TSP torquer vs2.....Not impressed
11-19-2007, 07:24 PM
#61
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i thought it was s fudged dyno run too... i asked how it felt power wise and he said:
I can definitely notice the power difference. It's a little sluggish and the torque that I had isn't there anymore. My heads are stock 241 castings ported and polished with a 5 angle valve job on the stock valves. The intake is port matched also. The LSA on the Torquer I have is a 112 just like the 224 I had. TSP didn't offer anything less when I placed my order a few months ago. And yes the mustang dyno has corrected numbers. Ok I downloaded infanview and resized the dyno graphs. Here you can see the difference and how the curves look.
11-19-2007, 08:25 PM
#62
Had my car Dyno tuned at FBC as well and i am more then happy with the results. Last year on same Dyno i made 344 rwhp on a 2800-3k stall LOCKED with same mods and with a 224/224cam, milled heads with mild port work, 918 springs. Now i have PG new cam 230/232 .612”/.595” 111LSA +4 and stock 853s with port work and 2.02intake and 1.8exhaust. The idle is great and drives awsome. I did change the the vert to a 3600 stall and now i dyno 388 on unlocked vert. You said you installed the cam, how about Valve springs, pushrods, plugs,wires, maybe a slipping clutch. There is so much that could be wrong. have you checked compression?? well here is my graph.
11-20-2007, 06:00 AM
#63
9 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: on the dyno tuning in MD
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I would like to chime in on this...
As was explained to the owner, we did have the dyno recalibrated in between his sessions - we were getting complaints that we were padding numbers to look better than another local shop with the same Mustang dyno - this was not the case as they too initially had very high numbers with the calibration that was put in their dyno from the factory and they had it recalibrated. We had ours recalled as well, and the numbers did drop. INMY01TA can attest that now the dynos are very close as we made pulls on his car very shortly after making pulls on the other shops (just for those on here who may think there is still a difference). And the cal doesn't get changed for anyone - you want Dynojet numbers, go to a Dynojet...
However, that does not completely explain the power drop that this post is about... I can tell you for sure, that it is not in the tune - I definitely spent a good bit of time trying to be sure it was not. Final AFR ended up at 12.6 to 12.8 and the timing it liked best was 26 in the torque band to 27 in the power band. I talked to the owner about the setup because I would agree that it is down on power. You can feel it on the street as well. But since he did all his own work, and I had expended every effort I could in the tune, there wasn't much else I could do for him.
I will say one thing - I have tuned a couple cars with the torquer cam, and only one that I can remember made the power I expected. I don't know if it is the combination the car owners are putting together or what, but I have seen much better results out of other TSP cams for sure. And I am not bashing TSP by any means - we use their cams extensively - I have one in my own car!
LS1HIGHLIFE - if you do find anything such as pushrod length, cam timing, etc that may help exlpain the issue, let me know - I would be happy to get you back on the dyno and help you find out if it makes a difference (don't worry about charges). I know you are disappointed and will do what I can to help you if you find anything amiss...
As was explained to the owner, we did have the dyno recalibrated in between his sessions - we were getting complaints that we were padding numbers to look better than another local shop with the same Mustang dyno - this was not the case as they too initially had very high numbers with the calibration that was put in their dyno from the factory and they had it recalibrated. We had ours recalled as well, and the numbers did drop. INMY01TA can attest that now the dynos are very close as we made pulls on his car very shortly after making pulls on the other shops (just for those on here who may think there is still a difference). And the cal doesn't get changed for anyone - you want Dynojet numbers, go to a Dynojet...
However, that does not completely explain the power drop that this post is about... I can tell you for sure, that it is not in the tune - I definitely spent a good bit of time trying to be sure it was not. Final AFR ended up at 12.6 to 12.8 and the timing it liked best was 26 in the torque band to 27 in the power band. I talked to the owner about the setup because I would agree that it is down on power. You can feel it on the street as well. But since he did all his own work, and I had expended every effort I could in the tune, there wasn't much else I could do for him.
