About the reverse split fad
Teching In
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Murrysville, PA
Re: About the reverse split fad I'm about to try this design on my 396 cid small block stroker 89 Vette 6 speed. My heads are competition ported AFR 195's and my intake is a ported and extrude honed Accel Super Ram. The Super Ram has very long runners and a big plenum. From the valve to the plenum is 21". This gives me a big fat torque curve (434 to the wheels at 4000) and not so not HP (363 to the wheels at 5000). I had an engineer design me a reverse split cam based upon all my components with a 230 degree intake duration .565" lift and a 226 exhaust duration .510" lift ground on a 114 LSA angle. My plan is to shorten the runners to 19.5" to raise the peak RPM point to 5500. The intake lobe has an aggressive ramp and the exhaust a much less aggressive ramp. The program used to develop the cam was dynomation. I'm excited about this. My goal is to remain smog legal (PA is tough), have a decent idle, keep most of my midrange and gain gobs of upper HP. The model actually shows a 50HP increase in HP at 6000 over my current cam (220/230 duration, .544/.547 lift 112 LSA).
Staging Lane
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Houston, Texas USA
Re: About the reverse split fad This has got to be one of the most retarded threads I've ever taken the time to read.
Can someone really be that naieve to believe that a cam alone makes the car a strip monster??
Campbell did fuggin awesome getting mid-10's, but there was much more to do with his track times than simply his choice of cams. What about his car's weight? Or how about his gear choices, or his TC stall RPM?
C'mon, folks here are a lot smarter than that, to think that the cam is the difference maker.
This is the kind of thread I'd expect on LS1.com, not here.
Can someone really be that naieve to believe that a cam alone makes the car a strip monster??
Campbell did fuggin awesome getting mid-10's, but there was much more to do with his track times than simply his choice of cams. What about his car's weight? Or how about his gear choices, or his TC stall RPM?
C'mon, folks here are a lot smarter than that, to think that the cam is the difference maker.
This is the kind of thread I'd expect on LS1.com, not here.
Launching!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, Tx
Re: About the reverse split fad </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Dean98TA:
<strong> This has got to be one of the most retarded threads I've ever taken the time to read.
Can someone really be that naieve to believe that a cam alone makes the car a strip monster??
Campbell did fuggin awesome getting mid-10's, but there was much more to do with his track times than simply his choice of cams. What about his car's weight? Or how about his gear choices, or his TC stall RPM?
C'mon, folks here are a lot smarter than that, to think that the cam is the difference maker.
This is the kind of thread I'd expect on LS1.com, not here. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have to agree.....its pretty damn <img border="0" alt="[rainbow]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_rainbow.gif" />
But then again....right above this post is Pro Stock Johns "10 steps to a turbo car"...and we all know how he pioneered NA combos! I think the Ls1.com types are filtering over <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
Chris
<strong> This has got to be one of the most retarded threads I've ever taken the time to read.
Can someone really be that naieve to believe that a cam alone makes the car a strip monster??
Campbell did fuggin awesome getting mid-10's, but there was much more to do with his track times than simply his choice of cams. What about his car's weight? Or how about his gear choices, or his TC stall RPM?
C'mon, folks here are a lot smarter than that, to think that the cam is the difference maker.
This is the kind of thread I'd expect on LS1.com, not here. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have to agree.....its pretty damn <img border="0" alt="[rainbow]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_rainbow.gif" />
But then again....right above this post is Pro Stock Johns "10 steps to a turbo car"...and we all know how he pioneered NA combos! I think the Ls1.com types are filtering over <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
Chris
Thread Starter
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,078
Likes: 1
From: Republic of Texas
Re: About the reverse split fad </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Dean98TA:
<strong> This has got to be one of the most retarded threads I've ever taken the time to read.
Can someone really be that naieve to believe that a cam alone makes the car a strip monster??
Campbell did fuggin awesome getting mid-10's, but there was much more to do with his track times than simply his choice of cams. What about his car's weight? Or how about his gear choices, or his TC stall RPM?
C'mon, folks here are a lot smarter than that, to think that the cam is the difference maker.
