Stealth II Cam - Not too good
10-02-2005, 01:28 PM
#22
TECH Senior Member
Originally Posted by ninobrn99
off topic,
so im gonna need to get 7.735 PR's if i go with ls6 heads?? stock unmilled or ported.
so im gonna need to get 7.735 PR's if i go with ls6 heads?? stock unmilled or ported.
Idealy LS6 valves on stock heads with stock cam require p-rods that are 6mm shorter
10-02-2005, 01:37 PM
#23
TECH Junkie
Join Date: May 2003
Location: its fucking cold
Posts: 3,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also find a little hard to believe that a stock LS6 (plus LT's) in a 3700 lb f body would trap that high. Z06's with headers usually trap 118-120, and they weigh 500 lbs less. Not saying you're lying, just saying it is a little hard to believe.
I would look to see that the cam was installed properly. Post up the dyno graph if you have it, please.
I would look to see that the cam was installed properly. Post up the dyno graph if you have it, please.
10-02-2005, 04:01 PM
#24
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here and there
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just talked to him and he's using Manley 7.40 pushrods. Does this means the valves are hanging open? Is it possible that this is making him lose cylinder pressure?
Still trying to get a copy of the dyno sheet and find out any more info about the tune.
Again, I appreciate the feedback.
BlueSix, I understand if you are skeptical of the traps. Those traps came in very good air, and in the heat the traps went back down to around 114 to 115 so it didn't trap 118 all the time, but several times in good air.
I've seen bone stock Z06s trap as high as 118 in very good air with great drivers, so I don't see why a stock LS6 with LTs with more weight and a very good driver (which he is) couldn't trap that high in very good air. I also think the dyno reads low and the numbers were skewed because of the gears and 12 bolt.
Still trying to get a copy of the dyno sheet and find out any more info about the tune.
Again, I appreciate the feedback.
BlueSix, I understand if you are skeptical of the traps. Those traps came in very good air, and in the heat the traps went back down to around 114 to 115 so it didn't trap 118 all the time, but several times in good air.
I've seen bone stock Z06s trap as high as 118 in very good air with great drivers, so I don't see why a stock LS6 with LTs with more weight and a very good driver (which he is) couldn't trap that high in very good air. I also think the dyno reads low and the numbers were skewed because of the gears and 12 bolt.
10-02-2005, 07:59 PM
#25
TECH Resident
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MaximusPrime
I also think the dyno reads low and the numbers were skewed because of the gears and 12 bolt.
10-03-2005, 07:56 AM
#26
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here and there
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TroubledWine3
The numbers wouldn't be SKEWED because of the gears and 12 bolt. The numbers are correct because of the amount of power the 12 bolt and gears eat up as opposed to 10 bolt/3.42s. Now if the dyno read low compared to several other dynos, then the numbers would be shady.
10-03-2005, 10:16 AM
#27
TECH Senior Member
Originally Posted by MaximusPrime
I just talked to him and he's using Manley 7.40 pushrods. Does this means the valves are hanging open? Is it possible that this is making him lose cylinder pressure?
that could explain your choppy graph also.
10-03-2005, 10:53 AM
#28
TECH Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlueSix
I also find a little hard to believe that a stock LS6 (plus LT's) in a 3700 lb f body would trap that high. Z06's with headers usually trap 118-120, and they weigh 500 lbs less. Not saying you're lying, just saying it is a little hard to believe.
Last edited by AOC; 10-04-2005 at 09:03 AM.
10-03-2005, 10:56 PM
#29
10 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PREDATOR-Z
Why blame the cam,
i trap 11.13x at 121 in a A4 with that cam and PRC 2.5, 5.3L heads, 11.x:1 SCR
Something else is not right.
i trap 11.13x at 121 in a A4 with that cam and PRC 2.5, 5.3L heads, 11.x:1 SCR
Something else is not right.
I just ran my car with my new setup, Stealth II cam, Yank SS4000, and a built trans.
It was storming all week and the track was still damp, DA was +1393
2.265 8.595 89.47 12.975 ???
2.015 8.259 89.79 12.622 ???
2.180 8.360 89.45 12.731 113.03
2.374 8.690 89.46 13.072 112.73
2.404 8.853 89.11 13.250 ???
2.004 7.971 90.19 12.322 113.38
1.685 7.505 91.25 11.815 114.23
1.731 7.577 91.07 11.888 114.19
100 shot
2.035 7.880 95.35 11.934 ???
1.760 7.300 98.10 11.295 123.30
10-04-2005, 08:01 AM
#31
TECH Senior Member
Originally Posted by Drew778
I just ran my car with my new setup, Stealth II cam, Yank SS4000, and a built trans.
It was storming all week and the track was still damp, DA was +1393
2.265 8.595 89.47 12.975 ???
2.015 8.259 89.79 12.622 ???
2.180 8.360 89.45 12.731 113.03
2.374 8.690 89.46 13.072 112.73
2.404 8.853 89.11 13.250 ???
2.004 7.971 90.19 12.322 113.38
1.685 7.505 91.25 11.815 114.23
1.731 7.577 91.07 11.888 114.19
100 shot
2.035 7.880 95.35 11.934 ???
1.760 7.300 98.10 11.295 123.30
It was storming all week and the track was still damp, DA was +1393
2.265 8.595 89.47 12.975 ???
2.015 8.259 89.79 12.622 ???
2.180 8.360 89.45 12.731 113.03
2.374 8.690 89.46 13.072 112.73
2.404 8.853 89.11 13.250 ???
2.004 7.971 90.19 12.322 113.38
1.685 7.505 91.25 11.815 114.23
1.731 7.577 91.07 11.888 114.19
100 shot
2.035 7.880 95.35 11.934 ???
1.760 7.300 98.10 11.295 123.30