I will say one thing - I have tuned a couple cars with the torquer cam, and only one that I can remember made the power I expected. I don't know if it is the combination the car owners are putting together or what, but I have seen much better results out of other TSP cams for sure. And I am not bashing TSP by any means - we use their cams extensively - I have one in my own car!
LS1HIGHLIFE - if you do find anything such as pushrod length, cam timing, etc that may help exlpain the issue, let me know - I would be happy to get you back on the dyno and help you find out if it makes a difference (don't worry about charges). I know you are disappointed and will do what I can to help you if you find anything amiss...
Last edited by BLK02WS6; 11-20-2007 at 06:10 AM.
11-20-2007, 06:35 AM
#65
9 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: on the dyno tuning in MD
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Reading back through, I wanted to comment on some of the other issues mentioned.
As for the intake - yes, imo, those intakes are junk and I would get rid of it - but that doesn't account for anything because you had it all along.
As for the exhaust - didn't you have a cutout with the old exhaust with the flowmaster? And I'm sure we opened it. The new one you have has no cutout (you said they didn't transfer it over or something, right?), and that magnaflow muffler they put in there is definitely not the F-Body muffler that comes with the catback - looks to be a V6 muffler or something - very small case... That may account for some of the difference there. One way to find out is put a cutout in and see - cheap and easy...
As for the intake - yes, imo, those intakes are junk and I would get rid of it - but that doesn't account for anything because you had it all along.
As for the exhaust - didn't you have a cutout with the old exhaust with the flowmaster? And I'm sure we opened it. The new one you have has no cutout (you said they didn't transfer it over or something, right?), and that magnaflow muffler they put in there is definitely not the F-Body muffler that comes with the catback - looks to be a V6 muffler or something - very small case... That may account for some of the difference there. One way to find out is put a cutout in and see - cheap and easy...
11-20-2007, 09:19 AM
#66
FormerVendor
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bunn, NC
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We just got through with a Torquer v2 113 LSA in a M6 car. The car has a 9" 3.73's , LS6 intake, Kooks Lt's, ORY and a Corsa catback. No UD pulley or any other bolton's and it made 410 rwhp SAE !!! I would say something is wrong for sure !!
11-20-2007, 10:21 AM
#68
11 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ogden, Utah
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WORD!!! lol I'm definitly not bashing TSP, I just need some professional help trying to figure out what went wrong. I was at the track today to see how it would do, aside from the crappy 60' times the car ran like ****. I ran into a guy from Khaotic Kreations and he told me my problem may lie with my push rods length. I'm running MTI 7.4s with comp 918s stock GM head gaskets and stock rockers. He also said this cam may be too big for my stock valve size as well. I need to just park my baby for a while cause I have no freekin money.
comp 918's????? you checked for broken valve springs lately?
11-20-2007, 01:41 PM
#71
That's also ridiculous. I'm not sure what you mean by the TR224 cam not acting like a small cam, but insinuating that the results are correct when he loses over 20 RWHP with the swap is absurd. There are three versions of the Torquer camshaft. The original we no longer sell, and the v.2 and v.3 are both very popular. We have revisions because of continual cam lobe development, along with refinements. I'm also not sure what you mean by the Torquer never being a "screamer", but it was meant to be a great street/strip camshaft that makes great power for the guys/girls that do not want to step up to the all-out aggressive camshafts like our MS3 and MS4. We've done the cam swap many times against many different versions of the 224/224 cam. Swapping to one of the Torquer cams WILL gain power. Stating "you need to go quite a bit bigger to beat out the TR224" is beyond far-fetched. They aren't magical lobes. Again, if this were the case, we'd all be running 224 camshafts. The TR224 has been around for a long time, and it has a cult-like following. However, it doesn't mean that all logic should be tossed out the window.
Losing 23 HP and 48 TQ indicates that something is wrong if the information is accurate. Implying that the loss is normal or should be expected is ludicrous.
