2MCHPWR

iTrader: (10)

i have a cam only car with cats and my cam is very mild. 118 trap speeds (17's up front, stiff autocross suspension) and 388 at the wheels.
i just blew my rear and i am ordering a 12 bolt rear soon. when that comes, i'll be launching "like a man" (if the clutch holds) and i'll get into the 11's.

F8L Z71

Now that I think of it these are all A4 cars that I have seeen. Could it be because of gearing and shift points not being high enough to take advantage of the power up high?

WMSuperSport

iTrader: (23)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Bigger cams make more power up top, and lose low end. Without a converter the low end wil really struggle.

Slowhawk

iTrader: (12)

I'm one of those cars <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" /> 380hp and I only run 112mph.I wouldn't really complane since I run 12.2's at 112 with a M6 and 3.73's with a race weight of 3650lbs.

Nickn20

there ya go man, my friends car picked up 5 mph with a cam, last night at sac he trapped 115, with me driving well see if I can do any better.

mikey

iTrader: (6)

W-E-I-G-H-T! Some heavy cars here.

The Juggernaut

iTrader: (7)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mikey:
<strong>W-E-I-G-H-T! Some heavy cars here.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BINGO!
weather is also a factor.
Everyone I know who has done a cam (A4 car) has made good improvements
though.

Fenris Ulf

Did you ever get your new heads on? How do they compare to the AREs?

MattG

I think cam-only cars having far less area under the curve is the reason that they trap lower than head/cam cars with the same RWHP.

Everyone in the world seems so enthused by only PEAK RWHP numbers that they way too often overlook the gains something gives them in the lower RPMs. Peak Hp increases are only felt at high rpms and often enough don't produce an incredibly noticable difference.

mikey

iTrader: (6)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MattG:
<strong>I think cam-only cars having far less area under the curve is the reason that they trap lower than head/cam cars with the same RWHP.

Everyone in the world seems so enthused by only PEAK RWHP numbers that they way too often overlook the gains something gives them in the lower RPMs. Peak Hp increases are only felt at high rpms and often enough don't produce an incredibly noticable difference.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">FWIW, engines producing high peak numbers will typically result in higher MPH but lower ET's.

Mikey

WMSuperSport

iTrader: (23)

Right on!

XFiveLiter

I have a "cam only" car and only dynoed 361/365 (no LS6 intake or pulley). My best before the cam was 12.15 @ 112.25 (1.61), after cam 11.68 @ 116.28 (1.59).

Heads would be nice but just not in the budget right now, I can't complain about my gains from just a cam <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

F8L Z71

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Did you ever get your new heads on? How do they compare to the AREs? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not yet, I tried to get them on before this Sat. grudge match but when we clayed them we only had about 76-80 thousands clearance and I was told by Craig that that would not be safe with stock pistons (heat expansion) and reving to 7k (just to be safe).

I will be getting a new cam instead. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Ok, so it seems like a lot of you guys are getting nice track #'s to go along with this increase in power. But it also seems like the ones that do also have gears and the ones that I have seen that don't have stock 3.23s. Maybe that is the problems then. Not so much in weight but one of crossing the beams with too little RPMs.

I am just real curious about doing a cam in my Vette but with 3.15 gears I wasn't sure what I would cross the beams at and if it would help my 1/4 much unless I tried uping the rev limit to 6500 (or a tad more) and designing it to TRY and run through the 1/4 in 2nd gear. I used to be able to do it with 2.73s in my T/A but not sure if it would work in the vette. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

mrestrictrplate3

some cars also have the stock rev limiter like mine and u cant get the full potential if u have to shift at 6200.

F8L Z71

Makes sense.

Please don't take this thread as bashing. I am just trying to find rhyme or reason for this.

I also don't wanna be one of the ones with high dyno #'s but slow ETs. So I am trying to learn here is all. AND to make those of you with this problem look good since now there is a quantifiable excuse. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

F8L Z71

Why is it that I see lots of cars with cam only throwing out 380rwhp+ yet still only trap 110mph or so in the 1/4??

Or they gain 50+rwhp and only 1MPH in the 1/4?

Just curious why this is.

Makes me not want to do a cam in my Vette. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" />

SSteveL

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mikey:
FWIW, engines producing high peak numbers will typically result in higher MPH but lower ET's.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You mean "slower ETs", right?

<small>[ October 28, 2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: SSteveL ]</small>

VSGLS1

iTrader: (8)

I had only a lid, loudmouth, free mods, Hotcam and trapped 111 MPH in my M6 with 3.42's back in March. My car weighs alot due to amps, sub, enclosure and myself (250lbs). Only dynoed 327/319, in 90* heat and 95% humidity in August.

<small>[ October 28, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: HeritageLS1 ]</small>

Crowley

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Slowhawk:
<strong>I'm one of those cars <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" /> 380hp and I only run 112mph.I wouldn't really complane since I run 12.2's at 112 with a M6 and 3.73's with a race weight of 3650lbs.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Quick question. What where you trapping before your mods? What was the temp / weather difference?

Thanks,
Crowley