Ok then, maybe you should buy all of them.

 

5.7's in c5 vettes have no problem hitting 30 mpg on the highway.

I saw as high as 27.5 in my camaro doing hand calculation and topping off at the same gas station and same gas pump on the same day within 3 hours of start to finish checking. There was a little bit of city driving in there too. That was a 140 mile round trip with about 20 miles of city in there.

It's not so much the motor that gets poor mileage it's the total combo that does.

I've seen as high as 31 mpg in my current truck over a 13 mile stretch of highway but that was cheating.. starting out rolling and resetting the mpg meter and keeping it at 60 mph. I now run e85 at all times and it gets 10.5 mpg every tank. Driving style has a huge impact on it. And tires. Tires can make a ton of difference too. I always run mine at high pressure to get a hair more mpg, but LRR tires make a considerable difference (low rolling resistance). Believe it or not some tires have considerably more rolling resistance than others.



Sorry for the rant lol

 

Nao u onto sumn.

 

Dumb question, but have you tried messing with lean cruise, kfxguy? And how are you doing mph calcs?

And the problem with any cam is that it makes you less efficient at rpms you cruise at in exchange for more torque and hp where you are going to race at. I mean you could swap in a factory cam, but i doubt you want to do that.

 

ohaithur

 

850 in my case. That RPM difference alone might be enough to explain everything.

My timing corrections right now are +/- 9 degrees if I remember right, which is about half what was in the original tune after the H/C/I/E work.

 

like the SS can’t afford that. I already have a 2019 Silverado note and a 2019 $56k RV note. So it would have to be even swap if I sell the gto. I don’t see getting much $$$ for it. I did consider getting a 2011ish camaro SS like I used to have. But have you seen how tight they are under the hood for a turbo? Omg.
not a fan of the G8. I think it looks like a square wedge from the side because the Smaller wheel well opening in the rear. The front does look killer tho.

lol. Thx. I haven’t been there in a few days. I need to go stir up something over there. Lol

good question. First off I try and tune my idle for the least amount of fuel consumed according to the dash mileage indicator. Think the lower ive gotten lately is .83 gallons per hour. Stock was .45-.50. Almost double fuel consumption. For true mileage I fill up and drive it around and compare to the dash indicator. The dash is off by about 1.5mpg.


o man. If I jack up my idle to 800, over a gallon per hour of fuel is used, between 1.1-1.2 gal per hour. This is why I’m trying to get my idle around the stock rpm, 550 iirc. 625 isn’t too far off I know. I probably shouldn’t fool with it tho. I’m bordering charging problems at idle as it is with ac running. I have an under drive crank pulley but an over drive alternator pulley to counter act that. Under drive pulley is a must because my turbo oil drain location would not work with the stock pulley.
I’ll look at my timing corrections but I’m pretty sure I have it set at 8 degrees both ways although my timing didn’t swing much because I have the idle pretty well dialed in.

 

The stock 2002 C5 tunes I'm looking at are both set to idle at 800 RPM.

 

well that’s hard to believe when my gto was set at 550 rpm. And they both ls1’s.

 

So you're basically thinking of our high lift hot cam "California Love" version (114lsa)
218/227 114lsa

Ps im sure you didnt talk to us, so that rules us out of the mystery vendor pot ;-)

 

no i didn’t talk to you guys. I talked to another company that is regarded highly and that I do like their stuff. They make their own cams in house and sell engines too. I did use one of their cams in my silverado. That will probably give it away. The funny thing is the last two times I called, I got a grumpy guy. More so about the cam tho. First time I called was about rods and pistons. He was hell bent on selling me their house brand stuff for a good chunk more and out of my budget. When asking questions about the other brands I was looking at, he couldn’t answer any questions I had about them, suggested I call the manufacturer. Nope. I called summit and ordered rods and pistons from them. Had such a good experience I ordered more from them after. Too bad for this other vendor. I work in retail/wholesale and I make sure I treat my customers how I want to be treated, with respect and not like a dumbass.

I like that grind if it was on a little higher lsa.

what kind of power is that cam making?

 

You said 115lsa. Really 1* lsa isnt going to make that much difference where you are.

It made nearly 400hp na in an ls1 with 241 heads on a customers car in Germany. And nearly 390 tq. Thats pretty good for it being on a wider lsa vs the std 112.

