quicksilvr

I am torn betweent these two cams. I am sure you all are sick of talking about them, but I am just really trying to figure out the little differences in them. My car is an A4 with a ST 3800 and the average bolt ons. I am looking for the nastiest idle and most all around power. I will ocasionaly spray but this car will mostly always be ran N/A so the 112 or 114 LSA isn't that big of an issue I rather set it up for N/A

Thanks for your help, Eric

Crazyquik

Well lets see, both single pattern cams, both aggressive ramps, both usually on a 112 LSA. One is 222 duration and one 224.

Are you going with custom tuning or just going to fiddle around and get it idling good on your own? If so, you'd probably want to get the Hammer cam. I'm not saying it works great with stock tuning, I'm saying it will probably be easier to get running good without custom tuning.

The TR cam is going to make power a bit higher in the rev range. If you're going to stay at or under a 6600 rpm limiter I'd probably go with the Hammer cam, although I'm sure the TR works fine under 6600 rpm. I just think to get the most out of it you may need to spin the motor a little higher. More duration makes more power, but it also raises the rpm band. More rpm will also be harder on the auto tranny.

Both are good proven cams that will make power and add some lope to your life. I'd go with the Hammer cam since the powerband will be a little lower and more usable and getting it to idle w/o programming will be easier.

J.

quicksilvr

Thank you very much for the information great reply. Now does Comp make both of these or are they different brands. Thanks for taking your time to answer these worn out ?'s I really appreciate it.

Eric

Crazyquik

The Hammer is a Lunati grind.

The TR cam is, well I guess its got some TR propritory ramps on it.

Don't just go pick another cam with the same duration and lift thinking its about the same cam, because the ramp speed could be vastly different.

Jason99T/A

iTrader: (21)

Those two cams are real close in performance and driveability and I don't think you will see much of a difference between them. We have quite a few local guys using the TR 224 cam in A4 cars and they are more than happy with it.

Also, there are many other factors that go into how a cam will drive on the street besides just the duration at .050 lift. You need to look at .006 lift as well. My old B1 spec'd out to 223* duration @ .050 lift and the TR 224s come out to 224* @ .050 lift. However, the TR 224 cam has ~10* less duration @ .006 lift compared to my B1. This is a big reason why the TR 224 cam drives better than the B1 did, among other factors.

Also, Comp grinds the Hammer cam for MTI, not Lunati. As mentioned above, the TR 224 cam is a proprietary grind.

Jason

Raughammer

True... Comp makes the (C1) Hammer for MTI (or any other shop that wants those specs)

There is a wealth of info on both of these cams (hammer and the 224) on my web page.
Click on the "mod button" on the left and then the cam info link.

Included are real world user comments on both of these cams.

The Hammer has VERY fast ramps. The ramps open later than the B1/T1 cams yet offer more lift and slightly more duration with out negatively afecting idle.

The (C1) Hammer cam has more than done me right. For a "street car" that doesnt want to rev much over 6600. It is the one I would recommend.

Speartech

iTrader: (14)

What valve spring are you running with your Hammer cam?

John

Crazyquik

Ahh, I didn't even think about the duration at .006"

Raughammer

[quote]Originally posted by Speartech:
<strong>What valve spring are you running with your Hammer cam?

John</strong><hr></blockquote>

The MTI dual springs. And they work ...GREAT!

bigSS

... could someone elaborate on this .006 duration? I haven't heard about this before, and find it really interesting.

Geoff

iTrader: (3)

For the record, both of these cams have very similar performance and drivability characteristics. You won't go wrong with either one.

A common misconception is that duration a .050" lift will totally dictate the characteristics of a given cam lobe. Actually this only one factor in defining the characteristics of the lobe. Most aftermarket hydraulic cams sold today are supplied with an 'advertised' duration number, a .050" lift duration number, and a lift number that is the result of the lift of the lobe being multiplied by the rockerarm ratio.

Common industry practice on hydraulic cams is that the 'advertised' number is actually the duration at .006" lift. Essentially this is the point at which the valve is just starting to open and when it is almost totally closed. In my opinion these events define the RPM band and drivability characteristcs of the cam to a much greater degree than the the duration a .050" numbers do. Think about it like this: This event is the actual amount of time the valve is off of the seat. What happens after the valve is off of the seat may define how MUCH torque is being made but not WHERE (RPM wise) it is being made.

As a real world example we have dyno tested our 224 cam against the Lunati 221/.558 lift cam and with motors in the exact same trim (headers,intakes,etc.) and consistantly made more torque below 4000 RPM. This flies in the face of the thought that the 224 should be better at high RPM but be a loser lower in the RPM band. Why is this? The 224 cam has about 10 degrees less duration at .006" than the 221 cam from Lunati.

I would also like to point out though that what I have just stated is just part of the total equation in cam design. There are MANY factors that affect how a cam will perform in a motor such as overlap, ramp speed, lobe area, etc. just related to the cam. Every engine design also has different needs based cylinder head design, intake manifold, cubic inches,etc. It would be very easy to write a book on this! I think in the end most of the succesful cam designs have come from testing what you think works and documenting the results. If you do enough controlled testing (and we have tested a LOT of cams) it soon becomes very easy to see what works and what doesn't for a given engine design.

Geoff
www.thunderracing.com

Damian

iTrader: (89)

Damn good post Geoff....

Most of us know that some cams can be dyno queens, but not duplicate the same #'s at the track. Raughammer has shown us that the Hammer cam is proven to run the #'s at the track.

My question is this.....Has the Thunder cam been proven at the track?? I'm curious how it does on the strip. I don't think i've read about anyone running with this cam yet. Anybody?

Josh

bigSS

...wow... just when I think i'm beginning to understand cams... <img src="images/icons/smile.gif" border="0"> Thanks for the great post, Geof.

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

To answer one of the initial questions...

I think TR 224/112 will be more lopey than Hammer.

Increases in duration will make cams lope harder.

You shoulda heard my old 236/240/111lsa cam. <img src="images/icons/smile.gif" border="0">

quicksilvr

Wow all I can say is thanks for all the great information. One thing I would like to see too is some track times from these two cams (no heads) Johns car had heads put on at the same time of the cam. It would have been cool to see just what it would have run with the hammer cam.

Thanks again, Eric

JS

iTrader: (4)

Well I have tested the TR against a 216-530 cam and let me tell u its ALOT better.

Try 9RWHP better at peak but it KILLED the 216 from 3000 to 4500. About 15RWHP/13RWTQ in that area...

Results at the track were good too
I had a DA withn 100FT of each cam and the TR was CONSISTANTLY 1 tenth and 1.2 MPH better.

Not to mention I'm shifting at 6200 which I know is alittle low for the setup I have.I would love to try a 6400 shift point and see if I could eek another .03 outta the TR Cam.

As far as ilde,its GREAT
Steady at 950,No rolling or surging
I have a auto and my TR Cam is cut on the 112LSA

Et
11.42/1.51/117.47 w/S1 heads,Macs,Ory,Ptb,LS1 Edit,Tp4200,3.73's...Race wegit a WHOPPING 3550lbs

The cam works
JS