Why reverse split stealth cam is better?
Originally Posted by 99 Black Bird T/A
GT2-3 is the ultimate sleeper cam 208/220 on a 118.5 LSA and will idle and drive like stock when tuned.
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,620
Likes: 17
From: BFE
Originally Posted by 99 Black Bird T/A
What's your goal with the car?
What's the main concern? Idle? Idle w/o tuning?
IMO unless you are trying for a sleep sound there isn't really much reason to go 115 LSA or any of the cams 224/220 or 222/222 your considering IMO. I think you'd be better off with a custom 224 XE-R on a 115 LSA than either of the cams mentioned on a 115.
Have you ever heard a properly tuned 224 XE-R on say a 114 idle? This will be a better cam power wise than the 222 XE-R on 115 or the 224/220 XE-R on 115. I asked Paul at TR about the 224/220 idea vs 224/224 almost two years ago. Paul felt at the time there wasn't any benefit to taking a 224/220 over a 224/224.
BTW my 224 XE-R on 113 LSA w/tuning is tame idle wise.
What's the main concern? Idle? Idle w/o tuning?
IMO unless you are trying for a sleep sound there isn't really much reason to go 115 LSA or any of the cams 224/220 or 222/222 your considering IMO. I think you'd be better off with a custom 224 XE-R on a 115 LSA than either of the cams mentioned on a 115.
Have you ever heard a properly tuned 224 XE-R on say a 114 idle? This will be a better cam power wise than the 222 XE-R on 115 or the 224/220 XE-R on 115. I asked Paul at TR about the 224/220 idea vs 224/224 almost two years ago. Paul felt at the time there wasn't any benefit to taking a 224/220 over a 224/224.
BTW my 224 XE-R on 113 LSA w/tuning is tame idle wise.
However may I point out that the stealth II, MTI cam is 224/220, .576/.581 116 lsa and not a 115.
Stealth I is a 220/220, .581/.581 115 lsa and I've heard that one, iddles much better than a similar 220/220, .581/.581 114 lsa. That is at same idle RPM.
Also notice that the stealth II has a regular lift split on it: which means it is an opposite reverse split cam
lol jokingThat is what gives this cam its peculiar characteristic, is capable of 420+ rwhp and pulls till or beyond 6800 rpm.
Originally Posted by PREDATOR-Z
(stealth II) is capable of 420+ rwhp and pulls till or beyond 6800 rpm.
So I ask this question: What would the results be by taking the Stealth II cam and advancing it 6 degrees to the same 110 ICL as the TR224 cam? Stronger low end torque and lower peak rpm power with the same stealth characteristics of its 116lsa?
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
From: Kansas City, MO
Yup, the difference between the centerlines is going to make a difference and I think you're going in the right direction. Advancing it that much is going to have an effect, I'm just not sure it will be a net positive. It would be worth a shot, although +6 is lot of advance IMO. Would be an interesting experiment regardless.
I wasn't trying to get hung up on 6* of advance being too much / little. I think advancing it 6 may be too much for a car. I am more interested in the net results on peak power and low end torque by having that cam advanced some. Personally, I'd love to see a comparison of dyno numbers by only changing the advance of a cam.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
From: Kansas City, MO
I've seen roughly equivalent cams make in the 370s with the stock manifolds and cats.
That was with a very good tune and a very good cam. stock heads, slp dual dual, whisper lid.
It made a truckload of torque.
That was with a very good tune and a very good cam. stock heads, slp dual dual, whisper lid.
It made a truckload of torque.
Thank you, DenzSS, that does clear up a few things. I was familiar with the concept of valves and events (I still appreciate the info, though), but hadn't considered that leaving it open too long could cause the pressure wave to take a/f OUT of the cylander. It also makes sense that a larger cylander would take a differant amount of time to fill.
Great post: don't worry about the rambling part. Keep it coming!
Great post: don't worry about the rambling part. Keep it coming!
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ
Originally Posted by BigTex
I wasn't trying to get hung up on 6* of advance being too much / little. I think advancing it 6 may be too much for a car. I am more interested in the net results on peak power and low end torque by having that cam advanced some. Personally, I'd love to see a comparison of dyno numbers by only changing the advance of a cam.
- take TSP231/237, put it on 118lsa and advance it back to 110 intake centerline. 
So why didn't they use advance in stealthII at all??
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
From: Pasadena, CA
Originally Posted by DenzSS
I've seen roughly equivalent cams make in the 370s with the stock manifolds and cats.
That was with a very good tune and a very good cam. stock heads, slp dual dual, whisper lid.
It made a truckload of torque.
That was with a very good tune and a very good cam. stock heads, slp dual dual, whisper lid.
It made a truckload of torque.
MTI Stealth cam. 
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
From: Pasadena, CA
Originally Posted by DenzSS
I don't know if the Stealth can put that much out, but it should be able to come close. Good tuning and good cam design go a long way.
Thread Starter
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ
Originally Posted by black_knight
I'm almost SURE it doesn't work like THAT!
With bigger durations stress on the block shouldn't be an issue, right?
I'd really like to get a feedback from somebody at MTI on their rationale behind StealthII
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
From: Pasadena, CA
Originally Posted by DenzSS
Yup. I don't see any problem at all putting down at least 360rwhp with a good tune.
There aren't that many people doing cams without headers, but I've seen very good results.
There aren't that many people doing cams without headers, but I've seen very good results.
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
From: Pasadena, CA
Originally Posted by Iv_z28
So where is the catch?
With bigger durations stress on the block shouldn't be an issue, right?