Trevor
Texas Speed & Performance
Losing 23 HP and 48 TQ indicates that something is wrong if the information is accurate. Implying that the loss is normal or should be expected is ludicrous.
Trevor
Texas Speed & Performance
TSP rocks.
Bill
11-20-2007, 06:04 PM
#72
14 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, Il
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, when I bought my car it was way low on power and didnt run as fast as it should have. It had an MTI R1 and only ran 12.7 and made 330rwhp. The guy before me swore it just needed a tune. Opened the engine up to switch cams (Tqr V3) and found the cam was off a tooth. I know you are pretty sure it is installed straight up, but the guy who owned my car before me was pretty sure also.
11-20-2007, 06:30 PM
#73
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: indiana
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im with mzoomora on this one im glad his turner finally chimed in his car is at the same afr and timing as mine and kinda the same set up it has to be something stupid as a tooth off or plug wires not on all the way or o2 sensor messed up or springs worn or a huge vacum leak somewhere but these are all things i think somebody that works on fbodys and tunes them alot would be able to figure out pretty quick hes down alot power
11-20-2007, 10:19 PM
#75
I agree, if the numbers are accurate, then there is something wrong or holding the setup back. The cam consistently picks up 50-55 RWHP each time it is installed. If the car starts out 360 RWHP then it should end up in the 410 RWHP range. Same goes with a car that is at 320 RWHP. You won't see the big numbers out of a car starting that low. Now that may not be the case in this situation. Being that the tuner has been on here saying the dyno has been recalibrated, you can not get an accurate comparison between either cams.
The TQ2 cam is a proven camshaft. There are hundreds of these camshafts in cars across the country making great power. I can say with 100% certainty that you should have picked up power. No matter how magical the lobes are on the 224 cam, it is still a 224 camshaft. The new camshaft should have netted more HP. There has to be something holding your setup back. Then again, has anyone asked to see how much out of calibration the dyno was? You might find that there isn't anything wrong with the HP made with the mods you have on the car...
The TQ2 cam is a proven camshaft. There are hundreds of these camshafts in cars across the country making great power. I can say with 100% certainty that you should have picked up power. No matter how magical the lobes are on the 224 cam, it is still a 224 camshaft. The new camshaft should have netted more HP. There has to be something holding your setup back. Then again, has anyone asked to see how much out of calibration the dyno was? You might find that there isn't anything wrong with the HP made with the mods you have on the car...
11-21-2007, 04:40 AM
#78
9 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: on the dyno tuning in MD
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
im with mzoomora on this one im glad his turner finally chimed in his car is at the same afr and timing as mine and kinda the same set up it has to be something stupid as a tooth off or plug wires not on all the way or o2 sensor messed up or springs worn or a huge vacum leak somewhere but these are all things i think somebody that works on fbodys and tunes them alot would be able to figure out pretty quick hes down alot power
I told him it was down on power right away. As for figuring out what is wrong - it wasn't anything obvious or visible. And nothing in the logs from the dyno pulls was out of line. And since he did his own work, I could only do so much for him without charging him and he didn't want that.
Jon - As for the dyno cal - it made about 20 to 25 difference - so that puts his old 224 cam setup at about 405 to 410 - which is about what I would have expected on the current dyno cal. But the new setup is still down from that.
If that car had been worked by the techs at the shop I tune at, I would have yanked it right off the dyno and sent it back to them to figure out what was wrong - have done it before and what do you know... after having them swear it had to be something I was doing wrong, it turned out to be a tooth off...
I made suggestions to the owner as to what it could be, including being a tooth off, but short of being absolutely sure it wasn't in the tune, I couldn't do much more. One of the liabilities you take on when you do your own mechanical work and put your own combination together...
I'll be more than happy to get him back on the dyno and see where it is once he finds his problem.
11-21-2007, 09:38 AM
#80
11 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ogden, Utah
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 bux says if you pull your valve cover you will find a nasty surprise, do a search for broken 918 springs and i think it will make you sick
