Worth it to swap out TR224 for FM13 or TSP233/239
12-28-2004, 07:26 PM
#22
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new TSP cam is a 233/239 .600/.603 112+2 . Just bought mine! Looking forward to installing it. Jason was saying that its making really good torque over the 231/237 as well as ride quality. He also mentioned that it would work great with the stock 3.42s. Can't beat the $310 special too!! 
12-28-2004, 09:05 PM
#23
I gained roughly 25 hp if you figure in 5 hp loss from changing out aluminum driveshaft for chromemoly steele and going from 4.10's to 4.30's since last dyno with the c1.
Futral tuned it tonight and got 419.93 hp and 405 tq out of it . thats also a gain of 17 ft lb's of tq.
car drives great and has lots of power .
Note: The valves start to float around 6600 though with the 918's, I will change them later for some good dual springs.
Futral tuned it tonight and got 419.93 hp and 405 tq out of it . thats also a gain of 17 ft lb's of tq.
car drives great and has lots of power .
Note: The valves start to float around 6600 though with the 918's, I will change them later for some good dual springs.
12-28-2004, 11:49 PM
#24
TECH Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Pottstown, PA
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been really looking into both the TSP233/239 and the Futral FM13/FM14 cams, looking at every post, dyno graph, and sound clip I can find. As far as I can tell, the're all making some really good numbers with decent idle/start-ups. I cant seem to find a downside in my application of either. The FM13 seems pretty damn impressive given its size, but on the flipside, TSP's running a killer deal on their setup and the 233/239 also very impressive. The only possible downside to this cam is an increase in valvetrain noise although the FM13 is probably close. I understand that the FM13 has slightly slower ramp rates than the TSP's XE-R lobes. I'm probably just wasting time in making this decision as I dont think I can really go wrong with one over the other.
So it looks like I will be pulling the trigger tomorrow, after I talk to Mikey first.
So it looks like I will be pulling the trigger tomorrow, after I talk to Mikey first.
12-29-2004, 12:15 AM
#25
TECH Junkie
Join Date: May 2003
Location: its fucking cold
Posts: 3,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's keep this thread going...i'm trying to decide between a TR224 and the F13. The 224's low end torque looks very enticing, especially considering the weight of my car. But the F13's top end pulls farther into the rev's, and pulls harder. Decisions, decisions...
12-29-2004, 06:46 PM
#26
Originally Posted by BlueSix
Let's keep this thread going...i'm trying to decide between a TR224 and the F13. The 224's low end torque looks very enticing, especially considering the weight of my car. But the F13's top end pulls farther into the rev's, and pulls harder. Decisions, decisions...
if you go with f13 , just go with dual springs, it does pull all the way to 6700 though with no less low end that I noticed wiht 4.30 gears.
12-30-2004, 01:18 AM
#27
TECH Junkie
Join Date: May 2003
Location: its fucking cold
Posts: 3,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was planning on dual springs regardless, just from a caution stand point. i will be keeping the stock 3.46 gears, but i have the M12 tranny, so things should work out nicely. I am leaning towards the F13, seems like a great all around cam and it isn't too big either.
12-30-2004, 03:52 AM
#29
I know with my 4.30's in second gear driving at 2500 I, I can stick the gas down and spin the 315x35x17 Nittos over from the tq. However, It really shines from 4000 and up. YOu will be happy either way, tr224 or fm 13. I did not have the 224 cam so I really dont know , I had teh 222/222-.566/.566 112lsa C1 hammer cam.
