Nervous about TR "Old Man" cam
08-02-2004, 04:41 PM
#41
Originally Posted by Colonel
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!
08-02-2004, 09:52 PM
#43
TECH Addict
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ugh. I thought I was done with this post.
1) CAPTUSA...darn your black evil heart for letting this post continue.
2) The cam is stupid. That extra intake lift is not worth a crap, it does not matter what you say, that cam is still lame. I bet if you shave that lift down to match the exhaust it would still make within a few horsepower, if not more. That intake lift is just plain dumb. It defies common sense in cam design. I add to this, still, NO CAM EXPERTS are saying anything. That should be a sign. I can guarantee nobody that is a cam expert runs this cam.
3) There is nothing that anybody can say about a Hotcam that has not been said before. Knock it all you want, but looking around on here it is just as common a cam as any. It is the cam you buy when you want some extra grunt down low that you don't get with other cams, you don't want to continuously buy valve springs, etc. So anyways, the cam is perfectly well suited for use in a car with stock heads for a mild build-up, which is what I put together. I did not feel the need for anything too outrageous. I read plenty of posts about plenty of cams that make more peak horsepower than the Hotcam. I chose my cam, and I am very happy with it.
4) My car idles and runs almost exactly like stock with my Hotcam. It took a little tuning, but it idles with only about the same mild lope the stock cam had while running 925 rpms which is pretty normal for a cammed M6. I have no stalling problems, and a negligible amount of surging that most people would not even notice, which only occurs under 1800 rpms now. So a Hotcam can be tuned to run just fine for a daily driver like mine.
5) I like Thunder Racing just fine, however that cam has no use in any car. I can think of no SBC application that can make any use of that wide of a spread in intake to exhaust lift. Even IF it built the same power as many other cams, which it isn't really dazzling, even compared to a Hotcam, there is no reason to run that much lift and eat springs. It defies anything that resembles logic. If it is that great of a cam, you guys would have one. It isn't. Engines like SBCs and also LSxs do not have flow characteristics that match that type of cam.
6) No dyno slips yet. I am planning on going this week...I actually accelerated my plans for it since this thread, because I know that my car is putting down some good power. And like I said, I am not interested in peak horsepower, I am interested in flat torque.
7) If you wanted to compare apples to oranges though, here is a good one:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/158348-hotcam-dyno-s.html
http://www.thunderracing.com/catalog...&vid=3&pcid=51
Compare that guys hotcam numbers with nearly the same mods. Hmmm....Hotcam smoked that POS. Even if you say he had 10 more horsepower to start, it was still a dead-heat in gain then (please take the time to note that again, the torque curves are nearly the same across). Ever noticed that everybody talks trash about the Hotcam, but when people post a dyno they always say "Wow, those are nice numbers for a Hotcam." It is a repeating pattern...over and over through the threads. Or how about:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...hlight=ls6+cam
Where a guy with a Z06 cam and less mods is putting down the same power. Come on, get a clue. I can pull up dyno charts to match that cam all day and all night. I would have to try a thousand times harder to find a comparable cam without that lame amount of lift that makes less power.
Again:
Kill the thread....just say no.
1) CAPTUSA...darn your black evil heart for letting this post continue.
2) The cam is stupid. That extra intake lift is not worth a crap, it does not matter what you say, that cam is still lame. I bet if you shave that lift down to match the exhaust it would still make within a few horsepower, if not more. That intake lift is just plain dumb. It defies common sense in cam design. I add to this, still, NO CAM EXPERTS are saying anything. That should be a sign. I can guarantee nobody that is a cam expert runs this cam.
3) There is nothing that anybody can say about a Hotcam that has not been said before. Knock it all you want, but looking around on here it is just as common a cam as any. It is the cam you buy when you want some extra grunt down low that you don't get with other cams, you don't want to continuously buy valve springs, etc. So anyways, the cam is perfectly well suited for use in a car with stock heads for a mild build-up, which is what I put together. I did not feel the need for anything too outrageous. I read plenty of posts about plenty of cams that make more peak horsepower than the Hotcam. I chose my cam, and I am very happy with it.
4) My car idles and runs almost exactly like stock with my Hotcam. It took a little tuning, but it idles with only about the same mild lope the stock cam had while running 925 rpms which is pretty normal for a cammed M6. I have no stalling problems, and a negligible amount of surging that most people would not even notice, which only occurs under 1800 rpms now. So a Hotcam can be tuned to run just fine for a daily driver like mine.
5) I like Thunder Racing just fine, however that cam has no use in any car. I can think of no SBC application that can make any use of that wide of a spread in intake to exhaust lift. Even IF it built the same power as many other cams, which it isn't really dazzling, even compared to a Hotcam, there is no reason to run that much lift and eat springs. It defies anything that resembles logic. If it is that great of a cam, you guys would have one. It isn't. Engines like SBCs and also LSxs do not have flow characteristics that match that type of cam.
6) No dyno slips yet. I am planning on going this week...I actually accelerated my plans for it since this thread, because I know that my car is putting down some good power. And like I said, I am not interested in peak horsepower, I am interested in flat torque.
