70T/A400

iTrader: (2)

Joe,
Thanks for the response. Developing torque across the entire bandwith is more important than peak horsepower numbers where the engine will rarely spend any time for my application. I am very interested in the ASP-Kicker cam. Let me know what valve springs you recommend for this cam (I see some springs rated for 0.650" lift on your website). Also, have you experimented with any reverse split cam patterns?
Thanks,
Glen

MyLS1Hauls

iTrader: (2)

Desktop Dyno is very inaccurate a lower engine speeds, especially for the LS1 IMO. Any cam 224 or under will increase torque over the stock cam starting at 2000 rpm. Even my XE-R 228 112 cam has more power at 2000 rpm than a stock one.

marc_w

I hear a few truck guys (mostly with 5.3's I believe) complain that cams like the Comp 216/220 will hurt lowend.

Is it due to the smaller sized motors, the extra 2000lbs of weight some trucks carry over the f-body's, or is it the relatively lazier lobes of the 216/220?

MyLS1Hauls

iTrader: (2)

My buddy has used a 216/216 cam and now has the TR220 cam in his 5.3L and has experienced no low end torque loss. Who cares about power under 1800 as the motor is never running that slow anyway. I think its a perceived power loss since the motor makes so much more power up top. I've seen dyno graphs proving that there is NO torque loss from 2000+. Its hard to dyno any lower than that though to actually prove it.

nuzee

iTrader: (2)

I have an automatic w/stock stall. Most of my normal driving is done off-idle to 1500 rpm. I care. I liked the way the throttle felt on LT1s. Snappy & crisp off-idle. I think the LS1 could be modified to get some of that just-touch-the-throttle snap. 3.42s helped alot in that respect. Now its time for the cam, to change the torque characteristics of the engine.

BTW, my DTD 2000 setup shows equal to stock torque @ 2000 for the 212-216 range cams and then less @ larger durations. I'm not saying that this stuff is accurate. It is just useful when comparing cam characteristics.

z98

Desktop dyno only works for SBC's.

It is very innacurate for LS1's everywhere except for the peaks.

Even then, its only useful as a comparison, because we all know the stock ls1 makes more than 308 hp stock!

SSLink

This, I think is precisely the problem in measuring low end torque and evaluating off-idle performance of cams on the dyno. On a strip car, yeah who cares about what's goin' on below 4000 RPM once you get outta 1st gear. However, on the street I have no interest in bucking around at 1200 RPM cruising slow through a parking lot, or having no power at 1500 RPM in O/D on the expressway, or surging below 1000 RPM at idle.

To each his own I guess. Everybody has a different idea of what's streetable.

nuzee

iTrader: (2)

I hear you loud and clear. The torque converter was in my plans up until a few days ago. I agree that it would not only be the best mod money & effort wise, but that it is just the smart thing to do IF YOU WANT TO GO REALLY FAST.

The decision I made was that I DON'T want to go faster than 12.0. I think I can get into the low 12s with a mild cam and headers. Both the mild cam and headers should improve driveability. Maintaining driveability is now one of the top goals.

If in my normal driving the TC locked up 25% of the time, I would still be on the fence on whether or not to go with a hi-stall TC. At 50% lockup I would be convinced that the TC is the way to go. At 75%, I would be a fool not to get a TC. I almost never lockup my TC. In fact the only time it gets locked up is when I head out to the track on the other side of the island.

So, that is why I am going to stick with the stock TC. But I do appreciate your words of wisdom as it does apply to most peoples desires and situations out there.

MyLS1Hauls

iTrader: (2)

nuzee- I'm not sure how you drive even a stock stalled LS1 car from idle to only 1500, considering the stock stall is 1600!...if you do, you bought the wrong car. The cam is not the only thing affecting power off idle...its the higher flowing heads and also the intake manifold. I've used many different cams and have buddies who have used several also, from very small to very big, and none gave a monster increase nor decrease in torque under 1500 rpm. To get big torque down that low, you'll need a diesel

marc_w

I'll get flamed for this, but if I drive "reserved" my truck will NEVER see more than 2,000 rpm my whole 25 mile backroad commute into work. (still on stock converter, Yank not installed) ...and that's including accelerating from a dead stop, up to 45mph, and still every so slightly out-pulling surrounding traffic.

Lockup in the truck takes place at 35mph. I have 4.10 gears, and 31" tires I believe. I regularily see 1,100rpm locked up on a nice flat road at about 35-36mph... If I choose to only lockup above 1,500rpm - I think I'll be looking at about 50, maybe 55 mph. Some of us may not want to sacrifice that (extreme?) lowend grunt.

