1987firechicken

Side note. How do you like that aluminum flywheel? I was looking into a torquer v3 with the 5.3 heads and was hoping to get into the power band quicker but don't know if the FW will make it too hard to drive in traffic.

LS1-NAVY

iTrader: (1)

^^man thats close to what i want

1987firechicken

Check this **** out true story.

https://ls1tech.com/forums/racer-s-lounge/938797-surounded-idiots-indiana.html

LS1-NAVY

iTrader: (1)

^^wow i didnt think someone could be so retarded

JUICED96Z

iTrader: (2)

With the aluminum FW do a search, a ton of info and comparisions on them.
As far as the link above, every state has its idiots.

sedanman

iTrader: (10)

I like al flywheels. They don't "hit" as hard as the steel flywheels but that helps alot on the street. Plus they rev faster which is a bonus on a street car with roll races.

FWIW I have put one in my LX, Cobra and my TA.

1987firechicken

I've never riden in a AL flywheel car so don't know how much of a difference there is. I can read about it all I want but seeing as you've built some bad *** rides I'll take your word for it. My car probably won't see alot of track time anyhow.

sedanman

iTrader: (10)

I am looking hard at the 5.3 stg 2.5 heads and a 90/90 for my car, I think it would really wake up then.

sedanman

iTrader: (10)

You are welcome to take a ride in my TA once it is back together.

1987firechicken

I was also thinking of paying a little more and getting the PRC LS6 Stage 2.5 CNC Ported Heads but I need to call and ask them if that is gonna push my power band up in higher RPM then the shorter runner 5.3's and if it will make me flycut.

sedanman

iTrader: (10)

You have to flycut with the PRC LS6 2.5 and a MS3, but not with stg 1 LS6 heads or the 2.5 5.3 heads.

ls1leadfoot

iTrader: (1)

that is a true statement.....and i will admit that the 5.3 2.5 heads work well with that cam

1987firechicken

Well the torquer is a little smaller cam 231/234 .643"/.598" 111 LSA to be exact. I know its the duration that causes the piston collisions. I'm wondering if it is small enough to get away with bc flycutting doesn't look fun. If it comes down that I have to I'll just go with the 5.3's.

oldschoolmuscle

iTrader: (5)

when you start talking about fly cutting its just time to build a new motor...

s346k

iTrader: (4)

no no the stock short is fine for flycutting. mill the heads down to like 55cc, run whatever cam you want and e85 and boom you have some power.

damn it, tyler..

LS1-NAVY

iTrader: (1)

i talked to tsp about that only the stage 1 will clear the torquer v3

ls1leadfoot

iTrader: (1)

so why would a cam only car with a ms3 not have to fly cut then

i know the 5.3 heads are diff......but is the height on the deck smaller...i thought the only thing that changed your comp. along with the gasket thickness was the cc of the combustion chamber...

LEARN ME!!!

LS1-NAVY

iTrader: (1)

not sure if you have seen this but this made me go from the v2 to v3 i show this to everyone looking at these cams i found it helpful for me so i saved it

"The problem with camshafts is that they're completely subjective. What one thinks is perfect another thinks is too big, too small, too much, not enough, etc. Below are the specs on both camshafts:

Torquer v.2: 232/234, .595"/.598", 112 or 113 LSA standard
Torquer v.3: 231/234, .643"/.598", 111 LSA standard

There were a few goals in designing the T3 cam:

1. better low-end and mid-range compared to the T2
2. more aggressive ramp rate on the intake for better power
3. all around great street/strip cam that is very driveable with a good tune

As you can see, the T3 does have one less degree of duration @ .050" on the intake. It's a more aggressive lobe that ramps up faster vs. the lobe on the T2. It provides greater net lift and allows for quicker opening and closing of the intake valve. Again, whether or not a cam works great in the mid-range is dependent on what you're comparing it to. A smaller cam like our 224R or 228R will provide you with a little more low-end power, but it won't make as much peak power. The T2 camshaft was designed to give customers the ability to make some great power without going too big on cam and without feeling like they didn't go big enough. The T3 was just a revision of the T2. With all other variables of a camshaft held constant, a tighter (i.e. lower numerically) LSA with added advance will help low-end and mid-range power. You can change just these two aspects and completely change the characteristics of how well a camshaft works. The goal is to find the happy medium where the cam works well and makes great power without falling off too quick up top or completely lacking any oomph down low. Some of these issues cannot be 100% solved with adjusting LSA and ICL. A lot of duration relative to the size of the engine is still going to have certain characteristics that go along with it, no matter the LSA or ICL.

The net result is that the T2 and T3 will make comparable power. The T3 is going to provide you with a little more low-end and mid-range power vs. the T2, and it also gives you the capability to use a little more of the flow potential of a good set of ported heads.

Trevor
Texas Speed & Performance"

LT1Formula007

iTrader: (66)

Hey Alex, I'd say go with the TSP 2.5 5.3L heads/ MS3 Cam package!

Don't get sucked into the " THE BIGGER CAM MUST BE BETTER BS! "
It all depends on what you want to do with the car. Hell it might be too big for you. And depending on if it's gonna be a 1/4 mile car, 1/8 mile car, or a street car; that is what will be the deciding factor on what setup to go with.... My .02

James

FWIW I'm going to go the same route on my LS1 Camaro! Simply b/c I've seen good dyno numbers come out of that combo! But to each their own, it's up to you to decide!

1987firechicken

LOL james the MS3 is bigger then the torquer. I believe that the MS4 is the biggest off the shelf cam that TSP offers. I got a reply back from TSP that the LS6 stage 2 heads WILL push my power band up twards the upper RPM band and then it would still only be a few HP difference. Here are the exact words.

"Right. I think the 5.3 heads would be better on the bottom end and midrange while you would have better peak numbers with the LS6 heads. Both would make great power. You probably are talking a 5-8 RWHP difference up top between the two."

I'll be taking the cheaper 5.3's on that note then. That should put me about 415-425 RWHP range and 385-410 TQ range according to some of the similar packages people have on here. Thats clutch frying, 10 bolt breaking fun right there.