I'd really like to get a feedback from somebody at MTI on their rationale behind StealthII
With bigger durations stress on the block shouldn't be an issue, right?
I'd really like to get a feedback from somebody at MTI on their rationale behind StealthII
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,246
Likes: 3
From: Troy, AL
A few points about the Stealth cams (the specs of which were a product of my imagination, FWIW.)
The lift of the Stealth II is listed as .571/.581 on the Stealth II. I believe this to be incorrect. I believe it is .581 on both sides. That's the way my Stealth II (the very first one) was supposed to be and I don't see why such a tiny meaningless change would have been made. Besides, last I checked, the XE-R lift for a 220 OR 224 lift lobe was .581...and that's the lobes this cam has.
Why are the Stealth cams straight up instead of advanced? In short, to make better power up top. I wasn't looking to make power down low since I envisioned a 5200+ shift extension (my SS4000 stall converter has an SE of about 5350.) I was looking to make maximum ET with a silky smooth idle. This cam pulls like a beast all the way to roughly 6800 depending on setup. My shift points are 6700-6750.
Which is faster, the SSI or the SSII? They are very close. Assuming a great exhaust system (LT headers, cuttout, high flowing cats or no cats at all) I'd take the II since it should make slightly better power to a slightly higher RPM than the I. With a lesser exhaust I'd take the I. Either should idle about the same.
BTW, the Stealth II and MTI LS6 heads were good for an 11.20 and 121.5 MPH with a 3525 lb raceweight, stock 3.23 gears, and factory wheels. It churned out 423 RWHP.
The lift of the Stealth II is listed as .571/.581 on the Stealth II. I believe this to be incorrect. I believe it is .581 on both sides. That's the way my Stealth II (the very first one) was supposed to be and I don't see why such a tiny meaningless change would have been made. Besides, last I checked, the XE-R lift for a 220 OR 224 lift lobe was .581...and that's the lobes this cam has.
Why are the Stealth cams straight up instead of advanced? In short, to make better power up top. I wasn't looking to make power down low since I envisioned a 5200+ shift extension (my SS4000 stall converter has an SE of about 5350.) I was looking to make maximum ET with a silky smooth idle. This cam pulls like a beast all the way to roughly 6800 depending on setup. My shift points are 6700-6750.
Which is faster, the SSI or the SSII? They are very close. Assuming a great exhaust system (LT headers, cuttout, high flowing cats or no cats at all) I'd take the II since it should make slightly better power to a slightly higher RPM than the I. With a lesser exhaust I'd take the I. Either should idle about the same.
BTW, the Stealth II and MTI LS6 heads were good for an 11.20 and 121.5 MPH with a 3525 lb raceweight, stock 3.23 gears, and factory wheels. It churned out 423 RWHP.
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
From: Pasadena, CA
Originally Posted by Colonel
A few points about the Stealth cams (the specs of which were a product of my imagination, FWIW.)
The lift of the Stealth II is listed as .571/.581 on the Stealth II. I believe this to be incorrect. I believe it is .581 on both sides. That's the way my Stealth II (the very first one) was supposed to be and I don't see why such a tiny meaningless change would have been made. Besides, last I checked, the XE-R lift for a 220 OR 224 lift lobe was .581...and that's the lobes this cam has.
Why are the Stealth cams straight up instead of advanced? In short, to make better power up top. I wasn't looking to make power down low since I envisioned a 5200+ shift extension (my SS4000 stall converter has an SE of about 5350.) I was looking to make maximum ET with a silky smooth idle. This cam pulls like a beast all the way to roughly 6800 depending on setup. My shift points are 6700-6750.
Which is faster, the SSI or the SSII? They are very close. Assuming a great exhaust system (LT headers, cuttout, high flowing cats or no cats at all) I'd take the II since it should make slightly better power to a slightly higher RPM than the I. With a lesser exhaust I'd take the I. Either should idle about the same.
BTW, the Stealth II and MTI LS6 heads were good for an 11.20 and 121.5 MPH with a 3525 lb raceweight, stock 3.23 gears, and factory wheels. It churned out 423 RWHP.
The lift of the Stealth II is listed as .571/.581 on the Stealth II. I believe this to be incorrect. I believe it is .581 on both sides. That's the way my Stealth II (the very first one) was supposed to be and I don't see why such a tiny meaningless change would have been made. Besides, last I checked, the XE-R lift for a 220 OR 224 lift lobe was .581...and that's the lobes this cam has.
Why are the Stealth cams straight up instead of advanced? In short, to make better power up top. I wasn't looking to make power down low since I envisioned a 5200+ shift extension (my SS4000 stall converter has an SE of about 5350.) I was looking to make maximum ET with a silky smooth idle. This cam pulls like a beast all the way to roughly 6800 depending on setup. My shift points are 6700-6750.
Which is faster, the SSI or the SSII? They are very close. Assuming a great exhaust system (LT headers, cuttout, high flowing cats or no cats at all) I'd take the II since it should make slightly better power to a slightly higher RPM than the I. With a lesser exhaust I'd take the I. Either should idle about the same.
BTW, the Stealth II and MTI LS6 heads were good for an 11.20 and 121.5 MPH with a 3525 lb raceweight, stock 3.23 gears, and factory wheels. It churned out 423 RWHP.
Im my scenario I want to put the Stealth I cam in my 02 SS M6, but keep the STOCK manifolds for smog reasons in California. Colonel, with my mods listed below, what approximate RWHP can I expect??2002 SS M6
*TSP Lid
*Magnaflow catback
*MTI Stealth I cam(valve springs, Ti retainers, hardned pushrods, gasket kit)
*Very important, a GOOD dyno tune
Thanks...