383ss

iTrader: (14)

well, I'm currently have an H/L intake that will be ported when I get my new heads. I guess I am back to the thought that a 'reverse split' cam would be a good thing to try for my stroker.

Something like a 237/230?? 111 or 112 lsa? about .560-570 lift??
I'll probably call TR and see what they think, but I'm looking for input.

Also, I'm guessing this type of cam wouldn't work well if you wanted to use NOS in the future???

QUASAR

iTrader: (6)

What about a from a programming standpoint? Would this 111 lsa live with stock programming on a A4 or M6 car whatsoever? Or should it be assumed that you order this cam and ls1 edit at the same time? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

<img border="0" alt="[Burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" />

XtraCajunSS

iTrader: (2)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 383ss:
<strong>well, I'm currently have an H/L intake that will be ported when I get my new heads. I guess I am back to the thought that a 'reverse split' cam would be a good thing to try for my stroker.

Something like a 237/230?? 111 or 112 lsa? about .560-570 lift??
I'll probably call TR and see what they think, but I'm looking for input.

Also, I'm guessing this type of cam wouldn't work well if you wanted to use NOS in the future???</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If my thinking is correct, this cam does build signifigantly more cylinder pressure, hence more power... I would definitely talk to Geoff before using it with nitrous.

<small>[ May 07, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: XtraCajunSS ]</small>

Jason99T/A

iTrader: (21)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RED QUASAR:
<strong>What about a from a programming standpoint? Would this 111 lsa live with stock programming on a A4 or M6 car whatsoever? Or should it be assumed that you order this cam and ls1 edit at the same time? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

<img border="0" alt="[Burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm still using the stock idle RPM in my 6speed. It idles surprisingly well. I do have my TB blade drilled out some though. However, I have used the same size hole on every cam that has been in my car. The B1, TR 230 solid roller, TR224,etc. all idled fine with the current size hole.

An A4 car would defintely need a bump in idle. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Joe Kizzire

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Patrick G:
<strong>Joe Kizzire,

We have debated the merits of a 230/224 cam vs. a 230/230 cam. Conventional wisdom says the 230/230 cam should make more power than a 224/224 cam...even a 230/224 cam. As we all know, there's a thing called diminishing returns on any motor. When we approach that point, we no longer keep the abundant low end torque and still gain it up high. At the point of diminishing returns, what we gain on one end, we lose on the other. In essence, we just move the powerband up a notch. What Thunder Racing has been trying to find is what's the biggest cam you can put in these LS1s that will idle well, get good fuel economy, exhibit good street manners and then make power everywhere...basically, develop a cam that broadens the powerband, not just move it higher in the rpm range. That's a tall order for anybody.

The "reverse split" cams seem to give LS1 enthusiasts the best of both worlds. I think we will eventually approach a point where you will continue to see larger cams picking up the LS1s at higher rpms, but losing at lower rpms (the dreaded trade-off). Once you reach that point, only the serious racer will continue to tread forward and go bigger. For the most part, the bigger the cam, the more power it will make as long as you continue to turn the motor tighter. That's why the solid rollers are so attractive. Heck, if I had the dough, I'd be running one too. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Patrick</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Patrick first let me say the cam definitly made more power and Jason gets a pat on the back for doing a lot of work but you really don't know for sure why it made more power. Not ony was the intake duration increased but the lobe seperation was decreased and installed intake lobe centerline was changed which in turn changed all valve timing events. I'm sure with a 111 lobe seperation the cam has a choppy idle which would be good for the cruise scene.

The tuner in me would just like to see a 230/230
111 lsa cam installed just for yuks and giggles.
Overlap would increase so you should gain some intake scavaging so that alone should give you more bottom end.

Dyno testing is an experiment and like my chemistry teacher use to say " Joe you must only change one thing at a time or any data gathered cannot be used to draw any conclusions. It's just data." This is especially true when testing cams because when you change timing events on the intake lobe it changes overlap which affects the exhaust lobe.

Keep it up Jason.... you're doing good.

.

HP-GURU

Increase in exhaust duration will lose a bit of lower end, because exhaust valve opens earlier bleeding off power near the end of the power stroke.

It would close later - increasing overlap. But overlap requires rpm for it to work. More overlap, the more rpm for it to work for you.

Mike Norris

iTrader: (10)

Hey Jason,

Good numbers for sure. Congrats to you and Geoff and all at TR. Do you have a TR224 on a 111LSA dyno for a better comparison to the 230/224 111LSA. I believe the 3 degrees of difference does not give a real accurate comparison as there are gains just going to a tighter LSA.

Mike

HP-GURU

People need to expirament tightening the LSA down even more.

What happens with the higher HP cars is usually the manifold resonance tuning starts working against you.

We should develop as much tq/cyll pressure in the mid range as possible and hold it as long as possible.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Mike Norris,

I think my cam comparison is more valid than Jason's. I was running a TR 224/224 cam on a 112LSA. The Cam Pro Plus said it actually was 111.7 LSA. Next I swapped in the TR 230/224 on a 111LSA. The Cam Pro Plus said the LSA was actually 111.4. This is nearly the same LSA as the 224/224 cam, so I would say this is a fair comparison of cams with the same LSAs.

