Nervous about TR "Old Man" cam
TECH Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by jrp
Another_User you have no place talking **** about the OMC when you have a freaking hotcam, shorties, and flowmasters 
if you pulled your head out of your *** and did some research on the cam you'd find threads on its conception and the reasoning behind the specs.
if you pulled your head out of your *** and did some research on the cam you'd find threads on its conception and the reasoning behind the specs.
And yes, a silly camshaft with some radical lift variance on the intake, that doesn't make any more power than most of the cams people are running is stupid. How can anybody justify selling a guy a cam with a .600 intake lift, which is sure to eat springs for breakfast, when he has no other major mods. I've looked at a lot of flow numbers. There is no reason to run that much intake lift on an otherwise normal LS1.
TECH Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Oh, by the way:
Head and flow comparison:
Looking at these numbers, why on an otherwise stock engine would you put some whacked out lift on the intake for 6 cfm. And a whopping 1 cfm if you have good heads.
The unmodified bare head comparison is even more weak, with only a 1 cfm difference between .550 and .600.
Head and flow comparison:
Code:
Head Intake .200" .300" .350" .400" .450" .500" .550" .600" LS1 LS1 136 184 200 214 222 227 229 235 LS1 LS6 136 186 206 223 227 236 241 242 LS6 LS1 156 199 212 224 232 238 243 247 LS6 LS6 154 204 220 235 247 257 263 265
The unmodified bare head comparison is even more weak, with only a 1 cfm difference between .550 and .600.
Originally Posted by Another_User
I looked already. I have found nothing that shows this cam being some magical cam that makes good power. I have a camshaft book sitting right next to me, and there is no mention of anybody gaining anything from a split variation like that. And by the way, my mods all compliment each other for my application. The hotcam sounds good, has good street manners (when tuned), works well with my shorties, and Flowmasters are just fine for a catback. I enjoy a nice broad torque curve that I don't need to rev to 7000 rpms to get any use out of.
And yes, a silly camshaft with some radical lift variance on the intake, that doesn't make any more power than most of the cams people are running is stupid. How can anybody justify selling a guy a cam with a .600 intake lift, which is sure to eat springs for breakfast, when he has no other major mods. I've looked at a lot of flow numbers. There is no reason to run that much intake lift on an otherwise normal LS1.
And yes, a silly camshaft with some radical lift variance on the intake, that doesn't make any more power than most of the cams people are running is stupid. How can anybody justify selling a guy a cam with a .600 intake lift, which is sure to eat springs for breakfast, when he has no other major mods. I've looked at a lot of flow numbers. There is no reason to run that much intake lift on an otherwise normal LS1.
and yep your mods compliment each other; slow ramp lt1 era cam, minimal gain shorties, and one of the most restrictive catbacks out there.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...&highlight=OMC
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
From: Foley, Alabama-southern Alabama
I don't really love the cam either but if you lift the valve past where the head peaks flow it will still make more power,with the fast intake ramp the valve is lifted more at lower durations as well so the intake flow benefits. I"m not trying to be difficult just explaining the idea behind the cam. 
Another User, no offense, but you have no clue what you are talking about. This is a weak thread. Do some researching on reverse split LS1 cams. You are dead wrong. If you think this cam does not make good power, then you have not done your research. It's track proven. Throw your flow #'s that you got from wherever away and research what this cam does in real life.
TECH Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Oh well, I'm done arguing. Show me a before and after of that cam compared to a hotcam in the same car, or even a Z06 cam, and I'll believe it. I scoured the Internet looking for anything remotely like that cam after this post got put up. I think they are the only people to make anything like that bastard cam. Do a search yourself. Show me the links to these proven cams. They don't exist. I looked. This thread is weak, I'm out.
Well, I certainly didn't think I'd be stiring the pot this bad when I asked my question. 
Yeah for me. 
Thanks for the concern "Another_User." Here is a link to the dyno TR used. http://www.thunderracing.com/catalog...&vid=3&pcid=51 (I would have copied the pic, but didn't know if that would be stealing or not) You had me rolling when you said "Cam=poop." I've talked to MANY MANY people about the 918 springs being an issue on the cam, and everybody say's not to worry about it. Not just the TR guys either, I'm talking about the brains on site here. To the rest of you guys (the one's who think it's an okay cam) should I try to get w/ TR and have a new cam ground a little closer to the 115 lsa? I really don't want any serging in my A4 car. When the car's payed off in 2 years, and I can really start throwing money at it, I'm sure the cam will go up for sale.... but for now, I want something reliable and trouble free. 20-30hp would make me a very happy camper indeed. 
