97camer

want to run a texas speed 233/239 .600/.600 112lsa or114? ls6 intake,3600 stall,street/strip,4L60,not a DD,97-f-body, want a good set-up,anyone run this? esp. 323 gears, thanks.

HCI2000SS

iTrader: (2)

So you have a LS1 in this 97?

Mercier

iTrader: (15)

If everything is in good shape and you commit to the stall, it should run well. Why 3.23 gears? You are leaving a lot on the table not going to 3.73+ IMO unless you are going after high speed runs or something similar.

Deeohgie69

iTrader: (3)

My first build had this same exact cam, with a ss3600 stall, and 2.73 gears. As long as you have a decent tuner, then it is in no way too much cam and you'll love it. It pulls strong all the way to 6500rpm's... May pull higher, but that's where my tuner had it shift. Mine was 112 lsa, but if you go 114 lsa it won't sound as lopy (mean). I believe it will also change you power band of it by a couple hundred rpms iirc.

Mine ran in the 11's with no weight reduction at all with that setup and I wouldn't worry about gear one bit. You will be lucky to gain .1 tenth of a second at best, and most likely nothing from a gear change with a 3600 stall or bigger. I have many timeslips to prove this theory and I went from 2.73's to 3.42's. If this is going in an LS1, here's a couple idle clips on what it will sound like going through TSP 1 7/8", tsp ory pipe, and borla exhaust.

With the plate out which bypasses the muffler.
3/4" plate in which forces some of the sound through the muffler

99 Black Bird T/A

iTrader: (4)

it's something of a mismatch with 3.23 gears IMHO, 3.73s would be better. Ported heads and more compression would likely help as well and an excellent tuner,..that's my.02 worth.

If would be too much cam for me in a 346 LS1 unless car was race only with no street time. Others will say that cam it ok for street/strip. It's a cam I would run in a 383 stroker for street/strip.

TXZ28LS1

iTrader: (5)

I run the tsp 233/239 cam on 112.

I also have a circle D 5c converter which is a 4k stall, and 3.23 gears. No issues at all...

I have been debating on stepping up to 3.73. But ive read that its not worth the swap. My car is a daily driver, street car. Never gonna see the track.

Deeohgie69

iTrader: (3)

If you have done any research on here, then you'd know that generally a gear change with a stall higher than 3600 usually nets you nothing in the 1/4 mile. I have hundreds of time slips to prove it. It's 100% fact that you'll see .1 tenth at most at our n/a power levels and most likely it will be nothing at all. I will however say that the seat of the pants feeling was a lot different. I would have laid money on it that I would have gained .2-.3 tenths. Timeslips don't lie though and if it were going to happen, it would have been going from 2.73's to 3.42's. It's not worth changing from a 3.23 to a 3.73, that's just a huge waste of money. I cannot stress this enough to everyone. I wish that I had listened to everyone on here, because I put 2.73's back in my car now.

As far as daily driving it, I daily drove mine for almost a year with that cam and most of my driving is in town with speed limits between 25-35 for 95% of my driving. As long as you have a good tuner, you will have no issues what so ever. I know a lot of people that's running that cam with no problems. I have heard of a few having problems with it surging at lower rpms or in lockout. But that's always because they didn't have a good tuner that can tune worth a darn.

Mercier

iTrader: (15)

May I assume you are in third(1:1) gear when passing through the lights in 1/4? At what RPM? To me, it's all about maximizing your powerband and if the stall gets you around peak power at the end of the quarter mile, your car is properly geared or close. If not, you are leaving something on the table.

ET doesn't tell the whole story. How was your MPH with 2.73 vs. 3.42? Was the trans and related components specifically tuned after and for the gear change? Is it possible that the torque multiplication of the higher(numerical) gears caused more traction issues and/or required a different driving/launching style and if that were sorted out we might be looking at more than a .1 difference?

My two thoughts are: 1) A lot of folks will do a lot for .1 second; maybe not you. 2) If all that changed was gears, maybe the setup, driving/launching style, equipment wasn't optimized for the other set of gears.

Full disclosure: I'm a stick driver. I've had autos but always back to a stick..so short of clutch slip, gearing is really a mathematical certainty for me and that always puts me gearing to be right around peak power in 1:1 gear through the traps.

5550racing

I know this is internal engine discussion but I've had every gear from 2.73 to 3.73's. While it is fun to row gears quickly, and it feels faster, I prefer letting it sit in the power band and eat with 3.23's. They are killer from a stop light and good enough for 12.97 in the quarter with my bolt-on M6 car. What I like most is the longevity of numerically lower gear sets. The lower you go, the more teeth on the pinion gear you get. and I believe it takes some stress off the pinion area. With 2.73's you get 15 tooth pinion, 41 ring. With 3.73's you get 11 tooth pinion, 41 ring.