7) If you wanted to compare apples to oranges though, here is a good one:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/158348-hotcam-dyno-s.html
http://www.thunderracing.com/catalog...&vid=3&pcid=51
Compare that guys hotcam numbers with nearly the same mods. Hmmm....Hotcam smoked that POS. Even if you say he had 10 more horsepower to start, it was still a dead-heat in gain then (please take the time to note that again, the torque curves are nearly the same across). Ever noticed that everybody talks trash about the Hotcam, but when people post a dyno they always say "Wow, those are nice numbers for a Hotcam." It is a repeating pattern...over and over through the threads. Or how about:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...hlight=ls6+cam
Where a guy with a Z06 cam and less mods is putting down the same power. Come on, get a clue. I can pull up dyno charts to match that cam all day and all night. I would have to try a thousand times harder to find a comparable cam without that lame amount of lift that makes less power.
Again:
Kill the thread....just say no.
08-02-2004, 10:59 PM
#44
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, I did a direct comparison back to back in my '02 SS. I had the '02 LS6 cam and swapped to the TR "OMC" stated above. I did the comparison for Thunder and got before and after dyno graphs for them as well. They were never posted because they didnt like the results. My car was untuned with both. I spent an additional $800 for the "OMC" and crane doubles to handle the lift, and it made the numbers in my sig. It had idle issues, some surging, and some stalling issues. I was not at all happy with the cam for the price over the LS6 cam. But thats just my opinion. Bone stock with just the cam and lid the car made what it did below with the "OMC" through an A4. Great power considering my mods and A4, but definately not worth $500 more than the LS6 cam in my opinion.
I have no problems with Thunder, and the 224 will be going into another car here shortly. Im just not a fan of their "OMC".
I have no problems with Thunder, and the 224 will be going into another car here shortly. Im just not a fan of their "OMC".
08-02-2004, 11:01 PM
#45
Originally Posted by Ireland31
FWIW, I did a direct comparison back to back in my '02 SS. I had the '02 LS6 cam and swapped to the TR "OMC" stated above. I did the comparison for Thunder and got before and after dyno graphs for them as well. They were never posted because they didnt like the results. My car was untuned with both. I spent an additional $800 for the "OMC" and crane doubles to handle the lift, and it made the numbers in my sig. It had idle issues, some surging, and some stalling issues. I was not at all happy with the cam for the price over the LS6 cam. But thats just my opinion. Bone stock with just the cam and lid the car made what it did below with the "OMC" through an A4. Great power considering my mods and A4, but definately not worth $500 more than the LS6 cam in my opinion.
I have no problems with Thunder, and the 224 will be going into another car here shortly. Im just not a fan of their "OMC".
I have no problems with Thunder, and the 224 will be going into another car here shortly. Im just not a fan of their "OMC".
what did the curves look like though, the ls6 cam has virtually no gains over the stock cam from idle to 4k. what did the OMC pick up through out the range over the LS6?
08-02-2004, 11:11 PM
#46
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Another_loser......how do you figure that dyno blew the OMC away! Lets take your comparison of the hotcam dyno to the TR OMC at a closer look: Most of the mods are identical. Exhaust seem pretty much very close. Ported throttle bodies. Both are pullied. Both M6's. Both have intakes.....oh wait, an LSX over an LS6!! Typical dyno's have shown 5-10rwhp over an LS6. Hmmmm....dyno tuning!! No mention of custom tuning done on the OMC. I wonder why.....maybe because the cam was designed for no tuning necessary. Really just need to raise the rev limiter so it can be revved. Don't most factory tunes have an A/F of 11-11.5? Most I've seen have. I would bet any amount of money that just a little bit of tweaking on the A/F would net easily another 5-8rwhp. Yeah.....that Hotcam just blew away that OMC. Makes me want to take mine out and switch over. Not!! I'll take the OMC anyday over the Hotcam! The only reason people by the Hotcam is because it's cheap. I have yet to be impressed by any Hotcam wether LT1 or LS1 or even L98 on the track or on the dyno!! Actually I take that back.....it does have a nice idle!!
Oh, why do you keep posting if this thread is so lame. I thought you were going to stop posting on it, as you mentioned earlier!
08-02-2004, 11:16 PM
#47
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jrp
what did the curves look like though, the ls6 cam has virtually no gains over the stock cam from idle to 4k. what did the OMC pick up through out the range over the LS6?
08-03-2004, 12:06 AM
#48
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Another_User
No. Not TTT. Down down down. Let the thread die!
1) CAPTUSA...darn your black evil heart for letting this post continue.
1) CAPTUSA...darn your black evil heart for letting this post continue.
..... Seriously, I can't even type, I'll be back later.
08-03-2004, 12:47 AM
#49
Originally Posted by deleete
JRP said it best with his second post. Took the words right out of my mouth. I had to join just to get in on this fun thread.