Yeah for me. Thanks for the concern "Another_User." Here is a link to the dyno TR used. http://www.thunderracing.com/catalog...&vid=3&pcid=51 (I would have copied the pic, but didn't know if that would be stealing or not) You had me rolling when you said "Cam=poop." I've talked to MANY MANY people about the 918 springs being an issue on the cam, and everybody say's not to worry about it. Not just the TR guys either, I'm talking about the brains on site here. To the rest of you guys (the one's who think it's an okay cam) should I try to get w/ TR and have a new cam ground a little closer to the 115 lsa? I really don't want any serging in my A4 car. When the car's payed off in 2 years, and I can really start throwing money at it, I'm sure the cam will go up for sale.... but for now, I want something reliable and trouble free. 20-30hp would make me a very happy camper indeed. LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Topdon ONE vs. Artidiag 800 BT2: Which is the Diagnostic Tablet For You?
Pouria Savadkouei
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
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 TECH Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by CaptUSA
Well, I certainly didn't think I'd be stiring the pot this bad when I asked my question. Yeah for me. Thanks for the concern "Another_User." Here is a link to the dyno TR used. http://www.thunderracing.com/catalog...&vid=3&pcid=51 (I would have copied the pic, but didn't know if that would be stealing or not) You had me rolling when you said "Cam=poop." I've talked to MANY MANY people about the 918 springs being an issue on the cam, and everybody say's not to worry about it. Not just the TR guys either, I'm talking about the brains on site here. To the rest of you guys (the one's who think it's an okay cam) should I try to get w/ TR and have a new cam ground a little closer to the 115 lsa? I really don't want any serging in my A4 car. When the car's payed off in 2 years, and I can really start throwing money at it, I'm sure the cam will go up for sale.... but for now, I want something reliable and trouble free. 20-30hp would make me a very happy camper indeed.
Yeah for me. Thanks for the concern "Another_User." Here is a link to the dyno TR used. http://www.thunderracing.com/catalog...&vid=3&pcid=51 (I would have copied the pic, but didn't know if that would be stealing or not) You had me rolling when you said "Cam=poop." I've talked to MANY MANY people about the 918 springs being an issue on the cam, and everybody say's not to worry about it. Not just the TR guys either, I'm talking about the brains on site here. To the rest of you guys (the one's who think it's an okay cam) should I try to get w/ TR and have a new cam ground a little closer to the 115 lsa? I really don't want any serging in my A4 car. When the car's payed off in 2 years, and I can really start throwing money at it, I'm sure the cam will go up for sale.... but for now, I want something reliable and trouble free. 20-30hp would make me a very happy camper indeed. Notice the TR-224 cam made 80 horspower compared to 31 of your cam through longtubes, also stock heads, but no offroad pipe or cutout. I'm not bashing here. Just because they posted a dyno graph showing an improvement over stock does not make this a good cam. It isn't. With less mods the 224 made almost 25 more horsepower. And they both have near identicle curves. So anyways...anybody (jrp) who said I don't know anything, go re-read you dyno graphs.
Originally Posted by Another_User
So are you running long tubes? Because they were on that dyno graph. With an off road pipe and cutout. The exhaust has to get out somehow with that intake lift.
Notice the TR-224 cam made 80 horspower compared to 31 of your cam through longtubes, also stock heads, but no offroad pipe or cutout. I'm not bashing here. Just because they posted a dyno graph showing an improvement over stock does not make this a good cam. It isn't. With less mods the 224 made almost 25 more horsepower. And they both have near identicle curves. So anyways...anybody (jrp) who said I don't know anything, go re-read you dyno graphs.
Notice the TR-224 cam made 80 horspower compared to 31 of your cam through longtubes, also stock heads, but no offroad pipe or cutout. I'm not bashing here. Just because they posted a dyno graph showing an improvement over stock does not make this a good cam. It isn't. With less mods the 224 made almost 25 more horsepower. And they both have near identicle curves. So anyways...anybody (jrp) who said I don't know anything, go re-read you dyno graphs.
OMC: LT, ORY, Lid, cutout, TB, Pulley, intake
224: LT, ORY, Lid, TB, Pulley, intake, aluminum flywheel, carbon fiber drive shaft
the 224 makes 23rwhp/14rwhp tq more then the OMC as it should, considering it has 9* more intake and 4* exhaust duration.
you also seem to be missing the point of the OMC; stock idle, stock powerband range, emissions friendly, with very little tuning.