We have a few out for boosted apps but no feedback yet. We get them in 5 at a time and, since their release, have done pretty good. The actual feeback is the only issue. Even if you make customers pinky swear they hardly ever get back with results. Dyno numbers are subjective though as well as what turbo they are using.
There are too many turbos in the field right now to even give you an idea of an avg and if you ask fb every grudge racer runs 4s at 180 in the 8th with stock valve stem seals and amsoil on a 60mm Chinese hotboi so its so hard to get a good idea. Plus everyones turbo is better.
The na power shows the potential really. From there the combinations are endless.

 

lol. I know where you are coming from. I’ve got no shortage of feedback if you’ve read any of my posts. I have really pushed the summit cam, because it really is a good cam.

that grind you mentioned does sound like about what I was looking for, and one degree ain’t gonna do much of anything like you said.

I really like the summit cam I have now, but I’m longing for something a little milder (not that the cam I have isn’t decently mild). It’s like I know I don’t need this big of a cam to make good power, so why sacrifice fuel economy for a few extra HP that I’ll never notice is gone? I’ve seen cars run in the 9’s with smaller cams than I have. I’m 43 years old and I’ve grown out of the loud, rumpty type cars. Yea they are cool, but I want my car to be like stock. But then on the other hand, I’m putting it in a built motor that could potentially turn 7500, so why not take advantage of that. If I don’t come across something before I finish this motor, I’ll just roll with what I have. I’m on the fence about it anyways. The only one thing I didn’t like, was the fuel mileage.

 

How many people turn that rpm with stock cams? Or ls6 or ls9?
The main issue there is turbo size and style. As long as the airflow is sufficient enough you can turn nearly any rpm. That would take a larger turbo with a larger a/r for that and wouldn't be in boost in the lower rpms much. So youd have a better opportunity to take care of having a better timing curve out of boost.

Also using pure gas and not some e10 or e15 swill from the pump will help.
A slightly narrower lsa while still maintaining less than 0 overlap will keep the torque out of boost in a better range also, which again, helps there.

 

LOL So true! We've timed a lot of no time/grudge cars and most aren't nearly as fast as they say they are.

I ran an LS9 previously and the results were underwhelming. Someone did a test between stock cams and a stage 2 turbo cam, gained 100+hp on low boost (under 15 psi) and low rpm (under 7000). Turbo cam had less backpressure and boost actually dropped a little and still made more power.

I'd go the other way, add another 35% ethanol! Ethanol fuels often help a turbo spool faster and you can run more timing, plus if planned for ahead of time can run more compression. Not sure why people hate on ethanol fuels? Even E50 works great for street cars, not as big an impact on MPG as E85 but almost all the rewards.

 

Maybe your answer is something with low duration but high lift to gain valve curtain area.

Spitballing while eating, so no math behind it. Something like 226/232-114, but with 680 lift

 

lol almost same specs I said granted not same lift. Summit stage 2 is a 226/230 113 Mine doesn't really lope at all, but I also don't care about idle fuel usage or fuel usage at all. That's why they have gas stations everywhere!

 

I hear you. You'd need 1.8 rockers to hit that lift with that duration, but I think it's about the only way you're going to get the airflow and keep the manners. Shift the dollars to the valvesprings, though...

 

I'd rather keep stock rockers and basic cheap springs, they are enough for 170+MPH which is way more then enough for his setup. The Summit stage 4 and BTR stage 3 also don't have very high lift and they both work well. I just don't think you need big lift numbers when you have 20+PSI pushing air into the cylinder, or any PSI really since you aren't relying on the shape, size, or velocity of the intake port for performance like you are NA. Kinda like the age old debate over whether ported stock or aftermarket heads are needed on turbo setups that aren't maxed out. Yes the fancy heads allow you to go faster on lower boost, but does anyone care if you make 750hp on 18 psi or 14psi? Or 1000 on 25psi or 20psi? Yes I know anything you do to increase NA power will help boosted power, but at what point is it worth the expense? In big budget class racing where the turbo and everything else is maxed out great cylinder heads and big lift cams absolutely come into play. Or setups that have extreme boost levels that stock heads can no longer hold, even though stock heads have held north of 35PSI. But for a guy that only wants to go 135-140MPH tops I don't see the point in rockers, fancy springs, heads, etc.. ya know?

 

Yeah, I do see your point. 135-140 isn't really a tall order and really shouldn't even need crazy boost numbers to do it.