Scott97

I thought that you had the T-1 cam Ernest. <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0">

Great explanations by the way!

When are you gonna get a clutch so you can come with us to the strip?

We're going to RCR tonight. <img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[Burnout]" />

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

JMX and Visceral,

I think I know why your cars are running out of breath at high rpms. Two possible reasons and it's not valve float. If it was valve float, your hp would drop like a rock...I mean you'd lose 100 hp in a few hundred rpm...your dynos aren't doing that.

Possible reason #1:
Your cams could be installed too advanced. It's been proven time and time again that a properly sized cam in an LS1 makes tha most power under the curve when installed straight up. If you have a 112 LSA cam, you want the installed intake centerline to be 112. It's OK if the cam has some advance ground into it as long as it falls straight up in the motor. 99 out of 100 times, shops don't take the time to degree in the cams. If your cams were installed dot to dot (most likely), they could be at 106 intake centerline as easily as they could be at 116 intake centerline. You never know without checking it out with a degree wheel. When the cam is installed straight up, you will pull cleanly to the rev limiter.

Reason #2:
Too much valve spring pressure. I found this out the hard way. I've been running Crane dual springs with 140 seat and 375 open pressure and my dyno dropped like a rock above 6200 rpms...just like valve float. It wasn't valve float but the lifter collapsing under extreme pressure. Removing the inner spring dropped the pressure to 110/300 and no more problems.

I suspect the reason #1 because your dynos drop off smoothly. Mine dropped like a rock (reason #2).

Black Sunshine/ 00SS

iTrader: (1)

97C5, is that dyno with an auto or 6? The dynos dont seem to show any more power than the T1, though the idle may be better.

99RedHawk

Very well said John.. I know you did your research and have a great cam.. I still think the T1, B1 and C1 are extremely close in specs and anyone of them should work great..

I always heard rumors about bad lunati grinds but Tony and I never had problems with ours.. I ran 2 different B1`s , (a B2 .223 .223 .556.556 .112) and T1 and never had any problems.. I installed all of them straight up and never lost any power..I did try a test .228 and it sucked Bad!

Something else to consider is that with the new ls6 heads and ls6 intake options many people are using,,,the cams may need to be more aggresive..IMO With stage two ported heads ,, you can`t beat the T1, B1 or C1..IMO.

Raughammer

Here are just a few Hammer cam dynos.



and



Not to shabby for a little 222/222 cam. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

I gotta agree with Brooke, all three cams are really too similar to notice any differences in performance. If I get a C5, I'll most likely install a B1 cam because I would want to make sure the car passes emissions testing with catalytics. The B1 is a very nice cam as far as a balance of power and driveability and emissions. Its also a bit easier on the valvesprings than the aggressive closing ramp rates found on the C1.

Here is another good example of a B1 equipped car, Brooke's. It shows a dyno of the converter locked up and unlocked, and keep in mind this was almost 2 years ago and he still had a stock '99 LS1 intake and only MAC headers at the time.



John, I'd be curious to see how your longtube equipped, LS6 intake equipped, C1 cammed setup compares to Brooke's when both are locked up on the dyno. I think he wouldn't have gained much on peak hp from the longtubes (I didn't really), but I think the LS6 intake would have put him in the 430 rwhp range locked.

There are also some more 430+ rwhp B1/T1 cammed cars out there. At least they all have one thing in common, the heads <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0">

Tony


<img src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

97C5ENVY

Raughammer - Those numbers are what i've been seeing on car with the "Hammer Cam", but they also had LS6 ported heads. Did any of the cars in those dyno graphs you posted have LS1 ported heads or did they all have LS6 ported heads?


If i had to do the H/C over again i'd pay the extra $$$ to get the LS6 ported heads, as they seem to be good for an additional 15+ rwhp.

Raughammer

[quote]Originally posted by 97C5ENVY:
Raughammer - Those numbers are what i've been seeing on car with the "Hammer Cam", but they also had LS6 ported heads. Did any of the cars in those dyno graphs you posted have LS1 ported heads or did they all have LS6 ported heads?<hr></blockquote>
They ALL had/have LS1 heads. None of the cars in those dyno's had/have LS6 heads.

[quote]
If i had to do the H/C over again i'd pay the extra $$$ to get the LS6 ported heads, as they seem to be good for an additional 15+ rwhp [QUOTE]


Yea, those LS6 heads RULE. In retrospect, maybe I wish I had gone that route. But for the extra green, I had to pass. I am pretty happy with these stage 2 LS1 heads performance.

Raughammer-JC

97C5ENVY

Don't get me wrong, i love my setup. 400rwhp was my goal and i got it. The car pulls like crazy and is awesome to drive. It's just that if i had known then what i know now i would've opted for the LS6 heads.

Heck two bare LS6 cores go for about $1100, minus say $400 for your LS1 heads, which means the actual cost of the LS6 heads would be about $700. That's about the same price as most cat-back systems, and some long tube headers........but can get more hp/tq from the LS6 heads. So i see the upgragde to the LS6 heads as just another mod. JMO.

Raughammer

[quote]Originally posted by 97C5ENVY:
<strong> So i see the upgragde to the LS6 heads as just another mod. JMO.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I would concur.

But lordy that initial hit is HARD.

Those heads are NOT cheap.

JC

WhiteDiamond

I had the Lunati ground B1 cam with MTI Stage II heads in the ex-WS6 and really enjoyed them. I even ran the car through cats all the time and passed emissions testing in Colorado and Arizona(IM240 testing in AZ). The car pulled very consistent 432rwhp and 398rwtq numbers in this configuration. There may have been a little more with the cats removed, but what a sweet cam and set up. I am partial to the B1 cam and plan to use it in my C5, but I don't think you can go wrong with the T1, B1, or C1.

My dyno's look very similar to the other 6 speed dynos posted. I would post mine, but I don't have a site to put them on.

Todd

Visceral

iTrader: (1)

When my car starts working again :-/ MTI is going to dyno it with the 4.10s (same as the last dyno I posted, only with 4.10s instead of 3.42s), and then they are going to drop the exhaust and see if the power doesnt fall off as badly. The folks at MTI could only come up with the exhaust as a possible culprit. Back in the day, we would also be concerned with lifter preload. That can cause a slow dropoff in the top rpms. I dont know if I can control it here though. We'll see. I suspect that 411 isnt so bad if its through the full exhaust with no tuning. The MAFT used to get me 14+ hp on the dyno. Its not in the car now. If that is still the same, I could make 425 through the exhaust. I would be very pleased with that.

I use LS6 castings, and get the pocketbook lightening was painful :-/ But I think I'll go big ci someday, when Im *actually* rich (not just pretending).

Chris