I'm so confused on what kind of cam to buy....what is the BEST possible motor cam to buy??

There are too many choices, but I want to shift at like 6600-6700

 

There are also many more variables in drag racing than there are in dyno tests. In order to use track testing to effectively compare 2 company's h/c setups, you'd have to use the same car, find the same weather conditions, use the same driver, same amount of track prep, etc, etc, etc. If David were to pull 125 MPH out of his new MTI setup, it wouldn't be fair for someone to conclude that his setup is superior to the G5 setup of Lou's aforementioned customer with the C5 merely because (hypothetically) all Lou's man may be able to muster is 123-124. Point being (if we could all agree on what aspects of a given dyno graph would yield the best ET/MPH), a dyno graph is an easier comparison tool, IMO.

That said, Lou, I am a serious drag racer and would be perfectly willing to try out your free G5 h/c package!!! <img border="0" alt="[pimp]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_pimp.gif" />

Man, I have no shame. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Embarrassed]" src="gr_emb.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

 

G5 Cam car. Fastest ET is 11.72 with very little weight reduction. Two weeks ago at the track around 70 to 80 degrees and I ran the following three times of 11.74, 11.76, and 11.80. Car has not been fine tune and RPM's are set low. I don't know the norm as consider fast for a H/C car, but I am happy with mine. I only have a little bitty 3200 vig. convertor. Hopes this assists in the assessment of the G5 cam. I have installed a port and polish throttle body and I am hoping for a little more ET. Car seems and feels to be faster, but I can only tell at the track.

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BIGBOS:
<strong>I'm so confused on what kind of cam to buy....what is the BEST possible motor cam to buy??

There are too many choices, but I want to shift at like 6600-6700</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is very confusing isnt it? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" />

 

Yea, now that these reverse patterns have come out and the lowest dyno # I've seen from the bigger ones hasn't been lower than 400rwhp most of the time... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

 

Lou...I'll be your guinea pig. I'll wear the stickers on the car and preach LG Motorsports all you want. I'm a serious drag racer as well. I'm only a couple hours away <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Tony...I swear, MTI never sleeps. Those are great numbers <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

<small>[ June 05, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: DevilBird ]</small>

 

Tony, can you provide the head flow numbers/ graph for ALL the ports on that head?

 

Now Terry, why would you say that? I didn't hear you make any comments about the MTI graph.
We have about 20 cars out there now with this package, and you must ask yourself which power curve you would think is better. Plot the torque numbers at every 500rpm from 3000 to 6400. What do you see?

This was at a dyno day at LGM, with full exhaust, A borla Stinger on a C5 Corvette with NO pulleys, No cats, and a stock TB, and our own G2 air lid.

If some of you are going to disparrage the G5 package, you need to see the G5 graph next to what is now considered to be the new ground breaking discovery. Now someone needs to post the Thunder reverse split to check it out also.

And if any of you all think the G5 is such a "Large" cam, you will see that the graph shows that it is just a "Powerful" little old cam.

Later.

Lou Gigliotti

<small>[ June 05, 2002, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: LG Motorsports ]</small>

 

Regarding the whole open-header issue, obviously, most cars make more power when the headers are open instead of through a full exhaust. However, that leads be to believe that if an exhaust is properly designed, there will be minimal diference in the "open vs. closed" power numbers.

For instance, I am gearing up to do heads/cam on my Z28... I already have the SLP headers (yeah, yeah, I have had them for over a year...), which as many of you know come with a 3" Y-pipe. However, that Y-pipe, as delivered from SLP, is dual 3" into a single 3". So I bought a Flowmaster dual 3" into a single 4" Y to replace the dual 3" into a single 3" Y that is there now. I ordered a Mufflex 4" on Monday.

If you do a little bit of math, you can see that dual 3" pipes offer damn near as much surface area as a single 4". For what I am doing (heads/cam on a stock short block), I think that exhaust system will flow well enough to give me within 5 RWHP of the same setup running open headers.

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Now Terry, why would you say that? I didn't hear you make any comments about the MTI graph.
We have about 20 cars out there now with this package, and you must ask yourself which power curve you would think is better.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The torque spike looked to be over a more narrow power band (4500-5000rpm), while the MTI torque spike is over a broader power band (4500-5500rpm). My experience tells me that is indicative of running open headers, but this is just speculation on my part.

Torque aside it's amazing how similar the power bands looks. If I could only pick between these two setups I'd take the LG setup because it uses less expensive LS1 heads and comes on a lot stronger at 5000rpm.

Of course I consider myself an amateur tuner and want to try a few different tricks on my setup. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

<small>[ June 05, 2002, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Terry Burger ]</small>

 

I still have yet to see any stellar ET's from cars running the G5 cam, for whatever reasons. I am not knocking the cam by any means because I know it is relatively new. However, comparing the G5 cam to the X1 cam and then saying "note the torque," well that is all well and good, but where are the timeslips that represent that massive amount of torque? So the G5 cam has still yet to be proven as well in my opinion.
I completely agree with Lou's philosophy on torque wins races and hp sells motors, and the peak torque numbers that I have been seeing from the G5 cam are quite substantial. But until timeslips are being posted that represent the dyno numbers, the cam is hardly proven, and to even insinuate that it is superior because of high torque numbers on a dyno sheet isn't very fair.

