Generation III Internal Engine 1997-2006 LS1 | LS6
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-11-2003, 11:24 AM
  #61  
Teching In
 
ws6kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Re: Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison

calm down man. I agree with you about the stock programming.
Old 07-11-2003, 11:32 AM
  #62  
TECH Addict
 
MOBE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bailey, Co
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Re: Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison

Quit being so defensive. I never specifically mentioned you or your car before you blasted me in this thread. I was merely giving my opinion. Grow up.
If I didn't know you, and the mad **** you like to talk (especially about my car for whatever reason), I would take no offense. Your very first post was in direct response to me saying that the cam was drive able with stock programing. However, if you re-read that post, the point I was making was that the ICL # makes that cam as drive able as it is. I never said it was perfect and tuning was not required.

Stock programming on a cam that size does not work well at all. Hence the hunting for idle on hot starts, bucking, surging etc. Didn't you yourself say it didn't like hot starts?
Yes, I did say it didn't like hot starts. But I never said it was terrible. It took about 2 second to settle into idle on a hot start. So...

I WILL give my opinion for the people out there who may want to get this cam and think they can run on stock programming.
Other than riding in a car with one, you have no experience with this cam. Why would anyone take your opinion on the matter?

I'm not a sackrider like some people.
WTF!?

Just who's sack, exactly, am I riding?


Old 07-11-2003, 11:39 AM
  #63  
TECH Apprentice
 
finalymodded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MS.
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Re: Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison

The reason that this is not a good comparison is because you didn't replicate the experiment. Get more cars with dyno graphs with the EXACT same mods and repeat the runs, 1 run is not enough to claim equality. you should report conclusively when comparing 2 cams. Unless your point is to cause a flame war.
btw: if you made more runs with the same cars it would NOT be replication, it would be definitive of pseudo-replication and would be invalid for a True comparison,

All this said I feel like "this is a great base for a potentially great thread"


disclaimer:
I have no opinion whatsoever for either of these cams I do not care which is better or produces what or even the price of either. and claim no responsibility for my own actions and words here in this post

Old 07-11-2003, 11:51 AM
  #64  
TECH Fanatic
 
minivette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, Tx.
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default Re: Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison

ok, MOBE... don't try to single me out as being the only one who ribs you about your car. We all give you a hard time because it gets you all riled up (this thread is a perfect example).

My first response was not directed towards what you said at all. It was my opinion on the G5X2 with stock programming. It was an opinion formed by riding in your car. But I would have stated exactly what I said if anyone had a question on the drivability of the G5X2 on stock programming. BTW-I don't even know wtf an ICL is, so how would I comment on it??

My opinion was based on my impressions of a G5X2 on stock programming. No one "needs" to take my opinion. I was merely offering it as my observations of that cam on stock programming.

Again, I never mentioned you or your car until you bashed me. You can stop with the personal attacks.

If you want, give me a call and we can discuss this in a civil manner. Otherwise, this is the last I am going to say regarding this subject.
Old 07-11-2003, 11:54 AM
  #65  
TECH Addict
 
MOBE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bailey, Co
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Re: Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison

The reason that this is not a good comparison is because you didn't replicate the experiment. Get more cars with dyno graphs with the EXACT same mods and repeat the runs, 1 run is not enough to claim equality. you should report conclusively when comparing 2 cams. Unless your point is to cause a flame war.

disclaimer:
I have no opinion whatsoever for either of these cams I do not care which is better or produces what or even the price of either.


Personally, I don't think that is even a good comparison either. If you are going to compare 2 or more of anything, it needs to be done in the exact same form and environment. There are just too many variables, especially when comparing 2 different cars. You have to have the same conditions, period (ie. same car with the same mods), to have conclusive results.

Thanks for getting back on topic though.
Old 07-11-2003, 12:43 PM
  #66  
LS1TECH Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
 
Magnus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default Re: Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison

Ok.. so did the 230/230 car have a TB over the G5X-2 car? Can we clear up the differences?

Even so, the results may not be a PERFECT comparison, they can be used as a very good comparison. Same year cars, both tuned, both with identical mods.. good comparison in my book.
Old 07-11-2003, 12:44 PM
  #67  
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
 
Hitman#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Re: Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison

I don't know or care about the rest, but in addition to the G5X2 curve being a little smoother, I know it will be the better cam on N2O. And that's good enough for me.
Old 07-11-2003, 01:12 PM
  #68  
Teching In
 
ws6kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Re: Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison

I don't know or care about the rest, but in addition to the G5X2 curve being a little smoother, I know it will be the better cam on N2O. And that's good enough for me.

Buyokasha! RESPECT!
Old 07-11-2003, 01:20 PM
  #69  
TECH Apprentice
 
mobius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Orlando
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default Re: Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison

yes it should be better for n2o which is a good thing
but i will probably go with the 230/230 when the time comes or the comp grind close to the x2 230/237 i think. lou charges to much... i heard a x2 in an auto on the power tour and have to say it rocked
Old 07-11-2003, 02:10 PM
  #70  
TECH Apprentice
 
Chicago Z06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aurora IL
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Re: Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison

i have to chime in a little on this thread... the G5x2 on 112 is a very choppy cam as is mine which is on a 114.. with STOCK 02 Z06 programming the car ran fine after the idle was re learned.. even though a vette would be different than an F body here.. after tuning the car is VERY drivable.. I DRIVE mine daily 50 miles.. in traffic on hiway etc.. NO issus with surging startup either hot or cold.. other than the idle you would never know the cam is that big.. even my wife drvies the car!!

the bottom line is whichever route YOU want to go that is your decision.. weather that be price drven or if your loyal to a certain shop, head porter etc..



Quick Reply: Comp 230/230/112 and G5X2 Comparison



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 PM.