This is the kind of thread I'd expect on LS1.com, not here. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Weight, gears,, stall, all that makes a difference? Really??? Thanks for your helpful input on this thread. And, thanks for letting us know that a cam does not make a difference. That really is a new one <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> Maybe the rest of us can somday be a fraction as knowledgable as you last two posters lol. If you read again and think real hard, maybe yall can figure out what the real point of this post is. Your two comments are the only ones that remind me of ls1.com.
<strong> This has got to be one of the most retarded threads I've ever taken the time to read.
Can someone really be that naieve to believe that a cam alone makes the car a strip monster??
Campbell did fuggin awesome getting mid-10's, but there was much more to do with his track times than simply his choice of cams. What about his car's weight? Or how about his gear choices, or his TC stall RPM?
C'mon, folks here are a lot smarter than that, to think that the cam is the difference maker.
This is the kind of thread I'd expect on LS1.com, not here. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Weight, gears,, stall, all that makes a difference? Really??? Thanks for your helpful input on this thread. And, thanks for letting us know that a cam does not make a difference. That really is a new one <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> Maybe the rest of us can somday be a fraction as knowledgable as you last two posters lol. If you read again and think real hard, maybe yall can figure out what the real point of this post is. Your two comments are the only ones that remind me of ls1.com.
Re: About the reverse split fad i thought this thread started out as a discussion of power made at the rearwheels with a newer style thought on camshaft design (yea turboguys been doing this a while). it was not about track times=setup. a different cam can made a few RWHP difference depending on the tune and setup. at the track, most of us know it is negligible difference with that extra few RWHP.
so.....back to the topic.
so.....back to the topic.
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,246
Likes: 3
From: Troy, AL
Re: About the reverse split fad I have a question about this for the guys with smaller cams. If you have a 220/220 cam and decided to go with a 224/220, wouldn't you gain more from a 224/224 or am I wrong?"
I think it would be more interesting to compare cams with equal total duration. A 224/224 is a bigger cam that will have more overlap and idle slightly rougher, all else being equal. I'd compare a 224/220 and a 222/222 instead. Same total duration. Same overlap. Should idle about the same. I think the 224/220 will make better power. I'd like to know.
I think it would be more interesting to compare cams with equal total duration. A 224/224 is a bigger cam that will have more overlap and idle slightly rougher, all else being equal. I'd compare a 224/220 and a 222/222 instead. Same total duration. Same overlap. Should idle about the same. I think the 224/220 will make better power. I'd like to know.
Thread Starter
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,078
Likes: 1
From: Republic of Texas
Re: About the reverse split fad </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by LIL SS:
<strong> 11 Bravo Just for info.. On the average (In my pole) 74% of the people do not have aftermarket reverse split cams. This is the break down so far..
14% Stock
40% Single pattern
21% Standard split
26% Reverse split
With these numbers I think it is clear why you see less reverse splits way up on the list. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, it looks that way.
<strong> 11 Bravo Just for info.. On the average (In my pole) 74% of the people do not have aftermarket reverse split cams. This is the break down so far..
14% Stock
40% Single pattern
21% Standard split
26% Reverse split
With these numbers I think it is clear why you see less reverse splits way up on the list. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, it looks that way.
Thread Starter
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,078
Likes: 1
From: Republic of Texas
Re: About the reverse split fad </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Dean98TA:
<strong> I'm trying to see the logic that ties the times posted in LS1Tech.com as overwhelming evidence that single pattern cams are solely responsible for the fastest times.
If you are interested in seeing how much or less power a motor makes with different cams, shouldn't you be comparing... oh, I dunno... horsepower?
'Quicker' doesn't always translate to more power, so why use that as the defining factor? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the Engine section. In this section we don't talk about torque converters. We talk about things like camshafts, and engine set ups. Sometimes, we ask why the fastest guys on the board have their engine set up the way they do. To include camshafts. for example "Why do the fastest guys seem to run single patterns." I don't know who said a camshaft is soley responsible for track times. Not me. If, for unknown reasons, you believe it is an irrelavant discussion, awesome. But on this site most guys try to keep smart *** comments to themself, or at least use some tact. Unlike ls1.com that you speak of. Thanks.
<strong> I'm trying to see the logic that ties the times posted in LS1Tech.com as overwhelming evidence that single pattern cams are solely responsible for the fastest times.
