <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> ) I will go to a larger (more lope) cam. I only had to raise the idle + 50RPM (now at 850 RPM) to make it not stall at lights. I have 3.73s so I actually was looking to give up some low end torque (I burn the tires doing anything).

From what most people have said, the loose in low end torque is easily offset by the good sound.

Later

Chris </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://www.co.jyu.fi/~rax/lobe.htm

Isn't this site's info, about lobe separation, contradicting what you said? It says the tighter the lobe, the more narrow the powerband and lowers torque to lower rpms. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> I got this link from a previous post about 112 or 114 lsa, that I posted earlier.

I'm confused <img border="0" alt="[gruffy cottonball]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_gruffy.gif" />

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ChiTownSS:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 2001CamaroGuy:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ChiTownSS:
<strong> I'm just torn between 112 (for lope & torque) and 114 lsa for track times (peak power). </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you have the torque and peak power backwards.

The 112 will give a higher "peak" power (bigger spike at its optimum RPM). The low end torque will be less because of poor cylinder filling at low rpm (more lope).

The 114 will give better torque and a flater/longer torque curve. It makes more low end torque because it is filling the cylinders better at low rpm (not as much lope).

I have the TR 224 on a 112 and it has a "pretty" good lope to it . I wish I could have gone with the 230/224 on a 111 (harder lope) but I milled the heads and did not want to flycut my stock pistons <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="gr_sad.gif" /> . If and when I change pistons (382 all bore some day <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> ) I will go to a larger (more lope) cam. I only had to raise the idle + 50RPM (now at 850 RPM) to make it not stall at lights. I have 3.73s so I actually was looking to give up some low end torque (I burn the tires doing anything).

From what most people have said, the loose in low end torque is easily offset by the good sound.

Later

Chris </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://www.co.jyu.fi/~rax/lobe.htm

Isn't this site's info, about lobe separation, contradicting what you said? It says the tighter the lobe, the more narrow the powerband and lowers torque to lower rpms. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> I got this link from a previous post about 112 or 114 lsa, that I posted earlier.

I'm confused <img border="0" alt="[gruffy cottonball]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_gruffy.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What 2001CamaroGuy said is correct in my experiance. The peak torque rpm may be moved to a lower rpm, but the more lope you have, the more the car wants to fall on it's face when you take off from a stop. I think this loss of torque is why big cams go well with low-ratio rear end gears.

 

i see afew guys saying they have the hammer cam on a 114lob,i thought the mti hammer cam c1 & c2 ONLY comes on a 112lob. anyway,i give another vote for the c1. goodluck

 

So, that site that I posted up is BS?

 

The C1 with MTI stage 2 heads was hitting 437.5 rwhp way back in 2000 in a M6 car.

The C2 you can look for about 7~10 more hp.

Both cams can be ordered with a 112 or 114 l/s.

I went 10.8 with the C1 and 10.6 with the C2....in an A4.

The 114 l/s will raise the RPM range out about 300 rpms to hit max hp over the 112.

The 112's have put down better times than the 114's...though the 114 is a KILLER street racer cam. It is just so dang smooth.

 

Thanks Raugh. I was wondering when you were going to chime in <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> . Do you think that the lift on the C2 is a little too high for a street car? I don't want to change springs very often, and I do put the hammer (no pun intended <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="gr_images/icons/tongue.gif" /> ) down quite frequently.

I was looking at the Thunder and its 224/224, but with a lower lift, in the .56x's. If you guys feel that the C2 won't chew through springs every 8-10 k miles, than C2 it is!

 

ChiTownSS.....I don't think its "BS"....the part about the "lowering torque" should actually say "lowers MAXIMUM torque"....I think that table has some things backwards. This is how it should be from what I know.
I'll but little starts next to the things I change and say why I changed it. NOTE: this will be long.....

tighter LSA:

Moves MAXIMUM Torque to Lower RPM * (the entire torque curve moves lower by a few hundred RPM and the "strong area" becomes "tighter." The low rpm torque will be worse because of poor cylinder filling)

Increases Maximum Torque

Narrow Powerband

Builds Higher Cylinder Pressure (this one is hard to say...at low RPM the cylinder pressure will be lower than a wider lsa because the cylinder is not being filled as compleatly but at high rpm, the exhaust leaving the cylinder will help pull fresh air into the cylinder causing somewhat of a "ram" effect and raise cylinder pressure)

Increase Chance of Engine Knock (false knock from rough idle)

DECREASE Cranking Compression * (not filling cylinder fully at low RPM so easier to turn over engine....may not be as easy to "light off" though)

Increase Efective Compression (decreases compression at low RPM from poor cylinder filling but increases at high RPM from "ram" effect)

Idle Vacuum is Reduced (very true.....big problem on caborated engines)

Idle Quality Suffers (duhhh....why everyone has problems after they install a 112 LSA cam <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> )

Open Valve-Overlap Increases (this is why the engine idles so poorly....at low rpm the overlap can cause exhaust to mix with intake charge and "muddy" the mix.....but good at high RPM where the before mentioned "ram" effect occores)

Closed Valve-Overlap Increases

Natural EGR Efect Increases (this comes from the before mentioned exhaust back flowing into the cylinder at low RPM and "mudding" the mix)

Decreases Piston-to-Valve Clerance (the exhaust valve is held open later (not longer) so the piston can tend to contact the valve on its exhaust stroke)

For a wider LSA, everthing is reversed (save you all from reading another long list. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

Something I did notice, the table saying what is wide and what is not (says 114 is wide and 108-110 is moderate), this looks like it is for a carborated engine. On ours, 112 is starting to get tight....110 IS TIGHT....I would love to see a 108 LS1 cam... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> ...might not even run right.....(A4s seem to have problems with it) and I think the factory cams are something like 117 LSA.

Later guys <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

Chris

<small>[ March 01, 2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: 2001CamaroGuy ]</small>

 

Thanks Chris, that helps a lot. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> What about the lift though...is .581 too high? Would 918's be good enough springs? Will I have to change them frequently?

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ChiTownSS:
<strong> Thanks Chris, that helps a lot. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> What about the lift though...is .581 too high? Would 918's be good enough springs? Will I have to change them frequently? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ask the company that you will buy the cam and springs from. Many people use 918s for cams with that much lift but just make sure.

Chris

 

Chi-town

I have and many others have installed 918's many times in customers cars using the hammer and the hammer2.

I can think of only one fella that had a problem locally. And that was the springs fault. (bad batch).

Long term? I know of no one that has had a problem with the two above cams and 918's as far as longevity goes.

There will always be compromises with adding high performance parts. For example:
Gears = less MPG and less str.
Compression = need for higher octane and smaller PV clearance.
Lift = harder on valvtrain, seats, springs.
open exhaust = loudness.
Sticky tires = increased tire wear
Bigger cam = having to rev the motor higher = increased wear.

These are all generalities...the point being you will have to compromise some where to gain somewhere else.

Springs are cheap...decide what you want to do and do it.

Yes there are compromises to make... but lordy the reward from that compromise can sure give ya case of "perma=grin". <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
Good luck.

 

Thanks <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />