And in this corner.....the most popular cam "these days" the 224/224 561/561 TR cam (or the 224/581).
My question is how does the 224/561 cam stack up against the venerable MTI C1 cam (222/222 .566/.566) ? Obviously the C1 has a bit more lift and a bit less duration. I am just curious as to the net effect of these minor differences. I love the C1 and it pulls like a MF but EVERYONE loves the TR (well obviously many of those running it will line up behind it 100%)
Are they both on XE lobes ?....is the ramp rate quicker (?) on the C1 neccessitating more lift to get similar duration ?

I just am curious about the real difference (if any) in performance between the two. Ive got the older C1 but I gots no dyno on it (yet).

 

it's not worth the swap. i'd say 5hp max

 

Based on my experience, the TR224 is a better general purpose cam. The C1 works well in a lightweight automatic car with a good converter. I've gotten more torque out of the TR224, so I prefer it highly for street or street/strip.

 

I completely understand that there is little to gain OR to lose by swapping the cam. I just want to verify what the case may be.
How does the higher lift play in for the C1 (outside of wearing out springs slightly faster ?
Neither one is recommended for an auto w/o tuning.

 

The slight increase in lift is functionally irrelevant. The valve events are different, but I haven't done any kind of an in-depth study on the C1.

Functionally, they are very similar. I've just had better luck with the TR224 and find it to be a superior cam for the average guy. Much like anything, that is an opinion.

 

Thanks I do appreciate the input !

 

The C2 and TR224 would be practically identical.

 

Disclaimer: no first-hand knowledge here, just parroting what I've read off of this forum:

I believe I've seen it posted that while the C1 has a bit more lift, it is based off of (relatively,these days) mild XE lobes, whereas Thunder's TR220 and TR224 lobes are much more aggressive - more similar to the XE-R lobes. So while the C1 has slightly less duration at 0.050, I'd be willing to be that it's got more *total* duration than the TR224 does.

There was even a big thread a while back that some folks claimed the thunder cams were on XE-R lobes, which Thunder discounted.

Anyway, the point to all that being that I believe the TR cam is going to give springs a tougher run for their money, due to the aforementioned ramp angle differences.

Hope that helps, or at least, is accurate...

-Jake

 

That is good info and makes alot of sense when I keep hearing about how tame the TR 224 idle is.
With my car there is 100% no doubt there is a cam in there.
Infact a 224 owner commented on it some time ago and said that it "must be the mufflers" because the cam was so evident-- at the time i was doing 100% stock manifolds and pipes into borla stingers. You could tell it was in there even then & now with the longtubes and x-pipe. It definatley has a very noticeable "cadence" to it.

 

A lot of that is tuning. Most 222 duration cams can be tamed very well by a competent tuner.

 

Will the 224 on a 114 LSA (w/ XE-R lobes) be noticable? I want to konw that there is at least a decent cam in my car.

 

If these cams are shown as advertised duration and lift they could be just about identical. They are both obviously for the same application.

 

I love my C1 cam, and my buddy has done very well with his TR224. They seem very similiar at the track.

 

how similarly, or differently, do they idle?

-J

 

To find a difference would be splitting hairs. Very similiar IMO!

 

Very similar, TR224 has better idle characteristics and produces more torque(generally).

 

i've heard nothing but good things about the TR 224 cam. Probably one of the best street cams out there for power under the curve.

I'd look into the Futral Motorsports 226/226 cam too it only has .575 lift but makes a crap load of torque in the midrange, that's where you want your power.

 

I talked to MTI about a possible switch to the C1 on a 114. The lsa in that combo will make a difference in idle "chop" they said. Also it was verified the C1 is on the softer lobes, not sure if they are XE exactly, but definately different that the XE-R-like lobes on the TR series. This would make it easy on springs relatively. Wouldn't that make it idle rougher have less torque down low though?

 

Hmmm so it is on a softer lobe, does that really = more total duration. Given the larger lift would that make the c1 a "bigger cam?"
Once again it is a choppy cam (which I wanted) no way could it be mistaken by stock unless you were retarded (not the timing the person hahah). I heard the old T1 Cam and that sounded even thumpier though it was smaller, perhaps it was the audio clip i heard but i do not think so. I know the stealth cams are very low duration and very very high lift. I do not know what lobes those are on but they are supposed to idle "stock like."
I have heard numerous 224 owners say that they sounded "stock like"

 

I had the C1 cam in my car for a few months.
It was a "choppy" cam. I wouldn't say it was very lopey.

It had great torque down low, but ran out of steam way up top (where I like to wind out the engine).

And yes, the T1 had more lope than the C1. I've heard the two next to each other in person.

So, as for the C1 vs. TR224 argument, I'd agree that the 224 would have a slight edge over the C1, but the two produce very similar results in the end.