If you are interested in seeing how much or less power a motor makes with different cams, shouldn't you be comparing... oh, I dunno... horsepower?
'Quicker' doesn't always translate to more power, so why use that as the defining factor? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the Engine section. In this section we don't talk about torque converters. We talk about things like camshafts, and engine set ups. Sometimes, we ask why the fastest guys on the board have their engine set up the way they do. To include camshafts. for example "Why do the fastest guys seem to run single patterns." I don't know who said a camshaft is soley responsible for track times. Not me. If, for unknown reasons, you believe it is an irrelavant discussion, awesome. But on this site most guys try to keep smart *** comments to themself, or at least use some tact. Unlike ls1.com that you speak of. Thanks.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
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
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
From: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Re: About the reverse split fad I would have to agree with Colonel, Dean and Chris Marsh.
11 Bravo: Your observations really aren't conclusive. One of the few cars that has switched from a single pattern to reverse split, Jason99ta, has shown great improvements both on the dyno and the dragstrip. Hell his car is running as fast as one of our moderators superstrokers, is that not impressive?
I would also like to point out that reverse splits seem to hold peak power much longer than single patterns and should be shifted accordingly. There are just way to many variables as Dean said.
11 Bravo: Your observations really aren't conclusive. One of the few cars that has switched from a single pattern to reverse split, Jason99ta, has shown great improvements both on the dyno and the dragstrip. Hell his car is running as fast as one of our moderators superstrokers, is that not impressive?
I would also like to point out that reverse splits seem to hold peak power much longer than single patterns and should be shifted accordingly. There are just way to many variables as Dean said.
Staging Lane
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Houston, Texas USA
Re: About the reverse split fad Let me see if I mis-interpreted the gist of this thread...
Your title starts it off by calling the use of reverse-split cams a "fad". Then in an apparent further attempt to discredit the good results folks are getting with reverse split cams on the dyno ("So what"), you imply that they really won't deliver the same results on the track as single-pattern cams because there aren't as many fast times for reverse-split cams listed on LS1Tech.com as there are for single pattern cams??
Is that it?
Sounds like you have an agenda against the reverse-split cams for some reason.
Look, some folks may not like being a "follower" and want to try new ideas for themselves. I don't see why anyone should be made to feel like they are making a mistake just because they try something different and aren't just following the herd, especially when it looks like what they are trying is yielding good results.
It doesn't mean you "did it wrong" if you don't build your motor with the same cam that Joe Blow has.
I don't even have a reverse-split cam, but I do remember the grief I got when I picked the big cam I'm currently using, how it is too big and I should use the "proven, tried and true" cam that so and so has in their motor.
Now, others are running with cams just as big as mine, and quite successfully too. Give it a while and you may end up seeing more folks running with reverse split cams.
Your title starts it off by calling the use of reverse-split cams a "fad". Then in an apparent further attempt to discredit the good results folks are getting with reverse split cams on the dyno ("So what"), you imply that they really won't deliver the same results on the track as single-pattern cams because there aren't as many fast times for reverse-split cams listed on LS1Tech.com as there are for single pattern cams??
Is that it?
Sounds like you have an agenda against the reverse-split cams for some reason.
Look, some folks may not like being a "follower" and want to try new ideas for themselves. I don't see why anyone should be made to feel like they are making a mistake just because they try something different and aren't just following the herd, especially when it looks like what they are trying is yielding good results.
It doesn't mean you "did it wrong" if you don't build your motor with the same cam that Joe Blow has.
I don't even have a reverse-split cam, but I do remember the grief I got when I picked the big cam I'm currently using, how it is too big and I should use the "proven, tried and true" cam that so and so has in their motor.
Now, others are running with cams just as big as mine, and quite successfully too. Give it a while and you may end up seeing more folks running with reverse split cams.
Thread Starter
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,078
Likes: 1
From: Republic of Texas
Re: About the reverse split fad </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong>
11 Bravo: Your observations really aren't conclusive. One of the few cars that has switched from a single pattern to reverse split, Jason99ta, has shown great improvements both on the dyno and the dragstrip. Hell his car is running as fast as one of our moderators superstrokers, is that not impressive?
