A Mild Cam With A Non Aggressive Ramp Rate?
10-29-2005, 04:40 PM
#41
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would these compare in terms of idle quality and drivabilty. Power & torque. Also which would put the most stress on the valvetrain?
Spend Inc. 1 222/222 .563./.563 @ 114
Comp Cams 212/218 .558/.563 @ 115
TR220 220/220 .553/.553 @ 114
Spend Inc. 1 222/222 .563./.563 @ 114
Comp Cams 212/218 .558/.563 @ 115
TR220 220/220 .553/.553 @ 114
10-30-2005, 02:20 AM
#42
TECH Senior Member
Quote:
How would these compare in terms of idle quality and drivabilty. Power & torque. Also which would put the most stress on the valvetrain?
Spend Inc. 1 222/222 .563./.563 @ 114
Comp Cams 212/218 .558/.563 @ 115
TR220 220/220 .553/.553 @ 114[/quote]
These are very similar cams.
Powerwise with good tuning, the 222 should squeeze 5 more rwhp out than the TR220.
In a GTO I wouldn't put anything smaller than 224.
Something like 224/224, .581/.581 115. That will pass emissions and get you closer to 380+ rwhp
The ramp rate will make it easier to drive and deliver the power when you need it. It being a non split helps in tuning also.
How would these compare in terms of idle quality and drivabilty. Power & torque. Also which would put the most stress on the valvetrain?
Spend Inc. 1 222/222 .563./.563 @ 114
Comp Cams 212/218 .558/.563 @ 115
TR220 220/220 .553/.553 @ 114[/quote]
Anyone else?
Powerwise with good tuning, the 222 should squeeze 5 more rwhp out than the TR220.
In a GTO I wouldn't put anything smaller than 224.
Something like 224/224, .581/.581 115. That will pass emissions and get you closer to 380+ rwhp
The ramp rate will make it easier to drive and deliver the power when you need it. It being a non split helps in tuning also.