Check out the link for proof: www.converter.cc/TR230-224dyno.jpg

Basically the same LSA (111.7 vs 111.4)...only the duration has changed. True testimony to the power to be gained with the reverse split cams.

Patrick

HP-GURU

The reverse split is more than crutching for a poor intake port.

It allows for more cyllinder fill without using exhaust scavenging to provide it. More exhaust scavenging typically means you open exhaust valve earlier in the power stroke.

Anyhow, the intake wouldn't be a problem on the big stroker and big power 346 if it was 10-12" runner length with about 325-350cfm per runner.

Mike Norris

iTrader: (10)

Hey Patrick,

Thats more of what I am looking for. It looks like a true 230/224 111 to a 224/224 111 would be about 5-6RWHP gain and 2RWT and about across the board. Now how about doing a 114-114 comparison for better driveability and emissions passing. As quick as they run through cams it could be done in a day <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Thanks,

Mike

verbs

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Mike Norris:
<strong>Hey Patrick,

Thats more of what I am looking for. It looks like a true 230/224 111 to a 224/224 111 would be about 5-6RWHP gain and 2RWT and about across the board. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Didn't look that way from what I saw!!! The 224 cam made more hp and torque all the way up to about 5600rpm...and only at about 5800rpm did the 230/224 make more power than the 224/224.

So I wouldn't go so far to say "across the board"

Mike Norris

iTrader: (10)

verbs,

Thanks for pointing that out. Its hell getting older sometimes <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> Still, what I was mainly looking for was an honest same LSA comparison which this is.

Mike

TimZ28

Patrick,

Was your 224 dyno curve taken when you were having valvetrain issues? I just can't believe the gains at the upper 6K range were a result of the reverse-pattern or even the increase in intake duration. Also, comparing apples to apples would necessitate keeping the intake durations the same while reducing the exhaust duration on one cam to see if the benefit is from tightening up the exhaust timing or just increasing the intake duration. No one has done this.

Tim

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Tim:

An apples to apples comparison is exactly what I did. First, I solved my high rpm problems a couple of months ago (thanks to you, Vince and others). Next, I got some excellent wide-band dyno tuning at Thunder Racing in March to maximize my results with the TR 224/224 cam.

The LSA on the 224/224 was 111.7 and the LSA on the 230/224 cam is 111.4 so let's call it the same...for apples to apples comparison.

We dynoed the car on LS1 Joe's DynoJet with the TR 224/224 cam...pop it out and install the TR 230/224 cam. Instantly, we find all this new power on the top-end. Same day, same dyno, same weather, same operator. About as controlled as you can get in my opinion. The only other real difference between the two cams was the 224/224 cam was ground with 4 degrees of advance and the 230/224 cam had 2 degrees of advance. Both were installed dot to dot.

Patrick

TimZ28

I don't disagree with the idea the 230 will make more power... it will. But it is not accurate to make the conclusion that the new found power has anything due to the reverse-split. A better comparison would have to either compare a 224/224 to something like a 224/220 or compare the same 230/224 to a 230/230. It doesn't seem significant but it is. All you have proven so far is that an intake lobe of 230 will make more power at the top end versus the 224 intake lobe but haven't given any proof that having less exhaust duration had any impact here.

I'm not trying to bust your ***** but I do think a more valid comparison is needed.

Tim

XtraCajunSS

iTrader: (2)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by TimZ28:
<strong>I don't disagree with the idea the 230 will make more power... it will. But it is not accurate to make the conclusion that the new found power has anything due to the reverse-split. A better comparison would have to either compare a 224/224 to something like a 224/220 or compare the same 230/224 to a 230/230. It doesn't seem significant but it is. All you have proven so far is that an intake lobe of 230 will make more power at the top end versus the 224 intake lobe but haven't given any proof that having less exhaust duration had any impact here.

I'm not trying to bust your ***** but I do think a more valid comparison is needed.

Tim</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tim,

I agree we should test a 230/230 cam to prove/disprove the theory that we would gain top-end power at the expense of low-end torque. The initial test was done to see if we could make MORE power without that trade-off. It might be interesting "just for grins" to see what a smaller cam 224/220 would do... Would it make the same top-end with greater low-end torque? Or would it suprise us all. I think a valid test was performed when you consider the goal.

Besides, its much harder to get volunteers to try out a "smaller cam"!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Thanks,
Shane

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Tim,

As you know better than anybody, cams are about compromises. The idea for me, was trying to get the most power with the best streetability. You are correct about the added duration of the 230 vs. the older 224 intake lobe being responsible for the majority of the increased power. Had I put in a 230/230 cam, I would have made one of three things: 1 More Power, 2 Less Power, 3 The Same Power...hard to tell without testing.

What I can tell you with certainty is, a 230/230 111LSA cam would have idled much worse and had poorer driveability. Would that degradation in streetability be worth the possible increase in performance? Not for me. Until I see a single pattern 230 cam or even a conventional split duration 230 cam outperform mine with the same driveability, I'm not switching. I await further testing from the masses. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Patrick

Scalpel

iTrader: (4)

How would this same cam work on a 112 or 114 LSA? Thanks.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

In my opinion, a wider LSA would raise the rpm where peak torque and peak hp occur. The idle would be cleaner, but you'd be making peak power somewhere in the stratoshpere! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" />