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is the kind of info I was looking for when I started this thread. I'm trying to learn more about reverse splits. I look at the list of track times. I see most have single patterns. I wonder why, so I make a post. I ask if I'm missing something. I comment that some have impressive times. I say I would consider one if it would help make me faster. I never put anyone down because of a camshaft <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> You people are killing me!
<strong>
11 Bravo: Your observations really aren't conclusive. One of the few cars that has switched from a single pattern to reverse split, Jason99ta, has shown great improvements both on the dyno and the dragstrip. Hell his car is running as fast as one of our moderators superstrokers, is that not impressive?
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is the kind of info I was looking for when I started this thread. I'm trying to learn more about reverse splits. I look at the list of track times. I see most have single patterns. I wonder why, so I make a post. I ask if I'm missing something. I comment that some have impressive times. I say I would consider one if it would help make me faster. I never put anyone down because of a camshaft <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> You people are killing me!
TECH Junkie
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
From: At the office
Re: About the reverse split fad </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 11 Bravo:
<strong>I wonder why someone would choose a, say, 230/226 when a 226/226 would look to give equal or better track times, and probably run smoother. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one would because most likely the 230/226 will yield better times.
The TR 230/224 cam puts down identical #'s for the most part to the TR 224/224 until above 5500rpms or so, and that is when it starts to separate itself from the smaller cam.
The advantages are two fold IMO...a little more power above 5500 rpms, which is the rpm range you spend most your time at on the track.....and the ability to stay in each lower gear just a bit longer.
And in conclusion, this thread has turned very <img border="0" alt="[rainbow]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_rainbow.gif" />
<strong>I wonder why someone would choose a, say, 230/226 when a 226/226 would look to give equal or better track times, and probably run smoother. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one would because most likely the 230/226 will yield better times.
The TR 230/224 cam puts down identical #'s for the most part to the TR 224/224 until above 5500rpms or so, and that is when it starts to separate itself from the smaller cam.
The advantages are two fold IMO...a little more power above 5500 rpms, which is the rpm range you spend most your time at on the track.....and the ability to stay in each lower gear just a bit longer.
And in conclusion, this thread has turned very <img border="0" alt="[rainbow]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_rainbow.gif" />
Staging Lane
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Houston, Texas USA
Re: About the reverse split fad Bravo, you mean re-read this?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All I can go by is the list in the drag section. The fastest LS1's are running single patterns, with a few regular splits in there. The reverse splits don't seem to even be in the ballgame. There has been time to sort out tuning issues. What's up with them, why are they so hot? Surely something other than high dyno #'s.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm trying to see the logic that ties the times posted in LS1Tech.com as overwhelming evidence that single pattern cams are solely responsible for the fastest times.
If you are interested in seeing how much or less power a motor makes with different cams, shouldn't you be comparing... oh, I dunno... horsepower?
'Quicker' doesn't always translate to more power, so why use that as the defining factor?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All I can go by is the list in the drag section. The fastest LS1's are running single patterns, with a few regular splits in there. The reverse splits don't seem to even be in the ballgame. There has been time to sort out tuning issues. What's up with them, why are they so hot? Surely something other than high dyno #'s.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm trying to see the logic that ties the times posted in LS1Tech.com as overwhelming evidence that single pattern cams are solely responsible for the fastest times.
If you are interested in seeing how much or less power a motor makes with different cams, shouldn't you be comparing... oh, I dunno... horsepower?
'Quicker' doesn't always translate to more power, so why use that as the defining factor?
Re: About the reverse split fad I think the split cam are the result of designers taking S/E and giving it to the masses. Also think about it, a 227/224 has the big intake duration but makes the power lower where you can still use it because of the lower exhaust duration.
Re: About the reverse split fad 11 Bravo Just for info.. On the average (In my pole) 74% of the people do not have aftermarket reverse split cams. This is the break down so far..
14% Stock
40% Single pattern
21% Standard split
26% Reverse split
With these numbers I think it is clear why you see less reverse splits way up on the list.
14% Stock
40% Single pattern
21% Standard split
26% Reverse split
With these numbers I think it is clear why you see less reverse splits way up on the list.