Deeohgie69

iTrader: (3)

Traction wasn't an issue whatsoever and it launched, et's, trapped best leaving at 1500rpm's. With 2.73's it shifted at 110mph and went through the traps at low to mid 116's. The tune was also fat with the 2.73's and it was fixed when I put the 3.42's in it. With 3.42's I was also in 3rd going through the traps, but it shifted into 3rd at almost 80mph trapping high 116's to low 117's. The 60' was 1.77 with 2.73's and 1.72 with 3.42's. I gained barely .1 tenth in et wise and barely .5mph in the quarter. I would be willing to bet that almost all of that came from the tune not being fat anymore. Matter a fact, I'd be willing to say for certain almost all of it was. Better 60' equals better et, but usually costs mph on trap if it is this close of times being compared. I gained a hair on both

Like I said, once you're stalled, it doesn't matter on gears because you are always in the powerband. It never falls under 5000rpm's on shifting and most times it stays around 5100. This car is dead consistent and always within less than .05 tenths and less than .05mph on every run the same night. I've read same exact stories as mine all over tech, I'm sure some will chime in.

Trust me OP, do not waste the money on a gear change on a stalled auto under 500rwhp. If it were an m6 car, I would go higher than 3.73's, but in your case, save the money. If you do happen to change gears, please get back on here and let everyone know that it only changed the sotp feel

Edit: The only thing that changed was the gears and a slight tune clean up. I tracked car before the tune clean up and it actually ran a hair slower than comparable da times previously. I know that isn't very good data, but like I said, the car is very consistent and can usually know about what it's going to run before I run it. With 2.73's it was at the very bottom of 3rd since it shifted at 110mph. With 3.42's it was well into the rpms and shifted at 6500rpms. Seriously though, with a good stall, you don't ever really have to worry about rpms much. I know it's hard to believe, I've been in the other shoes, but it's the truth.

Mercier

iTrader: (15)

I hear what you are saying. I do find it hard to believe there isn't something to be gained by spending more of third gear near peak power but you are pretty convincing. I'll keep my third pedal and tall gears. I am also building something that would be "peaky" by most standards. If you guys are making power across a relatively wide powerband, it makes some sense even with a stick I suppose but in that case I must say that bigger cam, more gear would be faster 1/4 mile. Maybe not as fun between stoplights.

If I see you at the track just don't tell me you have 2.73s. I don't want to know.

Deeohgie69

iTrader: (3)

Lol it's pretty telling that it has them when you hear the shifts. This isn't my best run with 2.73's because it was my 2nd time to the track with them. But you can hear it shift. Alot of people don't believe me when I tell them because it'sfull weight too. Yeah with an m6 I'd definitely run min 3.73's

Mercier

iTrader: (15)

Well that's 11's with 2.73s. Pretty hard to argue. What would it look like with say a 3000 or 2800 stall and some 3.73s?

Deeohgie69

iTrader: (3)

That's a pretty good question. But I would have to say that it would be a pretty good difference with 2.73's and a 2800 vs 3.73's with a 2800 stall. It'd be too small for that cam, but as far as gears go, I think it would be a dog with 2.73's. probably gain .3 tenths swapping to 3.73's?

I'm really not sure, that would be interesting to find out though.

cals400ex

iTrader: (27)

I agree on the gears....I don't see faster times with 3.73's or 4.10's. They feel faster, but the times don't show that they faster in the 1/4.

madmike9396

iTrader: (29)

Leave the gears alone and get that cam. It's proven.

I'm running a 4k FTI hard hit stall with 342 gears and love it.

My cam is FMS F-14 cam low lift version

Mercier

iTrader: (15)

Again see my disclaimer about being a stick purist but curious still. So stall=slip right? That's power transformed somewhat into heat. Is it possible that an auto car could be more efficient with a lower stall speed but higher(numerical) gears? Less slip should theoretically equate to less drivetrain power loss and more power to the wheels. ?

Deeohgie69

iTrader: (3)

I haven't really dug into it on that end of the spectrum. But yes it equals more heat, which is why the bigger trans cooler is required to combat the heat from the slippage. A lower stall should in theory be more efficient, but then you also throw the stalls str which will affect it's efficiency too. It was explained to me that my stall with a str of 2.5 will hit harder off the line (which is 2.5 times the torque at a certain rpm) vs say a 2.1 or 1.8, but will not be as efficient on the back half of the track.

So even though they should probably be more efficient with a smaller stall and a higher gear, I still don't think that it will et and trap like a bigger stall due to the amount of slippage and the way it keeps you into the powerband after shifts.

There's a chart on yanks site I believe that will break it down for you. But I'm guessing that a 2800 stall would drop all the way down between 3800-4000rpms (just a guess) after the shift vs the 5100 in my 3600 after shifts. So instead of waiting for your gears to get you there, the higher stall already has you there.

Mercier

iTrader: (15)

Wish I had an auto test bed to see how this works out. Just seems like a lower stall with higher gear gives the same mechanical advantage to the drive train and is theoretically more efficient. But maybe only a few %. Hard to calculate on paper with so many variables!