Thunder racing

[ff_jeff]

usually when people say they lost ''low end'' really what happened was that they gained more up top than down low. The low end is actually the same.
That cam has about 1 degree of overlap, and would work well with stock heads. I would say that it would have a decent lopey idle, and should have a wider powerband than your current cam, with a higher peak. I would like to hear this cam, and see some dyno/track numbers. Go for it. might even work well with a turbo.

[Show&Go]

Actually looking for someone to trade this cam for my boost cam on the side! haha. I want one bad. Just already have two cams having three would be ridiculous

[ff_jeff]

Actually looking for someone to trade this cam for my boost cam on the side! haha. I want one bad. Just already have two cams having three would be ridiculous

I hear you.
I have a 227/223 .591/.588 114lsa and a Z06 cam. I keep seeing turbo cams that I would like that are more aggressive, but like you 3 cams for 1 motor is a little much. Maybe put one in the vette.

[Jermoslin]

Well if I win it I'll let ya know, and post sound clips.

[randomhero]

usually when people say they lost ''low end'' really what happened was that they gained more up top than down low. The low end is actually the same.
That cam has about 1 degree of overlap, and would work well with stock heads. I would say that it would have a decent lopey idle, and should have a wider powerband than your current cam, with a higher peak. I would like to hear this cam, and see some dyno/track numbers. Go for it. might even work well with a turbo.

I would have to strongly disagree with that first part although of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion(Not trying to start and argument, but rather a discussion).

As you increase the duration of the cam the power band is shifted not increased. The stock cam stops making power well before you shift. If it were that case then we'd all be running massive cams, and never thinking twice about it.

I will post a bit of a personal example.

I ran an 11.2 in the 1/8th with my comp cams 224/224 on 112 lsa. That was with a 2.7 60' time and NO WHEEL SPIN even on an open differential.

The loss of low end was ridiculous.

After I added my ss3600 torque converter I was able to run an 8.9 and even that time was way higher than it should be as I was running 2.2 60' times with horrible wheel hop.

I gained about 14 mph in trap speed(67 mph to 81 mph) in just the 1/8th mile from swapping to a higher stalling torque converter and putting in long tubes. Nothing else.

There is no doubt about it in my opinion.

Also, it's pretty hard for me to prove my point with dyno graphs since most places usually start recording on the dyno around 3000 rpm

[randomhero]

224 is not a large cam. IMO a 23x to 24x with over 600 lift is a larger cam. 224 is a mild cam, well in terms of ls motors. You and I have different points. My point is that usually people think that they have lost their low end, when really its the same, or maybe a few hp difference, they never really had any low end to loose. (when they buy mild cams). Your point is that my point is you just need to prove it. I didnt call you out, you are calling me out. So your going to have to do your homework. I have done mine
edit: a tq monster is a motor that makes a lot of torque. Because all of our motors start to loose torque above 5250. A 4.8/5.3 will never be a TQ monster. Not without FI.

A 224/224 in a 5.3L is a fairly large cam. There is no doubt about that. If you have a larger cubed motor then duration would increase based on engine size. A 230/230 isn't going to react in a 4.8L the same as a 408(I'm sure you knew that).
I've already said it several times that it's almost impossible to prove my point with a dyno graph (although I have been looking for them). I am also working on some input from people over on pt.net since there's quite a bit more traffic over there.

I did give you my input from personal experience. Gaining 14mph in trap speed just by swapping a converter is a pretty impressive feat. That's the best I can do until I find some hard evidence. I will tell you right now you won't drop almost 1.5 seconds by just adding a torque converter on a stock vehicle.

I wasn't calling you out, and I wanted to stress that I wanted it to be a discussion more so than an argument. If I'm offending you then it wasn't my intent.

Here's a good test for you as well. If you have a truck with a big cam go drive it on the highway at 55 mph with the torque converter locked up and on an incline. I can almost guarantee you you will have to downshift in order to maintain speed. Then do that same test with a stock truck and the results will be much different.

usually when people say they lost ''low end'' really what happened was that they gained more up top than down low. The low end is actually the same.

That's a pretty broad statement and it's quite a bit different than what you just said in your previous post. This is what I was disagreeing with.