Tranzor

I don't know if you'd be able to get into the low 12s on a stock converter. If you want low 12s and keep daily driveability so it's just about like stock, the best way to do it is a mild stall converter, step up to some 3.42 gears, headers, and then add your mild cam (like a TR 220 or a B1). Easy low 12 car, while still easy on the streetability.

I have a friend on these boards who has an A4 with stock 3.23 gearing and stock converter, that's putting down 370rwhp (SAE corrected), with every bolt on known to man, including 1.8 ratio rockers... his best on QTP drag tires is a 12.8... and this guy can flat out drive that car, so I'd be impressed if anyone could go faster in it. If he adds a mild cam like the type you're talking about, he can probably get a 12.5. But without at least a mild converter he probably wouldn't get the low 12s.

I just don't see a 12.0-12.3 in your future without at least a mild stall converter, especially if you're sticking with a mild cam setup.

marc_w

When does lockup occur in the cars?

marc_w

SSLink - Under what RPM does your 218/218 112 start to buck and fart? What RPM does it start to pull nice and healthily?

SSLink

Exactly. And there is no doubt that a small duration, relatively tight LSA cam will significantly increase low end torque over the stock cam. My '99 had the imfamous M6 bog on launch. I added the 206/212 Comp cam and had more bottom end than I knew what to do with. The cam is a stump-puller in an LS1.

I think the stock cam with its lack of advance, relatively low lift and wide LSA is a real dog off the line unless you change gears or converter. Just my $.02.

SSLink

Marc:

My engine doesn't really buck at all over 1000 RPM in first or second gears once it's warmed up. That's really why I kept duration below 220. FYI I have my idle set at 800 RPM.

When does it start to pull "healthy?" That's pretty subjective. I cruise at 70 MPH and 1500 RPM in 6th gear on the highway with enough grunt to change lanes and casually pass. On the other hand if I am in a race from a roll I never let engine speed drop below 3000 RPM in any gear above 1st. That's where the real surge comes on. The overlap on a 112 LSA gives you a definite hump in the torque curve. You can really feel when you're on it.

In a heavier vehicle like a truck you may have to go a bit lower in effective duration to have the same results, even if you have a 6.0L. With an auto tranny it might also be preferable to go with a 114 LSA to smooth out the idle a bit if you plan on keeping the stock idle speed.

Hope this helps - Jeff L.

nuzee

iTrader: (2)

I'm not sure what you mean by that??? Ever heard of stop-n-go traffic?

I at least bought the right car for the track!

nuzee

iTrader: (2)

I got QTPs & 3.42s already. This past weekend I ran a best of 12.88 @ 107.6x. Lid, cutout, ram air, & HPP3. Oh yeah, and velocity stack, LOL! So, maybe I got a chance in getting a sub 12.3 with cam & headers & a little weight reduction.

For me, even a mild stall could really hurt my gas mileage and take away from the snappy throttle response. So, if I were to go with a TC, I'd go relatively big and try to reap the best ET from the $$ & effort.

The Colonel once said that the stock TC stall is even too low for the stock cam. That got me thinking. Instead of trying to increase the stall speed of the TC, what about increasing the low-end powerband to help the stock TC out. It is very evident that I'll run into more limitations as far as trying to increase the low-end vs. just increasing stall speed. But, there isn't much of a driveability trade-off by trying to do so.

Anyway, I appreciate your opinion.

Cal

iTrader: (1)

Well said . . . NUZEE, get a Duramax if you want to pull stumps! Your Camaro is a performance car, so cam that thing for the revs! If you put in anything smaller than a TR220, I promise you will be wanting more cam later on. I recomend a TR224 114, you will be impressed with the off idle torque and blown away by the power from 3,000 rpm to 6800 rpm!

PREDATOR-Z

See, with a stock bottom end, I wouldn't go with a cam that goes beyond 6500 rpm.
Yes the bottom end will take a few more rpms but that is done at the expense of locking the bottom one of these days.
Comp 216/220 is a good cam also (peak hp at 6300rpm)

Cal

iTrader: (1)

A stock bottom end can safely go to 6800 rpm, but even if you wanted to stop at 6300, you would still be making far more power than with the 216/220, and reving quicker as well. You can also get the bigger cams with advance ground in to make them peak lower, or on a narrower LSA to peak lower. You're not really giving up anything to put a 224 in an LS1, and even a 230 gives up very little low end, just emissions status.