 

Comparing dynos accross shops is not going to settle anything. Like terry, I look to the shape of the curve. Patrick G posted the best proof of the reverse split. Same dyno, same mods, same tuner, same cam lobe profile, and maybe the same day dynos too.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Not sure on the advance data. I'd expect that it does have it ground in since all of the other MTI cams do </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tony: does MTI typically use 2 or 4 degrees of advance?



Personally I think TQ sells car (the famous V8 low end throttle response) and HP wins races (show me a low revving NASCAR or Indy car) but that is a debate for another thread. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

Thats kind of silly John, I don't know of any porter that flows every single port on a head, especially when all of our ports are identical. If you have ever seen a set of MTI ported heads, you would be aware of the extreme attention to detail and finishing that goes into them. Robert is a perfectionist, to the point of being sick! Plus, these numbers are very repeatable even on different sets of heads, they have been doing this a very long time you know. The flowbench data is just a verification on quality control, for the customer's benefit. Its not for experimental use very much at MTI, they already know what works for them by now.

BTW, one of the LG G5 heads/cam Vettes that pulled 410 ft-lbs torque at LG also dynoed at MTI and only pulled 383 ft-lbs on the MTI dynojet. So, its very hard to compare dyno numbers from different shops in my opinion. I think the guy's name was Randy G.?

Lou, you definitely need to build a drag car!! Either that, or I can test your stuff out on my GMC truck (just kidding <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> ). Seriously, we have a ton of excellent candidates here in Texas on this site.

Tony

 

Now if a test polit is needed, look no further. Name the time a place, I will be there.

Look for new times on the Thunder Racing Z28 Special this weekend.

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by WS6 TransAm Girl:
<strong>I still have yet to see any stellar ET's from cars running the G5 cam, for whatever reasons. I am not knocking the cam by any means because I know it is relatively new. However, comparing the G5 cam to the X1 cam and then saying "note the torque," well that is all well and good, but where are the timeslips that represent that massive amount of torque? So the G5 cam has still yet to be proven as well in my opinion.
I completely agree with Lou's philosophy on torque wins races and hp sells motors, and the peak torque numbers that I have been seeing from the G5 cam are quite substantial. But until timeslips are being posted that represent the dyno numbers, the cam is hardly proven, and to even insinuate that it is superior because of high torque numbers on a dyno sheet isn't very fair.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hopefully I can get my butt to the track and get some numbers. I just hope at the same time there are some other people there with different setups with about the same numbers .. any different comparisions would be pointless since there will be a temp. diff as well as altitude differnces... (not to mention there is always driver differences).

You can't go by the track alone for comparing performance.

With just a lid, the best my driving could muster (3 times to the track and 6 runs total) was a 13.2x @ 107.7 mph (good weather).. If with this setup I (as the driver) can go 12.5x @ 113 or 114, I'd be estatic .. that would mean I picked up .8 and 6 mph with just the addition of cam, headers and pulley. I expect this will be in alot HOTTER conditions as well. I hope to get the track within the next month ... we will see what happens.

Crowley

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">especially when all of our ports are identical.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tony, Robert must be a machine then if all his ports are identical! Man, MTI sure is lucky to have a human head porter would could replicate ALL his hand ports identical time and time again. Interesting... I hope you guys pay him extremely well, because he's probably the only one in existance that can make this claim of perfection by hand! <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

 

Its going to be a cam changing summer I see..

 

Just for the record. Nine Ball may be referring to me and my car, which is a full G5 from LGM. The day that NB is referring to the car ran 426RWHP and the TQ was like 403. My car with just a MTI Hammer cam, headers, X Pipe, intake, and computer, basically without heads, all MTI stuff, was 394/388 RWHP/RWTQ. Both MTI and LGM know how to make power. Period. I would have had MTI do the rest of the package, but they were booked solid for weeks and I have no patience.

The last run I made at MTI the car had detonation and floated the valves because the pcm was set wrong. We took some timing out and added the X Pipe to the rest of the G5 package and got the power up to a consistent 431/410. I have generated these numbers on LG's and Ed Wright's Dynojet. Which is the same as MTI's. All of them are inground and all were reading corrected numbers.

At any given time if a car is out of tune, it can give off poor results. Jeff knew there was something wrong with the car and lifted to save my motor. Even so, the HP was fine and since we added the X pipe and changed the programming, we have been consistently in this range.

So, Nineball, don't use my name if you don't know what you are talking about. Why are you putting down this package when it is consistent with the numbers of MTI's H/C setup? do you hear LG putting down MTI? I don't. I have the highest regard for both of these tuners and I have the results from both to support my confidence. Do you have the same level of experience with them both?

 

I personally would rather stick to the subject. I will let you know who email Tony with his feelings. Back to the reverse split and what we think the future of this cam is going to be. Will this cam benefit any H/C setup?

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by VINCE:
<strong>I personally would rather stick to the subject.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As a prospective heads/cam buyer, this debate interests me very much. As long as it stays civil and doesn't turn into a childish flame war, this could be very helpful for prospective customers. I'd very much like to hear all sides of the story.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>I will let you know who email Tony with his feelings.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do what?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Back to the reverse split and what we think the future of this cam is going to be. Will this cam benefit any H/C setup?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You mean will ONLY an increase in intake duration, intake lift, and a lower LSA benefit all heads/cam cars? If so, that would be nice to know, indeed.