Another_loser......how do you figure that dyno blew the OMC away! Lets take your comparison of the hotcam dyno to the TR OMC at a closer look: Most of the mods are identical. Exhaust seem pretty much very close. Ported throttle bodies. Both are pullied. Both M6's. Both have intakes.....oh wait, an LSX over an LS6!! Typical dyno's have shown 5-10rwhp over an LS6. Hmmmm....dyno tuning!! No mention of custom tuning done on the OMC. I wonder why.....maybe because the cam was designed for no tuning necessary. Really just need to raise the rev limiter so it can be revved. Don't most factory tunes have an A/F of 11-11.5? Most I've seen have. I would bet any amount of money that just a little bit of tweaking on the A/F would net easily another 5-8rwhp. Yeah.....that Hotcam just blew away that OMC. Makes me want to take mine out and switch over. Not!! I'll take the OMC anyday over the Hotcam! The only reason people by the Hotcam is because it's cheap. I have yet to be impressed by any Hotcam wether LT1 or LS1 or even L98 on the track or on the dyno!! Actually I take that back.....it does have a nice idle!!
Oh, why do you keep posting if this thread is so lame. I thought you were going to stop posting on it, as you mentioned earlier!
Another_loser......how do you figure that dyno blew the OMC away! Lets take your comparison of the hotcam dyno to the TR OMC at a closer look: Most of the mods are identical. Exhaust seem pretty much very close. Ported throttle bodies. Both are pullied. Both M6's. Both have intakes.....oh wait, an LSX over an LS6!! Typical dyno's have shown 5-10rwhp over an LS6. Hmmmm....dyno tuning!! No mention of custom tuning done on the OMC. I wonder why.....maybe because the cam was designed for no tuning necessary. Really just need to raise the rev limiter so it can be revved. Don't most factory tunes have an A/F of 11-11.5? Most I've seen have. I would bet any amount of money that just a little bit of tweaking on the A/F would net easily another 5-8rwhp. Yeah.....that Hotcam just blew away that OMC. Makes me want to take mine out and switch over. Not!! I'll take the OMC anyday over the Hotcam! The only reason people by the Hotcam is because it's cheap. I have yet to be impressed by any Hotcam wether LT1 or LS1 or even L98 on the track or on the dyno!! Actually I take that back.....it does have a nice idle!!
Oh, why do you keep posting if this thread is so lame. I thought you were going to stop posting on it, as you mentioned earlier!
i've yet to here someone swap out there aftermarket cam for a HC yet people swap out there HC for a better cam all the time. i wonder why that is....:hmm:
08-03-2004, 12:25 PM
#52
!LS1 11 Second Club
Originally Posted by Ireland31
FWIW, I did a direct comparison back to back in my '02 SS. I had the '02 LS6 cam and swapped to the TR "OMC" stated above. I did the comparison for Thunder and got before and after dyno graphs for them as well. They were never posted because they didnt like the results. My car was untuned with both. I spent an additional $800 for the "OMC" and crane doubles to handle the lift, and it made the numbers in my sig. It had idle issues, some surging, and some stalling issues. I was not at all happy with the cam for the price over the LS6 cam. But thats just my opinion. Bone stock with just the cam and lid the car made what it did below with the "OMC" through an A4. Great power considering my mods and A4, but definately not worth $500 more than the LS6 cam in my opinion.
I have no problems with Thunder, and the 224 will be going into another car here shortly. Im just not a fan of their "OMC".
I have no problems with Thunder, and the 224 will be going into another car here shortly. Im just not a fan of their "OMC".
08-04-2004, 12:17 AM
#55
Would it be fun to have stupid money so you could drop the car off at a shop, have them install and dyno both cams and $2000 later you would have a definitive answer!!
I remember back in the day when the LT1 "reverse cooling" heads first came out, i got into a dispute with someone who was known around my area as the "chevy man"... anyway,,, i mentioned that these newly designed heads were not compatible with old school SBC's because of the redesigned water jackets/flow path..
No one sided with me of course,,,until a few month later chevy hipo mag had an article,,, how sweet it was!
I remember back in the day when the LT1 "reverse cooling" heads first came out, i got into a dispute with someone who was known around my area as the "chevy man"... anyway,,, i mentioned that these newly designed heads were not compatible with old school SBC's because of the redesigned water jackets/flow path..
No one sided with me of course,,,until a few month later chevy hipo mag had an article,,, how sweet it was!
08-04-2004, 04:28 PM
#57
TECH Addict
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by z98
Hotcam, shorties, AND a flowmaster?
That's almost the entire "MODS NOT TO DO TO AN LS1" list!
1 hotcam + 1 pair shorties + 1 flowmaster = 0 credibility
That's almost the entire "MODS NOT TO DO TO AN LS1" list!
1 hotcam + 1 pair shorties + 1 flowmaster = 0 credibility
You are correct. Sorry, I forgot to add that Flowmasters and Shorties do in fact suck, along with Hotcams, and my opinions.
08-04-2004, 04:36 PM
#58
10 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cali/Bay Area
Posts: 3,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Another_User
You are correct. Sorry, I forgot to add that Flowmasters and Shorties do in fact suck, along with Hotcams, and my opinions.
Dan
08-04-2004, 09:27 PM
#60
TECH Addict
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: sojourning....looking for my city whose builder and maker is God.
Posts: 2,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CaptUSA
Does it matter?
I don't think the difference in the 114lsa and the 115lsa is much to worry about. There! Someone said it!!!