TECH Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by jrp
dude your a dumbass, the 224 dyno was w/ bolt ons, it didnt gain 80rwhp with the cam itself. the 318rwhp was obviously an old baseline. and how do you figure less mods
OMC: LT, ORY, Lid, cutout, TB, Pulley, intake
224: LT, ORY, Lid, TB, Pulley, intake, aluminum flywheel, carbon fiber drive shaft
the 224 makes 23rwhp/14rwhp tq more then the OMC as it should, considering it has 9* more intake and 4* exhaust duration.
you also seem to be missing the point of the OMC; stock idle, stock powerband range, emissions friendly, with very little tuning.
OMC: LT, ORY, Lid, cutout, TB, Pulley, intake
224: LT, ORY, Lid, TB, Pulley, intake, aluminum flywheel, carbon fiber drive shaft
the 224 makes 23rwhp/14rwhp tq more then the OMC as it should, considering it has 9* more intake and 4* exhaust duration.
you also seem to be missing the point of the OMC; stock idle, stock powerband range, emissions friendly, with very little tuning.
Originally Posted by Another_User
You missed all my points. Both of the cars had the EXACT SAME bolt-ons. The torque curves look almost identicle. Everybody always says how great that cam idles (I have no idea, my hotcam idles great now that I have it tuned right...almost stock). And yes, the 224 does have more intake and exhaust duration. The point is you get the same benefits AND more horsepower from normal cams that are not a POS like that one. AND my other point is to benefit from that cam they used A LOT of extra exhaust mods, which nobody cares to pay attention to. Anyways, like I was saying, there are plenty of cams that make more power, have the same torque curve, idle well, don't require as much exhaust work, and don't eat springs. Well, I'd say that covers this round of your
however fucked you think the specs are bottom line it'll make your HC its bitch at the track, thats all that really counts anyway. the cam idles great with no tuning, that more then can be said about the HC.
bottem line its not your car or your money, he did his reseach and chose a cam that fits his particular application.
11 Second Club
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
From: Peoria, AZ
I have the TR 220/220 114LSA running actually 113.6 LSA and I have Stock Heads and Intake. I just had a nice run with my Buddy Last night with a TR 224/224 112 LSA with pretty much the same bolt-ons. He's got Stick and 4.10 gears and From a Roll We stayed pretty much side by side. N/A Run of course.. Almost got Busted too. 
Another_User, I think your lost about what your talking about. Remember, It's all about the Combo. That 215/220 cam was made for pretty much a stock engine and Highest gains..
Thunder Racing... YOU GUYS ROCK... I need to stop in there when I go to Visit my Brother. He lives not to far from you. Thanks For the Cam guys.
Another_User, I think your lost about what your talking about. Remember, It's all about the Combo. That 215/220 cam was made for pretty much a stock engine and Highest gains..
Thunder Racing... YOU GUYS ROCK... I need to stop in there when I go to Visit my Brother. He lives not to far from you. Thanks For the Cam guys.
TECH Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Will a moderator please lock this thread? It is giving me a headache. I have explained why the cam sucks, I have backed it up with numbers. Their own dyno charts show it sucks. There is a REASON why none of the cam experts are in on this thread. Because the cam sucks and nobody wants to say it. Anyways, once again. Please lock this thread...or better yet delete it so I don't have to look at it anymore.
Both of the cams I used as examples were on stock heads, so don't argue stock head crap with me. And YES, ORY and a cutout make a HUGE difference when you are demonstrating a cam that obviously allows less exhaust out, and excessive intake in.
I have a headache. I would bash a sponser to lock this thing, but I would probably get booted for a week. Or worse, indefinitely.
My final thought: You asked opinions about the cam. My opinion. Lame...weak...poop...you could make a lot more power with something else.
The End.
Guys I'm an old man 57 years old, and have been mess'in with engines since the early '60's. I'm no expert but I've always prided myself as being a reasonably competent weekend mechanic. For the LAST, LAST, LAST word on this subject I have never seen a cam with the exhaust port with a .077 lift smaller than the intake. I'm not saying it doesn't work power wise, but if the intake lift was much smaller I would almost guarantee similar results.
Thanks for all the input guys. Soo...... Okay, should I try to get a new grind with the wider lobe seperation, or what? 
Soo...... Okay, should I try to get a new grind with the wider lobe seperation, or what? Last edited by CaptUSA; Aug 2, 2004 at 03:22 PM. Reason: Question clarification
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,246
Likes: 3
From: Troy, AL
Thunder Racing really did their homework when designing this cam. It does what it's intended to do very well and will SMOKE a Notcam's *** while having a MUCH better idle, better drivability, and cleaner emissions to boot. 
Another_User, sorry, but you don't have a clue on this one. TTT!
Another_User, sorry, but you don't have a clue on this one. TTT!