Trevor @ Texas Speed & Perf.

iTrader: (3)

Dom,

The 110 LSA will make it lope harder and will cause a few additional issues w/ drivability. I don't think it would be too noticable from the 112 LSA, though. I think a 110 LSA would sound AWESOME w/ the G5 cam. I've already checked, and they have had one ground on a 110 but never installed. Somebody has to do it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

Ryan - Yeah, I'm movin' on up to the east side. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

SS00Blue

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Trevor D:
<strong>The car had Hooker longtube headers, an underdrive crank pulley, a lid, and true dual exhaust, and it put down 317 RWHP.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Too low. My '00 generated better RW numbers with a K&N.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Trevor D:
<strong>After the addition of the G5 cam package and tuning, the car put down 390 RWHP and 378 RWTQ! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OK, I'll ride with the result, but not starting with as anemic a package as they claim. Sorry, but at face value (which is all you leave me) I'd say some numbers are WAY jacked... either the start or the finish.

JMO - SC

<small>[ July 17, 2002, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>

RyanJ

i thought we already came to the conclusion that the start numbers sucked ***. no one said that cam alone gave 70-something HP. Cam and TUNING did that. Once the graph is up we should be able to see some decent mid-range TQ.

Trevor @ Texas Speed & Perf.

iTrader: (3)

I cannot tell a lie. I decided to completely make the #'s up to make our package look better. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Like Ryan said, we've been through this already. The graph shows excellent mid-range, as you'll soon see. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I know this may be shocking, but not every car makes the same power as yours SC, especially since the mods are different. I made 332 RWHP with a locked converter and all of the bolt-ons, including headers, vs. a friend's '02 WS-6 M6 that made 355 RWHP. Setups and dynos vary.

Mean Green 2000

Trevor, NineBall and OnFire.....

One of the greatest things my Father ever taught me was, "deal with the person you have a problem with face to face."

I can't believe y'all would come on another forum and whine about me.....how childish <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="gr_tounge.gif" />

onfire

iTrader: (17)

Well, since Trevor, NineBall and myself are directors here (Nineball is actually an OWNER), we must deduct 20 points from your status! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

Trevor @ Texas Speed & Perf.

iTrader: (3)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Mean Green 2000:
<strong>One of the greatest things my Father ever taught me was, "deal with the person you have a problem with face to face."</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's a good idea. Maybe you should take your own advice and e-mail me (just let me know somehow) that you moved my thread. How was I supposed to know that it was moved? That's why you lock the thread in the original location and send a copy of it to the proper forum...simple enough. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="gr_tounge.gif" /> If you want to take this further, please feel free to e-mail me. Just don't pollute my thread. thanks <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

I've posted the graph below. I apologize for the fuzziness. I did not have access to a scanner (although I'm going to buy one this weekend), so I was limited to my digital camera. The file itself was too big to save on my website. You can still see the graphs, and the peak HP of 390.6 RWHP was at a measly 6,000 RPM. Why the dyno operator did not take it higher I don't know. I do know that there's still some power left in it pask 6k. Also take note of the nice torque curve. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

<img src="http://trevor98ramair.cz28.com/images/g5camonly.jpg" alt=" - " />

Click here if you cannot view it.

Loco

Wow at only 6k! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" />

RyanJ

check out how the stock motor tq just went down from 3k. that exhaust just sucked on there.

HOWEVER, check the TQ with the cam it gains bigtime at about 4k and doesnt settle back down on a similar curve till 5.5k or so. damn. and the hp peak is super low...did Lou change something in IC since Tony's? hrmmm..

Trevor, stop by the house anytime on the way home...i never use my scanner for anything.

anyway...nice graph.

gator's 99TA

iTrader: (2)

the larger Raging motorsports cam is cut on a 110 LSA and is 230/230 duration. it lopes like crazy but is very drivable with the right programing. hell, i have the 111 LSA and mine has never stalled!

Trevor @ Texas Speed & Perf.

iTrader: (3)

Yeah, that true-dual setup really killed the mid-range torque w/ stock internals. I'm going to sit down with Lou next week and talk about this cam in-depth. He left on Sunday to go to racing in Washington D.C., and I started on Monday. I'm VERY tempted to try it out on a 110 or 111 LSA. It would make it really fun to drive around with all of the nice mid-range torque I'd see from it, and it would most likely get me the shift points I'm wanting. The cam and tuning added 30 lbs./ft. of RWTQ at 3,000 RPM, and it had an additional 65-70 lbs./ft. at 5,500 RPM! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" /> It's making killer HP AND TQ; that's what really interests me.

Damn, after talking about it, I'm overdue for the cam swap now! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

TexassTA

Humm,I might just have swap out my little T-1 cam for this G5. Thanks for the info Trevor!

PewterZ28

iTrader: (1)

Trevor, let us '02 A4 guys know when you get that cam in your car. I'd like to see the track results of that cam!
I'll be in the market for a cam this fall. I was thinking hammer all the way but this makes things interesting.

Derrick

<small>[ July 19, 2002, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: PewterZ28 ]</small>

Trevor @ Texas Speed & Perf.

iTrader: (3)

I'm glad I could help out. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> Trust me, I'll let everyone know when the new cam is in and tuned! I'll have dyno #'s right after the install and track times very soon after. <img border="0" alt="[Camaro]" title="" src="graemlins/camaro.gif" />

Lane

iTrader: (1)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Trevor D:
<strong>Yeah, that true-dual setup really killed the mid-range torque w/ stock internals. ..</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You think that's the culprit? It's working so well with the cam and can't imagine it hurting it that much..

Trevor @ Texas Speed & Perf.

iTrader: (3)

Lane - I think that the true dual did hurt the mid-range TQ, and the jacked up stock tuning certainly didn't help matters either. There was a difference my mid-range TQ when I had the 3.5" Mufflex w/ stock internals vs. my 3" SLP dual/dual, FWIW.

RyanJ

its like that saying "theres no such thing as too much exhaust, just not enough motor to push it."